A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

An opinion piece on a need for focus



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 3rd 16, 09:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default An opinion piece on a need for focus

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-09-03 06:59, Fred J. McCall wrote:

THEY DON'T CONSTANTLY TWEAK THE ****ING ROCKETS!!!!!!!!!!


How you you explain the accident caused by a changed strut that was
supporting some tank where the new part was found to not be strong
enough (or something akin to that) ?


You mean a sub delivered a faulty part that didn't meet spec? THAT
strut?


You make changes in 'blocks', not rocket by rocket.


Consider Boeing. When it introduces a new/improved cabin, it will still
be building old cabin designs for a while to fulfil existing contracts
for those customers who require commonality between all their planes.

While they still build planes with old design, they also build planes
with new designs for those customers who want it (and for new orders).


You understand that the CUSTOMER specifies the cabin design and it's
not part of the airplane 'design', right?


Similarly, Boeing is perfectly able to build 2 different 747s at same
time, one for Rolls Royce engines and one for GE engines. (engine mounts
are different).


Cite for the engine mounts being different? You understand that the
engine mount is NOT part of the engine, right? It's part of the CASE.
Usually when you have alternative engines the mounts are the same.


It should not be that difficult for SpaceX to produce an "old" Falcon9
for manned flight while producing ones with imrpovements for cargo. The
manned one will be same model but lag behind in intruducing changes
until such changes have been flight proven.


Yeah, things are always "not that difficult" when you're the guy who
only has to wave his hands. It's a bad idea and not worth the expense
or possible errors in assembly.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #12  
Old September 3rd 16, 09:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default An opinion piece on a need for focus

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-09-03 07:12, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Except today's rockets can do precisely that. One of the videos Mook
posted showed an ArianeSpace launch where the guidance software
freaked out and commanded a 90 degree turn. They blew the FTS to stop
the rocket.


And ironically, the debis fell in nearby villages.


Which is better than a whole ****ing rocket full of fuel falling in
nearby villages (or far away villages, if you stupidly just let it
fly).


Note that Ariane uses SRBs which are uncontrollable and don't explode
like a liquid fueled rocket. So pyros to break it apart is the only way
to break thrust.

With a liquid fueled rocket, they could simply shut down engines to kill
thrust. (if they can send command to trigger self-destruct, they should
be able to send command to shut off engines).


FTS is INDEPENDENT. Your idea is bad. Suppose FTS commands engine
shutdown while navigation software commands not to shutdown or
commands a restart. Now you're relying on software integration to
have gotten it right.

You still don't get the purpose of FTS and Range Safety.


But my guess is that when launching from somewhyere like KSC, once
they've cleared the pad, they're over water and one wonders is range
safety is still really needed for rockets without SRBs.


And if the guidance ****s up and it turns? Again, you don't
understand what Range Safety does.


If a rocket decides to turn inland just after clearing pad instead of
turning to the sea but is otherwise functional, once could debate
whether it is better to let it fly to deplete its fuel and fall down as
inert metal, or detonate it while still filled with fuel.


So it's better to let it fly on and hit Miami rather than terminating
it before that happens?


How many times in the last 20 years has a rocket launched from the
cape/ksc decided to rotate to go inland instead of rotating to go over sea ?


You don't roll dice on the odds of not hitting anything important if
it ****s up.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #13  
Old September 4th 16, 11:00 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default An opinion piece on a need for focus

Its funny to see Fred pretending to be an engineer, and failing miserably.
lol.


On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 8:10:52 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-09-03 06:59, Fred J. McCall wrote:

THEY DON'T CONSTANTLY TWEAK THE ****ING ROCKETS!!!!!!!!!!


How you you explain the accident caused by a changed strut that was
supporting some tank where the new part was found to not be strong
enough (or something akin to that) ?


You mean a sub delivered a faulty part that didn't meet spec? THAT
strut?


You make changes in 'blocks', not rocket by rocket.


Consider Boeing. When it introduces a new/improved cabin, it will still
be building old cabin designs for a while to fulfil existing contracts
for those customers who require commonality between all their planes.

While they still build planes with old design, they also build planes
with new designs for those customers who want it (and for new orders).


You understand that the CUSTOMER specifies the cabin design and it's
not part of the airplane 'design', right?


Similarly, Boeing is perfectly able to build 2 different 747s at same
time, one for Rolls Royce engines and one for GE engines. (engine mounts
are different).


Cite for the engine mounts being different? You understand that the
engine mount is NOT part of the engine, right? It's part of the CASE.
Usually when you have alternative engines the mounts are the same.


It should not be that difficult for SpaceX to produce an "old" Falcon9
for manned flight while producing ones with imrpovements for cargo. The
manned one will be same model but lag behind in intruducing changes
until such changes have been flight proven.


Yeah, things are always "not that difficult" when you're the guy who
only has to wave his hands. It's a bad idea and not worth the expense
or possible errors in assembly.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn


  #14  
Old September 5th 16, 10:23 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default An opinion piece on a need for focus

It's funny to see Mookie pretending to be a human being, and failing
miserably.

William Mook wrote:

Its funny to see Fred pretending to be an engineer, and failing miserably.
lol.


On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 8:10:52 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-09-03 06:59, Fred J. McCall wrote:

THEY DON'T CONSTANTLY TWEAK THE ****ING ROCKETS!!!!!!!!!!

How you you explain the accident caused by a changed strut that was
supporting some tank where the new part was found to not be strong
enough (or something akin to that) ?


You mean a sub delivered a faulty part that didn't meet spec? THAT
strut?


You make changes in 'blocks', not rocket by rocket.

Consider Boeing. When it introduces a new/improved cabin, it will still
be building old cabin designs for a while to fulfil existing contracts
for those customers who require commonality between all their planes.

While they still build planes with old design, they also build planes
with new designs for those customers who want it (and for new orders).


You understand that the CUSTOMER specifies the cabin design and it's
not part of the airplane 'design', right?


Similarly, Boeing is perfectly able to build 2 different 747s at same
time, one for Rolls Royce engines and one for GE engines. (engine mounts
are different).


Cite for the engine mounts being different? You understand that the
engine mount is NOT part of the engine, right? It's part of the CASE.
Usually when you have alternative engines the mounts are the same.


It should not be that difficult for SpaceX to produce an "old" Falcon9
for manned flight while producing ones with imrpovements for cargo. The
manned one will be same model but lag behind in intruducing changes
until such changes have been flight proven.


Yeah, things are always "not that difficult" when you're the guy who
only has to wave his hands. It's a bad idea and not worth the expense
or possible errors in assembly.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

  #15  
Old September 6th 16, 06:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rick Jones[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default An opinion piece on a need for focus

JF Mezei wrote:
However, with self destruct, won't debris be spread over greater
area and thus cause mroe damage instead of letting rocket fall on
the beach?


Presumably, with self-destruct engaged, all that fuel and oxidizer
will be burned-up at altitude rather than down on the ground. That is
probably a net win compared with having a still largely fueled rocket
hit the ground.

As I recall, the Chinese had a launch where one of their rockets
came-down in a populated area shortly after launch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_EnrVf9u8s
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2323/1 suggests the thing
came-down largely intact. It also would seem the vehicle never got
terribly high to begin with.

rick jones
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
  #16  
Old September 7th 16, 04:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default An opinion piece on a need for focus

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


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine



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

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;

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

(2) The location, intensity, power, colour, and speed of the explosion suggest a pyrotechnic like this FTS subsystem.

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

(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.

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

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

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

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

If so, I would look to SpaceX either acquiring its FTS provider or another FTS provider and bringing this aspect of its operation in-house, since at this point, if the FTS is indeed culpable (as it was in a McGregor loss earlier in the programme) it is the single largest cost driver for a reusable rocket programme for SpaceX, so getting control of this piece is important if they wish to continue operations as a US flagged space carrier.

Both ATK and SpaceX have been developing autonomous flight termination systems but rely upon vendors approved to do the pyrotechnics. Both systems use a GPS-aided, computer controlled system to terminate an off-nominal flight - supplementing or replacing the more traditional human-in-the-loop monitoring system.

ATK's Autonomous Flight Safety System made its debut on November 19, 2013 at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility. The system was jointly developed by ATK facilities in Ronkonkoma, New York, Plymouth, Minnesota, and Promontory Point, Utah.

The system developed by SpaceX has been included in the prototype development vehicle SpaceX uses to test its reusable rocket technology development program, but SpaceX still uses the more traditional system at Cape Canaveral..

In the event, the autonomous system was first tested in August 2014 on the F9R Dev1 prototype booster when the test vehicle had a flight anomaly in a test flight and the vehicle control system issued a command to terminate, and the vehicle self-destructed in the air over the designated test area near McGregor, Texas.

  #17  
Old September 7th 16, 06:19 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default An opinion piece on a need for focus

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.


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

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

(2) The location, ...


Again, note that what is in the AVIONICS tray is AVIONICS. You know,
avionics like the receivers for the FTS (but no pyros at that
location). And what you show isn't even the avionics tray from a
Falcon 9. It's the avionics tray from a Falcon 1.


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


(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.


(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.


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.


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


Nonsense. There was never a problem with FTS premature detonation.
There is no reason now to believe that this was an FTS problem.

snip MookSpew


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #18  
Old September 8th 16, 01:58 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default An opinion piece on a need for focus

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.


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.

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.

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

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.)

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.

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.


... 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,

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.

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.

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.


(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.



(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?

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



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.



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.

There was never a problem with FTS premature detonation.


Cite?

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


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


snip MookSpew


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

  #19  
Old September 8th 16, 04:07 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default An opinion piece on a need for focus

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
  #20  
Old September 8th 16, 05:46 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rick Jones[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default An opinion piece on a need for focus

Rick Jones wrote:
As for the mention of schedule importance in another thread, the way
the launch manifest (when it was still published with such
information) kept showing the launch dates of various customers
slipping, and the way things continue to seem to slip (even prior to
this recent anomaly) suggests that anyone currently a SpaceX
customer isn't worrying much about schedules. Yet anyway.


Though the once-bitten customer does seem to have become
understandably shy:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sp...-idUSKCN11C2CK

which discusses Spacecom wanting to see "several safe flights" before
getting back on the Falcon.

rick jones
--
"You can't do a damn thing in this house without having to do three
other things first!" - my father (It seems universally applicable
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DLR in C5 prime focus: cannot get fully in-focus images RePete Amateur Astronomy 5 October 30th 06 12:01 PM
The Totalitarian Temptation in Space -Another Jeff Bell Editioral/Opinion Piece Earl Colby Pottinger Policy 114 June 10th 06 02:11 PM
The Totalitarian Temptation in Space -Another Jeff Bell Editioral/Opinion Piece Space Cadet Policy 114 June 5th 06 10:45 PM
2" eye piece Steve - www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk UK Astronomy 5 December 20th 04 02:51 PM
tired ot carrying your Losmandy GM-8 out, piece by piece? [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 9 December 16th 04 06:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.