Latest candidate for SpaceX pad explosion

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-10-24 22:26, Fred J. McCall wrote:

...and held in place by
the resin "matrix"). This means a full surface without holes.


You make it sound like the structural strength is in the RESIN, which
is exactly backward.


If you insist on insulting me, at least read properly.


If you insist on arguing with people who know what they're talking
about when you do not, at least try to make sense.


The resin holds the fibres tightly together and in place.


You don't really understand this whole 'composite' thing, do you? In
the general case, there needn't be 'fibers' and there needn't be
'resin'.


There is a reason they are called "composites" because both the fibres
and the resin play an important role to make the final product super
strong. Without resin, fibres wrapped diagonally on a cylinder would
have little strength and could simply move to be less diagonal and be
loose around the cylinder and offer absolutely no strength.


Did you look at what you just said there? Since the resin is, to your
mind, just 'glue', it would be easier to build stronger structures
without it and use other strategies to keep the 'fibers' from moving.


It is the lamination of different layers of carbon wound in different
directions which gives the object its strength.


Go look up 'lamination', you ignorant ****. You've been told
repeatedly that THIS IS NOT A LAMINATED MATERIAL.


And the resin matrix
not only keeps the fibres from moving, but holds each layert tightly
against the one under it, and thus particpated in transfering of stress
loads from one layer to the next. (which is why de-lamination betwene
layers is a big problem (often the result of air bubbles during layup).


You really don't pay any attention at all to what you're told, do you?
It is NORMAL for LOX to get into the windings of composite. It wrings
back out as the pressure increases. This is why FROZEN oxygen is a
problem. It gets in there as a liquid, freezes, and then does NOT
wring back out.



Stick 10,000 psi helium in it without an inner metal liner and it will
leak like a sieve.


This would depend on the porous nature of the resin being used. It may
slowly leak or leak like a siece. Since you don't know the composition
of the resin and how thick it is applied, stating "like a sieve" is just
an opinion of yours.

A solid metal liner has the advantage of also acting as a mandrel to
wrap the fibre around tightly. And since it is not removed, it allows
the fibre to be wound in the perfect shape of the cylinder including
tapered edges at both ends since the "mandrel" need not be removed.


Believe whatever ignorant **** you want to. You're wrong. Period.


--
"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

In article m,
says...

On 2016-10-25 07:24, Fred J. McCall wrote:

If you insist on arguing with people who know what they're talking
about when you do not, at least try to make sense.

A knowledgeable person treats less knowledgeable ones professionally.
You don't.

What else are we to do when you keep insisting you know what you're
talking about, but you keep saying things that are just flat out wrong?

A wise less knowledgeable person, on a certain topic, also knows when to
defer to the more knowledgeable persons on that topic. I sometimes have
to deal with less knowledgeable people professionally and it becomes
awfully hard to keep calm after the 12th time you've told the person
that they're wrong and explained why they're wrong.

I'm done with this topic.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In article om,
says...

On 2016-10-25 21:29, Jeff Findley wrote:

A wise less knowledgeable person, on a certain topic, also knows when to
defer to the more knowledgeable persons on that topic.

So you prefer to believe McCall who behaves as a teenager in a basement?

Since you are indirectly questioning my ability as an engineer, I'm
going to respond to this one message, then I'm done with this thread.

I do have an aerospace engineering degree, so I can think for myself
thank you very much. Engineers tend to be fact based and have little
tolerance for b.s. Push us hard enough by ignoring the facts and we can
become hostile.

The evidence provided shows without a doubt that the fact is that liners
are standard for this application (high pressure helium tanks) for a
damn good reason. But, it is clear that you are going to believe
whatever the hell you want about the ability of a composite tank to hold
high pressure helium without a liner, despite the actual evidence
provided.



Why don't you take a class on communications where they identify how
different people communicate? The engineers I work with all fall on or
near the same quadrant of the graph from that class (colored blue in the
class I took). Yellow is the color opposite of us. Salesmen tend to be
yellow. Engineers generally can't stand salesmen because we've already
done our research and know more about the product than the salesmen, who
tend to rely on b.s. and anecdotal evidence to sell products. Engineers
typically put little stock in b.s. and call it out, when the facts do
not back up the b.s.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-10-26 06:15, Jeff Findley wrote:

damn good reason. But, it is clear that you are going to believe
whatever the hell you want about the ability of a composite tank to hold
high pressure helium without a liner,

I never questionned that. I questioned the alleged "normal" presence of
cracks that would prevent the composite from holding any pressure
without a liner.

I did not state that composites would not leak, but stated that such
leaks would be through porosity, not cracks. Same way bike tires leak
air over time without having any punctures. (puncture in a tire = crack
in a tank, lets all the air out real fast).

And remember that the context I was discussing was the allegation that
LOX got INSIDE the composite _through cracks_, froze and then broke it
apart because it couldn't escape.


The only person to ever use the word 'cracks' was you. You,
personally, are obviously cracked.


Since the debate was about LOX penetrating the composite from the
outside, so the presence of a liner inside is moot.

You are too focused on discrediting/insulting me to have an intelligent
debate as you insist on assuming I have 0 knowledge.


And you are too focused on spewing ignorant bull**** to have an
intelligent discussion as you insist on displaying that you have 0
knowledge.


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

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-10-25 07:24, Fred J. McCall wrote:

If you insist on arguing with people who know what they're talking
about when you do not, at least try to make sense.


A knowledgeable person treats less knowledgeable ones professionally.
You don't.


No, dear boy. Knowledgeable people do not suffer fools gladly. If
you want to be treated professionally, you should seek a mental health
practitioner. If you want to be treated professionally BY ME, you
need to be paying me. That is the thing about 'professionals', you
see. They get paid. So you figure out how many hours of my time you
want to buy and I'll tell you what it'll cost you.



You don't really understand this whole 'composite' thing, do you? In
the general case, there needn't be 'fibers' and there needn't be
'resin'.


In the context opf this discussion, you are wrong. There are fibres and
there is resin.


You elected to put forward an argument based on a general discussion
of composites. You know concrete is a composite, right?



Did you look at what you just said there? Since the resin is, to your
mind, just 'glue', it would be easier to build stronger structures
without it and use other strategies to keep the 'fibers' from moving.


Until you come up with some other strategy to keep fibers tightly
against each other, transfer loads between one layer and the next, and
prevent delamination, then resin is the only solution.


You obviously don't understand the point of 'composites'. Any old
resin will not do. Any old glue will not do. A composite material
has different attributes than either of the components. You don't get
this and think of the resin as merely being 'glue'.



Go look up 'lamination', you ignorant ****. You've been told
repeatedly that THIS IS NOT A LAMINATED MATERIAL.


If you've never heard of lamination and requiring fault-free process to
prevent delaminatin in composites, then you are the one who needs to
study. Based on your behaviour , I suspect you are still learning basic
algebra in grade school.


If you think the composite on a COPV is laminated you are an ignorant
**** with regard to both composites and lamination.

As for what you 'suspect', I'm going to go with what pretty much all
engineers do and go with the facts, instead. Among those facts are my
30+ year career as an engineer in aerospace companies and my having
put away enough money that I decided it just wasn't worth my time to
work anymore. So feel free to kiss my ass, you scrofulous little
toad. All you've accomplished is to show how stupid you are.



You really don't pay any attention at all to what you're told, do you?
It is NORMAL for LOX to get into the windings of composite.


Have you looked at the pictures from the documnent you accused me of not
looking at? Have you seen the finished product? The surface is all
resin, not carbon. You make it look like all they do is wind carbon
threads around the metal lining and that they absorb LOX like fabric
absorbs water.


I'm not responsible for your inability to read, dip****, so your
intellectual myopia and how things 'look' to you is a matter of pretty
much supreme indifference to me.

Hint: When you don't understand what someone is saying, your best
approach would be to STFU and listen.


Those windings of yours absorb the resin which fills all gaps between
threads. Once the resin hardens, the surface is like plastic, not like
fabric. Again, look at the surface of the finished copv tank in that
document. I guess if you've never worked with composites, you woudln't
recognize it.

And they often leave a certain thickness of resin above the op most
layer of carbon to protect it from damage. Hence what you see on the
fished product is resin, not fibre over the inner lining since the
carbon is hudden and fully covered by the resin.

BTW, a good process goes out of its way to eliminate any gaps/voids
inside the "matrix" and ensures the resign fully impregnates the threads
and leaves no air bubbles. It is composite 101 if you wish to avoid
failure. (a course which you have undoubtedly not taken).


They're not 'windings of mine'. They are "windings of Elon Musk". You
know, the billionaire who makes the ****ing rockets? So I can believe
what you say, given the long, long list of inaccurate and outright
wrong bull**** you've put forward, or I can believe the guy whose
company designed the ****ing thing. I think I'm going to have to go
with Elon on this one. Thanks for playing.



It wrings
back out as the pressure increases. This is why FROZEN oxygen is a
problem. It gets in there as a liquid, freezes, and then does NOT
wring back out.


If LOX freezes as it is is poured into the tank because some LOX has
evaporated and cooled things down, then the frozen flakes would be way
to big to penetrate through any pores in the resin.


I know from experience that it's hard for you, but READ THE ****ING
WORDS. Let me try one more time. See what I said above? It says "It
gets in there as a liquid, freezes, and then does NOT wring back out."
Which part of that sentence left you so confused that you are
nattering on about freezing OUTSIDE the bloody COPV?


Secondly, since the LOX tank is not pressurized until flight, there
wouldn't be much pressure to push O2 molecules through pores of the
resin covering the carbon covering the lining.


Yeah, no pressure at all. That's why they vent the ****ing tank, you
ignorant ****; because there's no pressure buildup at all.


And since it was stated by someone here that unlike water, LOX does NOT
expand when it freezes, any LOX that did make it into a pore and then
froze, would not expand to cause cracks to happen. (as would water since
it expands when it freezes).


I was that 'someone'. You were too ignorant to know it and too stupid
to look it up. Who (other than you) is talking about cracks?


It is far more likely that the extra cold caused the carbon fibre and
resin to become brittle and break.


Musk (the guy who owns the rocket, remember?) apparently disagrees
with you. So **** off.


--
"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

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-10-25 21:29, Jeff Findley wrote:

A wise less knowledgeable person, on a certain topic, also knows when to
defer to the more knowledgeable persons on that topic.


So you prefer to believe McCall who behaves as a teenager in a basement?


No, he prefers to believe ELON MUSK and based on his own knowledge in
the area he knows that you're an ignorant git and I am not.



awfully hard to keep calm after the 12th time you've told the person
that they're wrong and explained why they're wrong.


Just claiming that i am wrong does not make me wrong.


No, you being wrong makes you wrong. Your inability to understand
explanations of WHY you are wrong makes you stupid.


The McCall asshole has not provided any evidence I am wrong.


Or you are unable to read and understand it. I'm going to go with
that explanation.


He is not even aware
of delamination issues with composites and yet, you choose to think of
him as an expert in the field and support him insulting me for the sake
of insulting me. (typical usenet practice).


One more time. THE COPV IS NOT A LAMINATED STRUCTURE. Which part of
that leaves you confused? I insult you because facts like that one,
which you have had explained to you multiple times, simply fail to
penetrate.


The pictures on that document clearly showed threads being layed, yet
you or your McCall friend insist it is tape.


You really don't read English, do you? Neither Jeff nor I insisted
any such thing. Jeff merely pointed out that his primary experience
with composites involved tape composites (and thus are not the same as
what is done on a COPV).


The fact that you claimed there are cracks in the overwrap means you
don't understand it.


The only person who has said anything about 'cracks' is YOU.

It's true. We can't fix Stupid, so Stupid should just STFU and run
along.

So run along, Stupid.


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

JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-10-26 15:59, Fred J. McCall wrote:
One more time. THE COPV IS NOT A LAMINATED STRUCTURE.

And you don't understand that multiple layers of carbon fibres are
laminated against each other to form that wrapping around the inner
liner.

I have to wonder if the two of you are using different defintions of
"laminated."

And still no explanation on the logic you raised:

LOX gets in, freezes and can't escape and breaks the compsite. If
LOX does not expland when it freezes and contracts, then it getting
it in the composite as liquid and freezing would not cause
structural pressure on the composite.

Wouldn't it though leave a void as it contracted? Forming something
of a "pillar" (term used VERY loosly) and where it shrank away from
the carbon fibre would no longer have anything beneath it. Again,
very loosely put, but something like a tent pole.

rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
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...

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-10-26 15:59, Fred J. McCall wrote:

No, he prefers to believe ELON MUSK and based on his own knowledge in
the area he knows that you're an ignorant git and I am not.

In all the quotes from Musk, I did not see mention of a crack in the
carbon fibre allowing LOX to get in, freeze and in doing so break the
structure which is your allegation.


Liar. I said no such thing.


One more time. THE COPV IS NOT A LAMINATED STRUCTURE.

And you don't understand that multiple layers of carbon fibres are
laminated against each other to form that wrapping around the inner
liner. It is the composite that is a laminated object and where
delamination between layers of carbon fibres is to be avoided at all
costs as it causes loss of strength. (and a gap that would allow LOX to
get in).


Go look up what 'laminate' means, you ignorant ****.


The fact that you are unaware that delamination is a potential problem
in modern composites (avoided with perfect process to lay the fibres and
resin) means that you have some serious learning to do about them before
you can speak outand insult others on the subject.


The fact that you keep claiming I'm unaware of things that I know more
about than you do but which are irrelevant to the case at hand shows
that you have some serious learning to do about both composites and
intellectual honesty, you ignorant lying ****.


I never mentioned that the composite structure was laminated onto the
inner liner. This was always about the composite portion only.


Which is not laminated. Which part of NOT LAMINATED is leaving you
confused?


Again, your or Findley's original premise is that LOX got into the
carbon fibre structure via a crack.


Neither of us ever said any such thing. The only person going on and
on about a crack is YOU.


And still no explanation on the logic you raised:

LOX gets in, freezes and can't escape and breaks the compsite. If LOX
does not expland when it freezes and contracts, then it getting it in
the composite as liquid and freezing would not cause structural pressure
on the composite.


Who, other than you, ever said anything about "structural pressure on
the composite"?


Secondly, "getting into the Composite" would either require a flaw in
the composite which would be enough to initiate the catastrophe in and
by itself, or entry via porous nature of resin, which would likely
require a fair amount of pressure to push LOX molecules through tiny
pores. As the LOX tank is being filled, even you agree that it is not
under pressure.


I agreed to no such thing. Sarcasm - look it up.


So the whole concept of LOX getting into the composite and freezing to
cause it to fail is not credible.


Well, your view is not credible, true enough. But the only person
claiming the things you claim others have said is YOU, so the problem
would appear to be that you're dirt stupid and unable to understand
what others say to you.


The concept of LOX getting so cold that the composite becomes brittle
and fails under the intense force of the Helium inside is more realistic.


No, it isn't.


If this was the coldest that the LOX ever got in the SpaceX designed
tanks, it could have brought the materials inside the tank beyond their
their tested specs.


And you think they built COPVs for use in a cryogenic environment and
had no clue insofar as embrittlement and safety margins? Yeah, I see
why you don't understand anything having to do with engineering.


--
"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

Rick Jones wrote:

JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-10-26 15:59, Fred J. McCall wrote:
One more time. THE COPV IS NOT A LAMINATED STRUCTURE.

And you don't understand that multiple layers of carbon fibres are
laminated against each other to form that wrapping around the inner
liner.

I have to wonder if the two of you are using different defintions of
"laminated."


Oh, I'm sure we are. I'm using the meaning that means 'laminated'.
He's using some made up bull****.


And still no explanation on the logic you raised:

LOX gets in, freezes and can't escape and breaks the compsite. If
LOX does not expland when it freezes and contracts, then it getting
it in the composite as liquid and freezing would not cause
structural pressure on the composite.

Wouldn't it though leave a void as it contracted? Forming something
of a "pillar" (term used VERY loosly) and where it shrank away from
the carbon fibre would no longer have anything beneath it. Again,
very loosely put, but something like a tent pole.


Not quite how it probably worked. It's normal for some amount of LOX
to get into the composite overwrap. As pressure in the LOX tank goes
up, it normally squeezes back out. Think of it like a sponge-covered
ball. Squeeze the sponge from outside against the ball and liquid
will squeeze out as you increase the pressure. Now freeze the thing
first. Ice won't squeeze out.


--
"Yet here I sit, years of evildoing under my belt, and still a
happy camper."
-- Alan Shore, "Boston Legal"

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-10-26 20:29, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Liar. I said no such thing.


Does that mean that you now agree with the very thing you argued I
didn't know about, that there are no cracks and the only LOX that gets
into the composite layers is via any porosity of the resin ?


Do you know what 'porosity' means? How is a 'porous' material
different from a material with gaps?

Hint: Porous is defined as "having small holes that allow air or
liquid to pass through".


Do you agree that without a liner, the tank would not leak like a sieve,
but just leak through porosity of the composite material ?


No, I do not agree.


If you had agreed with this and you and your ilk not insisted there were
cracks through which LOX penetrated the composite and then unable to
escape as it froze, we wouldn't be having this debate.


Go look up 'porous'. If you knew the meanings of words like 'porous'
and 'laminate' we would not be having this excuse for a debate.


Go look up what 'laminate' means, you ignorant ****.

Again, if you do not know about composite material delamination
problems, then you don't know about composite materials. (or CFRP in
this case)


Again, if you think all composite structures are laminates you don't
know **** about composites (or laminates). Given your record here, I
am unsurprised at your ignorance.

Hint: Not all composite structures are laminates. Not all laminates
are composites.


The fact that you keep claiming I'm unaware of things that I know more
about than you

The type of behaviour you have here says you are not mature enough to
know that much stuff. You clain you know all about carbon composites,
yet don't even know about delamination problems.


The things you argue about here say that you are an ignorant **** who
is wasting everyone's time. I don't claim to "know all about carbon
composites". I just claim to know a lot more than you. There is no
'delamination problem' if the composite structure is not a laminate.


--
"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