JF Mezei wrote on Sun, 4 Nov 2018
15:29:29 -0500:

On 2018-11-03 20:04, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Which confirms exactly what I said happened based on the ground video,
that you claimed wasn't of sufficient resolution to see anything.
Imagine that!

This video was Released Nov 1. You made your claims that the fault was
conformed well before that. And you mentioned it was a bent pin, as in
bent mounting pin and mentioned they had to lubricate it to slide the
booster onto it.


Because at the level of 'failed separation' it was confirmed in less
than a day. A day or so later THE RUSSIANS said it was a bent pin and
THE RUSSIANS mentioned they had to lubricate it to get first and
second stage assembled.

You really do have the memory of a mayfly coupled with the reading
comprehension of the average kindergartner.

You need to go read everything that 'some' said again. 'Some' said
that the problem was obviously that the O2 valve on one of the
strap-ons didn't open because they failed to get separation signal.

No.


Yes. Stop lying. Go back and read it all again.


"some" said it was a bent pin and they had to lubricate it because
they couldn't slide the booster on otherwise.


Which I assumed kept the separation signal from being honored by the
LOX valve. Do you bother to read complete sentences?


You made your claims of
factual confirmed caused at the time that was the rumour.


I made my claims based on statements by the head of the responsible
agency.


Now you are
claiming you always claimed it was a push button sensor that was bent
and that you know this all allong.


Nope. I haven't said what you claim. Again, go back and read my
'guess' that you were so derisive of. One of the possible causes for
the LOX valve to not open (which is what I said happened) that I gave
was 'bad sensor'.

You know, if you spent even half the effort pulling your head out of
your ass and actually researching and analyzing things that you do
trying to play 'gotcha' with me you would sound a lot brighter. Your
failure to do so can only indicate that your head is too firmly lodged
up your ass and that you are incapable of actual research and
analysis.


This is the point where you were arguing about 'pyros'.

It was always known that pyros released the lower portion of the booster
and that the boosters could they drop of their support (which they
normally pushed against) at the top of booster.


Bloody hell! As I have explained multiple times THAT IS NOT HOW IT
WORKS. Read slowly. Phone a friend and have them explain it to you.

The pyros release SOME DATA CABLES. THERE IS NO STRUCTURAL SUPPORT
THROUGH THE BOTTOM ATTACHMENT POINT. ALL STRUCTURAL SUPPORT IS
THROUGH THE BALL JOINT AT THE TOP OF THE STRAP-ONS. And that ball
joint isn't really 'attached' to the core stage, either. Inertia
separates the whole works when the strap-on runs out of fuel and is no
longer accelerating while the core stage is.

Does ANY of that sound at all familiar, Mayfly? I ask because I've
explained it more times than I can count now.


The opening of the O2 valve doesn't act as a 'reverse thruster', by
the way. It acts as a LATERAL thruster to 'push' the top of the
strap-on away from the core stage.

And how do you know it isn't diagonal? The booster needs to drop out of
the top coupling and then move away. Yes, what you see in video is
booster moving away, but that angle does not allow you to see any
vertical thrust vector. The timing matters here because sideways push
while the booster still exert some positive upwards force against the
ball coupling would prevenet side movement from the O2 thurster.


Oh Jesus ****ing Christ! This, too, has been explained to you
repeated. Google "Korolev Cross", you nitwit. Look at separation
videos where everything worked and notice how the tops of the
strap-ons fly straight out from the core stage on separation. Think
about how a 'reverse thruster' is the very last thing you want, since
that gives you exactly what happened during the accident only faster,
you idiot.


(sequence is pyros fire while engines still running and then engines
start to move lower part away, engines cut out, and the O2 thruster
fires at a time when hopefully the thrust from engines is gone.


Absolutely wrong AND THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU MULTIPLE TIMES!
The pyros on the cabling at the lower attachment point and the opening
of the LOX valve ARE TRIGGERED BY THE SAME SEPARATION SENSOR. That
sensor triggers because thrust from the strap-ons has dropped so much
that the upper ball joint is no longer held in firm contact and the
strap-ons have started to 'lag' the stack.


without saying that you aren't supposed to. There actually IS a
documented tolerance on how much 'bend' is allowable in that sensor
pin, by the way. It's a maximum of six degrees and 45 minutes. Since
there's a tolerance, one assumes it should be checked.

I read that the failed sensor was bent by 6° and some. I didn't read it
as this being the tolerance.


You read it incorrectly.


I do not know if the crews noticed the bend or not. This is not in the
press release. Unless you have an official copy of the report, you
can't know that either, so it is speculation.


You don't know much of anything and what you do know is apparently
almost all wrong. You should stop arguing with people who know more
than you do.


Pretty much what 'some' said happened and you argued against.

No, "some" argued it was a bent pin that held the booster which because
bent, didn't let it separate. (aka, structural support, not just a push
button switch).


Your defective reading skills have let you down yet again. NO ONE
said what you claim 'some' said.



works on this vehicle. As the strap-on loses thrust, it starts to
'lag' the rest of the vehicle. This trips the separation sensor (the
thing that was bent, so that didn't happen). This sends a signal to
both ends of the strap-on. The signal to the top opens the O2 valve.
The signal to the bottom fires the only pyros involved in the
separation which are used to sever some data cables.


No. Pyros fire first, then thrust is cut, then thursters fire. Read up
and look at the video.


Absolutely ****ing wrong. Look up how the bloody R-7 works.


They want bottom of engines to be pushed away before the top also does
the same otherwise as the top moves away, the bottom might hit the
core's engine bells.


Absolute horse****. Again, go look up how R-7 staging works.



Oh, be serious! Damaged during assembly and either no one checked, no
one noticed, or no one reported the possibility, or some combination
of the above.


So you know the assembly and sequence so precisely that you can judge
this? There are many gizmnos where, after you put 2 parts together, you
can't verify that all is well between the 2 parts, you just assume they
are. When you assemble with hands, you can feel that the parts mated
smoothly. When you assemble large parts, it isn't so easy to feel that
everything went well.


When you have to resort to "if it don't fit, force it" it is pretty
obvious regardless. Well, except to you because you're remarkably
stupid and bull-headed.


You are quick to assign human fault because the Russians have bad
quality control history. But, unless you are familiar with actual
proceduires and wity the actual report, you can't proclaim to know that
this is something they check for post assmebly.


Just how do you think "damaged during assembly" happens when humans
assemble things, Mayfly? Magic ****ing unicorns, perhaps?


The procedures may very well call for a check. But unless you can see
the actual procedures, you can't make that proclamation as "fact".


You wouldn't know a 'fact' if one crawled up your ass so it could be
right in front of your eyes.


When you have to jack about getting things to mate
correctly, damage is likely.

Without gettng the actual official report (and the real internal report
if the "official" one is tainted by politicial priorities), you can't
know what really happenned. You can only speculate.


Again, just how do you think something like this gets damaged during
assembly, Mayfly? Monkeys flying out your butt?


Also, the press replease mentions the push button was bent during
assembly. This is sufficiently vague. does assembly refer to final
mating? or does it refler to when thyey take the booster out of a
flatbed train car/truck and move it to a storage position prior to
mating? Was it bent when they picked it up to mate? or was it bent when
it contacted the core as it was being mated?

When the damage occired matters a lot in terms of discovering it and
whether they allowed mating with deffective sensor or mated and coudln't
have know it was damaged during mating.


Do you know what the word 'assembly' means? It's pretty much
synonymous with 'mating' in this context. But you are so adamantly
stupid that you refuse to give up on your 'ramdom act of magic did it'
theory.

If you start getting responses from me that just amount to "bull****"
or "wrong", you need to understand THAT IT STEMS FROM YOUR STUBBORN
INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU HALF A
DOZEN TIMES OR MORE.


--
"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