An opinion piece on a need for focus

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-09-09 07:24, Jeff Findley wrote:

At the time of the event, you push the big red button because at the
time of the event, you don't *know* what's going to happen. Better to
push the button than to take *any* chance that the thing might kill
someone.


Surely the folks at Wallops know how many seconds of flight it takes
for a rogue rocket to leave the immediate pad area, how many seconds it
takes to leave Wallops property, how many seconds it would take to leave
the park area surrounding it and how many seconds to reach populated
areas, and in such cases, where is the last point where FTS must be
triggered to ensure debris falls before reaching populated areas.

You can have a "hit the red button the microsecond rocket exceeds
permitted parameters" or "only hit the red button once rocket reaches
the limit for safe detonation before endangering population/property.

Or midway: for first X seconds of flight, wait for rocket to clear pad
or breach the "last chance to FTS" whichever comes first, and after
that, trigger at first sign of anomaly.


You've had this explained to you repeatedly. You are apparently too
stupid to get it. Let me make it simple for you:

1) Rocket behaving badly.

2) Rocket is broken.

3) Terminate rocket before bad rocket hurts people.

4) Termination system resistant to, but not immune to, breakage, so
use it while it works.

Get it now?


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

JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-09-09 13:28, Rick Jones wrote:
importantly, whether there is a cascade of things going wrong.
So, one cannot, or perhaps more accurately should not, ass-u-me
the FTS will remain operational as the incident progresses.

Fair enough. But if no SRBs are present, would it not be fair to
assume that if FTS becomes disabled, it is because the rocket has
already begun to disintegrate and would not have thrust to continue
much further ?

I would not make that assuption. Not from my seat in the peanut
gallery anyway.

Question: for manned flight, does FTS automatically trigger capsule
eject mechanism ? what if range safety is triggered wioth nose
pointing horizontal or down at low altitude ?

I would assume that if the FTS were engaged, it should result in the
capsule leaving the stack with some haste. It does not seem much of a
stretch to ass-u-me that with a manned system, in an "incident" the
capsule would start leaving the stack well before the stack was
pointing down, and probably well before it was horizontal. Either at
the command of one of the occupants or an automatic system.

That said, if you do some web searches for ejection seats, you will
find that advanced models can be used in inverted flight at less than
200 feet altitude. Presumeably, in the extremely unlikely event that
a manned capsule would need to separate from an inverted launcher, the
techniques applied to ejection seats could be applied to the capsule
escape system. Perhaps not as close to the ground as can be
accomplished with an ejection seat, but I trust the thrust of the idea
is clear.

Again though, I rather doubt a manned capsule would be allowed to
remain attached to the stack if the stack deviated more than a couple
tens of degrees from the expected flight vector.

rick jones
--
The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
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 2016-09-09 13:28, Rick Jones wrote:

importantly, whether there is a cascade of things going wrong. So,
one cannot, or perhaps more accurately should not, ass-u-me the FTS
will remain operational as the incident progresses.

Fair enough. But if no SRBs are present, would it not be fair to assume
that if FTS becomes disabled, it is because the rocket has already begun
to disintegrate and would not have thrust to continue much further ?


No, it wouldn't. You could, for example, lose connections to the
avionics bay and antennas (at the top of the 2nd stage on a Falcon 9)
and still have a fully functioning (so far as flying goes) main stage
than can hit a densely populated area.


I believe that for the incident in 1996 for which I posted links the
other day, the Chinese had a lift-off delay of 15 seconds or so before
their FTS activated - in the name of protecting the pad.

A 22 second flight that reaches residential neighbourhood points to bad
pad location and failure to trigger FTS before debris would reach
residential area.

This is likely a policy that people are expandable, but the pad isn't so
protect the pad more than the people. They knew within 2 seconds the
rocket was not nominal, so they could have destroyed it the millisecond
it had cleared the pad, before it reached populated area.

You can design clear boundaries for each type of non SRB rocket where
range safety officer is given latitude to wait for rocket to cross that
geographiocal boundary before triggering it. (as opposed to triggering
it the second it goes non-nominal, iorrespective of its positioN/energy).


You still don't understand what Range Safety does and why, do you?


Question: for manned flight, does FTS automatically trigger capsule
eject mechanism ? what if range safety is triggered wioth nose pointing
horizontal or down at low altitude ?


Yes, usually the escape system will fire. Range Safety waited too
long if the rocket is pointed down. Sounds like they followed your
stupid suggestions in that case.


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

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:
In article . com,
says...

On 2016-09-06 13:28, Rick Jones wrote:

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.

Did triggering FTS help reduce pad damage for Antares ? What if allowing
it to continue on inertia had brought it further away from pad to
greatly reduce pad damage?

That's not the point of the FTS. Note what the acronym means: Flight
Termination System. It is designed to stop the launch vehicle from
flying in an uncontrolled fashion. This means it comes down anywhere
along the flight path which ideally has nothing beneath it.
Unfortunately, the launch pad is the notable exception.

crap deleted

Ask the USAF who is in charge of range safety.

I can understand his point that the falling rocket coming back on the
pad is probably not a desirable situation, especially when it can be
avoided.

However, your last sentence sums it all up. FTS is operated by the
USAF, it is not their rocket, it is not their pad, they simply don't
care. They want simple procedures that can be executed by trained apes,
and these are only "destroy when path not nominal", not detailing any
advanced decision criteria like "minimize monetary loss".

I see you have a low level of respect for USAF personnel and their
safety procedures.

It is like the fire brigade cutting off the top of your car when you
have been tailended, "because they don't want to risk you have any
back injury", not considering the level of that risk and not considering
the remaining value of your car. It is not their car, and they have
been instructed to handle incidents this way. The fact that your car
is now a write-off doesn't bother them at all.

So when you're in a wreck, you want the firefighters to pull you out of
the crushed car without regard to the (unknown to them) condition of
your spine. I don't feel like being kind right now, so let me say
that's a special kind of stupid right there.

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 ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 2016-09-08 23:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:

You don't know that any of the preceding statements are true. It had
a first stage engine problem. Suppose it had suddenly got a surge of
thrust again (it's malfunctioning - you don't know what it's going to
do) and hit a populated area?

Was it in any danger of hitting a populated area at time Antares was
detonated: NO.

This is hindsight and armchair quarterbacking of the most dangerous
kind. Please stop!

At the time of the event, you push the big red button because at the
time of the event, you don't *know* what's going to happen. Better to
push the button than to take *any* chance that the thing might kill
someone.

And also because the one who pushes the button is not the owner of the
pad, so he does not care how small the risk is that something bad is
going to happen and how much the damage to the pad will be. It is his
job to push the button so he does not care about those things.

You're ignoring that you can't perform a very complete risk/benefit
analysis in a fraction of a second. That's why they just push the damn
button when there is clear evidence that the vehicle is out of control.
Flames coming out of all of the "exploding" bits of the second stage
qualifies.

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 sci.space.policy message
raweb.com, Thu, 8 Sep 2016 21:29:03, JF Mezei jfmezei.spamnot@vaxinati
on.ca posted:


Contrary to China or French Guinea, KSC and Cape launch towards the
ocean, so unless a rocket veers inland after clearing the tower, the
odds of needing FTS to protect inhabited areas are low.

French Guinea ceased to exist in 1958. It is now, I think, Guinea, in
West Africa. ESA has launch-pads near Kourou in French Guiana, on the
NE coast of South America.

Those ESA pads are about two or three kilometres from the Atlantic
shore, with undeveloped land in between; and otherwise in any direction
between NNW and SE (roughly) there is no substantial land for a very
long way.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Merlyn Web Site - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 3:08:00 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
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.

There you go, projecting your own sickness on to healthy 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.


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.

Please explain that you'vou've actually read and understood how the CSLIC works and its limitations and requirements for efficient operation. Your statements don't reflect this. They reflect the opposite.

That just makes it LESS controlled
and it's probably the last thing you'd want to do.

Shaped charges tear the combustion chamber, and airframe apart. They are positioned to achieve that in each of the stages.

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

That you think it wrong speaks volumes of your lack of knowledge.



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.

You're not being attacked.



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.

Not really.



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.

Yes.

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.

Cite? You are fond of making stuff up and then assuming because it feels right in your gut, that it must be right. The reality is you know absolutely nothing about anything you talk about.

The second stage engine does NOT pass through the
avionics tray,

I'm sure that sounds about right to your ears, but you've OBVIOUSLY never looked at the CAD drawings available for the Falcon have you? lol. I bet if I said they stuff hypergolic fuel inside the upper stage engine atop the booster rocket to augment flight control during landing you'd tell me I was full of **** too right? lol.

https://grabcad.com/library/augmente...on-falcon-9r-1

which is located at the TOP of the second stage, not
the bottom,

Yep, you've never looked at an actual drawing of the thing have you? lol.

directly under the payload shroud attachment point.

Why don't you do yourself a favour and actually get the FTS documents and look at them before commenting on them?

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're projecting again.


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.

I have.

This description is totally wrong,

Cite?

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.

Which tray?


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.

No, you've only convinced yourself - in the complete absence of any real information. That's all.



... 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.

haha - that's funny coming from you - the king of 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.

They were also doing an end-to-end test of the FTS - look it up blowhard. An explosion requires a source of fuel and oxidiser be intimately mixed and detonated. Fuelling ports on rockets are designed to avoid that. FTS systems not so much. The engineers actually charged with reviewing the process, found no source of energy that could account for the explosion. Musk has even gone so far as to ask people for additional video to eliminate the possibility someone fired at it with an MPADS or something similar. That's how difficult the explosion is to explain to a real engineer.



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.

You think they're not I understand that. But you've never looked at a freaking engineering drawing of the Falcon have you?

How would a pyro ABOVE the second stage and
masked by the payload attachment and separation hard do anything at
all to terminate flight?

You've never read the FTS engineering documents for the Falcon have you?



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

It does, but you've convinced yourself otherwise based on absolutely no evidence whatever except your gut feeling about what you think goes on inside a rocket.

and that is the real point. You're making up ****e.

You're projecting again. Look, dig out some engineering prints of the Falcon, a few manuals on how the FTS works, and a print out of what they were doing at the precise moment of the explosion. Show me precisely where and why I'm mistaken about the FTS, and I'll say you've done a good job.

Fact is, you're the one making up **** and projecting the activity on to me.. Because you haven't done any of the things I have to make the statements I've made. You on the other hand make **** up and insanely think is gospel truth because it *seems* right to you. lol.




(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

You've convinced yourself based on absolutely no evidence whatever that you've figured it out and are absolutely right. Fact is you have never looked at an engineering print of the Falcon, you have never looked at the manual for the FTS for the Falcon, and you have never looked at the checklist they were going through at the moment of the explosion. Yet you PRETEND that you've done these things and PRETEND that you've discovered some big ****ing error BECAUSE IT FEELS RIGHT IN YOUR GUT! You big blowhard!@ LOL

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.

You're the one who doesn't know what I said, and doesn't know what you're talking about.

What you
describe is also not how the FTS on the Falcon 9 works.

You haven't read the engineering documents for the Falcon FTS have you?

The Falcon
FTS is not a THRUST termination system.

You haven't read the executive summary describing the purpose of the Falcon FTS have you?

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.

I'm talking about THE MISFIRING OF ONE PYRO IN THE SECOND STAGE YOU BLOW HARD! lol.

Mookie, you can repeat your ignorant ****e all you want.

You're the only one making **** up.

You're wrong
about, well, pretty much everything you keep repeating over and over
and over again.

You've convinced yourself of that - because you're insane.





(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.

So you have read the comments of the certifiers for the Falcon? Your total lack of knowledge says otherwise.

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.

Your ability to read my comments with any measure of understanding is obviously limited.


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.

You have not read the documents relating to the FTS certification for the Falcon have you?



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.

What doesn't make sense to you is that you feel you are right in your gut based only on your instinct. So, reality creates a cognitive dissonance which you project as anger on to others who know something about a subject your gut has informed you on.

It detonated when
it was supposed to.

Keep repeating that - but I don't think the people at SpaceX expected their rocket to explode on the pad when it did. That you think so is a measure of your insanity.




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 ****?

You've never seen the engineering documents for the Falcon FTS have you?

Please cite the rule calling out the mandatory cable length.

Look it up yourself.

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.

You're the one pretending to have done work you haven't done.


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?

You're the one making **** up.


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

The plate is circular, not the particular charge I suspect might be a problem.

AT THE WRONG END OF THE STAGE

Look at the actual documents before you say that again and point to what the hell you're talking about. Fact is you haven't looked at the engineering documents, and you don't know what you're talking about.

when in actuality
the FTS is a LINEAR system that runs down the side of (the other)
stage and cuts open the tanks.

That you think the charge you've read about in the popular press is the ONLY charge and the method the ONLY method, and that the ONLY FTS charge is one on the first stage - and that the CSLIC for the second stage somehow connect to the first stage charge - its all very confused in your head - BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T TROUBLED YOURSELF TO ACTUALLY TAKE ON BOARD ANY REAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION BEFORE FORMING YOUR STUPID OPINIONS.

Mook, you've blown yourself up here.

No, you have, simply because you haven't bothered to check out online resource to try and figure out what I was saying about the pyro that may have detonated during an end to end check of the FTS.

There is no recovery from all
the SIMPLE stuff you've gotten wrong.

The simple stuff gotten wrong is from you because you've never troubled yourself to actually look at a freaking drawing or read a freaking manual - all of which is online.

Stop digging.

Yes, you should take that advice - you ignorant blowhard.


--
"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

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 6:51:47 AM UTC+12, Rick Jones wrote:
In the wake of SpaceX's most recent anomaly:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...acex-to-focus/

rick jones
--
Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that. - Anonymous
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...

The thing that sets SpaceX leagues ahead of all other aerospace companies is its long-term vision. Making humanity a space-faring species. Colonising Mars. He's a strong executive.

In contrast, Eisenhower set up NASA without a strong executive within the agency so NASA could not chart its own course beyond the President's direction. That way a future administration could curtail and eventually end civilian space programme which Eisenhower opposed. He thought civilian space wasteful of resources and a national security threat that could be easily penetrated by US enemies and was forced to approve what Congress wanted after Sputnik. The only real executive vision was vonBraun - and he was sidelined after Apollo and largely silenced during Apollo.

Musk is stirring up the visionary elements around the world and I find it interesting that when a set back occurs, 'expert' opinion urges him to set aside visionary long-term goals and focus on the task at hand - as if that alone will spell long-term success.

William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 3:08:00 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
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.

There you go, projecting your own sickness on to healthy people.


Yes, you are, and it's another of your bad habits we wish you would
curtail.






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.


Please explain that you'vou've actually read and understood how the CSLIC works and its limitations and requirements for efficient operation. Your statements don't reflect this. They reflect the opposite.


Evasion noted.


That just makes it LESS controlled
and it's probably the last thing you'd want to do.

Shaped charges tear the combustion chamber, and airframe apart. They are positioned to achieve that in each of the stages.


Well, no, they aren't.


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

That you think it wrong speaks volumes of your lack of knowledge.


It's a picture of a FALCON 1. It was labeled that in your original
posting. The rocket the blew up was a Falcon 9. Your picture is from
the wrong rocket, doesn't show any explosives, and I don't doubt
you're still claiming that the combustion chamber for the second stage
is ABOVE the fuel tanks (which is where the avionics bay that you
insist it passes through is).





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.


You're not being attacked.


Great. So I'm not attacking you when I say you are a mentally ill and
abysmally ignorant git.





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.


Not really.


Yeah, really, unless you're claiming that the Falcon 9 is using an FTS
that it isn't using. But hey, why not? I mean you've already got it
using an avionics bay from a different rocket and have placed the
combustion chamber at the TOP of the stage...




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.


Yes.


Cite?


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.

Cite? You are fond of making stuff up and then assuming because it feels right in your gut, that it must be right. The reality is you know absolutely nothing about anything you talk about.


Jesus Christ, Mook, the avionics tray is at the TOP of the second
stage right under the payload adapter. The combustion chamber that
you claim passes through it is at the BOTTOM of the stage, where it
belongs.

Yes, I know this is the layout of a Falcon 1, but that's what you
posted a picture of the avionics tray from. Note the position of the
avionics tray and the second stage engine.

https://www.wired.com/2007/05/ff-space-rockets/


The second stage engine does NOT pass through the
avionics tray,

I'm sure that sounds about right to your ears, but you've OBVIOUSLY never looked at the CAD drawings available for the Falcon have you? lol. I bet if I said they stuff hypergolic fuel inside the upper stage engine atop the booster rocket to augment flight control during landing you'd tell me I was full of **** too right? lol.


It sounds about right because it's a FACT, you ****ing idiot. What
moron (other than Mookie) would position the avionics tray in one of
the highest heat areas of the rocket?

And yes, if you "said they stuff hypergolic fuel inside the upper
stage engine atop the booster rocket to augment flight control during
landing" I would indeed tell you you are full of ****, because the
upper stage doesn't land. If the PAYLOAD happens to be a Falcon V2 I
would believe a statement that the PAYLOAD has hypergolics aboard.


https://grabcad.com/library/augmente...on-falcon-9r-1


Even if this DRAWING wasn't just speculative, I'll note that the
'stuffing' is proposed for the INTERSTAGE, which puts it on top of the
first stage and not on the 'upper stage' at all.


which is located at the TOP of the second stage, not
the bottom,

Yep, you've never looked at an actual drawing of the thing have you? lol.


Yep, you say **** and then lol as if you've said something sensible.


directly under the payload shroud attachment point.

Why don't you do yourself a favour and actually get the FTS documents and look at them before commenting on them?


Why don't you do yourself a favour and actually pull your head out of
your ass and admit you posted a picture of the wrong avionics tray and
have got it located in entirely the wrong part of the rocket?



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're projecting again.


And what I'm projecting is FACTS, which you are obviously resistant
to.




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.


I have.


Now pull your head out of your ass, clean the **** out of your eyes,
and look again.


This description is totally wrong,

Cite?


See the drawing cited above.


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.

Which tray?


The one you posted a picture of, you dip****.




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.


No, you've only convinced yourself - in the complete absence of any real information. That's all.


Mook, you are seriously in need of psychiatric help. Go back to the
hospital.




... 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.


haha - that's funny coming from you - the king of wrong.


haha - I note you like to call for cites but ignore them when you get
them, meanwhile posting NO applicable cites yourself.




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.

They were also doing an end-to-end test of the FTS - look it up blowhard.


Uh, Mookie? An "end to end test of the FTS" would involve
deliberately blowing up the rocket. Is it your claim that they
DELIBERATELY BLEW UP THE ROCKET AS A TEST *** WHILE LOADING LOX ***?


An explosion requires a source of fuel and oxidiser be intimately mixed and detonated. Fuelling ports on rockets are designed to avoid that. FTS systems not so much. The engineers actually charged with reviewing the process, found no source of energy that could account for the explosion. Musk has even gone so far as to ask people for additional video to eliminate the possibility someone fired at it with an MPADS or something similar. That's how difficult the explosion is to explain to a real engineer.


And you think the engineers are just unaware of the existence of the
FTS? Mook, they haven't found the cause yet. It's that simple. You
think FTS systems are NOT designed to avoid random detonation? Wow,
you've exceeded your prior demonstrated ignorance.




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.


You think they're not I understand that. But you've never looked at a freaking engineering drawing of the Falcon have you?


Have you? Cite?


How would a pyro ABOVE the second stage and
masked by the payload attachment and separation hard do anything at
all to terminate flight?

You've never read the FTS engineering documents for the Falcon have you?


Have you? Cite?




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


It does, but you've convinced yourself otherwise based on absolutely no evidence whatever except your gut feeling about what you think goes on inside a rocket.


It doesn't, but you've convinced yourself otherwise base on absolutely
no evidence whatever except a tingling in your anus.


and that is the real point. You're making up ****e.

You're projecting again. Look, dig out some engineering prints of the Falcon, a few manuals on how the FTS works, and a print out of what they were doing at the precise moment of the explosion. Show me precisely where and why I'm mistaken about the FTS, and I'll say you've done a good job.


You claim to have done all that? Cite?


Fact is, you're the one making up **** and projecting the activity on to me. Because you haven't done any of the things I have to make the statements I've made. You on the other hand make **** up and insanely think is gospel truth because it *seems* right to you. lol.


No, I haven't reached into my ass and plucked out a silly claim based
on ignorance and pictures of the wrong bloody rocket. That would be
you.






(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


You've convinced yourself based on absolutely no evidence whatever that you've figured it out and are absolutely right. Fact is you have never looked at an engineering print of the Falcon, you have never looked at the manual for the FTS for the Falcon, and you have never looked at the checklist they were going through at the moment of the explosion. Yet you PRETEND that you've done these things and PRETEND that you've discovered some big ****ing error BECAUSE IT FEELS RIGHT IN YOUR GUT! You big blowhard!@ LOL


I've convinced myself based on drawings showing the location of the
avionics tray and where sane people put things on a rocket. You have
never looked at anything other than other peoples' cocktail napkin
drawings and you've never done any of the things you claim you have
done. I've discovered YOU making a big ****ing error, but that's not
at all unusual so it's no big deal.


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.

You're the one who doesn't know what I said, and doesn't know what you're talking about.


I know precisely what you said and it was an enormously ignorant
statement. YOU said that the pyro for the FTS was on the bottom of
the avionics tray and that the hole in the tray was there so that the
combustion chamber of the second stage could pass through it because
the FTS cut the combustion chamber in half to terminate thrust.

Your problem is that the avionics tray is at the wrong end of the
stage for the combustion chamber to pass through it and that the FTS
on the Falcon is a LINEAR charge of pyros down the side of the rocket
that blows open tankage.


What you
describe is also not how the FTS on the Falcon 9 works.

You haven't read the engineering documents for the Falcon FTS have you?


You haven't read the engineering documents for the Falcon FTS have
you?


The Falcon
FTS is not a THRUST termination system.

You haven't read the executive summary describing the purpose of the Falcon FTS have you?


I don't need to have. It's an FTS and not a TTS and it MUST be an FTS
vice a TTS because of where they're launching from and the nature of
the launch. Or have you not read the documents that determine what is
needed in ANY vehicle launching from those launch sites?


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.

I'm talking about THE MISFIRING OF ONE PYRO IN THE SECOND STAGE YOU BLOW HARD! lol.


Yes, I know you are, but that pyro DOESN'T EXIST YOU IGNORANT ****!
lol.



Mookie, you can repeat your ignorant ****e all you want.


You're the only one making **** up.


Mook, you're mentally ill. Face it. The Mighty Mookie can be wrong.
With treatment they can probably help you realize that so you won't
sound such a stupid git.



You're wrong
about, well, pretty much everything you keep repeating over and over
and over again.


You've convinced yourself of that - because you're insane.


Yeah, Mookie. It's everyone else that's crazy and not you.






(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.


So you have read the comments of the certifiers for the Falcon? Your total lack of knowledge says otherwise.


So YOU claim to have read the comments of the certifiers for the
Falcon? Cite? Yeah, I thought not.


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.

Your ability to read my comments with any measure of understanding is obviously limited.


Your ability to write your comments with any measure of coherence is
obviously more than limited.




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.


You have not read the documents relating to the FTS certification for the Falcon have you?


And you claim you HAVE read the documents relating to the FTS
certification for the Falcon? Cite?

*I* know that an FTS system that just randomly goes off won't be
certified. You obviously disagree. It makes me happy that you're not
involved in certifying those systems.






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.


What doesn't make sense to you is that you feel you are right in your gut based only on your instinct. So, reality creates a cognitive dissonance which you project as anger on to others who know something about a subject your gut has informed you on.


What doesn't make sense to me is the nonsensical and counterfactual
****e that you tend to emit. As for the rest of your comments, you're
merely projecting again.


It detonated when
it was supposed to.

Keep repeating that - but I don't think the people at SpaceX expected their rocket to explode on the pad when it did. That you think so is a measure of your insanity.


We're talking about the one in flight that you posted a cite to to
show how an FTS could just randomly destroy a rocket. Can you not
even keep up with your own insanity?






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 ****?


You've never seen the engineering documents for the Falcon FTS have you?


And you claim you have? Cite?



Please cite the rule calling out the mandatory cable length.


Look it up yourself.


In other words, you've made **** up, been called on it, and have
bupkis.


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.

You're the one pretending to have done work you haven't done.


Evasion noted. Claim exploded.




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?


You're the one making **** up.


Evasion noted. Claim exploded.




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


The plate is circular, not the particular charge I suspect might be a problem.


YOU claimed it was circular around the hole in the center of the
avionics tray so as to cut the combustion chamber in half.


AT THE WRONG END OF THE STAGE

Look at the actual documents before you say that again and point to what the hell you're talking about. Fact is you haven't looked at the engineering documents, and you don't know what you're talking about.


And you claim you have? Cite?

Meanwhile, see the cite from Wired that shows how this **** is laid
out.


when in actuality
the FTS is a LINEAR system that runs down the side of (the other)
stage and cuts open the tanks.

That you think the charge you've read about in the popular press is the ONLY charge and the method the ONLY method, and that the ONLY FTS charge is one on the first stage - and that the CSLIC for the second stage somehow connect to the first stage charge - its all very confused in your head - BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T TROUBLED YOURSELF TO ACTUALLY TAKE ON BOARD ANY REAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION BEFORE FORMING YOUR STUPID OPINIONS.


Cite? All you've done so far is post a picture of the avionics tray
FROM THE WRONG ****ING ROCKET and then pull dingleberries of
speculation out of your ass.



Mook, you've blown yourself up here.


No, you have, simply because you haven't bothered to check out online resource to try and figure out what I was saying about the pyro that may have detonated during an end to end check of the FTS.


I don't spend a lot of time trying to 'figure out' nonsense that the
poster is too stupid and inarticulate to actually express in
comprehensible form. I take them at what they say and you said there
are pyros where there aren't in order to blow up something that is at
the other end of the stage with NEITHER the pyro nor the combustion
chamber being located at the LOX fueling station.


There is no recovery from all
the SIMPLE stuff you've gotten wrong.

The simple stuff gotten wrong is from you because you've never troubled yourself to actually look at a freaking drawing or read a freaking manual - all of which is online.


No, wrong is wrong. Post cites to all these documents you claim to
have read.


Stop digging.

Yes, you should take that advice - you ignorant blowhard.


Do what you want, you ignorant mentally ill ****. If you want to look
even more like an ignorant ass than everyone here already took you
for, why you just go ahead.


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