January 23, 201114 yr Came across this link of some pictures and transcript of yesterdays launch at Vandenburg. Looking at the pictures I am wondering the pucker factor of the launch controller who had his finger on a self destruct button. Looking at the pics on the link you can see a fire at a seam on one of the external boosters and later you see a fire just above one of the engines. Hopefully there are some guys with knowledge with these monsters on this forum. https://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d352/status.html
January 23, 201114 yr The Delta IV's, especially the Heavy's burn hydrogen rich at ignition. All of the Delta launches have the flame at liftoff. This was the first flight out of Vandy so the pad structure is different than out at CCAFS possibly adding to the fireball. The burning is just the insulation on the CCB's burning. https://spaceflightnow.com/delta/d351/launch/01.jpg https://www.aviationnow.com/media/images/awst_images/large/AW_02_21_2005_804_L.jpg Edited January 23, 201114 yr by Breckey
January 23, 201114 yr The Delta IV's, especially the Heavy's burn hydrogen rich at ignition. All of the Delta launches have the flame at liftoff. This was the first flight out of Vandy so the pad structure is different than out at CCAFS possibly adding to the fireball. The burning is just the insulation on the CCB's burning. Wow, impressive display of geekery! How many boogers did you have to eat to learn all that turbo-geek info?
January 24, 201114 yr I was listening to a discussion by some of the NRO engineering guys about this a while back. According to them, the excess hydrogen issue was a known problem, and the engineering solutions to prevent it were pretty expensive. It turned out that it was a lot cheaper to just coat the exterior a little more heavily with fire resistant insulation and let the hydrogen burn on lift-off. Not real elegant, but very effective. Sometimes simple is better! Edited January 25, 201114 yr by HiFlyer
January 24, 201114 yr Author I was listening to a discussion by some of the NRO engineering guys about this a while back. According to them, the excess hydrogen issue was a known problem, and the engineering solutions to prevent it were pretty expensive. It turned out that it was a lot cheaper to just coat the exerior a little more heavily with fire resistant insulation and let the hydrogen burn on lift-off. Not real elegant, but very effective. Sometimes simple is better! Sounds like the old story of how the Russians were looking to solve the problem of a pen that writes in zero gravity. NASA spent thousands and the Russians solved it by using a pencil.
January 25, 201114 yr Sounds like the old story of how the Russians were looking to solve the problem of a pen that writes in zero gravity. NASA spent thousands and the Russians solved it by using a pencil. IIRC, the back-story to that one is that NASA didn't want graphite particles from the pencil to be floating around in the capsules...
January 25, 201114 yr IIRC, the back-story to that one is that NASA didn't want graphite particles from the pencil to be floating around in the capsules... Actually, it's just an urban legend: https://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
January 25, 201114 yr Actually, it's just an urban legend: https://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp Very well... disregard.
January 25, 201114 yr Very well... disregard. You are actually correct that they didn't want pencil bits floating around. The part about the Russians outsmarting us is the part that is urban legend.
January 25, 201114 yr Author You are actually correct that they didn't want pencil bits floating around. The part about the Russians outsmarting us is the part that is urban legend. Well I started it out "the old story".
Create an account or sign in to comment