Hot answers tagged

38

I have no first-hand knowledge of what was used for the SpaceX abort test, but the image in the question looks very similar to the tracking imagery from the AIRS-WAVE system on NASA's WB-57 planes. @ErinAnne found a tweet by FlightRadar24 that shows a WB-57 flying for the launch and links to a detailed track. AIRS is the Airborne Imaging and Recording ...


26

After the pointy-shaped object leaves, the remaining blunt-nosed rocket will experience dramatically enhanced structural loading and possibly aerodynamic instability. They expect a "rapid scheduled disassembly" in flight, but if that does not happen they will either let it blow up when it hits the ocean, or blow it up as @RussellBorogove suggests if it ...


23

It was a real failure (albeit triggered externally rather than accidentally), just not the only failure that can happen. and it is the worst case of a series of the most likely failure scenarios: multiple engine failure. If you want to test every conceivable way a rocket can fail, you're looking at thousands if not hundreds of thousands of possible failure ...


18

You seem to think they were testing in ideal conditions. That's as far from truth as you can get. The abort happened at the moment in flight with worst aerodynamical conditions (called maxQ), when booster flies still low enough in atmosphere for significant drag to be present, yet fast enough already. If Dragon can escape at this moment, it can escape at any ...


16

They didn't blow it up. They simply knew it would break up. A rocket is a very frail thing. It can only maintain it's structural integrity in forces it was designed to handle. When the Dragon left, the Falcon no longer had an aerodynamic nose cone. So supersonic wind forces pitched it sideways and the body of the rocket could not stand that force from that ...


7

No. One of NASA's requirements for Crew Dragon and Starliner is that they are able to provide a full envelope abort window for the launch. 5.6.1.2 The CCTS shall provide abort capability from the launch pad until orbit insertion to protect for the following ascent failure scenarios (minimum list): a. Complete loss of ascent thrust/propulsion. b. ...


5

In the post-launch media event with Jim Bridenstine and Elon Musk, a similar question was asked and Elon said that the capsule would be able to "fly through the fireball" and explained how that even in a critical failure, the Falcon 9 doesn't really explode, rather it causes a huge fireball (no big pressure wave). Additionally, it was mentioned that the ...


3

I think you are working from a faulty assumption here. ...if the booster engines were still firing, would it collide with Dragon? If the booster engines are still firing, there's no reason to trigger the escape -- other than severe control malfunction (a la Ariane 5), which wasn't what was tested here. Any kind of failure of the booster that is not a ...


3

Is there anything meaningful to this difference [?] It shows that it's a much smaller stage with a hat. The height of the Chinese booster includes its top cone. A quick measurement on the pictures gives its height as 4.5m, leaving a useful height of 23 m. The stage is smaller, so the contribution of the engines to its height is larger. The length of the ...


1

The krypton engine used in starlink satellites could have been developed in Poland. at the Institute of Plasma Physics and Laser Mixing. It is important that the working factor is krypton, which is many times cheaper than xenon. http://www.elektroonline.pl/news/4555,Polacy-zbudowali-elektryczny-silnik-plazmowy-napedzany-kryptonem


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible