4 ms·
This fault wasn't due to the introduction of supercooled LOX, though. They've been doing that for a while. The change here was to the tanking schedule so that
by andygates 10y ago
This fault wasn't due to the introduction of supercooled LOX, though. They've been doing that for a while. The change here was to the tanking schedule so that it could better withstand a last-minute hold. As it stands, they're back to any hold during tanking leading to a launch scrub.
Once the redesigned tanks come in, it's likely that they'll go right back, because little holds aren't uncommon.
- mikeash 10y agoThey'd been doing it for about nine months before this explosion. It wasn't the proximate cause, but it was a major change to the vehicle, one which is highly unusual in rocketry, and without that change, the proximate causes for the explosion wouldn't have happened. Without supercooled propellants, there wouldn't have been the need for faster tanking (because the fuel can just be at ambient temperature, and the LOX maintains temperature by boiling), and even if there were, the LOX wouldn't have been cold enough to solidify.