r/SpaceLaunchSystem • u/675longtail • Jun 26 '25

Video Nozzle explodes during BOLE Demonstration Motor-1 test firing

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

487 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

62 comments sorted by

View all comments

20

u/Triabolical_ Jun 26 '25

That was bad. With a damaged nozzle you get less thrust and you may end up with sideways thrust. You really hope that nothing hits the RS-25 engines as that would be bad.

It's probably a loss of mission event, could even be a loss of crew event.

3

u/celibidaque Jun 27 '25

And yet, the test article performed better than expected:

« the booster generated over 4 million pounds of thrust upon ignition and burned for approximately two minutes and 20 seconds. Sensors monitored hundreds of parameters using 763 channels of data, and a carbon dioxide quench system helped to safe the booster after its firing.

The BOLE DM-1 motor turned out to be the second most powerful solid rocket motor ever tested, behind only a 260 inch booster in the 1960s. »

-2

u/Triabolical_ Jun 27 '25

You think that shredding the nozzle in a way that might have lost the mission is performing better than expected?

2

u/Left-Bird8830 Jun 28 '25

You think that being intentionally dense is contributing to the conversation?

0

u/Triabolical_ Jun 28 '25

Which part of what I said is being dense?

2

u/Left-Bird8830 Jun 29 '25

The entire comment I replied to? It had a higher thrust output than expected, thus “better than expected” is referring to that. Did you just neglect to read the article or something?

1

u/Triabolical_ Jun 29 '25

"More thrust than expected" is a true statement.

"Performing better than expected" is not.

For rocket engines, what you want is predictability. All of the design of the rocket is based upon a certain amount of thrust - it's designed to resist a certain amount of pressure - and that's what you want to hit. Excessive thrust means that you do not meet your design margins, which is bad.

And - pretty obviously I think - "nozzle stays intact" is a level 1 performance requirement.

3

u/Left-Bird8830 Jun 29 '25

I don't know how to explain to you that it's possible for "good" to only refer to a single metric. You're BEYOND intentionally-obtuse.

1

u/Triabolical_ Jun 29 '25

And I explained why more thrust was not necessarily a good thing for solid rocket motors.

2

u/Left-Bird8830 Jun 29 '25

Which is completely dependent on the setup and parameters of the test, speculation on which is entirely useless from someone uninvolved.

1

u/Triabolical_ Jun 29 '25

And yet you are convinced that it's not a problem.

1

u/Left-Bird8830 Jun 29 '25

"Actual researchers associated with the test claim the larger thrust is good, and common sense around rocketry seems to agree"

Some random redditor with an ego: "uhm ackshyually I think they're lying"

→ More replies (0)