Comments
wdwerker t1_je9tkqx wrote
Testing to failure before launch seems reasonable to prevent a disaster with massive amounts of fuel & oxygen !
TbonerT OP t1_je9ubpc wrote
It doesn't sound like they were testing to failure, though, since failure wouldn't be an anomaly in that case.
danielravennest t1_jea7hbz wrote
It was a max structural load test, so it wasn't supposed to fail. Could be anything from a popped valve to crushed soda can. We need more details.
[deleted] t1_je9almb wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jea9zo7 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jec2q84 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jebejw3 wrote
[deleted]
oiturtlez t1_jebjdxr wrote
"Centaur V structural article"
Why would that be related to BE4 at all?
Edit: also Blue Origin posted a video of a BE7 test yesterday, not a BE4 test... Unless you are referring to something else
SpaceCadetRick t1_jecsnha wrote
No, Centaur V uses 2 RL10-C engines. They are very similar to the engines used on Centaur III which flies on the Atlas V.
Centaur V is the second stage of the Vulcan Centaur vehicle.
edit I misread your comment, the comment you replied to was deleted and I thought you were asking the question about the BE-4 engines.
oiturtlez t1_jecuy6b wrote
The original comment was implying that this was caused by some problem with the BE-4s haha. So i was asking the commenter for clarification on how the booster engines might cause an upper stage structural test failure…
SpaceCadetRick t1_jecw2bw wrote
I mean if they pointed the engines right at it and fired them that could probably do it, I probably have aluminum foil that's thicker than the Centaur V's stainless steel tanks.
TbonerT OP t1_jebfm1o wrote
No, Tory is precise in his language. If he was talking about the engines he would have said so. He's talking about the vehicle the engines will power.
[deleted] t1_jeaspxl wrote
[removed]
seanbrockest t1_je9hw47 wrote
It's always good to find problems in the safest way possible, but wow these guys need a win right now. Hope they move forward quickly and safely.