|
|
|
|
|
|
by VLM
4005 days ago
|
|
|
WRT max-Q its a meme that won't go away because the most "interesting" thing on the public PR timelines before the incident was max-q. However dynamic pressure drops off extremely quickly due to altitude (low air pressure) and max-Q was a good while before the incident, so it wasn't a direct issue. It could obviously be an indirect issue if something started to buckle a minute previous or shook loose and for whatever reason a minute later it burst, perhaps as pressure built up or something. The other meme is there are or have been rockets or overall systems with flight profiles and designs that have unsurvivable portions of the flight. Or only extremely theoretically survivable. Think of the old shuttle system, for example. A RTLS abort was theoretically survivable, but lets be realistic here... However the space-x guys are extremely proud that they designed an overall system that has no unsurvivable by design flight portions, and also very proud that they did a test flight with a separation near max-q specifically to prove it would work just fine even at max-q... One interesting problem with a structural failure at that speed is it could be hard computationally to tell the difference between some irrelevant pogo-ing or vibration vs 50 ms later half the rocket is flying sideways, at which point it might be unsurvivable. Bad car analogy is I can jump out of an airplane with a parachute at 100 MPH and all turns out just fine, but randomly getting tossed out of a 100 MPH car isn't going to likely end very well even if under ideal conditions its no big deal. |
|
|
The in-flight abort test for Dragon v2 is scheduled to occur later this year. It hasn't occurred yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_V2#Flight_testing
Also note that Dragon v2 was not on this mission and won't fly to space for a while. This was a Dragon v1 mission. Dragon v1 is unmanned and has no launch abort capability.