Author Topic: Disastrous Setback for Brazilian Space Program (Read 1154 times)

Dinger · « **on:** August 23, 2003, 03:39:53 PM »

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/08/23/brazil.rocket.explosion.ap/index.html

By my count this is the worst space program disaster in forty years.

rpm · « **Reply #1 on:** August 23, 2003, 04:00:13 PM »

Appears they need to concentrate on their Safety program. I wonder how many of their top guys were killed.

Mark Luper · « **Reply #2 on:** August 23, 2003, 05:32:05 PM »

Interesting, I spent about 7 of my 16 years in Brasil living in Sao Luis, Maranhao, I would never have figured it to be the local for a space launch site. I hope they can get things going again, would be a big moral boost after this tragedy.

Chairboy · « **Reply #3 on:** August 23, 2003, 06:02:18 PM »

This is really awful, and I feel bad for the families. I hope it's not the death of the Brazilian space program, the more active launching sites there are and the more people who have aerospace skills, the better.

I was looking at a photo of the rocket and noticed it had what looked like solid fueled boosters.

I betcha that the disaster started in them. Since it was days before launch, it wouldn't be fuelled with liquid propellent unless they were doing a firing test or fuel loading test.

Didja all know that the little US Space Shuttle weighs a lot more then the towering Saturn V when it's being driven to the launch pad? The reason is simple, unlike the Saturn V, the shuttle is already carrying a couple million lbs of fuel out with it in the form of the SRBs. Scary. Now you know why people are on edge around the pads weeks before it's full of liquid hydrogen and LOX.

udet · « **Reply #4 on:** August 23, 2003, 07:48:28 PM »

Orig · « **Reply #5 on:** August 23, 2003, 08:05:33 PM »

They say they'll move on with development though, not stand still and talk about it until their space program grinds to a halt... The current generation of risk takers will get the lead in the space race, regardless of what country they're in.

Otto · « **Reply #6 on:** August 24, 2003, 04:09:21 PM »

That's really sad news. May they RIP

Creamo · « **Reply #7 on:** August 24, 2003, 04:27:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy

I was looking at a photo of the rocket and noticed it had what looked like solid fueled boosters.

I betcha that the disaster started in them. Since it was days before launch, it wouldn't be fuelled with liquid propellent unless they were doing a firing test or fuel loading test.

Didja all know that the little US Space Shuttle weighs a lot more then the towering Saturn V when it's being driven to the launch pad? The reason is simple, unlike the Saturn V, the shuttle is already carrying a couple million lbs of fuel out with it in the form of the SRBs. Scary. Now you know why people are on edge around the pads weeks before it's full of liquid hydrogen and LOX.

A booster lit during igniter insertion or testing.

And what's so scary about solid rocket propellant? I know one guy who carries road flares in his trunk.

Chairboy · « **Reply #8 on:** August 24, 2003, 06:46:27 PM »

The scary thing is that unlike other rockets, you have to treat the rocket like its fueled for months at a time instead of a day or two before launch.

If it's a manned flight (like the shuttle), the scary thing is that for two and a half minutes after you launch, there's nothing you can do in an emergency. Even if the Challenger crew knew immediately after takeoff that the boosters were failing, they would have been unable to save themselves even though the explosion happened a minute and a half later.

Solid fuelled rockets cannot be turned off after ignition. If you had a thrust termination system that blew the end cap off, you could cut the acceleration, but the Shuttle is not strong enough to survive the deceleration, so a thrust termination system is not installed.

Solid fuel is dangerous for ground crews and disastrously dangerous for astro/cosmo/taiko-nauts.

Creamo · « **Reply #9 on:** August 24, 2003, 07:12:30 PM »

Again, there is nothing scary about it at all. The Challenger boosters did not “explode”, solid boosters simply cannot explode because of their chemical makeup. They can burn like hell, and a seal failed and it lit up the 500,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen in the main tank, which did blow up the Challenger.

Solid fuel is a big flare made of Ammonium Perchlorate, and if you don’t have something major to light it, it is not dangerous. It is not an explosive, and in fact if you had 200 tons of it and a blasting cap, all it can do is deflagrate, not explode.

And it doesn’t matter if you can turn it off or not. If you had too, it is too late, so I miss your point.

2 million pounds of solid fuel in 150 foot boosters when lit is dangerous if your strapped under the 3 million pounds of thrust, sure. At least if it was me riding the thing I’d say so. But not because of the explosive hazard.

Curval · « **Reply #10 on:** August 24, 2003, 07:16:41 PM »

Evidence suggests that crews of both the shuttles survived the "explosion" and were alive on a serious roller coaster ride of death. That's what I would fear...blowing up would be welcome compared to that thanks.

Creamo · « **Reply #11 on:** August 24, 2003, 07:29:37 PM »

After pulling 200 G's Curval, you'd not be witnessing any of the ride down.

Dinger · « **Reply #12 on:** August 24, 2003, 07:53:11 PM »

point of information -- the Challenger astronauts survived the explosion and were killed on impact with the terrain.

Rockets are dangerous, solid or liquid fuels. I'm not sure a big pile of solid fuel is inherently more dangerous than a big tank of LOX with a bunch of fancy piping attached.

udet · « **Reply #13 on:** August 24, 2003, 08:26:47 PM »

Scramjets are the way future manned space launchers will be propelled!

Creamo · « **Reply #14 on:** August 24, 2003, 10:18:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dinger
point of information -- the Challenger astronauts survived the explosion and were killed on impact with the terrain.

Rockets are dangerous, solid or liquid fuels. I'm not sure a big pile of solid fuel is inherently more dangerous than a big tank of LOX with a bunch of fancy piping attached.

Another point of info: They breathed in sea water unconscious, so they were alive I guess, although brain dead. Nice twist.

What you’re not sure of, like Chairboy is what rockets and propellant really are. I’m not a rocket scientist; I just build and fly them a lot. It’s your ignorance of what they are which is killing my hobby. To say “ Rockets are dangerous, solid or liquid fuels. I'm not sure a big pile of solid fuel is inherently more dangerous than a big tank of LOX with a bunch of fancy piping attached.” It’s pure ignorance.

You’re not sure, hell, you’re not even close. I’d guess you don’t have a clue.