Sea Launch Fails

Lucas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
880
Reaction score
0
Its not as bad as it could have been, here are some more pictures I have found. (note the doors). I can't wait for SeaLaunch to release the photos from the pad cameras! Those should be awesome and may tell a lot about what happened. (pictures from the Novosti Kosmonavtiki forum)

<img src="https://p.foto.radikal.ru/0702/72d9570db285.jpg">
<img src="https://p.foto.radikal.ru/0702/8a5df73a3d2b.jpg">
<img src="https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/get-attachment-big.asp?action=view&attachmentid=17678">
<img src="https://p.foto.radikal.ru/0702/42591756427d.jpg">
<img src="https://k.foto.radikal.ru/0702/06a7d9d7839d.jpg">

Enjoy!
 

jerryb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
521
Reaction score
0
what people are failing to realize here, is that this is no longer an oil platform. The fire, no matter how insiginificantly superficial the damage looks, CHANGED the strength of the structural portions of the steel in the platform. When you heat high carbon steel and then put it out with water, which I think they probably didnt do, it get hard as glass. when its hard like this, it is very brittle and subject to shearing / shattering forces when placed under stress. Take that same steel, and heat it intensely, and then just let it cool down, it will get "dead soft" which means it is soft as butter with very little structural strength subject to severe load bending under stress.

either way, I think it is a very smart move to abandon this unit, and build a new platform. In the long run it just makes better safety sense for the company. One or two more failures, specially ones that could have been prevented could possibly "sink" (sorry) this companies ability to persue customers as confidence fails.

just my opinion though, I'm not an engineer on the project and haven't and won't ever see the stress reports. To recertify that steel would require taking and testing samples of every piece of structure that was touched by the fires. then you have to cut any heat effected steel out and replace it, or have it retempered.

new construction is WAY more cost effective in this case. Just better business sense in the long run.

later
Jerryb
 

10fttall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
840
Reaction score
7
Just an uneducated thought here, but that thing looks in pretty good shape to me. We didn't see how long the fireball lasted, how long it burned, or if the bulk fell into the ocean in a few seconds, or anything. If i'm thinking correctly the "ground zero" for the highest damage potential would have been the portion that is built to normally be subjected to hot exhaust. And the rest may have only been exposed to burning fuel for several seconds, and would suffer no real structural consequences. (Just like I could put my hand in a 500 degree oven for a second or two and be just fine.)

Or I could be totally wrong, and the fire could have raged for half an hour. I don't know.
 
Top