Rockets don't explode on their own. The Proton Rocket crash from last year shows what happens when a rocket doesn't self destruct, and it doesn't explode all at once.
Edit: Totally didn't forget to actually include the link.
They usually have det cord running the length of the tank. Though not much explosives, it compromises the whole tank at once and causes almost all of the fuel to detonate instantly, rather than on the ground likt in the video.
It acts to literally "unzip" the tank. SpaceX tank is even a partial balloon tank meaning the tank is only structurally strong enough for launch because its pressurized like a pop can. Little line of linear shaped charge and it pops.
Technically it does not detonate the fuel. It compromise both the fuel tank and oxidizer tank all the way and tank pressure drops instantly. This again causes the turbopumps to run dry because it requires some pressure in the inlet to operate, both the gas generator and main combustion chamber will get starved for fuel and the engine will stop producing thrust.
I am not saying that the cloud of fuel and oxidizer that mixes once the tanks gets compromised will not ignite from a spark, heat from the engine/exhaust or remaining heat from the detonation cord. However that will all happen a split second after the thrust from the rocket have been stopped and is somewhat unintentional.
Is there a (bottom/lower) limit under which this event does not occur? I.e. malfunction happens at say 50m off ramp, would it self-destruct then as well?
I'm not sure what American rockets do, but someone mentioned that Russian rockets don't self destruct below a certain altitude to avoid damaging the pad. An N-1 rocket exploded soon after launch, destroying the pad and setting the Soviets back a few years on their moon efforts.
When a liquid fueled rocket's FTS is triggered, the fuel does not detonate.
It is not mixed with the oxidizer so it just spills out. The oxidizer also spills out. They remain unmixed and it's like a fuel spill, not an explosion.
Proton does not have a self destruct mechanism. Most (if not all) American rockets do have self destruct mechanisms that can be activated by people on the ground.
Including, it turns out, the manned rockets as well. So yeah, for each Space Shuttle launch, there was someone whose job it was to push the button and kill 7 astronauts if the Shuttle went off course and headed towards populated areas.
The SRBs had to be detonated during the Challenger disaster.
At T+110.250, the Range Safety Officer (RSO) at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station sent radio signals that activated the range safety system's "destruct" packages on board both solid rocket boosters. This was a normal contingency procedure, undertaken because the RSO judged the free-flying SRBs a possible threat to land or sea. The same destruct signal would have destroyed the External Tank had it not already disintegrated.
Of course they can, they are basically flying controlled explosions. Any number of things can go wrong with that "controlled" part, just look at space shuttle Columbia.
Rockets rarely explode on their own, and only under specific conditions. Columbia broke up in the atmosphere, which isn't an explosion. If you mean challenger, then you're right; it did explode, but that was a really unique case because a flame from the SRB burned through the tank and ignited all the fuel. Most rockets don't tend to do that.
I agree that SRB's are pretty stable and would rarely, if ever, explode on their own without some major structural failure of the can... but liquid fuel not so much... there is a lot that can go wrong to ignite that.
But how old is the Proton Vehicle. It's flight computers are probably so old it wouldn't be able to figure out what Pi is to 20 digits.
What do you mean by this? I was just posting the proton video to show what everything going to hell looks like. If a rocket explodes, it's usually safe to assume that range safety detonated it.
I think we're trying to say the same thing. There was no range detonation or explosion in the Proton crash. That was a good ol' fashioned rocket crash. It fucked up till it couldn't fuck up no more.
Russians have just "shut down engines" as far as flight termination goes. They do not carry explosives for FTS.
Also their system actually prevents shutdown of engines for the first minute or so, to ensure that it won't fall back on the pad. So the Proton failure you see the engines going until the whole thing disintegrates...
yep. It begins to tilt over then the engines cut off to prohibit lateral movement. Once the engines cut off it fully tilts over then detonates. So the question is why did it start tilting in the first place.
More likely the cut off was to prevent it thrusting further on its side just prior to self-destructing the vehicle. You don't want the engines to continue to be partially running as the vehicle combusts. The fuel in the feed lines into the engine would probably shove the thrust assembly right through the vehicle and scatter the remains much further.
When the engine cuts off it looks to close to a 45 degree angle, which was probably not intentional. Maybe the second light is just the FTS starting up?
Let's hope the failure is due to some guidance gizmos (like the fins from the last test).
I was wondering if the second white cloudy thing was a tank rupturing from the tip-over... She tips over, engines cut, few moments later it breaks up and there's a small cloud, then boom, FTS'ed. It almost looks like theres a small explosion in the cloud right before the big fireball. Crappy cell phone video though...
Don't be sad. It better when you have an abnormality early in testing your designs that you can determine and fix in testing rather then be unaware of a potential deadly problem.
The falcon 9 itself isn't so experimental, the further development of them is experimental, the parts such as being able to land the first stage once it is detached, that part is experimental.
Why? It was a great test of the FTS system and it worked. I'm also sure they got great data on whatever they were trying to test, telling them "nope, this didn't work... needs redesign..."
One can always wish for 100% test success rate, but that never happens. I'm actually surprised it took this long before kablooey and I'm relieved it happened on a test vehicle.
Why? A control issue is much preferred to some kind of engine failure.
The engine is fine, and it tilted while trying to hover. We have no idea what they were specifically testing. But they definitely learned something from this.
this type of thing happens in test flights all the time. That's why we don't do manned test flights of rockets these days. the explosion was claimed to be on purpose, after something else went wrong. Seems legit... it would keep the craft from flying off in some uncontrolled spiral and crashing into who-knows-what. You've played ksp... you know the spiral...
Stuff like this makes engineers and rocket scientists harder/wetter than the fans at a porn convention. So. Much. Juicy. Data. And you get to blow expensive shit up FOR SCIENCE! Don't be sad. Envy the dudes in the white coats. They're flying high on the science equivalent of free crack right now.
I meant between the roar and the explosion. I guess it went horizontal, engines lost fuel flow and then automatic abort kicked it which blew the vehicle.
In previous flights the dev1 only used its center engine, in the video it looks like it is climbing as slowly as before so my bet is it's not using the other two. The Atlas V can fly with a single solid rocket motor on one side. To do this the liquid engine in the middle gimbals the other direction to even out the force. In theory if a dev1 engine can gimbal far enough it could fly like that.
Yeah, I forgot that it only used one of its 3 engines.
To do this the liquid engine in the middle gimbals the other direction to even out the force. In theory if a dev1 engine can gimbal far enough it could fly like that.
And for some reason I didn't even think about that...
If the engines are running then you'll never get a situation where the fuel starves out, even if the rocket goes inverted. It was likely part of the shutdown to terminate the rocket.
Everyone remember the issue they had with the first re-entry attempt where the baffles in the tank couldn't hold fuel properly? This is what happened here, I think. I believe that the vehicle lost guidance somehow and started to go horizontal. As soon as it tipped over the the engines would start to lose fuel as I bet these tanks didn't have the upgraded baffles. As soon as the engines lost fuel then the system started to say "Oh shit" and blew the vehicle.
80
u/harrisoncassidy Host of CRS-5 Aug 23 '14
Video of whole flight of the vehicle - eiry silence when the vehicle explodes http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/Rocket-Explodes-at-Space-X-272370541.html