dtolman
5797
Rocket began to tumble around 150 seconds after launch from what I could see. At T+4 minutes it was destroyed by the range safety officer.
Whoa. Awesome :)
The 5 engines that flamed out seemed to be toward one side. I wonder if that drove the âcorkscrewingâ?
Seems kind of not idealâŚ
Houngan
5800
I donât think it was tumbling or corkscrewing, per the audio it was supposed to âflipâ to complete the stage separation maneuver. Thatâs what failed, ths stages didnât separate. It seemed like they did two controlled flips trying to get it done, and then were out of gas. It did 3 more flips on its own before they blew it.
So it was supposed to flip and aim back toward earth to separate? Am I understanding that and if so, why?
Regardless, the clarity of the video is amazing considering what old shuttle launches looked like on TV back in the day.
Isnât this technically off topic, since the rocket in question is most definitely not in space? :)
abrandt
5803
I think towardsish towards Earth so that the first stage can start some engines back up and slow down/start to fall in a controlled manner towards its landing site. Although Iâm not entirely sure why it does that before separation since the second stage needs to continue to fire to orbit. Maybe orientation is meant to help give a clean separation?
Have any of you used a subassembly in Kerbal and forget to include the decoupler? I sure have, it looked a bit like this launch. Oh well, excitement as promised.
Romalar
5805
It appears that the debris from the concrete underneath is to blame for the failures in the rocket. Several engines were out eventually and some blew up in flight taking chunks out of the rocket, and itâs a good bet that flying shards of concrete at launch caused serious damage. Some knowledgeable people are indicating that one of two of the Hydraulic Power Units was destroyed which would have made it hard to control. It was at about half the altitude it should have been as it got to the end of first stage burn and having trouble controlling itself, seemingly due to the damage.
Crater under the launch pad:
It seems like they built the rocket and engines pretty solidly to handle all of this at all, but didnât do so well at building the launch pad.
I wonder what state those supporting legs are in now. Whatâs the solution? A deeper pit for the flamey end, with somewhere for the exhaust to goâŚ? How does Kerbal do it?
Pod
5807
Is there a âbeforeâ pic so we know whatâs meant to be shocking about the picture?
( I didnât see the launch so maybe itâs obvious?)
Everything went perfectly, itâs just that the rocketâs autopilot thought it had entered a roundabout.
Youâd think the physics/chemistry of launchpads was fairly well understood by now.
More from Kerbal. One correction my understanding is that SpaceX triggered the RUD when it left the flight path.
Romalar
5811
Flame diverter/deflector system like this:
Hereâs the spot in the shuttle video showing the flame directed sideways down a channel:
(1:28-ish in if that link starts at the beginning)
Hereâs a construction video I think from SLS:
Plus probably a large amount of water (a âdeluge systemâ) to keep it from melting.
The launch is at 45 minutes into the video. The amount of dust stirred up significantly more than Iâve ever seen before, so it wouldnât be surprising if debris were partly responsible for losing engines.
A construction pic suggests there used to be a concrete apron down thereâŚ
Assuming thatâs the same tower.
abrandt
5814
If you watch the replay of the NASA Spaceflight video(top one that @HideousRex posted this morning) they switch to a side view shortly after launch and you can definitely see solid chunks of presumable concrete coming down and impacting around the pad.
Guess itâs good news on the rocket but bad news for attempting another launch anytime soon.
Itâs pretty amazing if the rocket was being hit by chunks of concrete and kept going in approximately one piece, like an A-10.
Houngan
5816
SpaceX rockets to Ukraine, breaking news!
