William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 5:19:33 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 10:36:41 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jesus, Mook, let it go until we actually know something. There is no
reason to believe there was an FTS problem other than that dingleberry
you pulled off your ass telling you that it was.

William Mook wrote:


SpaceX has not been happy with the FTS system provider. That is one piece that SpaceX has outsourced and that contractor has consistently been late in delivering their product, and have consistently had problems and delays. If the current explosion is related to FTS this is a strong argument that SpaceX should bring that part of its supply chain in-house.

snip MookSpew


Not understanding a thing its common for ignorant people to attack the knowledgeable.


Precisely and those of us who are knowledgeable in this field wish you
would stop attacking people.


Interesting that sick people tend to attack innocent folks for the things they do.


Yes, it is, and we wish you would seek some treatment.




Here are the facts that *suggest* FTS is at fault:

(1) The lens flare points directly to this avionics tray on the second stage surrounding the second stage engine;


Note that there are no EXPLOSIVES in that location.


You obviously don't know what you're talking about.


Please explain how blowing up the avionics unit does anything to
terminate flight of the rocket. That just makes it LESS controlled
and it's probably the last thing you'd want to do.

Please point to the explosives in the picture you keep posting (of the
avionics bay of the WRONG rocket).



What's there is
the radio receivers. You've failed to understand your own cite
(again).


No, you failed to understand it and are projecting your ignorance on to others.


No, that's just you attacking people who actually know something
again.



http://images.spaceref.com/news/2004/augsept_09.jpg

(2) The location, ...


Again, note that what is in the AVIONICS tray is AVIONICS.


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0080044860.pdf


Irrelevant cite.


Anyone who as *actually* worked problems like this know the CSLIC is within 16.5 inches (or less) of the associated pryo to minimise errant signals being picked up by the detonator - and that in the second stage on the Falcon the image shows the interlock circuit and the pyros are on the back side of the honeycomb plate. (the big opening in the centre of the plate is to allow the combustion chamber of the engine to protrude so the pyros would rupture the combustion chamber assuring a shut off.)


Uh, no. You've actually now got the avionics tray in totally the
wrong position to support EITHER your FTS claim OR where the thing is
actually located. The second stage engine does NOT pass through the
avionics tray, which is located at the TOP of the second stage, not
the bottom, directly under the payload shroud attachment point. The
hole in the middle is to allow the payload separation system to pass
through and attach to the second stage at one end and the bottom of
the payload system at the other.

You've now convinced me that you are even more ignorant than I thought
you were, and that's going some.


You know,
avionics like the receivers for the FTS (but no pyros at that
location).

How is it you feel so comfortable making **** up you know nothing about and thinking you can get away with it? If you knew anything about building real operating rockets you'd know you cannot have your pyrotechnics more than 16.5 inches from the interlock circuit (shown) which is why the pyros are on the back side of the plate opposite the CSLIC which is shown in the image. Its why there's a big circular opening to admit the combustion chamber at the position so the pyros will neatly cut the combustion chamber in half when discharged - turning off the second stage engine in an emergency.


See above. This description is totally wrong, since the avionics tray
is at the top of the stage and the combustion chamber is, well, at the
bottom of the stage. See above for what the hole is really for.


And what you show isn't even the avionics tray from a
Falcon 9. It's the avionics tray from a Falcon 1.

Yet it is YOU who are blissfully UNAWARE of what it all means. That doesn't stop you from coming to the wrong conclusion out of whole cloth does it? LOL.


You want wrong conclusions? See the absolutely ignorant ****e that
you spew above.


... intensity, power, colour, and speed of the explosion suggest a pyrotechnic like this FTS subsystem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye0EOENUw0c


Note that he says no such thing as you suggest.

That's why I didn't say Scott Manley says those things. I'm saying that the

(1) location,
(2) speed,
(3) colour,
(4) intensity,
(5) power,


And that is all absolutely wrong.


as suggest that it was the second stage pyrotechnics from the FTS that were the source of the explosion. Since they were doing an end-to-end test of the FTS at that precise moment, it seems pretty clear that the engineering team will be looking at this as a real possibility.


They weren't "doing an end to end test of the FTS", you ignorant ****.
THEY WERE FUELING THE SECOND STAGE.


In point of fact,
when you watch his video you see that the explosion starts well below
the avionics tray that YOU claim has pyros in it.

The pyros the CSLIC shown are connected to are on the opposite side of the tray. That's the point. The pyros are at that precise location.


Except they're not. How would a pyro ABOVE the second stage and
masked by the payload attachment and separation hard do anything at
all to terminate flight?


The avionics tray
is right under the payload shroud. The explosion starts clear down by
the fueling interface.

It starts near the pyros that's the point.


Except it doesn't and that is the real point. You're making up ****e.




(3) What SpaceX was doing pre-launch was an end-to-end test of the FTS the moment the detonation occurred.

This all provides confirming evidence that allows any knowledgeable person to conclude it might have been the FTS.


Well, except for the tiny fact that there aren't any pyros present in
that location.


How is it that you come to believe bull**** you make up with such conviction? Its remarkable really. You saw that was an avionics tray. You didn't see it was the CSLIC. You have no idea of the cabling requirements between the CSLIC and pryo lines. You have no clue that the backside of the plate there hold the pyros that will cut the combustion chamber. You have no idea that the big gaping hole in the centre of the plate is to admit the combustion chamber at that point -- in short, you have no idea what you're talking about, but because your GUT tells you something is true - well that's truth for you isn't it? And woe be to anyone who argues with your GUT FEELING - because YOU'RE NEVER WRONG! lol. Except you are ALWAYS wrong! That's the point.


I find it interesting that you think pyros AT THE WRONG END OF THE
STAGE can "cut the combustion chamber". You've confused the hole that
the payload separation hardware goes through with a hole intended to
allow passage of something AT THE OTHER END OF THE STAGE. What you
describe is also not how the FTS on the Falcon 9 works. The Falcon
FTS is not a THRUST termination system. It is a FLIGHT termination
system and runs all the way down the side of the stage (I'm talking
about the first stage here). It splits the tanks and the side of the
rocket open.

Mookie, you can repeat your ignorant ****e all you want. You're wrong
about, well, pretty much everything you keep repeating over and over
and over again.




(4) The FTS has been a thorn in the side of Falcon development throughout its life.

http://spacenews.com/flight-terminat...on-9-schedule/


Note that the problems WERE with certification, not with random
premature detonation.


Did you have a chance to read the comments from the certifiers? Have you forgotten the problem with grasshopper blowing itself up? With the ATK rocket blowing itself up?


I know what it takes to certify an FTS. Every example you've given of
an FTS destroying a rocket has been a case of an FTS functioning
correctly and doing what it was supposed to do when it was supposed to
do it.


The potential for random premature detonation is a reason NOT to certify something.


But it got certified, so there is no such 'potential' in the current
system.




http://space.gizmodo.com/a-spacex-ro...dly-1625815699


Note that this is a cite pointing to a case where the FTS did EXACTLY
WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO.

hmm... except it wasn't supposed to detonate quite that quickly. If you were aware of the DETAILS involved, you'd see the relevance. Not, *assume* it all worked well because it detonated on command.


Now you're just talking ****e and making no sense. It detonated when
it was supposed to.




So, this would be a continuation of the same sorts of difficulties if it proves to be the FTS.


Nonsense.


The only nonsense is the fantasy you are attempting to project that the avionics tray holding the CSLIC can be far removed from the pyros. They cannot. Anyone who knows how these things work understands that.


Then how the **** does the signal get down to the first stage, you
ignorant ****?

Please cite the rule calling out the mandatory cable length. Please
cite something showing the actual CSLIC with it labeled in the picture
(by them, not by you). Please stop making **** up and lying about it
because you are unable to back off from your unsupported claims about
the FTS.


There was never a problem with FTS premature detonation.

Cite?


Cite that it was? Cite that the problem was NOT fixed (if it ever
existed), but the FTS was certified anyway?


There is no reason now to believe that this was an FTS problem.

You have no idea what you're talking about. NONE.


And yet you're the one who thinks the FTS is a CIRCULAR charge to cut
a combustion chamber AT THE WRONG END OF THE STAGE when in actuality
the FTS is a LINEAR system that runs down the side of (the other)
stage and cuts open the tanks.

Mook, you've blown yourself up here. There is no recovery from all
the SIMPLE stuff you've gotten wrong. Stop digging.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson