Jump to content

The Universe


Recommended Posts

The thing that confuses me about this is they have to cool the engines to close to 20 degrees above absolute zero, minus 250 c, to cope with a huge flow of very cold hydrogen and oxygen for lift off so they don't shatter or whatever from the rapid temperature change, but then the oxygen and hydrogen almost immediately join to explode in a massive increase in temperature so the engine casings very rapidly become red hot. Any material scientists on P&B who can tell me why a rapid reduction of temperature is more harmful than a rapid increase?

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The thing that confuses me about this is they have to cool the engines to close to 20 degrees above absolute zero, minus 250 c, to cope with huge flow of very cold hydrogen and oxygen for lift off so they don't shatter or whatever from the rapid temperature change, but then the oxygen and hydrogen almost immediately join to explode in a massive increase in temperature so the engine casings very rapidly become red hot. Any material scientists on P&B who can tell me why a rapid reduction of temperature is more harmful than a rapid increase?

With nothing but unused physics behind me I would guess its the materials being better at handling expansion vs contraction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

With nothing but unused physics behind me I would guess its the materials being better at handling expansion vs contraction. 

Aye, maybe it's about molecules moving closer together being more traumatic to structural integrity than moving apart. Or something about the speed of atoms bombing about, slowing down making the materials more rigid, speeding up making them more flexible. @Melanius Mullarkay might have a clue, despite what people say...

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye, maybe it's about molecules moving closer together being more traumatic to structural integrity than moving apart. Or something about the speed of atoms bombing about, slowing down making the materials more rigid, speeding up making them more flexible. [mention=70922]Melanius Mullarkay[/mention] might have a clue, despite what people say...
I'm going to guess that the metals are designed to handle either, but the temperature shock of the combustion is a neccessary one, whereas the cold shock can be avoided by taking some time. Even if a metal is designed to handle the stress of extremes, doesn't mean its not prudent to avoid it where possible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bairnardo said:
14 hours ago, welshbairn said:
Aye, maybe it's about molecules moving closer together being more traumatic to structural integrity than moving apart. Or something about the speed of atoms bombing about, slowing down making the materials more rigid, speeding up making them more flexible. [mention=70922]Melanius Mullarkay[/mention] might have a clue, despite what people say...

I'm going to guess that the metals are designed to handle either, but the temperature shock of the combustion is a neccessary one, whereas the cold shock can be avoided by taking some time. Even if a metal is designed to handle the stress of extremes, doesn't mean its not prudent to avoid it where possible.

Yeah and having an engine switching from ambient environment to minus 250c and then up to 3000c, all in a few seconds, would be hugely and unnecessarily stressful, as you say  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like this scrub was due to a gasket on a quick disconnect valve that allows a fuel line to separate from the rocket when it takes off. It's unlikely they'll be able to try again before the second half of October as there are batteries that likely need replacing which means going back to the shed, then SpaceX are launching early October.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would have been unimaginable 10 years ago but it's happening every few weeks with SpaceX. Imagine what it would cost to fly to Malaga if they had to build a new plane every trip. It's not incredibly complex technology or patented techniques, anybody could copy it, and China probably will, but the only reason Artemis 1 will cost $4 billion just to launch is that only a tiny part of it will return to Earth, and that's down to pork barrel politics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

 

 

I am pretty sure north of Glasgow is not the north west coast. That aside seems to have been quite the site. Most likely not big enough to have reached the ground, but who knows. 

Very exciting, but I think you need to brush up on your geography if you don't think the northwestern coast of Scotland is north of Glasgow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Gnash said:

Very exciting, but I think you need to brush up on your geography if you don't think the northwestern coast of Scotland is north of Glasgow.

I'm not a qualified Geographer but I'd have thought that as there's basically a sharp angle between the North coast and the West coast we don't really have a Northwestern coast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...