|
Grex > Space > #3: Commerical Delta III blows up | |
|
| Author |
Message |
jsw
|
|
Commerical Delta III blows up
| 
Sep 1 17:26 UTC 1998 |
Well, here we go again. The only thing that can be said at this point
is that the Delta III is a new rocket. Delta II had two failures in 95
launches, if my memory serves me right. It will be very interesting to
see how Boeing responds to this problem. Their stock is already
depressed because of problems getting commerical planes manufactured.
As I recall the Delta division came from the McDonald-Douglas company.
They are based in Peblo, CO.
|
| 7 responses total. |
gillmore
|
|
response 1 of 7:
|
Sep 15 20:25 UTC 1998 |
If rockets never blew up, no one would be impressed by rocket science.
Nice irony. The best design is the simplest design that will do the
job. The more jobs you ask a design to do, the more complex it is
likely to become. So... Why are rockets so complex, you rocket science
guys. It seems to me that they only have two functions--lifting and
pointing.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 2 of 7:
|
Sep 16 03:54 UTC 1998 |
Chemistry - fire - is more difficult to control than electronics. The
complexity of a rocket is in its flight control and navigation, which is
pretty robust. That fire, though, is chancy stuff.
|
dang
|
|
response 3 of 7:
|
Sep 27 19:15 UTC 1998 |
What Rane said. Also, it's not just fire, but a controlled bomb. You
explode a hydrogen (chemical, not nuclear, at least for now) bomb in a
specially controlled manner. Hopefully, it stays controlled. If not,
it goes boom.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 7:
|
Sep 28 05:54 UTC 1998 |
The ones that go boom the most are the solid fuel rockets. That *is* a
big mass of bomb stuff (hopefully) burning at its surface. A crack in
that mass instantaneously gives access to ignition in the interior of
the mass and...kablooey. Liquid fuel rockets only have flame after mixing the
fuel and oxidizer and while the combustion nozzle can "explode" because
of the pressures, it is not due to the combustion propagating up the separate
fuel and oxidizer lines.
|
dang
|
|
response 5 of 7:
|
Oct 5 19:11 UTC 1998 |
The Space Shuttle managed to blow itself up nicely, but I see what you
mean.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 6 of 7:
|
Oct 5 22:19 UTC 1998 |
That's another way to blow up - flame coming out the wrong hole.
|
russ
|
|
response 7 of 7:
|
Oct 7 02:44 UTC 1998 |
Re #5: Actually, nothing exploded per se on Challenger until the
range safeties on the SRB's were set off by ground command. The
flame from the SRB cut through the lower attach point on the ET,
and it pivoted around the upper attach point and pierced the tank.
But before the attachment let go, the ET was also burned through
and releasing H2. It wasn't burning, just venting. After the
SRB let go, the asymmetrical thrust caused the stack and the orbiter
to pivot out of control and break up due to aerodynamic forces. The
remaining H2 in the tank spilled and burned, making a steam cloud.
It wasn't an explosion per se, and if NASA had used liquid or hybrid
motors for the boosters, the segmented booster design would not have
been required and that particular accident could not have occurred.
|