/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15354071
It's not that common for it to directly cause failure, engineers design around it, but it can contribute to less related structural failures.
The only direct example I can find is a proton launch from 1969 where the payload fairing collapsed from the dynamic pressure.

However it can be related to broader structural failures, for example the during the fatal Challenger launch, the STS experienced the largest wind shear forces of any STS launch, right at max Q and not long before the vehicle breakup.
It is speculated that this might have contributed to the O-Ring failure.
Wind shear and dynamic forces may have also contributed to other rocket failures that are generally seen as structural failures.

https://youtu.be/JYFLoTgO-xQ

This CRS-7 falcon 9 launch that failed was caused by the failure of a presumed faulty strut holding one of the copv tanks in place, the strut failed under the G-load, the shaking of the rocket and presumably also the shear forces on the rocket.

At max-Q, structural deficiencies in the design of the SS/SH may present themselves, for example structural components that may have been weakened by the violence of the initial launch may ultimately fail from shear forces or under max-G.
This would result in possibly the perforation of one of tanks and subsequent explosion like CRS-7 or possibly the stack snapping in half before exploding or being destroyed by the FTS.

>>12678256
>bootup
>max q
>meco
>plugs in printer
(...)