[AR] Re: More thoughts on the SpaceX disaster
- From: David Weinshenker <daze39@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 11:55:57 -0700
On 09/24/2016 11:06 AM, Keith Henson wrote:
Not that you need the carbon to catch fire to ruin your day. The
bottle popping is more than enough.
I rather imagine SpaceX is busy testing their 5500 psi helium bottles
to see what temperature cycling does to rupture strength.
Or some sort of plumbing/control failure (broken fitting inside the
LOX tank? valve/regulator failed "hard open"?) that vented the
helium supply into the LOX tank (even without an actual primary
rupture of a helium tank inside the LOX tank)...
At LOX tank temps and 5500 psi (if that was the actual stored
helium pressure), that's a LOT of helium (expanded to anything
close to ambient).
So the LOX tank bursts (fairly spherically, if it has no major weak
points), taking the top of the fuel tank with it and dispersing a
cloud of expanding helium gas, evaporating LOX mist, and entrained
fuel. (No need to postulate an ignition source from some resin being
sensitive in contact with LOX per se... there would have been plenty
of mechanical impact and damaged electrical systems to do that one
way or the other, once fuel from the damaged tank was entrained into
the expanding cloud).
In other words I'm thinking the event started with a
hydraulic/mechanical primary failure, such that the LOX
tank burst under unusual pressure (and then everything
caught fire in the aftermath of that initial rupture).
-dave w
Other related posts:
