Cosmic Penguin

There were testing issues pre-launch during engine gimbal tests too when it went too far & broke electric cables. Disputes were on w/ the structural dept. blamed inadequate testing procedures & the testing chief blamed inadequate cable alignment! http://t.cn/A64ZGyqY?m=4542691164034089&u=3279752321 … (4/5)

So after the successful LM-7A RTF the official results of this investigation was revealed, confirming the loss of pressurization theory...but that happened on 1 of the 4 boosters' engine inlet & not the 2nd stage as reported above. This happened at T+168s, 5 seconds before MECO.

From the words of CALT's LM-7 program vice-chief: "We clearly saw on the rocket cameras that the rocket disintegrated during 1st stage separation." An early shutdown on 1 of the boosters would easily knock off the LV's attitude as the (combined) 1st stage/boosters separate.

This would explain the explosion a few seconds after MECO as seen from the ground in a video taken last year. It looks like "manufacturing defect" wasn't mentioned in the reports so the design fault theory mentioned above seems to be correct.

Liquid fuel rocket engines' pressurization has always been a thinly balanced act - the latest Starship woes a classic example - and this is yet another example that highly reliable rocketry is still some years away. Sources: https://video.weibo.com/show?fid=1034:4613833658925075 … /https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1693976852840836422 …

This article essentially stated that the team found that there was cavitation at one of the booster's LOX tank outlet: https://mbd.baidu.com/newspage/data/landingsuper?context=%7B%22nid%22%3A%22news_10130346967978642169%22%7D&n_type=-1&p_from=-1 …