Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab
-
@canefan said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@voodoo said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
amazing how almost all the mainstream press are leading with the explosion headline like the whole thing was a failure
All the odd balls on FB are crowing about that. The commentators said anything after the rocket cleared the tower was gravy, so it was pretty successful
Newspapers that should know better are too. It's almost like they have an axe to grind....
-
i do find this discussion fascinating, completely get the idea they were looking at getting past the tower, that was the real aim for the launch etc
But, assuming they did actually plan for it to go further and splash down somewhere else and not blow up, i think its still a valid question as to what happened....not at the expense of the primary objective being achieved of course
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
i do find this discussion fascinating, completely get the idea they were looking at getting past the tower, that was the real aim for the launch etc
But, assuming they did actually plan for it to go further and splash down somewhere else and not blow up, i think its still a valid question as to what happened....not at the expense of the primary objective being achieved of course
They had a list of 1000s of things they were testing. Fueling, orbital mount releast, aborts, flight abort system, firing 30+ rockets, getting off the tower, getting past maxQ, etc, etc
They got way further down the list than they expected, and are ready with the next improved booster already, and further iterations will get improvements from the data received from this launch.
They have a modus operandi of fail fast. It's how they can develop new capabilities like a fully resuable rocket.
So it's less that it's not a valid question you are asking, it's more a very obvious one, what happened is an incredibly successful test. The test was to push their current design and see what margins need to be improved.
-
@Kirwan apologies, those of us that dont follow these things that closely or if im honest just dont understand a lot of the technical stuff even when its explained can sometime only ask the really obvious (to those who know so much more) questions
The whole approach of casual acceptance of something so expensive and potentially important exploding when not inherently planned for is also a different approach to lots of other industries, great that is par for the course for them, but the instinctual through for a lot of average people i believe would be WOW, what happened?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@Kirwan apologies, those of us that dont follow these things that closely or if im honest just dont understand a lot of the technical stuff even when its explained can sometime only ask the really obvious (to those who know so much more) questions
The whole approach of casual acceptance of something so expensive and potentially important exploding when not inherently planned for is also a different approach to lots of other industries, great that is par for the course for them, but the instinctual through for a lot of average people i believe would be WOW, what happened?
Fair. You don't normally see these tests, all rockets explode while in development. SpaceX is trying to drive up enthusaiusm for their goals with spaceflight, so you get to see the sausage being made. As they say, explosions are exciting.
You keep saying it's not planned to explode, they absolutely are planned to explode during development. They are testing to failure to find out where the safetly margins are.
There were fun ones on the ground where they ramped up pressuration tests and crushed the thing like a beer can. They need to know what the failure amount was so they know the capapability of the vehicle.
These tests are why they have landed 100 Falcons without incident and have been safety rated for astronauts for Dragon. They have done their due diligence and know how safely operate their rocket systems.
-
@Kirwan said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@Kiwiwomble said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@Kirwan apologies, those of us that dont follow these things that closely or if im honest just dont understand a lot of the technical stuff even when its explained can sometime only ask the really obvious (to those who know so much more) questions
The whole approach of casual acceptance of something so expensive and potentially important exploding when not inherently planned for is also a different approach to lots of other industries, great that is par for the course for them, but the instinctual through for a lot of average people i believe would be WOW, what happened?
You keep saying it's not planned to explode, they absolutely are planned to explode during development. They are testing to failure to find out where the safetly margins are.
In fairness, that was my original question, was it planned to explode or had something gone "wrong" even after 100's or 1000's of things had gone "right" beforehand
I can completely understand the idea of testing till failure if that had been the answer to my first question
@Kiwiwomble said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@voodoo havent had a chance to read anything about it so have only seen the headlines, were they testing something and it was meant to explode?
-
-
@voodoo said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
Someone else here will explain better, but I think ideally it wouldn't explode,
the 'lead nerd' described it as sub-optimal
It clearly wasn't the perfect mission, but things seldom are. They will learn so much from the four-minute flight. In may ways a 'failure' is the best result. The way humans are wired we seem to learn more from our mistakes than our successes.
-
@dogmeat said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@voodoo said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
Someone else here will explain better, but I think ideally it wouldn't explode,
the 'lead nerd' described it as sub-optimal
It clearly wasn't the perfect mission, but things seldom are. They will learn so much from the four-minute flight. In may ways a 'failure' is the best result. The way humans are wired we seem to learn more from our mistakes than our successes.
I love the term RUD: Rapid unscheduled disassembly
-
-
@dogmeat said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@Kirwan yeah I couldn't remember the acronym but it made me smile when I heard it.
I really like that their coverage uses people that actually work their. Get good information, even if the presentation skills can be a bit lacking. Lead Nerd was genuinely excited when it launched, I love the enthusiasm.
-
Debris from the launch
image url)
-
Yeah, some work ahead to repair the mount. The plan was to have steel plates to protect the concrete but they rain out of time. They thought they could get away with one launch based on the static fire test, but that was......ummmm....wrong.
I wouldn't be surprised if they end up building a flame divertor as well.
-
@Kirwan said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
Yeah, some work ahead to repair the mount. The plan was to have steel plates to protect the concrete but they rain out of time. They thought they could get away with one launch based on the static fire test, but that was......ummmm....wrong.
I wouldn't be surprised if they end up building a flame divertor as well.
The Apollo and Shuttle launchers always had diverters. But that's a little more power than people are used to...
