Discussion
All of this just shows what an incredible little design the Soyuz is. Even more incredible when you think it was designed a long time ago.
The Russians absolutely nailed it. The American shuttle was interesting, but doesnt it say somewhere that the ground control crew held their breath every time it launched?
The Russians absolutely nailed it. The American shuttle was interesting, but doesnt it say somewhere that the ground control crew held their breath every time it launched?
Eric Mc said:
There was no "fireball" in the true sense of the word. The large cloud you see in the aftermath of the Challenger is actually steam from the mixing of the oxygen and hydrogen in the tank. As I said earlier, there were smaller explosions from hypergolic reactants mixing when those smaller tanks burst.
(other interesting stuff)
I'm not sure there is a better word, they way I see it, a fireball is the rapid oxidation of fuel, and water vapour is the combustion product of (liquid) oxygen and (liquid) hydrogen. So to get the water vapour they must have combusted first. The combustion does release a lot of heat energy. I can see that some of the LOX would oxidise the booster fuel, but that would lead to the excess hydrogen from the tanks combusting with oxygen from the air. (other interesting stuff)
2 H2(g) + O2(g) = 2 H2O(l) + 572 kJ (286 kJ/mol)
In the video we do see a big 'fireball' just before the cloud of water vapour forms.
https://youtu.be/1dSjeNvHpT4?t=96
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Thursday 1st November 16:56
Forget Ground Control, I held my breath every time the Shuttle took off.
I followed the programme from before it was even sanctioned (1972) and the whole argument for its design was routine, reliable and affordable access to low earth orbit.
I remember watching the first ever launch in April 1981 live on TV and my immediate reaction was "That will NEVER be routine". It actually frightened me a bit because it was altogether more dramatic and violent than a Saturn V launch - which what we all had been used to from watching the Apollo missions.
Of course, as the missions progressed we became more used to what a Shuttle lift off looked like but Challenger brought home to me that my initial reaction to that 1st launch wasn't wrong.
I also read a book in 1981 called "The Cosmic Chase". It was written in 1980 and had a whole section on future Shuttle missions, One line from the book has always stuck in my mind "What happens if a solid rocket booster fails in flight? What happens is, you die".
How prescient was that.
I followed the programme from before it was even sanctioned (1972) and the whole argument for its design was routine, reliable and affordable access to low earth orbit.
I remember watching the first ever launch in April 1981 live on TV and my immediate reaction was "That will NEVER be routine". It actually frightened me a bit because it was altogether more dramatic and violent than a Saturn V launch - which what we all had been used to from watching the Apollo missions.
Of course, as the missions progressed we became more used to what a Shuttle lift off looked like but Challenger brought home to me that my initial reaction to that 1st launch wasn't wrong.
I also read a book in 1981 called "The Cosmic Chase". It was written in 1980 and had a whole section on future Shuttle missions, One line from the book has always stuck in my mind "What happens if a solid rocket booster fails in flight? What happens is, you die".
How prescient was that.
Eric Mc said:
some stuff, then,
If you watch frame by frame analysis of the accident, you can actually see the initial gas release at the top of the tank as the booster pivots and punctures it. A couple of frames later, there is another gas release from the bottom of the tank when the rear pressure bulkhead fails under aerodynamic loads because the top of the tank has already gone.
Followed by more good stuff
Fascinating and (being a safety engineer) very interesting also. Where would one look for such footage? Is there a good YouTube (or other) video you would suggest?If you watch frame by frame analysis of the accident, you can actually see the initial gas release at the top of the tank as the booster pivots and punctures it. A couple of frames later, there is another gas release from the bottom of the tank when the rear pressure bulkhead fails under aerodynamic loads because the top of the tank has already gone.
Followed by more good stuff
Max_Torque said:
For anyone interesting in the Shuttle structure, then i recommend reading this, absolutely fascinating, report:
Columbia_crew_survivability_report
A lot of good stuff, the range of it has my head spinning and I'm only part way in. Columbia_crew_survivability_report
Eric Mc said:
I am absolutely sure we will - and in a few weeks, if not months.
Because this was carrying a NASA astronaut, NASA will insist on a full and detailed technical report on what went wrong. NASA insisted on similar reports on the 1971 Soyuz fatal depressurisation event and also on the 1975 Soyuz launch abort.
We therefore found out exactly what happened in those two accidents.
I must have missed what caused the ISS atmosphere leak...Because this was carrying a NASA astronaut, NASA will insist on a full and detailed technical report on what went wrong. NASA insisted on similar reports on the 1971 Soyuz fatal depressurisation event and also on the 1975 Soyuz launch abort.
We therefore found out exactly what happened in those two accidents.
Eric Mc said:
There were two reasons why the Orbiter was designed without a single spar system. Firstly it saved weight and secondly it ensured the cargo bay was unobstructed.
Thirdly, it was originally designed as a lifting body without wings and the wings were added to provide crossrange ability for Soviet Union overflights. carl_w said:
Eric Mc said:
There were two reasons why the Orbiter was designed without a single spar system. Firstly it saved weight and secondly it ensured the cargo bay was unobstructed.
Thirdly, it was originally designed as a lifting body without wings and the wings were added to provide crossrange ability for Soviet Union overflights. "A 1973 internal Johnson Space Center document established requirements 3A and 3B for the shuttle. The first requirement was the ability to launch a large payload into polar orbit and return the shuttle to its launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The latter required the shuttle to launch into the same orbit and conduct a rapid rendezvous and retrieval of the same payload that would have been launched under requirement 3A. The shuttle then would have returned to the launch site, this time carrying 11,340 kilograms in its payload bay. This is the same mass listed in a declassified document for HEXAGON vehicles 7–12, plus equipment in the shuttle bay for holding the spacecraft."
carl_w said:
hirdly, it was originally designed as a lifting body without wings and the wings were added to provide crossrange ability for Soviet Union overflights.
Not strictly true. The lifting body was concept was certainly considered but only as part of a range of options. In fact, NASA favoured a winged design from the outset - although it was a very different design to what they originally ended up with.This is the type of winged Orbiter vehicle they were looking at -
This design was championed by Max Faget who had behind the original blunt body capsule designs used in Mercury, Gemini and Apollo.
The problem with Faget's Shuttle concept was the poor cross range potential. For NASA's purposes, cross range was not that big an issue. However, for Department of Defense missions, cross range was vital as it allowed a Shuttle launched on a polar orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to do one single pass over a desired target in the Soviet Union and then land back at Vandenberg after that one single pass. Faget's stubby wing design could not do that. As a result, the Shuttle grew an enormous high lift delta wing.
Einion Yrth said:
And having dangerously compromised the design, the USAF never flew a shuttle mission.
Not true either. There were quite a few Department of Defense missions. What they never did was fly one out of Vandenberg Air Force Base - even though they had converted a launch pad (SLC-6) to do just that.The first Vandenberg launch was set for mid 1986 but after the Challenger accident, the DoD decided not to go ahead with any launches from Vandenberg and gradually moved away from using the Shuttle. However, they continued to use the Shuttle up until around 1990 or so.
Eric Mc said:
Not true either. There were quite a few Department of Defense missions. What they never did was fly one out of Vandenberg Air Force Base - even though they had converted a launch pad (SLC-6) to do just that.
The first Vandenberg launch was set for mid 1986 but after the Challenger accident, the DoD decided not to go ahead with any launches from Vandenberg and gradually moved away from using the Shuttle. However, they continued to use the Shuttle up until around 1990 or so.
I'm sure there is another thread for shuttle chat Eric. The first Vandenberg launch was set for mid 1986 but after the Challenger accident, the DoD decided not to go ahead with any launches from Vandenberg and gradually moved away from using the Shuttle. However, they continued to use the Shuttle up until around 1990 or so.
Eric Mc said:
As a result, the Shuttle grew an enormous high lift delta wing.
I've read that the fin alone was twice the size and triple the weight of the original design - I wonder what the total mass penalty of the delta design was compared to the stubby straight wing one, and how much more payload could have been carried ( or higher orbits reached ).RobDickinson said:
I'm sure there is another thread for shuttle chat Eric.
I'm sure there is.Dragging things back to topic, full unedited versions of the video footage of the MS-10 flight are now available to see. I think we can clearly see that there is an impact between one of the boosters and the core section. The core section can be seen rotating slowly as well following the impact.
Also, I think you can see the Soyuz spacecraft floating off to the left of the tumbling core section.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF_9mVUvl3Y&li...
MartG said:
Eric Mc said:
As a result, the Shuttle grew an enormous high lift delta wing.
I've read that the fin alone was twice the size and triple the weight of the original design - I wonder what the total mass penalty of the delta design was compared to the stubby straight wing one, and how much more payload could have been carried ( or higher orbits reached ).Eric Mc said:
RobDickinson said:
I'm sure there is another thread for shuttle chat Eric.
I'm sure there is.Dragging things back to topic, full unedited versions of the video footage of the MS-10 flight are now available to see. I think we can clearly see that there is an impact between one of the boosters and the core section. The core section can be seen rotating slowly as well following the impact.
Also, I think you can see the Soyuz spacecraft floating off to the left of the tumbling core section.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF_9mVUvl3Y&li...
Impact threw out quite a plume and it goes downhill from there. As you say, looks like the Soyuz heads left as the core starts to tumble sideways.
Not an engineer or scientist, but it looks like the right hand side booster causes the issue in that vid.
Edited by funkyrobot on Sunday 14th October 22:40
Eric Mc said:
RobDickinson said:
Eric Mc said:
Or constantly changing priorities and directives from government.
There is a separate thread for SLS matters by the way.
This is the SpaceX thread.
You either want threads on topic or not mate. Pick one. There is a separate thread for SLS matters by the way.
This is the SpaceX thread.
Now where's my "safe space" ....
Notice - I'm not arguing. Yes, discussing the Shuttle is a deviation and I've acknowledged that. Discussing me is an even bigger deviation and I won't be discussing that topic any further.
However, I did think that there were some similarities between what happened with Challenger and this recent Soyuz incident - with wildly different outcomes, of course.
However, I did think that there were some similarities between what happened with Challenger and this recent Soyuz incident - with wildly different outcomes, of course.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff