I should have warned about those first minutes about the most recent launch which are really weak and pretty much baseless nitpicking. The guy is an ass. As a matter of fact, that's why I came back right now to warn about those first few minutes.

However, after that, he makes much better points at various times in the video, mainly about Starship.

And I did just buy one of his T-shirts on Amazon:

__________________
"I looked in the mirror and told my wife that all I saw was an ugly old man and needed a compliment to raise my spirits. She said, 'Your vision is perfect.'"
"Before I met my wife, I was incomplete. Now, I'm finished." - Norm MacDonald

The Centaur V has a larger 18 ft diameter vs the 10 ft Centaur III, advanced insulation, and more or less the same RL-10 engines (RL-10C-1 vs RL-10C-1-1). The failure that delayed the V was at the top of the forward dome of the pressure tanks. It makes sense that the biggest difference would be the diameter of the stage, therefore a much larger pair of tanks. However, I would have thought that large cryo tanks would have been whipped by now with Saturn 2nd and 3rd stages, the Space Shuttle, SLS, etc. to go along with what Convair/General Dynamics/Lockheed/ULA already amassed from 60+ years of Centaur. NASA is supposed to share that knowledge, so it's a bit of a let down to find the failure point.

__________________
I love sanding.

.

__________________
I love sanding.

There are other differences between Centaur III and Centaur V, including reversal of the intermediate bulkhead between the LH2 and LO2 tanks and the use of internal feedlines. Other mods made for easier production. We are working on a shorter version of the stage that is optimized for LEO missions. However, our National Security Space missions are mostly high-energy orbits and they need the current, larger stage. Both stages will shift from RL10C-1-1 to RL10E-1 in the future. Again, for improved performance, easier production.

Only Centaur uses a pressure stabilized design, so Saturn, Shuttle, SLS comparisons are apples to oranges, structurally. NASA doesn't build anything, BTW. They have nothing to share.

I didn't want to type all the differences, and I'm sure there are even more than what you've typed. lol

NASA used to build some prototype hardware and they tested the snot out of what their contractors produced. They procured the knowledge and techniques of their contractors, so they at least did have knowledge they could have shared at one time. As for pressure stabilized design, previous Centaurs used it as well, so I was referring more to upscaling cryo structures, but I see your point. You mentioned some of the tankage changes, but those wouldn't seem to have been the issue if what I've read is correct about it being at the forward end of the tank structure.

BTW, since it uses an internal bulkhead to separate the LOX and LH, how close does the two pressures have to be to keep a balloon style tank structure from failing?

__________________
I love sanding.

After 50 years, US to return to Moon on January 25


https://news.yahoo.com/50-years-us-...-024056601.html


Bill

__________________
It is well past time to Drill, Baby, Drill!

If your June, July, August and September was like this, you might just hate summer too...

Please unload your question before you ask it unless you have a concealed harry permit.

: countdown begin cr dup . 1- ?dup 0= until cr ." Launch!" cr ;

Give a man a rocket and he will fly for a day; teach him to build and he will spend the rest of his days sanding...

We did an extensive failure review on the lost test article. No design "feature" caused the issue, of course. I don't think the results are public, but you can always scan Tory Bruno's Twitter posts for hints. If he says it publicly, then it must be ok!