Why Did A Rocket With A Secret Payload *Implode* on the Pad?
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2024
- Sure, I cover exploding rockets all the time, but much rarer are the cases where rockets did the opposite. Some Rockets designs rely on gas pressure to support their tanks, and when leaks happen the tanks implode and collapse. These are called 'Balloon Tanks' and they enable much thinner, lighter tanks to be used, improving the performance of the rocket at the expense of making them harder to handle on the ground.
The Atlas Rocket used Balloon tanks up until 2005, and the centaur upper stage still uses them. - Věda a technologie
NASA has posted video of the SLS tank buckling:
twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1204163744814772224?s=20
Just FYI, the time delay between the buckle and the rupture was about 11 minutes
As always...Thanks very much...!
Cardboard’s out... That really unzipped pretty quickly but I couldn’t tell where it failed first. Great result though.
@@thethirdman225 the buckle happened maybe a 18-24 inches below the white square. it resulted in enough of a crack that we could hear the nitrogen leaking out. Eleven minutes later the crack propogated both up and down from that middle point and ripped the front wide open.
Mike Nichols Great. Thanks for the info. I’ll have another look at it.
"Rockets are filled with explody stuff" Most scientifically-technical assessment I have ever heard. Well done you.
You guys know there's a difference between implode and explode right
Actually, I also love his accent and how it perfectly fits his enthusiasm.
@@bobski8203 Aye cap'n. How quaint.
@@parabolicfinancenews9887and you understand why thats not a relevent distinction here.
“Rockets are full of explody stuff.” -Scott Manley, December 2019
I want you to put a lot of energy in a small space.
.... safely. No problem, right?
Splody is the correct term
Or how to get more bang for your buck.
Well.....he’s not wrong.....
If i were you, I'd send that word to Webster's for entry in next printing of dictionary.
"Explosion fatigue" sounds like the limiting factor on an Orion pusher plate's lifetime.
lel
A materials creepy death.
Gotta be careful of thermal cycling, keep your cyclists at a constant temperature!
And microfractures ruining your day, keep your fractures on the macro scale! Otherwise it makes the error of your weight (and thus mass) measures complicated.
@@glenmcgillivray4707 methinks that the only advantage a macrofracture has over a microfracture is that you can see the former and decide not to use the engine.
Mr. Torgue would be appalled if he heard this phrase uttered by someone
Those nasa boys have pretty nice hydraulic press :D
I want to see them put an SLS sized Swedish-English dictionary in it.
Imagine finding you two here 😀
Yeah, we're pretty proud of our hydraulic cylinders..... ;-)
Yes. Quite imPRESSive.
Holy shit
*_"If this WORKS, it is going to be COOL!"_*
*_"If this DOES NOT WORK, it is going to be REALLY COOL!!"_*
😄😄😄😄
Caps, italics, emboldened, punctuated and with emoji's too.
Explain
@@burtlangoustine1 >>> No, I did NOT use the word _"Explain"_ in my post.
:~)°
KSP in a nutshell
@ Don't forget the Mythbusters. 😀
Well, if the failure is due to a fuel leak, there's a very good chance that it will be literally and extremely "cool" until the fuel explodes...
That's some incredible staging happening at 8:48. A sattelite pulling away from an accelerating upper stage, while leaving no visible exhaust.
Trivia note: Werner von Braun was less than thrilled with the thought of using balloon tanks on any rocket, but particularly a man-rated one. He finally was persuaded to stop fighting the desire to use them when the Atlas program manager invited him to come down to the factory with a sledgehammer and try to put it through the side of a pressurized Atlas missile--apparently, both NASA and the Air Force put the kibosh on that idea right quick (more out of the worry von Braun would injure himself than anything else), but it got the point across.
Good story -- though some details seem to have been slightly different. It was not von Braun himself, but Willie Mrazek, von Braun’s Structural Section Chief. And he *did* get hit when the hammer bounced off.
von Braun's mistrust for Atlas had to do with more than just its structural design -- despite program's eventual success, there were numerous problems early on. The details of the story can be found in this "NASA history series" report: "Taming liquid hydrogen : the Centaur upper stage rocket, 1958-2002" / Virginia P. Dawson, Mark D. Bowles. p. cm. (NASA-SP-2004-4230)
On pages 38-39 you will find the following:
_To quell Mrazek’s doubts, Bossart invited him to take a sledge hammer and give the tank a whack. Failing to put even the slightest dent in the tank, he tried again, this time giving the side of the tank a glancing blow that caused the sledge hammer to fly out of his hand, knocking his glasses off, but again leaving the surface unscathed. Although this test may have proved the strength of the balloon structure, it did nothing to endear General Dynamics to Mrazek or win the von Braun group’s faith in the ability of Centaur to lift an expensive spacecraft into space._
Interestingly using pressure for structure is used everywhere, in the most unexpected of places. For instance coke cans use the liquid inside to remain strong, if was only due to their strength alone they wouldn't be able to support anywhere near enough weight when they're stacked and would require a huge increase to aluminium used. Pressure and a thin walled container really is one of the most efficient ways to make a device strong.
When you’re pretty sure you’re basically riding a controlled explosion, but the rocket implodes.
The good ol' switcheroo
Pulled a sneaky on ya
Yeah NASA planed this
You could call this series "When NASA went more Kerbal."
Lol, yea
Shirt idea:
“FLY SAFE”
With an exploding or collapsing rocket behind it.
"FLY SAFE" with an exploding rocket behind it and a capsule escaping with a Launch Escape System
@@gildedbear5355 I will buy this.
Fly safe with a rocket inside a condom
Fly safe with a rocket stuck nose first in the dirt
Mitchell Kelly pointy side up
6:13 I've always hated when my rocket goes limp.
Hmmm, the Heat Seeking Moisture Missile.
It happens with older rockets. It's a more common problem than most people realise.
Doesn't happen with this older rocket. I do yoga.
perhaps they should add liquid Viagra to the mix.
@@pentagramprime1585 I use a Popsicle stick and electrical tape to keep me flying safe.
Seeing that the SLS tank withstood *260% load* for *five hours* makes me feel pretty good. That's waaaay beyond anything they'd normally see - hell, if you could get that kind of reliability on every part I'd almost be convinced to scrap the launch escape system.
Almost.
These margins are common for aerospace technology. And they are quite often necessary.
Implosion... An amazing word my language has no direct translation for, only for "explosion", and then you have to explain "implosion" with a couple of words. But "Implosion" is like... You hear it and you instantly know exactly what happened by just how it sounds. Rapid unscheduled shrinking.
It was going well until it imploded!
Languages are wonderful things, aren't they.
Это точно!
Centaur, a perfect example of ,"If It Ain't Broke Don't Fix It." You could probably do an entire series on that alone.
Fun fact: everyone's favorite un-sticker-izer, wd-40, was first invented to protect the fragile steel tank walls of the atlas rockets from rust which, even in very minuscule amounts, could catastrophically ruin their structural integrity.
WD-Farty
and if memory serves it was the 40th try that was a success.
@@a-fl-man640 WD-39 just never caught on. Sort of like that soft drink, 6-Up. 😉
@ well it isn't really a lubricant...
It's name is literally "water displacement 40"
I use it on the aircraft I work on, and when I'm asked why am I using stuff I bought at the local hardware store, I start with " Let me tell you what this cheap stuff was made for...." 😂😂😂
"explody stuff" - Seems scientific to me.
Lol
Reminds me of an old Aero Prof of mine who summed up a whole blackboard of equations with the phrase: "Zooo, as you can zee, no vhoosh, no zoom". I think he would have been perfectly happy with "explody stuff".
I LOL'd
@Nobody Special ... only when you document it... remember your lessons from Mythbusters: it's not science if you don't take notes! :D
I could listen to Scott say "balloon" literally all day!
6:18 This flaccid rocket looks so sad.
Failure to keep your rocket upright is a common reason for people to feel sad.
I hear "explosion fatigue" can really cause some issues when trying to get your thrust up.
Scrolled down just to see an erection joke.
@@etatauri hahaha,nice one :-)
@@freaky_freek haha
First there was hopper. Then there was popper! Never a dull moment.
Back in the eartly 1960s, my uncle came back from working at the Cape with a film reel of all of the early Atlas explosions. My cousins & I sat on the floor watching them all. Dad explained to me that the Atlas didn't have the internal structure to stand by itself. There was a sample Atlas rocket at a park outside of General Dynamics plant. He showed me the wooden frame inside that was holding it up.
I hate when you lose pressure before mission is completed.
Even worse before the mission has started. That's just a waste of an expensive dinner. And possibly the reason why she won't return your calls. Better watch "There's something about Mary"...
Actually, Scott, the Atlas II did use SRBs and they were attached to the booster stage's thrust-structure (The part that's jettisoned after the booster engines are shut down).
Yes you're right.
@@scottmanley Note Atlas III was designed for SRBs as well. It had to have the tube supports upgraded due to the g loading the SRB put on the thrust section.
"260% of flight load for about 5 hours." Is that sufficient for a speed run to the moon?
*to the Mun
@@MysterDaftGame *to the Mün
@@Musikur thats something for the future, real life lunar speedruns
Lunar landing [any%] in 15min
"The pressure inside those tanks is what kept the rocket rigid" That's what *he* said...
If the rocket stays rigid for more than 4 hours.....give the rocket surgeon a high 5
Yeah, just when you though a rocket launch couldn't become any more phallic, lol
@@dELTA13579111315 Hahahahahahahaha!
A coworker of mine worked on the atlas earlier in his career. The atlasses were stored under positive pressure until they could be finished. He told me of a 4th of July weekend at the San Diego plant. A supervisor was required to come in and verify pressure periodically on the Atlas semi-formed fuselages to make sure nothing crumpled. He parked his truck near the tanks and walked down to inspect them. Unfortunately he had failed to set the parking brake on the truck which rolled down and impacted the first of the missiles. It popped like a balloon, but the popping created shrapnel which took out the next one - and so on. They lost 8 of the ten missiles that day, and in the subsequent inquiry the supervisor (who miraculously was completely unscathed) was discharged
That is the story as it was told to me by Chuck Greenman. A wwII vet who swam towing an unconscious man hundreds of yards with a broken pelvis after a crash in the south pacific.
6:25 Wait until the space deniers find that photo. They will go absolutly mad. I can already hear them saying things like "It's a proof that the Saturn five was a rocket-assisted balloon!".
I thought this same thing!
Hi Scott--It also turns out that the leaking LOX badly damaged the launcher itself. The launcher structure was made of structural steel that doesn't have much fracture toughness down at LOX temperatures.
*SpaceX Starship* tank blew.
NASA SLS: *hold my LOX*
SpaceX: keeps sipping it's nitrogen
Its incredible those balloon tanks never collapsed during launch as the fuel was consumed and pressure dropped. I guess by the time that could happen, that stage is ready to separate?
They keep them pressurized with another gas or by injecting some exhaust, depending on the rocket! I'm not sure what Atlas used, but most rockets need pressure in the tanks to help fuel flow, so the falcon 9 uses helium, some russian rockets burn some fuel to add exhaust, and some others boil liquid nitrogen I think.
@@revenevan11 that Russian idea definitely sounds like a great plan. (In a Russian accent) "Let's mix hot gases with fuel and/or oxidizer to keep rocket safe"
@@thePronto lol, it totally does! Just like the germans and Russians using concentrated vodka as an early rocket fuel! But in reality the fuel and oxidizer are in separate tanks so it shouldn't cause any issues, since there's no oxygen in the fuel tank, and I'd assume an insignificant amount in the exhaust if things are going according to plan. But, there's probably good reasons we don't see it used today!
@@revenevan11 Atlas used helium in very much the same way as Falcon-9 does, except that in Atlas, the helium bottles were cooled by liquid nitrogen, while Falcon-9 puts the bottles directly in the LOX tank. Both rockets heat the helium by turbine exhaust before using it for tank pressurization.
Russians did use gas generators to pressurize tanks on some rockets. Proton is one of such rockets that still flies. I think Russians had already experimented with this idea before the war, but so did the Germans. Karl-Heinz Bringer in Peenemunde have developed gas generators which burned hypergolic fuel components and then cooled the gas by injecting water. The resulting steam was inert enough to be used for pressurizing both the oxidizer tank and the fuel tank. After the war he went to France, and many French rockets used this system, including the first stage of Ariane-1 through 4, which also had its engines designed by Bringer.
Yes number 5! Great video Scott. I thought I knew some stuff about rockets. At forty years old I just learned that those cool looking metal rockets were balloons. Mind blown!
A couple of thoughts on the pressure stabilized "steel balloon" structures:
1) It should be noted that in flight loss of tank pressurization is a flight loss for any rocket. The structure of "free standing" designs are not designed to carry the propellant loads without pressurization. The pumps also require pressure on the inlets to prevent cavitation on the low pressure sides of the impellers and stators (forming tiny near vacuum gas bubbles in the flow). When these bubble collapse they generate momentary high pressures and temperatures. When this happens with the LOX pump, the metal surfaces catch fire with disastrous effects.
3) Solid motors can be integrated to the tank using an internal ring structure as the Atlas 2A demonstrated.
4) The real advantage of this construction technique is it decouples the requirement to be "column stable" under compression loads. This means that the material density is *not* a design requirement. Longerons, low density composite walls, honeycomb structures, and complex panel wall machining are unnecessary. The only figures of merit to consider are strength to weight and weldability. This opens up a world of potential materials, including refractory alloys that could make a reusable system simpler than competing concepts due to the near complete elimination of the acreage high temperature TPS. Post flight inspections would be vastly simplified by the single membrane tankage walls that would be completely exposed for both visual and gas leak detection.
5) Scot noted that the Atlas was close to being an SSTO. Putting numbers to this - Mercury capsule weighted about 5,000 lbs and the booster motors and aft skirt that were jettisoned weight about 7,000 lbs. The Atlas was within 2,000 lbs of being an SSTO out of the 350,000 lb lift off weight with second generation MA-5 engines that were capable of a whopping 295 sec vacuum Isp. SpaceX's Merlin 1B, running of the same propellants advertises 310 sec and RD-191 337 seconds, likely close to the practical limit for RP1. The SpaceX Raptor advertises 363 seconds on the somewhat less dense methane, likely the best that can be done with a hydrocarbon. Diving into LH2, the RS-25 demonstrated 452.3 seconds For a 30,000 ft/sec mission this would yield a 16%, 48%, 80%, and 200% increase in injected mass respectively (Low LEO with 5kft/sec assumed aero and gravity losses).
6) There are two big disadvantages to the pressure stabilized concepts. The first is perception, it just seems flimsy and look flimsy when held depressurized in a stretch fixture. The second is the tooling required to manufacture this class of structures is expensive and complicated; all the weld joints must be supported both internally and externally. The Atlas internal fixture collapsed like a monster umbrella to pull it out the end access panel. The Atlas manufacturing jigs should be in a museum.
It is interesting how we seem to be very satisfied with a pressure stabilized structure in our daily lives; the pneumatic tire. The tire is much more structurally complicated. The operational environment is fraught with dynamically changing loads, abrasion and sharp objects. Makes tank design seem like a cake-walk.
That’s a sad trombone rocket failure if ever I’ve seen one.
Formula 1 engineers: we use the engine as load bearing element in the structure of the car.
NASA engineers: pffft, we use the fuel in our tanks as a structural element in our rockets.
Parachute/paraglider designers: "We use the human as a crumple zone to protect the aerofoil."
Farm tractors have been built using the engine as a structural element since the 30's.
@@butchs.4239 Do Lamborghini cars do this too?
@@johncrowerdoe5527 I dunno for certain, but Lamborghini tractors do. It wouldn't surprise me that their cars do as well, using the engine as an structural element makes a lot of sense in a mid-engined rear drive car. Especially a sports car where minimal weight is a design goal.
@@butchs.4239 It doesn't hurt that the engine itself is probably the strongest component of the entire vehicle.
260% of flight load is a good margin, I think man-rated requires 150% of flight load.
Qualification loads were to 140%
@@msudawg1997 hi
Someone said "any idiot can design a bridge. It takes an engineer to build one that just barely stands"
It’s even harder when the bridge has to fly
1:41 Hah! The rocket couldn't maintain it's "rigidness." It happens to the best of us, my friend.
So Atlas rockets are big soda cans?
Yep.
You mean, you had to ask?
So is starship well beer kegs anyway
@@davidpaulsen1510 I do not think Starshio needs to be pressurized to lift the payload.
No. Empty soda cans don't collapse under their own weight.
Having the structural integrity of your rocket be dependent on propellant tank pressure makes perfect sense, from the point of view that your rocket engine isn't going to work very well without it. The fact that the rocket folds itself in half if it loses tank pressure is an additional minor complication.
"Explosion Fatigued" I don't think that could ever happen :D keep em coming. Maybe a montage to the 1812 overture!
They did that in MythBusters with all the boomy stuff they did, so why not?
Thanks, I always wanted to know more about balloon tanks ever since I saw that option in Kerbal Realism Overhaul.
Just like aluminum cans. Once saw a stack of aluminum cans over 30 ft high in a warehouse topple when a row towards the bottom was depressurized as a forklift scrapped across them.
Not a scientific test, but gives one an idea of the strength of pressurized metal cans. One coke can, well padded to distribute the weight evenly, can hold:
opened can 77 kg
pressurized full can 360 kg
(from "How Much Weight Can a Soda Can Hold? Hydraulic Press Test" video)
Always a great job. You get to the key points quickly and provide nice insights. Keep up the good work!
I always scratch my head wondering who would dislike your videos... Great content as always, Scott!
Huh, I thought for museums they just stuck an i-beam up the middle of the booster. Seems alot cheaper for maintenance compared to constant pressurization.
Or fill it with hard foam.
They fill them with beans.
Usually, yeah. However, the Atlas and Centaur at the US Space and Rocketry Center in Huntsville are kept at pressure.
@@JohnWilliamNowak seems reasonable. First, it's more authentic. Second, tax-payer dollars aren't real money: they just fall off the money tree...
@@thePronto You're starting to get it, NASA loves your money! And who loves money more than anyone on earth??
Black hole engines are still very experimental, they often result in the entire ship being sucked into the gravity well.
Future space travel has somehow managed to find propulsion methods even more terrifying than riding on top of a barely controlled explosion. I'd still get on the ship!
If I recall my history, there was one spacecraft that successfully engaged its black hole drive, but there were some... unfortunate consequences.
sixstringedthing Was that an episode of Gilligan’s island?
@@maranscandy9350 Sure, it was the one where the Professor creates a black hole drive from coconuts and bamboo, and it acidentally sends Gilligan, Ginger and The Skipper into a hell dimension where their minds are broken and their flesh corrupted, whereupon they return and start ritualistically slaughtering the rest of the castaways. A barrel of laughs for the whole familty!
Small black holes are actually surprisingly safe. Between their small size and their Hawking radiation, matter falling into the black hole by accident is like a beachball falling into a fire hose nozzle while it's in use.
Of course, if you can't keep it fed, it'll start losing mass, causing it to radiate harder and faster, leading to a runaway meltdown and a rather impressive explosion.
You're the only time I heard anyone come close to calling the Atlas a SSTO which arguably it is and has orbited its self albeit with a minimal payload but none the less a great achievement for a kerosene fueled rocket. Important points are: Ground ignited sustainer/vernier engines AND same tankage as the booster engines all going into orbit.As you mentioned only the 2 booster engines are dropped but no tankage. I worked on the test stand where the Atlas was captive fired full flight configuration at Edwards AFB,stand 1a later configured for the Saturn F-1 engine testing. Great job as always Scott. Ken
I spent the last two minutes of this video dumbfounded and contemplating the 0.015" tank wall thickness after Scott said it. WOW. THAT is an incredible piece of engineering, and a testament to the Materials engineers and Fabricators.
More thought.... that CAN'T be a right number, can it? It wouldn't even be able to hold its shape during fabrication.
@@EddieBoes It is the right number. Pieces were put in jigs, clamped and then welded. It was very well thought out production. You can see many parts of the process in film reports from the manufacturer.
@@cogoid I think I was mixing the tanks too.... Scott was specifically talking about the Centaur upper tank.... and I was thinking about the lower tank, with it's long, cylindrical construction supporting the upper stage and payload. THAT tank is different. So, thanks for commenting, It made me look into it further to see where my thoughts went.
@@EddieBoes The bottom, the first stage, is the Atlas missile. Its skin is also thin. From NASA report: "The Atlas booster, as an example, has a diameter of 120 inches (3.042 m).
The skin is made of 301 extra full-hard stainless steel varying in thickness from 0.014 inch (0.000356 m) to 0.034 inch (0.000863 m). The cylinder is formed with a series of bands, approximately 30 inches (0. 761 m) wide, welded together with circumferential lap joints and doubler reinforced butt-welded vertical joints" ["Experimental bending strength of an Atlas LV-3C booster beyond compressive skin wrinkling
" RP Miller 1969]
When talking about the atlas 7d implosion you talked about a pin rupturing a helium line causing loss of pressure and consequent loss of the vehicle, could you make a video explaining how they manage to understand exactly what went wrong, when all it remains are bits scattered around the ground?
Thank you and keep up the good work
Maybe the ruptured line was outside the rocket, as part of the Launch site.
Test missiles had telemetry to feed back information...and many high speed cameras on the launch pad....many of which are available on CZcams courtesy of the San Diego Air and Space Museum
“Explodey stuff” - yeah baby!
Keep doing what you're doing Scott... you are the best Space Historian, bar-none. I could watch videos like this all day.
These really are the best videos. Thank you ScoMan!
Interesting fact the balloon tanks ended up resoulting in a explosion in a missile base blowing the warhead 3 miles away
Nah those were just regular tanks leaking explodey stuff.
Thanks for the great video! I've been wondering though, have you ever heard of the "tippy-sat" aka NOAA N-Prime incident? As far as I can tell no one on CZcams has covered it yet.
You mean the one where they didn't log removing the bolts?
Cool.
So, essentially, astronauts don't get sent up on rockets but balloons with rocket engines. I'm suddenly glad I didn't become an astronaut.
Great topic MANLEY...GOOD JOB
Each day I get my full Joe Scott Manley fix is a good day
'Explosion fatigue' we play KSP Scott!
Well said.
Came on to say exactly that... Explode fatigue??? Not a chance!
Great video! Never knew about the balloon tanks. Learn something new every day.
Just found and subbed to your channel, already a huge fan. Pre-congrats on the big 1M coming up!
260% flight load, that's some serious FOS! For something that needs to be light weight.
The sight of the parachutes deploying before the rocket hits the ground is so sad. 2:02 🙁
Flight computer: "Wait, I'm falling but we haven't launched yet? Throw error. Alarm, alarm. Fuck it, deploy the parachutes, it won't make things worse."
@@thePronto If only the CRS-7 Dragon's logic tree had been set up that way...
@MendTheWorld
That's not a parachute - that's a payload fairing.
Grissom's comment is understandable. It never stops amazing me how complex these vehicles are. One tiny thing goes wrong and you could have a rapid unscheduled disassembly like the example here - pin comes lose and hydrogen explodes. If it were me, I wouldn't be able to stop imagining some random bolt deep in the guts of the rocket wiggling out of its hole, falling, puncturing something important and blowing me up. But that's why I'm not an astronaut, I guess.
Great coverage, Sunday should be interesting.
"This doesn't normally happen."
As the Atlas is keeling over did I see a parachute deploy?
I like those Rockets going up and not going boom but then again going boom it's cool to talk about a major firework display
I will never tire of rocket explosions
If the space deniers and flat earthers saw this they would say "Look, proof that NASA uses balloons and not real rockets"
Why include flat earthers in this? You don't have to be a flat earther to question the space program. You sound like a shill!
I mean that statement is half correct, they are using balloons. Metal balloons full of rocket fuel, but still.
"Rockets have Explody Stuff"
~Manley 2019 end.
I don't know about you, but I like watching things go kaboomboom
You're awesome
Great update 👍
Thanks for sharing 👍😀
"I'm Scott Manley, fly safe" (as the rocket falls and smashes into the ground)
"And therefore the Atlas V was also able to take solid rocket motors"
The Atlas II had a variant with SRBs on it, the Atlas II AS, last launched in 2005: watch?v=VXXdxkr-L8k
Very interesting and informative. Thank you.
Those technicians that saved the rocket payload and stopped fuel from spilling are total chads.
Who else has been to the Air Force Museum in Dayton?
Can we ever get enough barely-contained explodey stuff?
Your common soda cans are designed the same way.
The walls of the cans are so thin that they would collapse under the weight of the cases of soda placed on top of them. It is only the pressure of the carbonated soda inside the cans that allow them to withstand the weight of the cans stacked on top of them.
Excellent video, thanks!
I guess with centaur being the upper stage, it doesn't require as much structural strength overall compared to any main stage.
Centaurs were super strong and always had a powerful rocket. Oh, wait, what were we talking about?
The NASA test was _very_ different from the SpaceX test in how this NASA test was actually supposed to burst.
thats literally what he said..
Call me "explosion-fatigued", but I would rather listen more about that NASA test.
Gus never minced his words!!
That just blows my mind 1/2 a millimeter , subbed for that alone . Looking forward to the rest of your vid's
"Explody stuff" - ©Sott Manley 2019
.015", or fifteen thousandths of an inch, is almost 4 sheets of copier paper in thickness.
I live in Dayton, Ohio, just a few miles from the Air Force Museum (as it used to be called).
I well remember, in the early 80's, walking out to the static display missile you mentioned, and I noted that there was only one compressor system keeping it pressurized - NO backup!
I almost went back into the Museum to find the suggestion box, or some employee, to tell them that it was only a matter of time before that single compressor quit working for some reason, any reason, and that would be the end of the display, and that one, or better two, back ups of some description were needed.
Guess I should have made that trip back inside....
As a teenager I built a liquid powered rocket which had a fuel tank pressurised by acetylene gas which was produced in a chamber on the top of the rocket where calcium carbide and water were mixed. It exploded! I then went on to solid fuel rockets which were easier to build and did not explode so often. You couldn't do any of that today, but the UK in the 60's was a different country Scott. :-)
Wait hold up. At 7:57 with all the Atlas V variants, there is a HLV version on the far right. Has that ever flown, or is it a design that will be flown some day? I was caught off guard cause I thought that was a Delta IV model, but quickly realized those were Altas V first stages.
Never flown, any chanes it had of flying died when vulcan was announced.
@@nardgames Good point, it wasn't till the end of the video I realized that Atlas won't be around for much longer
At my local public library, there's an interesting book about the Centaur:
Author: Dawson, Virginia P. (Virginia Parker)
Title: Taming liquid hydrogen : the Centaur upper stage rocket, 1958-2002 / Virginia P. Dawson, Mark D. Bowles.
Publisher, Date: Washington, DC : National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of External Relations, 2004.
Description: xiii, 289 pages : illustrations ; 29 cm.
Series: NASA SP (Series) ; 4230. NASA history series.
Subjects: Centaur rocket -- History. Hydrogen as fuel -- Research -- United States -- History. Liquid propellant rockets -- Research -- United States -- History.
Other Author: Bowles, Mark D. United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Office of External Relations.
Other Title: Centaur upper stage rocket, 1958-2002
Notes: Shipping list number: 2004-0200-P. Includes bibliographical references and index.
Yeah it’s available for free inPDF form from NASA
That's fascinating. I used to have a model of the Atlas-Mercury. I had no idea it was a balloon tank design.
Top stuff Scott .
So it's a blimp in space then. Everything is possible!
Colin Chapman would have approved of this. :)
If it works keep it. Like the B-52 bomber and the a-10 aircraft, It makes sense to keep good designs around. I think the case can be made to keep the Falcon 9 rocket long term with it’s amazing Economy and reuse ability.
Right, unless the task at hand or the enemy or competition drastically changes, or a major tech breakthrough means that worthwhile improvements can be made that aren't possible to simply add as an upgrade, stick with what works!
That said in the case of SpaceX, I hope they keep making F9s if they're cost effective for their own niche, but I think starship might just blow it out of the water (hopefully figuratively)
The Agena shown at the beginning and end bouncing off the pavement was sent back to Sunnyvale (Building 104!) where they "pounded out the dents" and it was used on a later launch.
"Explosion fatigue" is for the weak....
Wonder who's check thats coming out of
Think of the poor bastards that have to go clean that all up
Thank you Scott👍