Indian Space Program Discussion

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Dec 2010 21:42

Again, constructive criticism and constructive thought flows can come even from an enemy land or something you want to be compared against. Progressive analysis is important rather have to defend for the wrong aspects for exactly which a process mature setup will help.

When we fail, a mature society does not compare with chinpak and saber rattle rather compare with better org and learn. For example, One learns from their kids certain things. Knowledge can come from any source, and don't defend the failure rather support the corrections was in my thoughts.

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 28 Dec 2010 21:44

SSSalvi wrote:True that one should not speculate from TV visuals especially an ex ISRO person.
From the TV visuals, I got a feeling that the strap-on rockets of the first stage got detached within seconds of lift-off,” Mr Kumar said.
But it comes from the mouth of the person who headed the unit that designs and manufactures rockets of ISRO and must have witnessed several launches from SHAR.

This is precisely why he should hold back a bit. I dont think the point is whether he is right or wrong. He could be right, or way off course. The point is that he has insufficient information and certainly no follow-up information. For example, if it did come off, how did it happen? Was is a matter of not installing it correctly or was there a bolt failure (in which case the manufacturing and QA processes come into focus). What about the issue of the connectors breaking? Was that that a cause or an effect? Failure analysis is a complex business and single-point statements based on one data point from public domain source creates more fuzz than enlightenment.

The other problem is that anyone who worked at ISRO could start making public statements (i.e. to the press) simply because they 'worked at ISRO'; and it will only add to the confusion. We are already seeing that happen right now. My point is that people who have held positions of responsibility should be very circumspect when speaking to the press *because* their word carries weight. Finally, his comment that it was a stupid error (if indeed the strap-on came off) trashes the whole agency. There is a public dynamic at work here because all of India, and indeed the world, is watching. It was the most popular video on CNN main page (which, actually, was the clearest video I have seen of the launch, more clear than the 2 links posted on BRF) and the caption was: 'Rocket blows up to bits'... Really? It was deliberately blown to bits for safety reasons because it veered of course.

But I do understand where you are coming from, so this is my last post on the issue.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 28 Dec 2010 21:45

Saik ji,

Let me end this by saying, IMHO that your two previous posts were not even remotely constructive criticism.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 29 Dec 2010 08:54

ISRO cannot afford failures
IDSA COMMENT
http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/ISROcan ... ele_281210

Suspected debris of exploded rocket washes ashore
http://www.sify.com/news/suspected-debr ... cgged.html

akash_k · Post by **akash_k** » 29 Dec 2010 12:00

Isro: snapped connectors failed GSLV
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 182468.cms

BANGALORE: The snapping of connectors that take a signal to the first stage of the rocket is believed to have led to the failure of the Geosynchronous Launch Vehicle ( GSLV) on December 25.

Isro spokesperson S Satish told TOI that the crash did not have anything to do with the cryogenic stage or engine of the rocket but was related to the snapping of connectors within the first stage. "Connectors between two critical systems within the first stage snapped. Four connectors that take a signal to the first stage for controlling the rocket could have snapped. We are trying to understand why the connectors snapped, which caused loss of control and eventual failure of the mission," Satish said.

In common parlance, the connectors between the computer systems and the control systems within the first stage of the rocket snapped and the signals that were supposed to reach from the computer systems to the control systems that are broadly linked to the strap-ons within the first stage that eventually ignite the engine did not reach them. This happened because the link between the two snapped.

An expert committee is being set up within the next couple of days to look into the causes of the failure. "Teams are looking at the data to find out the reason for what happened," Satish said.

Top Isro officials at Sriharikota said the command to control the space rocket (GSLV-f06), carrying Gsat-5p, from the equipment bay, the electronic brain of the launch vehicle, did not reach the actuators in the first stage. They reasoned that a connector chord, which takes the signal down, had snapped.

The GSLV-f06 powered by Russian cryogenic stage, with Gsat-5p communication satellite on board, failed in its mission on Christmas day following a technical problem soon after the liftoff from the Sriharikota spaceport in Andhra Pradesh.

The Gsat-5p meant to give a boost to communication services, including TV, telephone and telemedicine, was originally scheduled for launch on December 20 but was postponed a day earlier after a leak was noticed in the cryogenic stage during pre-countdown checks.

This is the second consecutive setback for India's space programme this year after the GSLV-D3 veered off its flight path and plunged into the Bay of Bengal along with Gsat-4 on April 15.

The Failure Analysis Committee to be formed is expected to be similar to the committee set up after the failure of GSLV-D3, primarily for the flight testing of indigenously developed cryogenic upper stage (CUS), on April 15 this year.

SSSalvi · Post by **SSSalvi** » 29 Dec 2010 13:46

akash_k wrote:Did India goof up on GSLV

...
The GSLV mission was postponed from December 20 – when a ‘minor’ leak in one of the valves of the Russian cryogenic engine as detected – to December 25, when it failed.
....

“But five days was not enough to do all that; and, obviously, it now appears that we overlooked the problem in the first stage itself,”
.........................

Interestingly, the very first attempt to launch the GSLV programme on March 28, 2001, was also aborted a second before lift-off due to a snag.

It was rescheduled for April 18, 2001 – 21 days after the original date – when it was successfully launched to mark the beginning of India’s GSLV series of launchers. The problem then was the lack of thrust due to defective plumbing in one of the four first stage strap-on engines.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_di ... lv_1487223

After the leak was repaired the countdown clock was brought back by almost 24 hours. So launch revaluation must have been done thoroughly as far as remote monitoring of various subsystems are concerned. But the problem was not of electronic functioning. Even if the connector was just pressed in its place it would pass the remote electronic tests. But the problem was that of ensuring that connector is sitting properly in its place with its locking mechanism which has to be done manually and checked and rechecked.

This is what everybody is saying as negligence and carelessness. Are they wrong?

sanjeevji · Post by **sanjeevji** » 29 Dec 2010 14:42

AFAIK, every aircraft/rocket systems have multiple level of redundency. I think, GSLV must have been designed with multiple fault tolerent systems. Also the cables are redundent and their paths are laid from different location. So even if one path fails, other is active. If they havent done that then it is a very bad design.

SSSalvi · Post by **SSSalvi** » 29 Dec 2010 15:02

^^^^
weight ... dear friend

THIS SYSTEM HAS PROVEN SEVERAL ( in fact EVERY ) TIMES THAT THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH 'DESIGN' OF 1ST STAGE or even 2nd stage.

CARELESSNESS CAN CREEP EVEN IN 101th FLIGHT AFTER 100 successful flights.

vina · Post by **vina** » 29 Dec 2010 16:41

Yawn.. Dont know how many thousand launches the Proton has had, going back to the 60s.

Well,
Russian Space officials fired over failed launch

An investigation has revealed that the failure was caused by a calculations error that resulted in excessive fuel being pumped into the carrier's upper stage.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Dec 2010 16:43

^^ Vina this had a new upperstage and due to faulty documentation they filled in more fuel.

But negligence is negligence and Medvedev did the right thing firing them.

juvva · Post by **juvva** » 29 Dec 2010 16:47

It is true that other countries and space programs have their share of mistakes and failures, But in our case the failures get magnified and have a bigger impact mainly because of our very low launch rate ( less then one per year for GSLV).

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Dec 2010 16:52

Juvva,

That could be one of the reasons. But I don't think so. The reason is an ext ream lack of self respect in all things Indian. So when some Indian product tries to reach for the stars like ISRO you have millions of detractors. Pointing out the millions of poor and the corruption etc.

If ISRO fails for some reason then they get to say I told you so.

These are the same people who say that India is a turd world country and should not aspire for a seat at the High table. Don't pay them any attention.

Having said so, ISRO has to come back stronger then ever after this.

JMT

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 29 Dec 2010 21:18

Pratyush wrote:Juvva,

That could be one of the reasons. But I don't think so. The reason is an ext ream lack of self respect in all things Indian. So when some Indian product tries to reach for the stars like ISRO you have millions of detractors. Pointing out the millions of poor and the corruption etc.

If ISRO fails for some reason then they get to say I told you so.

These are the same people who say that India is a turd world country and should not aspire for a seat at the High table. Don't pay them any attention.

Having said so, ISRO has to come back stronger then ever after this.

JMT

I remember the times when ASLV was called Automatic Sea landing Vehicle!
They saw success only in the 3rd and 4th launches in the ASLV.

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 29 Dec 2010 22:03

akash_k wrote:Did India goof up on GSLV

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_di ... lv_1487223

Report is titled, Did ISRO goof up on GSLV? wondering why you changed ISRO with India?

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 29 Dec 2010 22:13

Neela wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Juvva,

That could be one of the reasons. But I don't think so. The reason is an ext ream lack of self respect in all things Indian. So when some Indian product tries to reach for the stars like ISRO you have millions of detractors. Pointing out the millions of poor and the corruption etc.

If ISRO fails for some reason then they get to say I told you so.

These are the same people who say that India is a turd world country and should not aspire for a seat at the High table. Don't pay them any attention.

Having said so, ISRO has to come back stronger then ever after this.

JMT
I remember the times when ASLV was called Automatic Sea landing Vehicle!
They saw success only in the 3rd and 4th launches in the ASLV.

PSLV changed India´s (space) fortune with 90% rate of success, but that was then. With two fizzled flights in a row (heavier payload persuit), its time for Russian techno consultants to visit India in a stealth mode to save us some time and money.

He who asks is a fool for 5 minutes, but he who does not, remains a fool forever.

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 29 Dec 2010 22:17

Raghavendra wrote:
akash_k wrote:Did India goof up on GSLV

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_di ... lv_1487223
Report is titled, Did ISRO goof up on GSLV? wondering why you changed ISRO with India?

Correct!

Steak can not be bigger than animal.

disha · Post by **disha** » 29 Dec 2010 22:49

Excellent Gems, already compiled here - so please do not reproduce again:

1. Arianne is a better rocket.
2. Chineese have a bigger rocket.
3. NASA has a better management.

Some more for Indians:

1. We have two failures in a row, Radhakrishnan is Jinxed
2. We should launch fewer launches, ISRO team is being driven hard
3. India has failed

Cannot say much to all such things above, the above statements are inane and useless.

And now some more uvachas:

1. Let us call Russians for money and consultancy.

What an opinion - I will frame this on the wall of my house., particularly when it is proven that the failure was on the first stage and ISRO (and India) has one of the largest solid state booster in the world.

Yes read that again, India has the one of the largest single segmented solid state booster in the world. Yes, one of the largest SRB is Designed in India, Made in India and one that has not failed, yes the command & control system has gone awry for this GSLV but the booster has not failed yet. The only other larger SRB is for Space Shuttle.

So please please read up before you post again.

akash_k · Post by **akash_k** » 29 Dec 2010 23:31

Raghavendra wrote:
akash_k wrote:Did India goof up on GSLV

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_di ... lv_1487223
Report is titled, Did ISRO goof up on GSLV? wondering why you changed ISRO with India?

my bad. typo error.
btw, why am i not able to edit the post? am i missing something..

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 29 Dec 2010 23:35

What an opinion - I will frame this on the wall of my house., particularly when it is proven that the failure was on the first stage and ISRO (and India) has one of the largest solid state booster in the world.

Yes read that again, India has the one of the largest single segmented solid state booster in the world. Yes, one of the largest SRB is Designed in India, Made in India and one that has not failed, yes the command & control system has gone awry for this GSLV but the booster has not failed yet. The only other larger SRB is for Space Shuttle.

What a jingoistic statement there sans logic!

Two fiasco in a row is a factual thingy, something happened without perturbing (the so called famous) SRBs. The last time it was turbo pump and now it is connectors/actuators, tommorow we dont know what.

If we can employ whole Russian cryo stage, we even got our cryo blue prints from them, we have had our beloved Arihant under their consultancy, 70% of our war/strategic material comes from them. What is a shame here asking for a covert help in a strategic move? These are our ICBMs to be - some screwdrivers away.

Before more (popular) newspaper start denigrating ISRO with the terms such as JINXED or negligence, its time for timely help from our trusted Russian freinds.

Lets give credit, where it is due!

And for above, its got to be Russians, who not only gave us just engines, but the tools and equipments to pump propellants into cryo stage at minus 260.....something (nozzles) very delicate to handle.

Aha!!!

India may seek international help on cryogenic engine

In the early stages of designing a new booster for communications satellites, India struck a deal with Russia to provide hydrogen-fueled rocket engines and technical know-how.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1010/12gslv/

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 30 Dec 2010 08:01

nothing like a failure to get the attention of world media

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 85,00.html

Well at least there is no pontification on how half the country ilives on 2 dollars a day and better than some of the rantings on this thread

guess one should be thankful

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Dec 2010 08:06

S^3, Aren't the connectors held by clamps ~18 inches from the boxes? And the configuration tested on shaker table to random shock and sine wave? And aren't there redundant cables? I note you said the connectors have locking mechanism.
So what gives?

vina · Post by **vina** » 30 Dec 2010 08:19

Russian techno consultants to visit India in a stealth mode to save us some time and money.

Well, maybe the Russian "techno consultants" cant come because they will be busy trying to find out how to fix their own launchers like Proton that have have repeated failures of late , despite being in service since 1960s..

Err. Maybe Putin and Medveydev fired them and sent them home!

He who asks is a fool for 5 minutes, but he who does not, remains a fool forever

An incorrigible fool is someone who knows nothing about anything , but tries given advice gratis to the other person under the assumption that the other person is a bigger fool, all the while when the other person would have far far higher information, knowledge and experience about the matter.

It is as ridiculous as me trying to advice Dr Shiv on how to do an operation (even maybe a small one) like appendicitis, when I have no idea what an appendix in the human body is and where it is. Frankly it would be ridiculous, considering that all my biology /human/cockroach/frog/plant business ending with 10th std when I ran away from it at the first opportunity.

vina · Post by **vina** » 30 Dec 2010 08:33

ramana wrote:S^3, Aren't the connectors held by clamps ~18 inches from the boxes? And the configuration tested on shaker table to random shock and sine wave? And aren't there redundant cables? I note you said the connectors have locking mechanism.
So what gives?

That is assuming that the cable snapped at the junction box/connectors. It could have just snapped even before that.. like say where it is fixed to something. There are all kinds of possibilities.

How do you know that the conduit holding the cable itself didnt crumple in some place due to vibration or even flutter (it was still in the atmosphere remember, less than 8500 m or so, less than the height at which airliners flying at 10Km) and broken the cable if it was secured to the conduit at someplace where there was heavy vibration/flutter.

It is not as simple as someone forgot to screw the connectors in tightly. That would easily show up in the automated checkout I think where each subsystem has a dedicated team looking at it and checking and re-checking things.

I think it is more a configuration change problem of unanticipated /unanalyzed problems or in Amir Khan Angrezi Unk-Unk (unknown-unkown) or maybe even a Known-Unknown, playing up.

What needs to be done is a root cause analysis , which ISRO anyway sets up an independent body with 3rd party members in it to do it and then fix it. Whether you get a Prof Feynman like guy and make it high profile after the Challenger disaster or invite the Sooper-Dooper Russians (if they can find the time after fixing their own failures of everything from Bulava to Proton) or even Dhoti clad Yindoos, all same-same. Needs to be done and will be done.

Meanwhile we will continue to see some absolutely brain dead DDM filling the airwaves with total and inane horse manure, starting from Undie TV to Times Now (that worthy kept insisting that the Satellite blew up.. err. he did know the difference between satellite and a launcher), or some Pallav Bagla all the way from CA who I doubt even say the launch on TV giving "expert goli" or some un-named "source" claiming the boosters fell off!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Dec 2010 08:49

ashokpachori wrote:. . . its time for Russian techno consultants to visit India in a stealth mode to save us some time and money.

Ashokpachori, I am sure that if ISRO determines that they have to call the Russian experts, they would do so as they did when they detected the leak in the cryo stage. At other times too, ISRO has called foreign experts for consultation. At this point, ISRO is still doing fault analysis. Let us see what comes out of that. The zero and first stages are Indian in design and construction. Did GSLV fail because the connectors snapped or did the connectors snap because of something else ? Let's wait for the FAC to conclude. I am sure if ISRO needs them the Russians or others would come, not in a stealth mode though. Why should there be stealth ?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 30 Dec 2010 09:20

One important point to see in the analysis is that the mishap happened when the rocket was passing through the transonic regime. No doubt, the designers would have thoroughly analysed the effect of modification on the rocket and vibration analysis.

From a layman's point of view, adding 3 tons of fuel to the upper stage is as good as adding an additional 3-ton satellite (as far as the first and second stages are concerned), unless they have shaved off some weight from upper stage structure, which is unlikely. In addition, there was lengthening of the rocket, and increase in dia of the cap as well. This would normally require more powerful reaction thrusters to correct attitude.

Unless we have inside information about ALL the modification carried out, it would just be plain speculation about the cause of failure. There are too many variables to look into - not just the added weight and length of the rocket.

SSSalvi · Post by **SSSalvi** » 30 Dec 2010 09:28

ashokpachori wrote:
India may seek international help on cryogenic engine
In the early stages of designing a new booster for communications satellites, India struck a deal with Russia to provide hydrogen-fueled rocket engines and technical know-how.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1010/12gslv/

The report is dated Oct2010 and the reference to Russians is in early 90s.

Ramana ... Even for our ground based equipments we have screwing mechanism to withstand vibration ... so I assumed that the Space Qualified connectors too will have them.

I know for sure that Satellites have screw type connectors and as a standard procedure after assembly during installation they cover them with a silica gel to ensure that they remain in place . Rocket electronics should not be very different.

As regards vibration testing , these tests will surely be carried out within a dabba or even within in stage but you can't do that at interstage connections.

More importantly ... we NEVER had a failure at 1st stage and it has been a proven design several times over. So we can't say that this was a new development being tried out for the first time.

vina · Post by **vina** » 30 Dec 2010 09:44

geeth wrote: In addition, there was lengthening of the rocket, and increase in dia of the cap as well. This would normally require more powerful reaction thrusters to correct attitude.

The GSLV design is different from the PSLV in terms of the control system in the 1st and zero stages.

If you look at this Isro writeup on GSLV, the control in all 3 axis for the GSLV in the 1st stage is the gimal mounted Vikas engines in the strap on stages. So all 4 liquid strap ons have to perform well and optimally for full control . That said, as a gimballed system, where you vector the engine thrust for control, there will ample control force and as long as the control system is quick enough , within limits, the control shouldn't be a problem.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 30 Dec 2010 10:05

That said, as a gimballed system, where you vector the engine thrust for control, there will ample control force and as long as the control system is quick enough , within limits, the control shouldn't be a problem.

Noted. So, lack of control force can be ruled out..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Dec 2010 10:21

Thanks S^3. So the connectors have a screw type connection to ensure positive mate and have silica gel as locking mechanism to prevent backing out. Are the cables in a raceway or conduit cover along the length of the first stage? Or are the cables in open?

Also between the stages do they have separation connectors?

juvva · Post by **juvva** » 30 Dec 2010 11:10

It will be interesting to know, if some of the access panels on the launch vehicle were opened, during the debugging of the valve leakage problem - if so it is possible moisture/dust (with the vehicle on open launch pad environment) could get into the electrical connectors and mess them up.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Dec 2010 11:19

However that wouldn't rip them apart.
---------------
Can someone post a pic of the F/S up close? so we can see the conduit raceway

juvva · Post by **juvva** » 30 Dec 2010 11:25

ramana wrote:However that wouldn't rip them apart.

Yes. But a moisture short would still kill the control signals and bring down the vehicle. Can telemetry tell weather the connectors opened up or shorted?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Dec 2010 11:31

Well what do we have here!

Snapping of 10 connectors led to GSLV failiure

...
As many as ten connectors between the second and cryogenic third stage had snapped, resulting in non-receipt of commands from onboard computers to strap-on motors in the first stage leading to disintegration of the Geostationary Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV-F06) mission which was destroyed within a minute of launch on on Christmas Day.

ISRO sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said analysis of the data revealed the GSLV-F06, which was meant to put India's heaviest and most advanced communicationsatellite GSAT-5P in orbit, went out of control due to snapping of ten connectors.

"The take-off was smooth and the flight was normal till 47 seconds. But trouble arose in the next three seconds, when 10 connectors located between the second and third stage (cryogenic stage) got separated, leading to the vehicle losing controllability," the sources said.

The heat shield capsule of the cryo-engine, where the satellite is located, broke first followed by the strap-on motors in the first stage.

As the vehicle started disintegrating, the mission was destroyed by the Range Safety Officer by pressing the "destruct" button, to prevent the debris from falling in human habitations.

The sources said they believed that the area near the connectors, which were like mini-plugs and sockets to take the command from on- board computers at the top portion of the vehicle right down to the strap-on in the first stage, would have received sudden heavy loads between the second and third stage, leading to their snapping.

The sources stoutly denied that increase in the weight of the satellite by nearly 100 kg had led to the disaster.

Analysis of the data showed that snapping of connectors had led to the disintegration of the vehicle and it had nothing to do with the increase in the weight of thesatellite, which was only marginal, the sources said.

Progressive failure of heat shield and then the strap ons. So it started from the Cryo stage. Maybe the member who guessed it was the leakage that caused it was right after all.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Dec 2010 11:44

So concentrating on the F/S is the wrong thing when the failure started elsewhere.

So S^3 this is closer to your area of expertise between the payload and the equipment bay.

Why would such an event occur? To me it looks like they are the staging connectors that got separated early on. Are these connectors held in a single bracket that broke due to cryo embrittlement?

I suppose these are five connectors in a single train. Hence the figure ten connectors.

disha · Post by **disha** » 30 Dec 2010 12:01

juvva wrote: Yes. But a moisture short would still kill the control signals and bring down the vehicle. Can telemetry tell weather the connectors opened up or shorted?

It is plausible., the shuttle SRBs developed a "leak" in the seal due to extreme weather. The only issue here was cryogenic leak causing some kind of frailty in the cables.

disha · Post by **disha** » 30 Dec 2010 12:11

ramana wrote:Progressive failure of heat shield and then the strap ons. So it started from the Cryo stage. Maybe the member who guessed it was the leakage that caused it was right after all.

Is it possible that the following occurred:

1. This heat shield was tried the first time, developed a crack due to leakage of cryogenic fuel.
2. In the supersonic regime, superheated air caused either
2a. progressive failure leading the control stage (under the satellite to be exposed), causing "snap"
2b. introduced vibrations that loosened the connectors.

The first stage SRB is in operation since PSLV and has several successful flights. From S^3/Vina posts, it appears that its attitude is controlled by the Gimballed strap-ons. So IMHO communications to it failed due to the connector issue?

disha · Post by **disha** » 30 Dec 2010 12:14

Surya wrote:nothing like a failure to get the attention of world media

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 85,00.html

There are lot of holes in that article. Have to sit down and point it out one by one. But yes, it is tiring to hear all the Rona-Dhona.

juvva · Post by **juvva** » 30 Dec 2010 12:27

disha wrote:
ramana wrote:Progressive failure of heat shield and then the strap ons. So it started from the Cryo stage. Maybe the member who guessed it was the leakage that caused it was right after all.
Is it possible that the following occurred:

1. This heat shield was tried the first time, developed a crack due to leakage of cryogenic fuel.
2. In the supersonic regime, superheated air caused either
------
------

I would expect any such drastic rise in temperature to be caught by sensors and recorded in telemetry data....let us wait and see .....

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 30 Dec 2010 12:31

This heat shield was tried the first time, developed a crack due to leakage of cryogenic fuel.

Liquid hydrogen, when (leak) hits the atmosphere, it becomes gas which is drifted with the southward flow. Tell me how these hydrogen molecules were directly or indirectly responsible for a fibre reinforced plastic heat shield crack?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 30 Dec 2010 12:43

Progressive failure of heat shield and then the strap ons.

Ramana,

From the article you posted, what I can make out is that the break-up of the heat shied / strap on motors are due to the excessive aerodynamic loads (after the loss of control), and not vice versa.