4 ms·

Soyuz MS-10 abort caused by sensor failure at booster separation

83 points by astdb 8y ago

robin_reala 8y ago
Interesting slide that shows the failed booster on the ground. I guess I’d assumed they burnt up or at least crashed hard enough to completely destroy themselves, but here it just looks a bit crumpled.
- hughes 8y ago
  I was also surprised by this. I would have expected it to explode on impact just from the residual fuel in the booster's tanks.
  - tehbeard 8y ago
    If I had to make an uneducated guess, probably a combination of the fuel staying together during freefall rather than spreading through the tank and some sort of inert gas (nitrogen?) pumped into the tank during ascent to keep the internal pressure constant that also prevents ignition.
    - sawjet 8y ago
      The soyuz strap-on boosters are constructed primarily of steel, as opposed to aluminum, so they tend to survive the reentry and litho-braking better than most people expect.
      - avmich 8y ago
        > The soyuz strap-on boosters are constructed primarily of steel, as opposed to aluminum I don't think it's the case. AFAIK, standard material for tanks construction - and tanks in R-7 are load-bearing, unlike those in V-2 - is AMg-6, aluminum alloy with magnesium as main addition. This alloy is chosen to keep construction operations simple - using riveting - without too much risk of fracturing the sheets of metal. Engine is second biggest piece by mass in the booster. The chamber is made from copper alloy - practically pure copper, with some small additions of chromium (bronze BrH-08). Gas generator (which uses high test peroxide, 82%) could be from steel (or some other high temperature resistant alloy), yes, but it's a relatively small device. Same is for turbopumps. For second stage it's often the case that it falls laying horizontally - caused by aerodynamics. First stage boosters aren't that lengthy, comparing to their width, but they can also fall sideways. This kind of landing is less destructive, so some parts could survive the landing. First stage boosters have the advantage of falling from lesser heights and having smaller initial speed, so they have little problems with aerodynamic drag - way less heat to survive.
village-idiot 8y ago
That explains why their boosters fall away in such a beautiful cross pattern, they push the nose of the booster away from the core while the booster is still burning.

83 points by astdb 8y ago

Interesting slide that shows the failed booster on the ground. I guess I’d assumed they burnt up or at least crashed hard enough to completely destroy themselves, but here it just looks a bit crumpled.

hughes 8y ago
I was also surprised by this. I would have expected it to explode on impact just from the residual fuel in the booster's tanks.
- tehbeard 8y ago
  If I had to make an uneducated guess, probably a combination of the fuel staying together during freefall rather than spreading through the tank and some sort of inert gas (nitrogen?) pumped into the tank during ascent to keep the internal pressure constant that also prevents ignition.
  - sawjet 8y ago
    The soyuz strap-on boosters are constructed primarily of steel, as opposed to aluminum, so they tend to survive the reentry and litho-braking better than most people expect.
    - avmich 8y ago
      > The soyuz strap-on boosters are constructed primarily of steel, as opposed to aluminum I don't think it's the case. AFAIK, standard material for tanks construction - and tanks in R-7 are load-bearing, unlike those in V-2 - is AMg-6, aluminum alloy with magnesium as main addition. This alloy is chosen to keep construction operations simple - using riveting - without too much risk of fracturing the sheets of metal. Engine is second biggest piece by mass in the booster. The chamber is made from copper alloy - practically pure copper, with some small additions of chromium (bronze BrH-08). Gas generator (which uses high test peroxide, 82%) could be from steel (or some other high temperature resistant alloy), yes, but it's a relatively small device. Same is for turbopumps. For second stage it's often the case that it falls laying horizontally - caused by aerodynamics. First stage boosters aren't that lengthy, comparing to their width, but they can also fall sideways. This kind of landing is less destructive, so some parts could survive the landing. First stage boosters have the advantage of falling from lesser heights and having smaller initial speed, so they have little problems with aerodynamic drag - way less heat to survive.

village-idiot 8y ago

That explains why their boosters fall away in such a beautiful cross pattern, they push the nose of the booster away from the core while the booster is still burning.