Since ~2017 SpaceX has used autonomous flight termination, I think ULA
followed recently and I believe all new rockets launched from US ranges
must use autonomous systems. It consists of a mostly or completely
independent computer that uses GPS and/or inertial sensors (either its own
or split off the navigation system siganls) to determine if the vehicle has
left its flight path (or, alternatively, if the inputs from enough sensors
has been lost to assume that the vehicle is disabled). Due to the width of
the typical flight envelope it generally takes several seconds to go
outside the nominal flight envelope. It removes the security blanket of
having a human in the loop to blame, but it also removes a bunch of human
error and bespoke ground systems from the loop.
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 3:02 PM kevin ward <kevinward46@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello y'all
Anyone have all the propellant specs (for BurnSim, i.e. mol, density, burn
rate, etc) re AP\HTPB
Is there better ?
We've researched 4 hours... Send 2b protected info
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:37 PM James Fackert <jimfackert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It sure seems that flight termination was very clean and deliberate. Two
clean explosions a few seconds apart. Is it possible that the loss of
several engines meant that altitude and velocity was not adequate to
satisfy successful flight parameters, the safety system would not allow
separation, but instead, demanded explosive termination of the booster and
the second stage flights? I dont think it was a rapid unanticipated
dissasembly- it seemed clean and clearly deliberate.
If the second stage had inadequate velocety and was separated and
ignited, it might have ended up .... anywhere? and that would not be good.
So success is impossible, get it over with with minimal threat to others.