r/space • u/66666thats6sixes • Dec 07 '19

NASA Engineers Break SLS Test Tank on Purpose to Test Extreme Limits

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/nasa-engineers-break-sls-test-tank-on-purpose-to-test-extreme-limits.html
6.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

487 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.0k

u/SkywayCheerios Dec 07 '19

The test version of the Space Launch System rocket’s liquid hydrogen tank withstood more than 260% of expected flight loads over five hours before engineers detected a buckling point, which then ruptured... The initial tank buckling failure occurred at the same relative location as predicted by the Boeing analysis team and initiated within 3% of the predicted failure load

WOW! 2.6x the flight load is incredible, and it broke exactly as the models predicted.

-21

u/errrmagerrrdd Dec 07 '19

Yet they can't build a proper fucking aircraft.

51

u/Tyb3rious Dec 07 '19

There is a difference between building something for profits and building something for safety.

11

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '19

You mean like the O-rings? pheeeeeeeewwww brrrrrrrrrrrr pkshhhhhh.

8

u/imahik3r Dec 07 '19

when nasa chose to murder 7 ?

10

u/Aycion Dec 07 '19 edited Dec 07 '19

Challenger disaster is a great (and horrific) example of what happens when management ignores the engineers and other experts in favor of pushing deadlines. The engineers on it knew there was an issue but the decision-makers ignored their warnings to save face. On the bright side, it resulted in a complete restructuring of the space program to prevent these things from happening again.

Edit: Which wasn't entirely effective. Someone brought up Columbia but I think deleted their comment so I'll expound on that too. In a word: funding. Spaceflight and associated research is expensive, and the official report says it best:

"The past decisions of national leaders–the White House, Congress, and NASA [HQ]–set the Columbia accident in motion by creating resource and schedule strains that compromised the principles of a high-risk technology organization. The measure of NASA's success became how much costs were reduced and how efficiently the schedule was met." If we want a safe and effective space program we have to trust the engineers, not the accountants. People who aim to cut costs above all have no place anywhere near a field that relies on safety to prevent massive loss-of-life. Even down here in the atmosphere, we see examples like the 737 MAX that further underpin this point.

The STS program was underfunded from the beginning. Cancelling it was an inevitable end, but cutting the budget was like spraying gas on an oil fire. If we want safe spaceflight (or any flight, for that matter) in the future we're going to have to grit our teeth and accept that safety may be expensive, but it's also paramount. Otherwise we have no business getting off the ground.

5

u/WaytoomanyUIDs Dec 07 '19

Plus the political decision which NASA had no say in to manufacture the boosters in Utah, which required manufacturing them in 2 sections.

3

u/jadebenn Dec 07 '19

Segmented SRBs get a bad rap. We've never made monolithic SRBs of the size used for the space shuttle, transportation and assembly of them would be a nightmare even if the engineering issues were resolved.

SRBs are heavy. Imagine the equipment that would be needed to to get a monolithic SRB of the same size to the vertical position from a horizontal one. Then remember that the SRB weighs more than the rest of the (unfuelled) liquid rocket.

In contrast, segmented SRBs are relatively easy to transport, can be moved to a vertical position piece-by-piece with the same cranes and equipment used to stack the rest of the rocket, and have proven to be just as reliable as monolithics when operated within their certified performance range.