NASA has posted video of the SLS tank buckling: twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1204163744814772224?s=20
@msudawg19974 жыл бұрын
Just FYI, the time delay between the buckle and the rupture was about 11 minutes
@steveshoemaker63474 жыл бұрын
As always...Thanks very much...!
@thethirdman2254 жыл бұрын
Cardboard’s out... That really unzipped pretty quickly but I couldn’t tell where it failed first. Great result though.
@msudawg19974 жыл бұрын
@@thethirdman225 the buckle happened maybe a 18-24 inches below the white square. it resulted in enough of a crack that we could hear the nitrogen leaking out. Eleven minutes later the crack propogated both up and down from that middle point and ripped the front wide open.
@thethirdman2254 жыл бұрын
Mike Nichols Great. Thanks for the info. I’ll have another look at it.
@lancer5254 жыл бұрын
"Rockets are filled with explody stuff" Most scientifically-technical assessment I have ever heard. Well done you.
@parabolicfinancenews98874 жыл бұрын
You guys know there's a difference between implode and explode right
@bobski82034 жыл бұрын
Actually, I also love his accent and how it perfectly fits his enthusiasm.
@iroulis4 жыл бұрын
@@bobski8203 Aye cap'n. How quaint.
@fungoose219511 ай бұрын
@@parabolicfinancenews9887and you understand why thats not a relevent distinction here.
@HydraulicPressChannel4 жыл бұрын
Those nasa boys have pretty nice hydraulic press :D
@FailTorrent4 жыл бұрын
I want to see them put an SLS sized Swedish-English dictionary in it.
@jimsvideos72014 жыл бұрын
Imagine finding you two here 😀
@msudawg19974 жыл бұрын
Yeah, we're pretty proud of our hydraulic cylinders..... ;-)
@tehbonehead4 жыл бұрын
Yes. Quite imPRESSive.
@mikethareaper17894 жыл бұрын
Holy shit
@Queldonus4 жыл бұрын
“Rockets are full of explody stuff.” -Scott Manley, December 2019
@Roboprogs4 жыл бұрын
I want you to put a lot of energy in a small space. .... safely. No problem, right?
@andrewc10364 жыл бұрын
Splody is the correct term
@johnmorgan16294 жыл бұрын
Or how to get more bang for your buck.
@colinantink90944 жыл бұрын
Well.....he’s not wrong.....
@louielouiepks4 жыл бұрын
If i were you, I'd send that word to Webster's for entry in next printing of dictionary.
@Allan_aka_RocKITEman4 жыл бұрын
*_"If this WORKS, it is going to be COOL!"_* *_"If this DOES NOT WORK, it is going to be REALLY COOL!!"_* 😄😄😄😄
@burtlangoustine14 жыл бұрын
Caps, italics, emboldened, punctuated and with emoji's too. Explain
@Allan_aka_RocKITEman4 жыл бұрын
@@burtlangoustine1 >>> No, I did NOT use the word _"Explain"_ in my post. :~)°
@awesomemcawesomeshorts95314 жыл бұрын
KSP in a nutshell
@BennyLlama394 жыл бұрын
@ Don't forget the Mythbusters. 😀
@brandon38834 жыл бұрын
Well, if the failure is due to a fuel leak, there's a very good chance that it will be literally and extremely "cool" until the fuel explodes...
@davidkueny24444 жыл бұрын
"Explosion fatigue" sounds like the limiting factor on an Orion pusher plate's lifetime.
@Xeno0564 жыл бұрын
lel
@DreadX104 жыл бұрын
A materials creepy death.
@glenmcgillivray47074 жыл бұрын
Gotta be careful of thermal cycling, keep your cyclists at a constant temperature! And microfractures ruining your day, keep your fractures on the macro scale! Otherwise it makes the error of your weight (and thus mass) measures complicated.
@davidkueny24444 жыл бұрын
@@glenmcgillivray4707 methinks that the only advantage a macrofracture has over a microfracture is that you can see the former and decide not to use the engine.
@Psycorde4 жыл бұрын
Mr. Torgue would be appalled if he heard this phrase uttered by someone
@jwilder474 жыл бұрын
You could call this series "When NASA went more Kerbal."
@nikkiofthevalley3 жыл бұрын
Lol, yea
@charlie156274 жыл бұрын
Shirt idea: “FLY SAFE” With an exploding or collapsing rocket behind it.
@gildedbear53554 жыл бұрын
"FLY SAFE" with an exploding rocket behind it and a capsule escaping with a Launch Escape System
@scorinth4 жыл бұрын
@@gildedbear5355 I will buy this.
@Nick2051504 жыл бұрын
Fly safe with a rocket inside a condom
@mk63154 жыл бұрын
Fly safe with a rocket stuck nose first in the dirt
@fruitella1964 жыл бұрын
Mitchell Kelly pointy side up
@AbbreviatedReviews4 жыл бұрын
6:13 I've always hated when my rocket goes limp.
@kimmer64 жыл бұрын
Hmmm, the Heat Seeking Moisture Missile.
@stainlesssteelfox14 жыл бұрын
It happens with older rockets. It's a more common problem than most people realise.
@pentagramprime15854 жыл бұрын
Doesn't happen with this older rocket. I do yoga.
@gibbo90894 жыл бұрын
perhaps they should add liquid Viagra to the mix.
@kimmer64 жыл бұрын
@@pentagramprime1585 I use a Popsicle stick and electrical tape to keep me flying safe.
@nobodyspecial70974 жыл бұрын
"explody stuff" - Seems scientific to me.
@cesiumion4 жыл бұрын
Lol
@bat22934 жыл бұрын
Reminds me of an old Aero Prof of mine who summed up a whole blackboard of equations with the phrase: "Zooo, as you can zee, no vhoosh, no zoom". I think he would have been perfectly happy with "explody stuff".
@dalethelander37814 жыл бұрын
I LOL'd
@Ugly_German_Truths4 жыл бұрын
@Nobody Special ... only when you document it... remember your lessons from Mythbusters: it's not science if you don't take notes! :D
@spaced-cadet4 жыл бұрын
When you’re pretty sure you’re basically riding a controlled explosion, but the rocket implodes.
@darkfeffy4 жыл бұрын
The good ol' switcheroo
@amanwithnohat39484 жыл бұрын
Pulled a sneaky on ya
@jakesnake1654 жыл бұрын
Yeah NASA planed this
@olivialambert41244 жыл бұрын
Interestingly using pressure for structure is used everywhere, in the most unexpected of places. For instance coke cans use the liquid inside to remain strong, if was only due to their strength alone they wouldn't be able to support anywhere near enough weight when they're stacked and would require a huge increase to aluminium used. Pressure and a thin walled container really is one of the most efficient ways to make a device strong.
@aratanaenor4 жыл бұрын
"260% of flight load for about 5 hours." Is that sufficient for a speed run to the moon?
@MysterDaftGame4 жыл бұрын
*to the Mun
@Musikur4 жыл бұрын
@@MysterDaftGame *to the Mün
@ricomotions54164 жыл бұрын
@@Musikur thats something for the future, real life lunar speedruns Lunar landing [any%] in 15min
@TheBiggreenpig4 жыл бұрын
6:18 This flaccid rocket looks so sad.
@freaky_freek4 жыл бұрын
Failure to keep your rocket upright is a common reason for people to feel sad.
@anarchyantz15644 жыл бұрын
I hear "explosion fatigue" can really cause some issues when trying to get your thrust up.
@etatauri4 жыл бұрын
Scrolled down just to see an erection joke.
@jacianmcgurk74244 жыл бұрын
@@etatauri hahaha,nice one :-)
@Fred_the_19964 жыл бұрын
@@freaky_freek haha
@jarno_de_wit4 жыл бұрын
That's some incredible staging happening at 8:48. A sattelite pulling away from an accelerating upper stage, while leaving no visible exhaust.
@grzegorzkapica79304 жыл бұрын
So Atlas rockets are big soda cans?
@Atlessa4 жыл бұрын
Yep.
@Steeyuv4 жыл бұрын
You mean, you had to ask?
@davidpaulsen15104 жыл бұрын
So is starship well beer kegs anyway
@grzegorzkapica79304 жыл бұрын
@@davidpaulsen1510 I do not think Starshio needs to be pressurized to lift the payload.
@Jehty_4 жыл бұрын
No. Empty soda cans don't collapse under their own weight.
@rdfox764 жыл бұрын
Trivia note: Werner von Braun was less than thrilled with the thought of using balloon tanks on any rocket, but particularly a man-rated one. He finally was persuaded to stop fighting the desire to use them when the Atlas program manager invited him to come down to the factory with a sledgehammer and try to put it through the side of a pressurized Atlas missile--apparently, both NASA and the Air Force put the kibosh on that idea right quick (more out of the worry von Braun would injure himself than anything else), but it got the point across.
@cogoid4 жыл бұрын
Good story -- though some details seem to have been slightly different. It was not von Braun himself, but Willie Mrazek, von Braun’s Structural Section Chief. And he *did* get hit when the hammer bounced off. von Braun's mistrust for Atlas had to do with more than just its structural design -- despite program's eventual success, there were numerous problems early on. The details of the story can be found in this "NASA history series" report: "Taming liquid hydrogen : the Centaur upper stage rocket, 1958-2002" / Virginia P. Dawson, Mark D. Bowles. p. cm. (NASA-SP-2004-4230) On pages 38-39 you will find the following: _To quell Mrazek’s doubts, Bossart invited him to take a sledge hammer and give the tank a whack. Failing to put even the slightest dent in the tank, he tried again, this time giving the side of the tank a glancing blow that caused the sledge hammer to fly out of his hand, knocking his glasses off, but again leaving the surface unscathed. Although this test may have proved the strength of the balloon structure, it did nothing to endear General Dynamics to Mrazek or win the von Braun group’s faith in the ability of Centaur to lift an expensive spacecraft into space._
@arikwolf37774 жыл бұрын
I hate when you lose pressure before mission is completed.
@thePronto4 жыл бұрын
Even worse before the mission has started. That's just a waste of an expensive dinner. And possibly the reason why she won't return your calls. Better watch "There's something about Mary"...
@vovacat17974 жыл бұрын
Implosion... An amazing word my language has no direct translation for, only for "explosion", and then you have to explain "implosion" with a couple of words. But "Implosion" is like... You hear it and you instantly know exactly what happened by just how it sounds. Rapid unscheduled shrinking. It was going well until it imploded!
@chrismoule72423 жыл бұрын
Languages are wonderful things, aren't they.
@AbsoluteHuman3 жыл бұрын
Это точно!
@h.cedric81574 жыл бұрын
*SpaceX Starship* tank blew. NASA SLS: *hold my LOX*
@illuminate46224 жыл бұрын
SpaceX: keeps sipping it's nitrogen
@bladewind0verlord4 жыл бұрын
Fun fact: everyone's favorite un-sticker-izer, wd-40, was first invented to protect the fragile steel tank walls of the atlas rockets from rust which, even in very minuscule amounts, could catastrophically ruin their structural integrity.
@phoule764 жыл бұрын
WD-Farty
@a-fl-man6404 жыл бұрын
and if memory serves it was the 40th try that was a success.
@bobblum59734 жыл бұрын
@@a-fl-man640 WD-39 just never caught on. Sort of like that soft drink, 6-Up. 😉
@hr_pedersen14394 жыл бұрын
@ well it isn't really a lubricant... It's name is literally "water displacement 40"
@SparkBerry4 жыл бұрын
I use it on the aircraft I work on, and when I'm asked why am I using stuff I bought at the local hardware store, I start with " Let me tell you what this cheap stuff was made for...." 😂😂😂
@zapfanzapfan4 жыл бұрын
260% of flight load is a good margin, I think man-rated requires 150% of flight load.
@msudawg19974 жыл бұрын
Qualification loads were to 140%
@drewbeans3 жыл бұрын
@@msudawg1997 hi
@nicholasmaude69064 жыл бұрын
Actually, Scott, the Atlas II did use SRBs and they were attached to the booster stage's thrust-structure (The part that's jettisoned after the booster engines are shut down).
@scottmanley4 жыл бұрын
Yes you're right.
@andret44034 жыл бұрын
@@scottmanley Note Atlas III was designed for SRBs as well. It had to have the tube supports upgraded due to the g loading the SRB put on the thrust section.
@OnboardG14 жыл бұрын
That’s a sad trombone rocket failure if ever I’ve seen one.
@bobblum59734 жыл бұрын
At my local public library, there's an interesting book about the Centaur: Author: Dawson, Virginia P. (Virginia Parker) Title: Taming liquid hydrogen : the Centaur upper stage rocket, 1958-2002 / Virginia P. Dawson, Mark D. Bowles. Publisher, Date: Washington, DC : National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of External Relations, 2004. Description: xiii, 289 pages : illustrations ; 29 cm. Series: NASA SP (Series) ; 4230. NASA history series. Subjects: Centaur rocket -- History. Hydrogen as fuel -- Research -- United States -- History. Liquid propellant rockets -- Research -- United States -- History. Other Author: Bowles, Mark D. United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Office of External Relations. Other Title: Centaur upper stage rocket, 1958-2002 Notes: Shipping list number: 2004-0200-P. Includes bibliographical references and index.
@scottmanley4 жыл бұрын
Yeah it’s available for free inPDF form from NASA
@thePronto4 жыл бұрын
"The pressure inside those tanks is what kept the rocket rigid" That's what *he* said...
@dELTA135791113154 жыл бұрын
If the rocket stays rigid for more than 4 hours.....give the rocket surgeon a high 5
@Roonasaur4 жыл бұрын
Yeah, just when you though a rocket launch couldn't become any more phallic, lol
@Carstuff1114 жыл бұрын
@@dELTA13579111315 Hahahahahahahaha!
@ekscalybur4 жыл бұрын
Formula 1 engineers: we use the engine as load bearing element in the structure of the car. NASA engineers: pffft, we use the fuel in our tanks as a structural element in our rockets.
@thePronto4 жыл бұрын
Parachute/paraglider designers: "We use the human as a crumple zone to protect the aerofoil."
@butchs.42394 жыл бұрын
Farm tractors have been built using the engine as a structural element since the 30's.
@johncrowerdoe55274 жыл бұрын
@@butchs.4239 Do Lamborghini cars do this too?
@butchs.42394 жыл бұрын
@@johncrowerdoe5527 I dunno for certain, but Lamborghini tractors do. It wouldn't surprise me that their cars do as well, using the engine as an structural element makes a lot of sense in a mid-engined rear drive car. Especially a sports car where minimal weight is a design goal.
@TWX11384 жыл бұрын
@@butchs.4239 It doesn't hurt that the engine itself is probably the strongest component of the entire vehicle.
@richb3134 жыл бұрын
Centaur, a perfect example of ,"If It Ain't Broke Don't Fix It." You could probably do an entire series on that alone.
@u-wot-n84 жыл бұрын
"And therefore the Atlas V was also able to take solid rocket motors" The Atlas II had a variant with SRBs on it, the Atlas II AS, last launched in 2005: watch?v=VXXdxkr-L8k
@mesonparticle4 жыл бұрын
I could listen to Scott say "balloon" literally all day!
@videolabguy4 жыл бұрын
First there was hopper. Then there was popper! Never a dull moment.
@collinschofield8084 жыл бұрын
Who else has been to the Air Force Museum in Dayton?
@fim-43redeye313 жыл бұрын
Seeing that the SLS tank withstood *260% load* for *five hours* makes me feel pretty good. That's waaaay beyond anything they'd normally see - hell, if you could get that kind of reliability on every part I'd almost be convinced to scrap the launch escape system. Almost.
@HalNordmann2 жыл бұрын
These margins are common for aerospace technology. And they are quite often necessary.
@bobiboulon4 жыл бұрын
6:25 Wait until the space deniers find that photo. They will go absolutly mad. I can already hear them saying things like "It's a proof that the Saturn five was a rocket-assisted balloon!".
@Wallyworld304 жыл бұрын
I thought this same thing!
@mentatphilosopher4 жыл бұрын
Just like aluminum cans. Once saw a stack of aluminum cans over 30 ft high in a warehouse topple when a row towards the bottom was depressurized as a forklift scrapped across them.
@cogoid4 жыл бұрын
Not a scientific test, but gives one an idea of the strength of pressurized metal cans. One coke can, well padded to distribute the weight evenly, can hold: opened can 77 kg pressurized full can 360 kg (from "How Much Weight Can a Soda Can Hold? Hydraulic Press Test" video)
@VolcanicSpacePizza4 жыл бұрын
Huh, I thought for museums they just stuck an i-beam up the middle of the booster. Seems alot cheaper for maintenance compared to constant pressurization.
@heyarno4 жыл бұрын
Or fill it with hard foam.
@illustriouschin4 жыл бұрын
They fill them with beans.
@JohnWilliamNowak4 жыл бұрын
Usually, yeah. However, the Atlas and Centaur at the US Space and Rocketry Center in Huntsville are kept at pressure.
@thePronto4 жыл бұрын
@@JohnWilliamNowak seems reasonable. First, it's more authentic. Second, tax-payer dollars aren't real money: they just fall off the money tree...
@r0br33r4 жыл бұрын
@@thePronto You're starting to get it, NASA loves your money! And who loves money more than anyone on earth??
@phlarb65054 жыл бұрын
1:41 Hah! The rocket couldn't maintain it's "rigidness." It happens to the best of us, my friend.
@jbrice20104 жыл бұрын
“Explodey stuff” - yeah baby!
@Atlantianreborn4 жыл бұрын
If the space deniers and flat earthers saw this they would say "Look, proof that NASA uses balloons and not real rockets"
@electraglide93574 жыл бұрын
Why include flat earthers in this? You don't have to be a flat earther to question the space program. You sound like a shill!
@paulsilagi47833 жыл бұрын
I mean that statement is half correct, they are using balloons. Metal balloons full of rocket fuel, but still.
@MushookieMan4 жыл бұрын
"This doesn't normally happen."
@markdoldon88524 жыл бұрын
Someone said "any idiot can design a bridge. It takes an engineer to build one that just barely stands"
@scottmanley4 жыл бұрын
It’s even harder when the bridge has to fly
@elguinolo73584 жыл бұрын
Black hole engines are still very experimental, they often result in the entire ship being sucked into the gravity well.
@revenevan114 жыл бұрын
Future space travel has somehow managed to find propulsion methods even more terrifying than riding on top of a barely controlled explosion. I'd still get on the ship!
@sixstringedthing4 жыл бұрын
If I recall my history, there was one spacecraft that successfully engaged its black hole drive, but there were some... unfortunate consequences.
@maranscandy93504 жыл бұрын
sixstringedthing Was that an episode of Gilligan’s island?
@sixstringedthing4 жыл бұрын
@@maranscandy9350 Sure, it was the one where the Professor creates a black hole drive from coconuts and bamboo, and it acidentally sends Gilligan, Ginger and The Skipper into a hell dimension where their minds are broken and their flesh corrupted, whereupon they return and start ritualistically slaughtering the rest of the castaways. A barrel of laughs for the whole familty!
@timothymclean4 жыл бұрын
Small black holes are actually surprisingly safe. Between their small size and their Hawking radiation, matter falling into the black hole by accident is like a beachball falling into a fire hose nozzle while it's in use. Of course, if you can't keep it fed, it'll start losing mass, causing it to radiate harder and faster, leading to a runaway meltdown and a rather impressive explosion.
@Haloriky4 жыл бұрын
When talking about the atlas 7d implosion you talked about a pin rupturing a helium line causing loss of pressure and consequent loss of the vehicle, could you make a video explaining how they manage to understand exactly what went wrong, when all it remains are bits scattered around the ground? Thank you and keep up the good work
@johncrowerdoe55274 жыл бұрын
Maybe the ruptured line was outside the rocket, as part of the Launch site.
@jamesanderton3444 жыл бұрын
Test missiles had telemetry to feed back information...and many high speed cameras on the launch pad....many of which are available on KZbin courtesy of the San Diego Air and Space Museum
@breadturbo4 жыл бұрын
'Explosion fatigue' we play KSP Scott!
@Atlessa4 жыл бұрын
Well said.
@IainMace4 жыл бұрын
Came on to say exactly that... Explode fatigue??? Not a chance!
@ThatBoomerDude564 жыл бұрын
Back in the eartly 1960s, my uncle came back from working at the Cape with a film reel of all of the early Atlas explosions. My cousins & I sat on the floor watching them all. Dad explained to me that the Atlas didn't have the internal structure to stand by itself. There was a sample Atlas rocket at a park outside of General Dynamics plant. He showed me the wooden frame inside that was holding it up.
@vorlonagent4 жыл бұрын
"Explosion fatigue" is for the weak....
@jbrice20104 жыл бұрын
Isn’t the opposite of rigid, ... flacid?
@TalladegaTom4 жыл бұрын
Colin Chapman would have approved of this. :)
@adebiglazywolf50054 жыл бұрын
Wonder who's check thats coming out of Think of the poor bastards that have to go clean that all up
@maniacal_engineer4 жыл бұрын
A coworker of mine worked on the atlas earlier in his career. The atlasses were stored under positive pressure until they could be finished. He told me of a 4th of July weekend at the San Diego plant. A supervisor was required to come in and verify pressure periodically on the Atlas semi-formed fuselages to make sure nothing crumpled. He parked his truck near the tanks and walked down to inspect them. Unfortunately he had failed to set the parking brake on the truck which rolled down and impacted the first of the missiles. It popped like a balloon, but the popping created shrapnel which took out the next one - and so on. They lost 8 of the ten missiles that day, and in the subsequent inquiry the supervisor (who miraculously was completely unscathed) was discharged That is the story as it was told to me by Chuck Greenman. A wwII vet who swam towing an unconscious man hundreds of yards with a broken pelvis after a crash in the south pacific.
@VolkerHett4 жыл бұрын
So it's a blimp in space then. Everything is possible!
@pzoe38084 жыл бұрын
If it works keep it. Like the B-52 bomber and the a-10 aircraft, It makes sense to keep good designs around. I think the case can be made to keep the Falcon 9 rocket long term with it’s amazing Economy and reuse ability.
@revenevan114 жыл бұрын
Right, unless the task at hand or the enemy or competition drastically changes, or a major tech breakthrough means that worthwhile improvements can be made that aren't possible to simply add as an upgrade, stick with what works! That said in the case of SpaceX, I hope they keep making F9s if they're cost effective for their own niche, but I think starship might just blow it out of the water (hopefully figuratively)
@beachcomberfilms86154 жыл бұрын
"I'm Scott Manley, fly safe" (as the rocket falls and smashes into the ground)
@dandeprop4 жыл бұрын
Hi Scott--It also turns out that the leaking LOX badly damaged the launcher itself. The launcher structure was made of structural steel that doesn't have much fracture toughness down at LOX temperatures.
@shehulsuratwala26844 жыл бұрын
Rockets are rockets and rockets sometimes blow up.🤣
@nzoomed4 жыл бұрын
Its incredible those balloon tanks never collapsed during launch as the fuel was consumed and pressure dropped. I guess by the time that could happen, that stage is ready to separate?
@revenevan114 жыл бұрын
They keep them pressurized with another gas or by injecting some exhaust, depending on the rocket! I'm not sure what Atlas used, but most rockets need pressure in the tanks to help fuel flow, so the falcon 9 uses helium, some russian rockets burn some fuel to add exhaust, and some others boil liquid nitrogen I think.
@thePronto4 жыл бұрын
@@revenevan11 that Russian idea definitely sounds like a great plan. (In a Russian accent) "Let's mix hot gases with fuel and/or oxidizer to keep rocket safe"
@revenevan114 жыл бұрын
@@thePronto lol, it totally does! Just like the germans and Russians using concentrated vodka as an early rocket fuel! But in reality the fuel and oxidizer are in separate tanks so it shouldn't cause any issues, since there's no oxygen in the fuel tank, and I'd assume an insignificant amount in the exhaust if things are going according to plan. But, there's probably good reasons we don't see it used today!
@cogoid4 жыл бұрын
@@revenevan11 Atlas used helium in very much the same way as Falcon-9 does, except that in Atlas, the helium bottles were cooled by liquid nitrogen, while Falcon-9 puts the bottles directly in the LOX tank. Both rockets heat the helium by turbine exhaust before using it for tank pressurization. Russians did use gas generators to pressurize tanks on some rockets. Proton is one of such rockets that still flies. I think Russians had already experimented with this idea before the war, but so did the Germans. Karl-Heinz Bringer in Peenemunde have developed gas generators which burned hypergolic fuel components and then cooled the gas by injecting water. The resulting steam was inert enough to be used for pressurizing both the oxidizer tank and the fuel tank. After the war he went to France, and many French rockets used this system, including the first stage of Ariane-1 through 4, which also had its engines designed by Bringer.
@MattChaffe4 жыл бұрын
Wait hold up. At 7:57 with all the Atlas V variants, there is a HLV version on the far right. Has that ever flown, or is it a design that will be flown some day? I was caught off guard cause I thought that was a Delta IV model, but quickly realized those were Altas V first stages.
@nardgames4 жыл бұрын
Never flown, any chanes it had of flying died when vulcan was announced.
@MattChaffe4 жыл бұрын
@@nardgames Good point, it wasn't till the end of the video I realized that Atlas won't be around for much longer
@rokin04 жыл бұрын
"Explosion Fatigued" I don't think that could ever happen :D keep em coming. Maybe a montage to the 1812 overture!
@ConfusedNyan4 жыл бұрын
They did that in MythBusters with all the boomy stuff they did, so why not?
@cdmonmcginn75614 жыл бұрын
Interesting fact the balloon tanks ended up resoulting in a explosion in a missile base blowing the warhead 3 miles away
@scottmanley4 жыл бұрын
Nah those were just regular tanks leaking explodey stuff.
@mb726764 жыл бұрын
They use balloon tanks to fill them with helium
@MendTheWorld4 жыл бұрын
The sight of the parachutes deploying before the rocket hits the ground is so sad. 2:02 🙁
@thePronto4 жыл бұрын
Flight computer: "Wait, I'm falling but we haven't launched yet? Throw error. Alarm, alarm. Fuck it, deploy the parachutes, it won't make things worse."
@jordanhazen77614 жыл бұрын
@@thePronto If only the CRS-7 Dragon's logic tree had been set up that way...
@MeetDannyWilson4 жыл бұрын
@MendTheWorld That's not a parachute - that's a payload fairing.
@5Andysalive4 жыл бұрын
Pretty sure for man-rating the Atlas Nasa insisted on changes that made it more rigid. That was the reason for delays.
@hellishgrin46044 жыл бұрын
260% flight load, that's some serious FOS! For something that needs to be light weight.
@sixstringedthing4 жыл бұрын
Having the structural integrity of your rocket be dependent on propellant tank pressure makes perfect sense, from the point of view that your rocket engine isn't going to work very well without it. The fact that the rocket folds itself in half if it loses tank pressure is an additional minor complication.
@FoamyDave4 жыл бұрын
As the Atlas is keeling over did I see a parachute deploy?
@chrisfields80774 жыл бұрын
I guess with centaur being the upper stage, it doesn't require as much structural strength overall compared to any main stage.
@thePronto4 жыл бұрын
Centaurs were super strong and always had a powerful rocket. Oh, wait, what were we talking about?
@TrainsandRockets4 жыл бұрын
"Rockets have Explody Stuff" ~Manley 2019 end.
@goingballisticmotion54554 жыл бұрын
Towards the end of the implosion, is that the abort system deploying the payload with a parachute?
@robmaxi14 жыл бұрын
Yes number 5! Great video Scott. I thought I knew some stuff about rockets. At forty years old I just learned that those cool looking metal rockets were balloons. Mind blown!
@PacesIII4 жыл бұрын
.015", or fifteen thousandths of an inch, is almost 4 sheets of copier paper in thickness.
@greghansen384 жыл бұрын
Can we ever get enough barely-contained explodey stuff?
@vorpalcheese4 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the great video! I've been wondering though, have you ever heard of the "tippy-sat" aka NOAA N-Prime incident? As far as I can tell no one on KZbin has covered it yet.
@scottmanley4 жыл бұрын
You mean the one where they didn't log removing the bolts?
The NASA test was _very_ different from the SpaceX test in how this NASA test was actually supposed to burst.
@esegueyjose78704 жыл бұрын
thats literally what he said..
@vladimirdyuzhev4 жыл бұрын
Call me "explosion-fatigued", but I would rather listen more about that NASA test.
@mightylink654 жыл бұрын
Thanks, I always wanted to know more about balloon tanks ever since I saw that option in Kerbal Realism Overhaul.
@jedswift4 жыл бұрын
A couple of thoughts on the pressure stabilized "steel balloon" structures: 1) It should be noted that in flight loss of tank pressurization is a flight loss for any rocket. The structure of "free standing" designs are not designed to carry the propellant loads without pressurization. The pumps also require pressure on the inlets to prevent cavitation on the low pressure sides of the impellers and stators (forming tiny near vacuum gas bubbles in the flow). When these bubble collapse they generate momentary high pressures and temperatures. When this happens with the LOX pump, the metal surfaces catch fire with disastrous effects. 3) Solid motors can be integrated to the tank using an internal ring structure as the Atlas 2A demonstrated. 4) The real advantage of this construction technique is it decouples the requirement to be "column stable" under compression loads. This means that the material density is *not* a design requirement. Longerons, low density composite walls, honeycomb structures, and complex panel wall machining are unnecessary. The only figures of merit to consider are strength to weight and weldability. This opens up a world of potential materials, including refractory alloys that could make a reusable system simpler than competing concepts due to the near complete elimination of the acreage high temperature TPS. Post flight inspections would be vastly simplified by the single membrane tankage walls that would be completely exposed for both visual and gas leak detection. 5) Scot noted that the Atlas was close to being an SSTO. Putting numbers to this - Mercury capsule weighted about 5,000 lbs and the booster motors and aft skirt that were jettisoned weight about 7,000 lbs. The Atlas was within 2,000 lbs of being an SSTO out of the 350,000 lb lift off weight with second generation MA-5 engines that were capable of a whopping 295 sec vacuum Isp. SpaceX's Merlin 1B, running of the same propellants advertises 310 sec and RD-191 337 seconds, likely close to the practical limit for RP1. The SpaceX Raptor advertises 363 seconds on the somewhat less dense methane, likely the best that can be done with a hydrocarbon. Diving into LH2, the RS-25 demonstrated 452.3 seconds For a 30,000 ft/sec mission this would yield a 16%, 48%, 80%, and 200% increase in injected mass respectively (Low LEO with 5kft/sec assumed aero and gravity losses). 6) There are two big disadvantages to the pressure stabilized concepts. The first is perception, it just seems flimsy and look flimsy when held depressurized in a stretch fixture. The second is the tooling required to manufacture this class of structures is expensive and complicated; all the weld joints must be supported both internally and externally. The Atlas internal fixture collapsed like a monster umbrella to pull it out the end access panel. The Atlas manufacturing jigs should be in a museum. It is interesting how we seem to be very satisfied with a pressure stabilized structure in our daily lives; the pneumatic tire. The tire is much more structurally complicated. The operational environment is fraught with dynamically changing loads, abrasion and sharp objects. Makes tank design seem like a cake-walk.
@TheExoplanetsChannel4 жыл бұрын
*_The CIA just entered the chat_*
@tybofborg4 жыл бұрын
It was a lone plumber who released the oxygen from the rocket, no conspiracy here, move along, pay no attention to the grassy knoll
@justaman54184 жыл бұрын
tybofborg soon to be the next KZbin conspiracy 🤣🤣🤣
@justaman54184 жыл бұрын
The Exoplanets Channel good then I’m ready for extraction
@michaelnoyola79714 жыл бұрын
"...rockets are full of explodey stuff." Nice.Technical.Language
@vault_3_props9074 жыл бұрын
Hey Scott! Is it possible to get my copy of Ignition! signed by you?
@KnighteMinistriez4 жыл бұрын
I don't know about you, but I like watching things go kaboomboom You're awesome
@freeeflyer4 жыл бұрын
All nasa stuff in their website is still in imperial units. 'murrrricaa.. :D
@revenevan114 жыл бұрын
Well, they're trying to do outreach to the American public (and politicians), so unfortunately even though I'm pretty sure they use metric for everything in house, they need to convert it all to football fields and swimming pools for the idiots to understand. I still have hope that someday we'll change to the metric system, but it might not be in my lifetime unless we cure aging soon lol.
@oneistar66614 жыл бұрын
0.4mm! This makes me want episode for fuel tanks :)
@UncleWermus4 жыл бұрын
Each day I get my full Joe Scott Manley fix is a good day
@vikkimcdonough61534 жыл бұрын
6:28 - Why not add an internal reinforcing skeleton to the museum Atlases so they won't collapse if the air compressor line comes loose?
@jamesanderton3444 жыл бұрын
Sean McDonough display atlases have an internal frame
@erikgranqvist36804 жыл бұрын
How are they keeping the preassure up as the fuel is being used by the engine? I imagine there should be several ways to solvw that.
@xponen4 жыл бұрын
they pump in a different gas into the tank, like helium.
@cogoid4 жыл бұрын
Even rockets with sturdy tanks have to keep pressure up. (Turbopumps in the rocket engines usually require certain inlet pressure to function without cavitation -- pressure of about 3 Bar is typical.) Indeed, many different systems for pressurizing the tanks have been developed over time. Some designs burn stuff to generate gas. Russian Soyuz boils liquid nitrogen to fill the empty space with hot nitrogen gas. SpaceX uses helium in Falcon 9, and will just boil the fuel itself in their next big methane / liquid oxygen rocket.
@PhilJonesIII4 жыл бұрын
So, essentially, astronauts don't get sent up on rockets but balloons with rocket engines. I'm suddenly glad I didn't become an astronaut.
@jerry37904 жыл бұрын
When will they ever do the test where they try to repair the tank with flex tape?
@dalethelander37814 жыл бұрын
Phil Thwift here at Canaveral Air Thtation.
@rbmk__10004 жыл бұрын
Now that's alot of damage!
@DeliciousDeBlair4 жыл бұрын
Balloon fuel tanks: that amazingly miraculous place in time and space where sheer insanity and sheer genius meet without too great of a disaster. ~( 'w')/
@Freeflyer914 жыл бұрын
Prototype Romulan Warbird with a singularity core which escaped containment.
@mscheese0004 жыл бұрын
I hadn't thought about that episode in years lol
@DreamskyDance4 жыл бұрын
It tehnically used pressure... the one black hole exerts on its containment.
@Mac1PC4 жыл бұрын
Very interesting and informative. Thank you.
@dismiggo4 жыл бұрын
It’s not an implosion, it’s a rapid, unscheduled disassembly!
@dr.ofdubiouswisdom41894 жыл бұрын
** Giagantic Fart blast sound echoes across Cape as rocket collapses...** (uncomfortable silence.) Director of Operations looking straight ahead, says: " Johnson, I don't care if it IS cheaper buying our rocket bladders thru the 'Whoopee Cushion' factory... don't DO that again!!"
@tybofborg4 жыл бұрын
"The pressure in the tanks is what keeps the rocket rigid" - oh come on, this is getting ridiculous. What's next, is the rocket going to eject liquid coolant through a slot on the top? Is the rocket going to come with a protective shroud around its fairing that will only be pulled back when it's time to launch? Is the rocket going to have visible outlines of its plumbing protruding from the fuselage? Men and their toys :D
@battlesheep25524 жыл бұрын
Well some of those could be practical. Lets say you have a rocket powered by a nuclear reactor that needs to dissipate a lot of heat in vacuum, i’ve seen ideas for a cooling system that would work by squirting molten sodium at the top and recapturing it at the bottom. The shroud is also not a bad idea to protect it from the elements prior to launch if you consider the Challenger explosion.
@thePronto4 жыл бұрын
I'm guessing that you make movies in the San Fernando valley?
@tybofborg4 жыл бұрын
@@thePronto Space may be the final frontier but it's made in a Hollywood basement baby
@Sparrow4204 жыл бұрын
8:34 It makes me laugh how an article from 87 has a "share to facebook/twitter" button. (I know it's because it's featured on a modern day website, shut up)
@lsswappedcessna4 жыл бұрын
"Balloon tanks" So you mean to tell me that flat earthers are *technically* correct about rockets being balloons?
@UncleWermus4 жыл бұрын
If you run the sound of a rocket liftoff through the flat earth filter you hear THPTHPTHPTHPTHPTPTHPTHPTHPTHPTHPTHPTHPTHPTHPHTP
@theambergryphon42664 жыл бұрын
Please tell me flat earthers don't actually believe rockets are balloons. At this point they're just making excuses like why go through all that bs and believe it instead of the facts.
@Kualinar4 жыл бұрын
@@theambergryphon4266 Several DO pretend that the external tank of the shuttles where actually helium balloons. Those also pretend that most of the regular rockets are also helium balloons. I know, they are dumber than a rock and crazy.
@theambergryphon42664 жыл бұрын
@@Kualinar *but why*
@lsswappedcessna4 жыл бұрын
@@theambergryphon4266 I hate to say it, but yeah. They say the space shuttle bobs up and down right before launch because it's a balloon, not because it flexes a little bit under the sheer force of its engines.
@richhoule34624 жыл бұрын
Seems like bracing would be added to a static display Atlas. I lived close to Plattsburgh NY former home of the 556th SMS using the Atlas F. My question is, how were the missiles stored upright in their silos without collapsing? They were raised out of their silos for fueling, so were they pressurized inside the silos at all times?
@theblah124 жыл бұрын
1:27 KOYAANISQATSI, KOYAANISQATSI, KOYAANISQATSI
@tmgromit40074 жыл бұрын
So, im not alone in recognising that clip 👍
@agate_jcg4 жыл бұрын
Are there any launchers that can support their weight when unpressurized at 1 g, but rely on fuel pressure to support themselves against high-g flight loads? Seems like this would be a good compromise between high performance and practical ground operations.
@newdawnrising94 жыл бұрын
1:39 Explosion fatigued?! Does such a thing exist?!?!
@benshapiro2wt2984 жыл бұрын
im pretty sure most of us here play KSP anyway
@danilov1144 жыл бұрын
I would be tired if you blew up my vicinity I would become fatigued fast enough....
@tonyadkin58384 жыл бұрын
Yes, it seems we had the same results when using hydrogen expanding tanks within the flying ( lighter than air ships ) at the beginning of the 1900s, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to relive it. So, are we still using rockets? The same method to leave the earth that the ancient Chinese employed, and yet we dream of the stars, but fly on the wind.