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

Falcon 9 anomaly not related to FTS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 4th 16, 08:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Rob[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Falcon 9 anomaly not related to FTS

William Mook wrote:
On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 12:30:13 AM UTC+13, Rob wrote:
William Mook wrote:
Well, I didn't read the conclusions you refer to, from the 'Youtube expert' you cite, so I don't know why this person you mention said what they did. I can only say why I said what I did.


I would expect that, when you are so interested in finding the cause
of the mishap, you would follow other people's attempts as well.


I have followed SpaceX's efforts quite closely and Scott Manley. I don't know this person you cite. You didn't name them nor give any links. Their idea must have been eliminated by the logic of my search algorithms - since I eliminated anything outside the body of the rocket as the cause.


I am surprised that you are not able to find this person yourself,
given your acclaimed analytic capacity. Anyway, he is not Scott Manley
(who mainly describes what he sees and does not draw many conclusions),
but he is active on the Youtube channel TechX.

The helium sphere and detcord were early suspects for the reasons I've already stated. If it wasn't the FTS then its a big mystery as to why a helium sphere would fail like that. When the S-IVB-503 test detonated in 1967 due to helium sphere failure, it was due to poor welds. A composite over-wrapped helium tank doesn't have welds like that. So, the failure mode is unknown at the present time. Though the microscopic examination of the parts pretty much points to the helium spheres failing.


TechX shows that the center of the initial explosion was in the tower
(or strongback as they apparently call it at SpaceX) and it was shrapnel
from the tower structure that pierced the tanks, maybe also the helium
tanks, leading to the major fuel explosion. Initial direction of the
explosion and shrapnel is not consistent with an explosion originating
inside the second stage.

Musk himself hasn't ruled out sabotage.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-new...losion-n658821

So, its an ongoing investigation.


Sure it is. But there are many people investigating and it seems like
a good idea to look at eachothers findings at least to get other ideas,
even if not agreeing with them.
  #12  
Old October 4th 16, 12:13 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Falcon 9 anomaly not related to FTS

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 12:08:39 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 1:51:26 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

SpaceX today released a preliminary determination that the 'anomaly'
was caused by "a large breach in the cryogenic helium system of the
second stage liquid oxygen tank". They are looking for what could
have caused that.

There ain't no FTS in there, so the FTS couldn't have caused this.
Those who latched onto the FTS as the 'cause' and wouldn't let go (to
the point of claiming things that they couldn't substantiate) should
hang their heads in shame.

Yep.


Not sure why you felt the need to keep supporting your position that the
FTS was the cause, because it wasn't.


Beause of the location nature and timing of the explosion indicated
very possibly the FTS. Microscopic examination of the parts that
were gathered together after the explosion indicated that there were
no explosive residue. Re-assembly of the parts pointed clearly to a
failed helium pressure tank. Why that tank would fail is still
unknown. Sabotage hasn't been eliminated.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-new...losion-n658821


You keep saying the helium tank failed, but SpaceX has said (from the
article you cite above), "preliminary review of the data and debris
suggests a breach in the second stage's helium system".

They do not say the helium tank failed. In fact, if the tank failed,
one would expect the data to clearly implicate the tank. That
apparently is not the case.

So, I snipped everything you
wrote about the FTS.


Your loss.


You have no credible cite that the FTS was the cause. This is your
speculation, but you have nothing solid to back it up. Nothing that I
have seen coming from SpaceX has said anything about the FTS being a
possible cause, let alone the cause.

SpaceX has determined that there was a failure somewhere in the helium
pressurization system of the 2nd stage.


Correct for the reasons indicated. The FTS was also checked as the
source as well, for the reasons indicated.


Everything is going to be "checked", but apparently there is no
indication that the FTS was the root cause, since again "preliminary
review of the data and debris suggests a breach in the second stage's
helium system".

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.
  #13  
Old October 4th 16, 08:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Falcon 9 anomaly not related to FTS

Poor Mookie. Still stuck on stupid (and detcord).

William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 12:30:13 AM UTC+13, Rob wrote:
William Mook wrote:
Well, I didn't read the conclusions you refer to, from the 'Youtube expert' you cite, so I don't know why this person you mention said what they did. I can only say why I said what I did.


I would expect that, when you are so interested in finding the cause
of the mishap, you would follow other people's attempts as well.


I have followed SpaceX's efforts quite closely and Scott Manley. I don't know this person you cite. You didn't name them nor give any links. Their idea must have been eliminated by the logic of my search algorithms - since I eliminated anything outside the body of the rocket as the cause.

The helium sphere and detcord were early suspects for the reasons I've already stated. If it wasn't the FTS then its a big mystery as to why a helium sphere would fail like that. When the S-IVB-503 test detonated in 1967 due to helium sphere failure, it was due to poor welds. A composite over-wrapped helium tank doesn't have welds like that. So, the failure mode is unknown at the present time. Though the microscopic examination of the parts pretty much points to the helium spheres failing.

Musk himself hasn't ruled out sabotage.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-new...losion-n658821

So, its an ongoing investigation.

  #15  
Old October 9th 16, 04:00 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Falcon 9 anomaly not related to FTS

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 8:18:18 PM UTC+13, Rob wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 12:30:13 AM UTC+13, Rob wrote:
William Mook wrote:
Well, I didn't read the conclusions you refer to, from the 'Youtube expert' you cite, so I don't know why this person you mention said what they did. I can only say why I said what I did.

I would expect that, when you are so interested in finding the cause
of the mishap, you would follow other people's attempts as well.


I have followed SpaceX's efforts quite closely and Scott Manley. I don't know this person you cite. You didn't name them nor give any links. Their idea must have been eliminated by the logic of my search algorithms - since I eliminated anything outside the body of the rocket as the cause.


I am surprised that you are not able to find this person yourself,


Why? I haven't looked.

given your acclaimed analytic capacity.


Who acclaims that? My ability to analyse is totally independent of knowing abut the person you are speaking of but not naming specifically.

Anyway, he is not Scott Manley


I didn't say he was. I said I like Scott Manley's review of events.

(who mainly describes what he sees and does not draw many conclusions),


Interesting judgement.

but he is active on the Youtube channel TechX.


So?

The helium sphere and detcord were early suspects for the reasons I've already stated. If it wasn't the FTS then its a big mystery as to why a helium sphere would fail like that. When the S-IVB-503 test detonated in 1967 due to helium sphere failure, it was due to poor welds. A composite over-wrapped helium tank doesn't have welds like that. So, the failure mode is unknown at the present time. Though the microscopic examination of the parts pretty much points to the helium spheres failing.


TechX shows that the center of the initial explosion was in the tower
(or strongback as they apparently call it at SpaceX)


That's not what the lens flare in the video of the explosion pointed to. Now, this may not be the originating event, only those with access to all the data are in a position to work that out.

and it was shrapnel
from the tower structure that pierced the tanks, maybe also the helium
tanks, leading to the major fuel explosion. Initial direction of the
explosion and shrapnel is not consistent with an explosion originating
inside the second stage.


I haven't seen that analysis

Musk himself hasn't ruled out sabotage.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-new...losion-n658821

So, its an ongoing investigation.


Sure it is.


Agreed.

But there are many people investigating and it seems like
a good idea to look at eachothers findings at least to get other ideas,
even if not agreeing with them.


Sure, but I haven't seen the analysis you're referring to so I can't comment on it.

  #16  
Old October 9th 16, 04:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Falcon 9 anomaly not related to FTS

On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 8:13:48 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 12:08:39 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 1:51:26 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

SpaceX today released a preliminary determination that the 'anomaly'
was caused by "a large breach in the cryogenic helium system of the
second stage liquid oxygen tank". They are looking for what could
have caused that.

There ain't no FTS in there, so the FTS couldn't have caused this.
Those who latched onto the FTS as the 'cause' and wouldn't let go (to
the point of claiming things that they couldn't substantiate) should
hang their heads in shame.

Yep.

Not sure why you felt the need to keep supporting your position that the
FTS was the cause, because it wasn't.


Beause of the location nature and timing of the explosion indicated very possibly the FTS.


No. It was because you're stupid and convinced that you can't ever
possibly be wrong about anything due to your mental illness.


Wait a minute, you obviously didn't read the comment I made stating specifically I was wrong about the FTS originally? How do you conclude from a bald statement from someone they were wrong that they have a mental illness that precludes them from accepting they are ever wrong? (if that is indeed a mental illness - do you have a citation on that?)

Get help...


You certainly need it. Others, not so much.



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


  #17  
Old October 9th 16, 04:09 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Falcon 9 anomaly not related to FTS

On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 8:07:07 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Poor Mookie. Still stuck on stupid (and detcord).


In response to your top posting - I must say Poor Freddie - the consummate narcissist.

William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 12:30:13 AM UTC+13, Rob wrote:
William Mook wrote:
Well, I didn't read the conclusions you refer to, from the 'Youtube expert' you cite, so I don't know why this person you mention said what they did. I can only say why I said what I did.

I would expect that, when you are so interested in finding the cause
of the mishap, you would follow other people's attempts as well.


I have followed SpaceX's efforts quite closely and Scott Manley. I don't know this person you cite. You didn't name them nor give any links. Their idea must have been eliminated by the logic of my search algorithms - since I eliminated anything outside the body of the rocket as the cause.

The helium sphere and detcord were early suspects for the reasons I've already stated. If it wasn't the FTS then its a big mystery as to why a helium sphere would fail like that. When the S-IVB-503 test detonated in 1967 due to helium sphere failure, it was due to poor welds. A composite over-wrapped helium tank doesn't have welds like that. So, the failure mode is unknown at the present time. Though the microscopic examination of the parts pretty much points to the helium spheres failing.

Musk himself hasn't ruled out sabotage.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-new...losion-n658821

So, its an ongoing investigation.


  #18  
Old October 9th 16, 05:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rob[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Falcon 9 anomaly not related to FTS

Ok so you only want to enforce your own view on the matter but you
are not interested in other people's views?

Good luck with that!
  #19  
Old October 9th 16, 10:11 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Falcon 9 anomaly not related to FTS

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 5:34:57 AM UTC+13, Rob wrote:
Ok so you only want to enforce your own view on the matter but you
are not interested in other people's views?


I said I'm not aware of the details you speak of so cannot comment on them. I welcome your detailed discussion of the matter if you wish.

Good luck with that!


You too.

  #20  
Old October 10th 16, 03:19 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Falcon 9 anomaly not related to FTS

Rob wrote:

Ok so you only want to enforce your own view on the matter but you
are not interested in other people's views?

Good luck with that!


Mookie thinks Usenet is a personal blog tool.


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




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
Falcon 1 "anomaly" Alan Erskine[_2_] History 0 August 3rd 08 04:49 AM
What is this? (shuttle related) John[_3_] Space Shuttle 28 July 19th 08 02:46 AM
an astronomy related cartoon... Howard Lester Amateur Astronomy 4 October 5th 07 05:57 AM
OT-But at least it is related to Math ilaab Amateur Astronomy 11 July 26th 06 05:50 AM
A Boinc Related FAQ Klaatu SETI 4 July 21st 04 06:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:58 PM.


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.