Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.space.policy    |    Discussions about space policy    |    106,651 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 105,243 of 106,651    |
|    David Spain to Snidely    |
|    Re: SpaceX SN10    |
|    06 Mar 21 22:04:41    |
      From: nospam@127.0.0.1              On 2021-03-04 4:14 PM, Snidely wrote:       >       > It looked to me like the exhaust of one of the engines was more yellow       > than the others.       >       > /dps       >              Yes it appears to have been running fuel rich. There's a bit of dark       smoke involved as well which can be seen in some of the ascent videos.              Also seems to have been a methane leak after bouncedown that eventually       ignited. Also there were seen to be excessive methane leakage even as       SN10 was conducting its single engine power down descent. It       occasionally flared up in flame at least twice and there was a fire       on-going after it came to 'rest' before the rapid unscheduled relaunch       and disassembly.              See Scott Manley video mentioned elsewhere in this thread for details.       As he points out (and I have to agree) the RUD appears to be due to an       oxygen tank pressure failure which ruptured both tanks, largely       propelled the SN10 re-aloft and trigger the subsequent explosion.              The landing 'legs' or pogos as I prefer to call them seem to be the next       issue now. Manley shows video that clearly shows several that failed to       lock into position and three that do.              Dave              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca