Space Launch System - Orion
Discussion
Beati Dogu said:
Well they found its limit:
It took more than 260% of expected flight loads over five hours before buckling and rupturing.
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/nasa-...
Serious question - is that good or bad? I assume they have kept an eye on the mass throughout build so won't find it is overbuilt and too heavy to launch? It took more than 260% of expected flight loads over five hours before buckling and rupturing.
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/nasa-...
I'm taking it as a good thing that the design is sound enough to well exceed the design load.
Beati Dogu said:
Well they found its limit:
It took more than 260% of expected flight loads over five hours before buckling and rupturing.
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/nasa-...
I really hope there is video of the failure !It took more than 260% of expected flight loads over five hours before buckling and rupturing.
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/nasa-...
MartG said:
Beati Dogu said:
Well they found its limit:
It took more than 260% of expected flight loads over five hours before buckling and rupturing.
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/nasa-...
I really hope there is video of the failure !It took more than 260% of expected flight loads over five hours before buckling and rupturing.
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/nasa-...
Eric Mc said:
I would say that as far as rockets are concerned, 260% pressure overload failure would be looked on as good.
We need the Russians to get going for the moon just to give these millennial snowflakes a kick up the Ass, duke nukem style.Have youngsters forgotten how to build a rocket? Bring back bangers and standard fire works shot out of a milk bottle, that will train them up!
Here's a quote on Reddit by a NASA intern about the test:
"Apparently during the test, it did experience just a small buckle as expected, and they declared the test a success and started packing up. As they were taking the loads off, suddenly it ruptured wide open (which no one expected) with a very loud bang. Hopefully they still had the cameras rolling. A friend said it was loud enough to shake their car."
"Apparently during the test, it did experience just a small buckle as expected, and they declared the test a success and started packing up. As they were taking the loads off, suddenly it ruptured wide open (which no one expected) with a very loud bang. Hopefully they still had the cameras rolling. A friend said it was loud enough to shake their car."
Chester35 said:
After a long slow period of rockets going up on schedule now the commercial side has kicked things into high gear... and with this extra pressure has it made more issues?
Or is it just a perspective thing?
Simple answer - no. There were plenty of test failures (expected and unexpected) when testing earlier generations of space craft too.Or is it just a perspective thing?
Eric Mc said:
Chester35 said:
After a long slow period of rockets going up on schedule now the commercial side has kicked things into high gear... and with this extra pressure has it made more issues?
Or is it just a perspective thing?
Simple answer - no. There were plenty of test failures (expected and unexpected) when testing earlier generations of space craft too.Or is it just a perspective thing?
Or perhaps just testing with new new designs and perception. It's made it more like the old days I guess. Rocketlabs seems to be bucking this trend, and they have the best launch pad.
Did their test for recovery hardware work ok?
Rocket Lab's first stage recovery went "better than expected" according to boss Peter Beck. The rest of the mission was good too, with a successful deployment of the satellites.
With the new Reaction Control System (RCS) jets, they can now flip the booster around like SpaceX do and fire the engines to scrub off a lot of the forward speed. They don't do a boost back, or landing burn like a Falcon 9, but the rocket is slowed & orientated to survive reentry before parachutes deploy.
This test didn't have any parachutes, so it slammed into the ocean at over 500 mph. They got telemetry up until impact though. so they should learn a lot from it. Parachutes and eventual in-air recovery by helicopter will be added later.
With the new Reaction Control System (RCS) jets, they can now flip the booster around like SpaceX do and fire the engines to scrub off a lot of the forward speed. They don't do a boost back, or landing burn like a Falcon 9, but the rocket is slowed & orientated to survive reentry before parachutes deploy.
This test didn't have any parachutes, so it slammed into the ocean at over 500 mph. They got telemetry up until impact though. so they should learn a lot from it. Parachutes and eventual in-air recovery by helicopter will be added later.
Chester35 said:
So just perception.
Or perhaps just testing with new new designs and perception. It's made it more like the old days I guess. Rocketlabs seems to be bucking this trend, and they have the best launch pad.
Did their test for recovery hardware work ok?
All rockets and spacecraft have to be tested before they are used for real. If the rocket or spacecraft is due to be "man-rated", then those tests have to be more stringent.Or perhaps just testing with new new designs and perception. It's made it more like the old days I guess. Rocketlabs seems to be bucking this trend, and they have the best launch pad.
Did their test for recovery hardware work ok?
It's interesting to look at the failures experienced during tests of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. The first unmanned test flight of the Mercury/Atlas combination ended with the rocket exploding. When the first splashdown test of the Apollo capsule was attempted, the hull ruptured and the capsule sank. When testing the fuel loading of the second stage of the Saturn V, the pressure bulkhead failed and the stage ruptured. There were numerous explosions of F1 engines during test firings before they could get it to work properly. The same went for the Space Shuttle Main Engines.
As seen is this clip from the film The Right Stuff, intercut with real footage of launch attempts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rwi_0DEd_0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rwi_0DEd_0
As is the main problem with the film of "The Right Stuff, the footage is used more for comedy effect than a telling of the true events.
That last "failure" starts off by showing a Mercury/Atlas combination sitting on the pad - followed by the capsule initiating its recovery parachute deployment sequence. In reality, the parachute malfunction happened during a test firing of a Mercury/Redstone. The full and correct sequence is shown here -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0w_xyePC_0
As you can see, the real failure is actually funnier because it also involved the Launch Escape Tower firing as well, followed by the parachute being fired.
That last "failure" starts off by showing a Mercury/Atlas combination sitting on the pad - followed by the capsule initiating its recovery parachute deployment sequence. In reality, the parachute malfunction happened during a test firing of a Mercury/Redstone. The full and correct sequence is shown here -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0w_xyePC_0
As you can see, the real failure is actually funnier because it also involved the Launch Escape Tower firing as well, followed by the parachute being fired.
Yeah, that was rather farcical.
Here’s some video of the SLS tank rupturing:
https://youtu.be/YhZG6kLYlfk
Here’s some video of the SLS tank rupturing:
https://youtu.be/YhZG6kLYlfk
Comments of the failure from NASA insider James Holt
"Beautiful. The first part of the video is the first failure, where the tank buckled approximately where/how analysts predicted.
The second half of the video happened a while later (unfortunately I heard they'd already turned off the high speed cameras) when the tank burst as they were removing the hydraulic loads, which wasn't expected.
...they put it at 5 psi and used a combination of axial and shear loads via hydraulic actuators. They gradually ramped up the percentage of expected flight load, and it finally buckled at 260% (somewhat higher than they expected). As you can see from the first half of the video, the failure was in a lateral line across the front of the tank, I heard approx. 6 ft from the expected location.
After that buckle, the test engineer declared the test over, which was why they turned off a lot of instrumentation. They then began easing off the loads, but kept the tank pressurized. One of my friends was actually getting in her car to leave when it popped, she said it was a loud bang that shook her car like an earthquake."
"Beautiful. The first part of the video is the first failure, where the tank buckled approximately where/how analysts predicted.
The second half of the video happened a while later (unfortunately I heard they'd already turned off the high speed cameras) when the tank burst as they were removing the hydraulic loads, which wasn't expected.
...they put it at 5 psi and used a combination of axial and shear loads via hydraulic actuators. They gradually ramped up the percentage of expected flight load, and it finally buckled at 260% (somewhat higher than they expected). As you can see from the first half of the video, the failure was in a lateral line across the front of the tank, I heard approx. 6 ft from the expected location.
After that buckle, the test engineer declared the test over, which was why they turned off a lot of instrumentation. They then began easing off the loads, but kept the tank pressurized. One of my friends was actually getting in her car to leave when it popped, she said it was a loud bang that shook her car like an earthquake."
Gandahar said:
Can't the above two posts be classed as third party hearsay though?
Yes.But I'd still like to know the full facts about the failure.
The reason why I'm curious is because they didn't feel the need to blow up the ET when they were testing it for Space Shuttle use 40 years ago.
Eric Mc said:
Yes.
But I'd still like to know the full facts about the failure.
The reason why I'm curious is because they didn't feel the need to blow up the ET when they were testing it for Space Shuttle use 40 years ago.
Did they not do the same test at all? I found this article: http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-020817a-mich...But I'd still like to know the full facts about the failure.
The reason why I'm curious is because they didn't feel the need to blow up the ET when they were testing it for Space Shuttle use 40 years ago.
That tank had been sitting outside for the best part of 40 years. The tank was built in 1977 and destroyed by the tornado in 2017.
As the article amply demonstrates, it did not undergo a destructive test back in 1977.
I was following the Shuttle programme pretty much in real time back in those days and was keeping abreast as best I could on what was going on during this test phase - which ran more or less from 1974 right through to 1980.
As the article amply demonstrates, it did not undergo a destructive test back in 1977.
I was following the Shuttle programme pretty much in real time back in those days and was keeping abreast as best I could on what was going on during this test phase - which ran more or less from 1974 right through to 1980.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff