Here is the SpaceX statement.
https://www.spacex.com/news/2019/07/15/update-flight-abort-static-fire-anomaly-investigation
"...and a high-pressure bi-propellant propulsion system with eight
SuperDraco thrusters for use only in the event of a launch escape "
I knew they gave up on the propulsive landing, but would have thought that
they would have kept the ability to use the SuperDraco thrusters to add
redundancy while landing too. As a backup to the parachutes.
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:05 PM George Herbert <george.herbert@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
*Lars Osborne (@lars_0 <https://twitter.com/lars_0?s=11>)*
7/15/19, 12:51 PM
<https://twitter.com/lars_0/status/1150855437765316608?s=11>
I work with hypergolic propellants now. I feel pretty satisfied with this
explanation and think it has lessons for the industry.
What is missing is that the destruction of the check valve exposed bare Ti
and accelerated the metal chips into the MON tank at high velocity.
pic.twitter.com/09ud6OZFMv <https://t.co/09ud6OZFMv>
Lars posted this a bit ago as the SpaceX failure analysis went public.
Basically, slug of NTO migrated upstream past a He check valve, pushed back
downstream on subsequent pressurization to fracture the check valve and
throw Titanium metal fragments into the NTO tank...
Fix is replacing with burst discs.
-george
Sent from my iPhone
