Plus because of the moon's graviational lopsidedness most things don't really like to stay in orbit for long as they keep getting dragged into lower and lower orbits.
All that for 27s of data....No evidence yet of concrete causing damage to engines or heat shields, but not ruling it out. First 3 engines were turned off on ignition, 30 is minimum for lift-off.
Lost comms at +27s due to "energy event", booster kept going, lost TVC at +85s,
What in the world would they consider "severe"?Pad damage not severe, relatively short repair time [they've oficially told NASA as much].
Two of the engine bells appear to have been missing. They had better be hoping it was concrete impact damage, otherwise something shook apart that shouldn't have.No evidence yet of concrete causing damage to engines or heat shields, but not ruling it out. First 3 engines were turned off on ignition, 30 is minimum for lift-off.
Again, if they lost their TVC hydraulics from anything other than concrete impact damage, the rocket, as designed, is tearing itself apart. They really need to verify what is going on. There are several videos showing damage to fairings that are outside of the skirt - if that isn't impact damage than something really weird is going on.Lost comms at +27s due to "energy event", booster kept going, lost TVC at +85s, ship wasn't at a safe point for separation [my interpretation is stage separation was not attempted then, and the cartwheeling was just the TVC loss].
No kidding. I think the only reason the vehicle broke apart was aerodynamic loads when it fell back into denser air. Whoever was charged with pressing the FTS button must have been mashing it repeatedly for all they were worth.FTS triggered 40 seconds before explosion, took too long to rupture tanks, needs requalification, expects that to be one of the big items for the next launch.
I wonder why they have the farm located where it is relative to the pad and tower. It would seem that putting the tank farm on the opposite side of the tower from the pad would protect it pretty well. Even on a nominal launch those tanks are getting a lot of sound and vibration.Vertical tank farm to be replaced with vacuum sealed tanks [presumably not made in-house and matching the current CH4 tanks].
I think it triggered when needed, but it just was ineffective at ripping the tanks open, and instead just opened a (small) hole. They probably need linear changes along the tanks to really slice them open.No kidding. I think the only reason the vehicle broke apart was aerodynamic loads when it fell back into denser air. Whoever was charged with pressing the FTS button must have been mashing it repeatedly for all they were worth.
Unless he elaborated further in the source, who knows (note: actual phrasing might have been "quite small"). But considering the context, I'd guess whatever involves having to replace the ring or redo foundations/structure. From all that's been said, and all the work going on seemingly comfortably on and around the mount, it looks like they dodged a massive bullet and there's no structural damage. I still think his/their timelines of two months can probably be safely ignored though, the whole new tank farm thing feels like it's being underestimated, on top of the rest.What in the world would they consider "severe"?
Think you're on the money here. Full quote:I think it triggered when needed, but it just was ineffective at ripping the tanks open, and instead just opened a (small) hole. They probably need linear changes along the tanks to really slice them open.
I can imagine the FAA will be on their ass for that as part of the investigation."from a rocket standpoint and pad standpoint, we are probably ready to launch in 6 to 8 weeks, the longest lead item on that is probably requalification of the flight termination system because we did initiate the flight termination system but it was not enough to , it took way too long to rupture the tanks. We need more detonation cord to unzip the tanks at altitude and ensure that they... basically that the rocket explodes immediately if... flight termination is necessary. so requalification of the...I'm just guessing here... requalification of the much longer detonation cord to unzip the rocket, and that situation is probably the long lead item."
If shockwaves are a problem, then the solution is water.So, no flame trench, but the 'steel plate' thing goes ahead. If the damage to the engines was also caused by sound/shockwaves, it could still mean trouble, if it ends up reflecting them. Would surely be awkward to have Elon admit the need for a flame trench after yet another failure.
Yeah, just a plate. The problem with the rocket exhaust on the bare concrete is that the heat will cause spalling, and the stagnation pressure of the exhaust is really high. If a crack forms anywhere, the gas pressure can push through it, lift the slab, and you get what happened last week. A plate, cooled sufficiently so it won't actually melt, will prevent the high pressure gas at the stagnation point of the exhaust from exploiting cracks in the concrete. It's still a big plate, and probably needs to be water cooled so it doesn't melt, but it doesn't need to be any more exotic than that. Once the gas is moving parallel to the surface in the radial direction, it will quickly slow and cool sufficiently that the shear and thermal loads on the bare concrete should be tolerable.Oh, so when they say "plate" they mean just a flat plate on the ground??