Investigating the SpaceX Rocket Explosion of September 1, 2016

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the investigation of the SpaceX rocket explosion that occurred on September 1, 2016. Participants are analyzing video footage of the incident, exploring potential causes, and sharing hypotheses regarding the failure mechanisms involved. The scope includes technical analysis, conjecture based on visual evidence, and the implications of various failure modes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the rapidity of the explosion complicates the investigation, as it occurred within a fraction of a second.
  • One participant questions the adequacy of the available video footage for drawing realistic conclusions without additional technical data from SpaceX.
  • Another participant proposes that a kerosene leak could have ignited, leading to a fireball engulfing the second stage, speculating that a failure of both tanks might have allowed fuel and oxidizer to mix.
  • Some participants discuss the potential for flame propagation rates to exceed typical values, raising questions about the combustion dynamics involved in the explosion.
  • There are suggestions to analyze the video using different wavelengths of light to gain more insights into the explosion.
  • One participant mentions the possibility of a false engine start signal and its implications for telemetry data.
  • Another participant provides a detailed frame-by-frame analysis of the explosion, noting the rapid expansion of flames and questioning the mechanics of flame propagation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of hypotheses regarding the cause of the explosion, with no consensus reached. Multiple competing views and interpretations of the available evidence remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the reliance on video footage without comprehensive technical data from SpaceX, as well as the challenges in accurately interpreting rapid combustion events. The discussion also highlights the need for further analysis of the explosion dynamics and potential failure mechanisms.

  • #181
Jonathan Scott said:
That diagram appears to relate to the rare helium-3.
Oops !

it's difficult to find a chart that goes above ~10K. Thanks...

mfb said:
Oxygen has a melting point of 55 K and atmospheric pressure, slowly increasing with pressure. You don't want the oxygen to get colder than that, and you cannot fill in oxygen colder than 55 K.
okay, Thanks. It's becoming clearer to me.
What Elon said was the temperature was just above freezing and was -340°F or -207°C.
(reply #30 at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=pht92iam9tpu1iocsng4l1ak41&topic=39072.20 )

-207 is 66K ?
from this
LOXproperties.jpg


Boiling point is 90K

warming an ideal gas from 66 to 90 should raise its pressure by 90/66 = 1.36
i don't know yet how close is helium in those tanks to ideal

plodding along,

old jim
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #183
mheslep said:
The overwrap is carbon and resin. Ignition of the first 30 grams of carbon in pure O2 produces a megajoule. In a rocket built at the margin to save weight, I think a very little carbon combustion is required to burst the tank. With O2 loose along with an ignition source, all the structure burns.
My point is that the energy of any reaction involving a patch of the overwrap and solid oxygen (at least up to the point where it lost integrity) would have been small compared with the energy released by the resulting COPV failure when the overwrap split, and that of course would be small compared with the energy released by the subsequent burning of the LOX / fuel mixture. Just based on orders of magnitude, I don't think that the pressure shock wave from a small amount of burning overwrap material would itself have caused immediate splitting of the 2nd stage, but that from a COPV failure would have easily been able to do so.

Although I understand that immersing almost anything in LOX will enable it to burn rapidly and fiercely, I still feel it's more likely that any exothermic reaction between the overwrap and solid oxygen would have been very localized, along a stress ridge or similar produced after buckled liner was pushed back into shape by the helium.
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K