Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1514305)	1/18/2025 5:11:24 PM
From: Heywood40	Respond to of 1580023

Containing the pressure of gasses and liquids is an old and fundamental concept. We've been doing it successfully for a really long time. To lose that ship due to a leak might be an indication that the rocket scientists involved in SpaceX probably were thinking more about coding than the basic knowledge steam scientists acquired long ago.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1514305)	1/18/2025 11:40:50 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Respond to of 1580023

What I saw the next day was a quote from Musk that said: "Elon Musk identified the cause of the recent RUD of SpaceX's Starship rocket as over-pressurization due to excess gas. This happened because of a leak in the cavity above the ship's engine firewall, which led to a buildup of pressure that exceeded the vent capacity. Musk mentioned that the inside of the ship caught fire, ultimately causing the explosion." Understanding rocketry will have to be in another lifetime for me. But the seal failure in '86 was a fairly limited circumstance and had it not been for Feynman they might still be scratching their heads.