|
Too much boost and the ringlands said NOPE?
|
# ? Jul 4, 2018 15:20 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 23:25 |
|
I'm the hilarious difference in feed rates that brought about two entirely different finishes on neighboring pistons.
|
# ? Jul 4, 2018 22:27 |
|
The auto center on ft Lewis had a bit of a failure.
|
# ? Jul 4, 2018 22:32 |
|
loving privates
|
# ? Jul 4, 2018 22:33 |
|
Metal Geir Skogul posted:loving privates That's what my privates do
|
# ? Jul 4, 2018 23:01 |
|
Did it fall off a hoist or wtf happened there?
|
# ? Jul 5, 2018 04:35 |
|
slidebite posted:Did it fall off a hoist or wtf happened there? Looks like a drive-on service ramp, gut tells me some dumbass turned the steering wheel partway up
|
# ? Jul 5, 2018 04:41 |
|
Yeah I thought it was a ramp too but the blue arms are throwing me. Either way, PRIVATES
|
# ? Jul 5, 2018 05:50 |
|
slidebite posted:Yeah I thought it was a ramp too but the blue arms are throwing me. Either way, Blue arms are for the next bay to the right, it looks like it fell off a concrete ramp.
|
# ? Jul 5, 2018 16:21 |
|
slidebite posted:Yeah I thought it was a ramp too but the blue arms are throwing me. Either way, It's easier to see if you focus on the wood column they knocked off. You can see the unpainted spot on the joist at the top where it used to be attached.
|
# ? Jul 5, 2018 23:38 |
|
From my friend, driving through Illinois:
|
# ? Jul 6, 2018 19:22 |
|
That tire looks like it (was) nearly new! Typical Firestone move!!
|
# ? Jul 6, 2018 19:47 |
|
"So.. how many miles left on it do you think? Can I put it off until my next oil change?"
|
# ? Jul 6, 2018 19:51 |
|
0toShifty posted:That tire looks like it (was) nearly new! Typical Firestone move!! Less than 2k miles. And it was a front tire, not one of the loaded ones. (3500 dually with a camper in the back.)
|
# ? Jul 6, 2018 23:03 |
|
|
# ? Jul 9, 2018 05:06 |
|
I was thinking that there's no way the 2015 astra has a solid rear axle. But it seems to be some kind of weird compound axle thing using a kind of stiff axle and some watts linkage.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2018 17:57 |
|
Shai-Hulud posted:I was thinking that there's no way the 2015 astra has a solid rear axle. But it seems to be some kind of weird compound axle thing using a kind of stiff axle and some watts linkage. That one looks pretty independent to me.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2018 19:13 |
|
Shai-Hulud posted:I was thinking that there's no way the 2015 astra has a solid rear axle. But it seems to be some kind of weird compound axle thing using a kind of stiff axle and some watts linkage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twist-beam_rear_suspension It's basically the next step up from a straight trailer-style beam. Very common on less expensive FWDs. My Fiesta has it, as did my first-gen Soul. The Astra is the same platform as a Chevy Cruze, so that makes sense.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2018 19:33 |
|
One Day Fish Sale posted:That one looks pretty independent to me.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2018 19:45 |
|
Geoj posted:I'm more concerned with the people in charge of the plants and their profit motives than the atoms. Chillbro Baggins posted:On topic: Look up Apollo 1 and 13.
|
# ? Jul 11, 2018 23:00 |
|
But Apollo 1 and Apollo 13 were are little more complicated than that. The block I Apollo CSMs were designed with a complicated hatch mechanism that would only allow the hatch to open inward. In retrospect, this seems like a dumb idea considering that the craft is pressurized. It goes back to Gus Grissom's first Mercury mission where the outward opening hatch blew prematurely after the ocean landing, leading to the loss of the Liberty Bell 7 capsule and Gus' near drowning. Apollo's initial hatch mechanism was bulky and complicated and took a while to open. It was darkly ironic that Gus would die in the Apollo 1 fire, not being able to open the hatch at all this time. A second factor was the decision to operate in a 100% oxygen environment inside the craft even for ground tests to closely match conditions that would be encountered in space where such an atmosphere was considered necessary. The third factor was shoddy workmanship by the contractor (North American Aviation); new to building spacecraft. The very tight schedule imposed by NASA and Kennedy didn't help. The electrical wiring had chafed and rubbed off insulation, creating multiple spark sources. The final factor was excessive use of combustible materials like Velcro inside the craft, apparently a result of the ever-changing specifications during design and ground testing, again due to the tight schedule and contractor inexperience. The only good thing here was that Grissom, White, and Chaffee died within 15 seconds from asphyxiation. Apollo 13 had a problem with one of its cryo tanks for oxygen storage. There was a built in heater inside the tank, originally designed to operate on 28 Vdc. At a later point, the tank assembly was redesigned to also operate on 65 Vdc for ground testing. All components were upgraded to handle this, except for the thermostat switches that would shut off the heater once internal temperature reached 80 degrees F. This wasn't intentional. It had been overlooked. Sometime during assembly the tank was dropped 2 inches by accident. This damaged an internal fill line; a failure that was not detected. In preflight testing the tank, it wouldn't empty correctly (possibly due to the damaged fill line). In flight, emptying the tank would happen naturally. During ground testing, it was emptied by forcing gas into the tank. When Apollo 13's tank would not empty correctly the solution was to turn on the heater to boil off the remaining oxygen. The heater was left energized at 65 Vdc for eight hours. This would have been fine had the thermostat acted properly. But it couldn't handle the increased voltage and welded itself shut. Temperature inside the tank got to 1000 degrees and damaged the stirrer motor wiring insulation. Cue Jack Swigert turning on the cryo stir switch more than halfway to the moon. TL,DR: very tight schedules and complicated system interactions TotalLossBrain fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Jul 12, 2018 |
# ? Jul 12, 2018 06:12 |
|
Interesting, thanks. Where did you get that info, if someone wanted to do more reading?
|
# ? Jul 12, 2018 07:22 |
|
cakesmith handyman posted:Interesting, thanks. Where did you get that info, if someone wanted to do more reading? You could also ask that in the spaceflight thread.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2018 07:27 |
|
TotalLossBrain posted:A second factor was the decision to operate in a 100% oxygen environment inside the craft even for ground tests to closely match conditions that would be encountered in space where such an atmosphere was considered necessary. Not just a 100% oxygen environment. a 16.7psi 100% oxygen environment. That said, NASA continued to use 100% oxygen environments IN FLIGHT through the end of the Apollo program. (They used N2/O2 at 60/40 at launch, which was purged during ascent and then replaced with O2 to bring it back to the 5psi O2 cabin atmosphere for flight. The astronauts were suited for all this, and had been breathing 100% O2 since they suited up, hours before launch.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2018 13:54 |
|
Right, and flammability goes up with pressure. Things that wouldn't even smolder at a couple psi pure oxygen will absolutely blaze at a higher pressure. The right people at NASA at the time did realize they were responsible simply by not stepping back and considering all consequences of some design decisions. A lot of attention was paid to inflight safety, but no one thought anyone would die on the ground. Institutional momentum is a bitch and it would repeat itself for Challenger and again for Columbia. TotalLossBrain fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Jul 12, 2018 |
# ? Jul 12, 2018 14:09 |
|
The worst part of Challenger was the guy screaming that the launch would fail because he noticed the problem, but it still went on because NASA wanted to prove the shuttle could be launched several times per year.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2018 15:17 |
|
Cojawfee posted:The worst part of Challenger was the guy screaming that the launch would fail because he noticed the problem, but it still went on because NASA wanted to prove the shuttle could be launched several times per year. Or the many times that tile damage and impact strikes were noted during the 22 years of prior shuttle operations and it was considered 'normal' by the time Columbia burned itself to pieces. (Including the maiden flight STS-1, also Columbia - lol) Hey, it has happened many times and it was fine! TotalLossBrain fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Jul 12, 2018 |
# ? Jul 12, 2018 15:25 |
|
That attitude is so human. I see it all the time with my patients - "I haven't taken my anticoagulant for months and I feel fine!" Two months later they're in the hospital with multiple pulmonary embolisms and die. "Sure, I drink a fifth of bourbon every night and have hypertension, I've done that for 50 years!" We need to pull our heads out of our rear end as a species.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2018 17:13 |
|
Our brains don't work right as a species, which is a horrible failure I suppose.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2018 17:18 |
|
Speaking of brain failures, we're on page 914, my favorite Porsche
|
# ? Jul 12, 2018 17:23 |
|
The human lifespan is far too long nowadays, while cognitively we've made no gains. My patients are more than happy to be in denial to the bitter end and expect they'll magic pill their way out of hard fought lifestyle mistakes. That said I'd rather die early than end up demented and septic after a long run of decubes due to neglect.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2018 17:31 |
|
The Door Frame posted:Speaking of brain failures, we're on page 914, my favorite Porsche 914-6 is supreme
|
# ? Jul 12, 2018 17:59 |
|
Cojawfee posted:The worst part of Challenger was the guy screaming that the launch would fail because he noticed the problem, but it still went on because NASA wanted to prove the shuttle could be launched several times per year. iirc the main push to launch when they did was that Reagan wanted to be able to talk to an astronaut in space during the upcoming State of the Union address so that's another horrible thing he did
|
# ? Jul 12, 2018 18:35 |
|
Sagebrush posted:iirc the main push to launch when they did was that Reagan wanted to be able to talk to an astronaut in space during the upcoming State of the Union address Cite?
|
# ? Jul 12, 2018 18:43 |
|
Sagebrush posted:iirc the main push to launch when they did was that Reagan wanted to be able to talk to an astronaut in space during the upcoming State of the Union address Guess those plans went up in smoke. Really blew up in his face. If I was in charge of the people who pushed that, I'd blow an o-ring. It was a challenge to come up with all those.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2018 18:53 |
|
Wasabi the J posted:Guess those plans went up in smoke. Really blew up in his face. If I was in charge of the people who pushed that, I'd blow an o-ring. Just after that happened, there was a joke going around: "What does NASA stand for"?
|
# ? Jul 12, 2018 18:58 |
|
It wasn't the first time an SRB o-ring had blown. On a previous mission, the first two o-rings had been disintegrated and the third was mere seconds away from blowing the stack. On STS-1 (maiden Shuttle flight), there was no launch pressure wave re-direction mechanism. The wave reflected off the launch tower and flame trench and came back toward the bottom of the orbiter. It bent the actuation hydraulics for the body flap (see pic). This was not known until Young and Crippen were flying the final phase of re-entry when they kept wondering why the commanded body flap angle was an indicated 21-22 degrees instead of the planned 15-16 degrees. It had been bent that far and Young later commented that had it been known during launch, he would have aborted the mission right then and there. Which is a whole other bag of failure. The abort options not requiring re-entry were extremely hairy. Basically, separate from the stack, turn the orbiter around, and hope to glide back to the cape. Alternatively, they might have made it to South Africa but that would have also required a long flight phase at high altitude. During that same flight, the crew (Young and Crippen) got to orbit and noticed quite a few TPS tiles missing from the OMS pods (the large protrusion at the back of the vehicle). Not really a critical area for thermal protection during re-entry, but those were pretty much the only areas they could see. So where else were they missing tiles? LOL I think it was the same mission that they opened the cargo doors and had trouble reclosing them because of thermal expansion of the frame. Early Shuttle missions were quite hair-raising. It was the first (only?) space vehicle to go through an all-up, crew-aboard flight test without any unmanned testing*. The soviets were able to fly their Buran shuttle remotely a couple of times without a crew. *During Apollo, it was considered a big deal to do full-stack testing - where they'd not test each stage separately first, but rather "all-up" (bolted together). TotalLossBrain fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jul 12, 2018 |
# ? Jul 12, 2018 19:02 |
|
It's surprising more people didn't die in the shuttle era. It was a big colossal gently caress up. The quest for a reusable spacecraft that ended up being massively more expensive than they ever imagined and barely reusable.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2018 19:23 |
|
TotalLossBrain posted:I think it was the same mission that they opened the cargo doors and had trouble reclosing them because of thermal expansion of the frame. Early Shuttle missions were quite hair-raising. It was the first (only?) space vehicle to go through an all-up, crew-aboard flight test without any unmanned testing*. Shuttle had the disadvantage that the right-stuff era guys were holding the reins now and they wanted to make sure pilots would always be needed on board. Famously the landing gear couldn't be lowered except by physically pulling a lever in the cockpit, Buran was able to do it electronically. And the Russians did full-stack testing, too. Worked fine for the R7 family, where you're just slapping a new upper stage on the ICBM base, but it bit them in the rear end on the N1, their competitor to the Saturn V. They didn't have the facilities to test-fire the stages like we did, and the engines weren't durable enough to do multiple individual firings on the test stands, so they basically had to slap the whole rocket together and pray. Out of four test launches*, none made it to the second stage. *The second of which crashed back onto the pad immediately after launch. Less than a fifth of the propellant detonated, but it was enough to make them spend two years rebuilding the launch site before the next attempt.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2018 20:18 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 23:25 |
|
Mmmh yeah but the Russians also had the whole Nedelin disaster. Holy poo poo Link:. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe TotalLossBrain fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Jul 12, 2018 |
# ? Jul 12, 2018 20:31 |