|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon 9 anomaly not related to FTS
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. Get help... -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |