SpaceX releases Pythonesque video of rocket failures Elon Musk is succeeding in his ambition to make space launches boringly reliable, but it still understands that people like to watch things blowing up. To that end, SpaceX has released a video entitled "How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster," showing footage of all the times its rockets didn't quite make the grade. …
On articles such as these it's customary for someone to link to this book - "Ignition! - An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants" by John D Clark (https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf)
The pair of photographs on the first couple of pages kind of set the tone for the book - and the entire field. "This is what a test firing should look like. Note the mach diamonds in the exhaust stream.
And this is what it may look like if something goes wrong. The same test cell is shown." :)
Very much worth a read, even for a dullard layman such as myself.
Second that as a definite read... these days, even if you aren't anything of a chemist and can't see the horrors of using mercaptans as fuel - you can just look it up.
As for SpaceX's successes, I like to think John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace really showed the way - this sort of rocket science is actually possible.
If you like "Ignition!" you might also enjoy this summary blogpost about Chlorine Trifluoride (which duly references the book): "Sand won't save you this time" ( http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2008/02/26/sand_wont_save_you_this_time ). Yes, it's relevant as it has been tested as a possible rocket fuel...
Here in the UK, I'd love to download, but would Amber Rudd / Theresa May approve of the reading material, now everyone's Internet metadata is their reading material?
I'm just thinking what would have happened Marcus Hutchins with such a book in his possession...it's difficult to read anything today without people jumping to conclusions.
> Must have taken determination and deep pockets to keep on sending up the rockets until they had worked it out
The primary mission, of each and every flight, was to deliver the payload into space. The secondary mission was development of the return.
So, despite the fireworks, each and every one of these landing RUDs was actually a successful mission, and presumably profitable - previous attempts, after all, simply dropped the vehicle into the ocean after the flight.
Seeing this and remembering NASAs early failures as the succession of "learning experiences" unreeled I couldn't but think about how far SpaceX has come and that every upcoming generation of engineers needs to have these lessons graphically presented early and often.
Glad to see that Musk still retains enough "humbleness" to show these "not quite a complete success" episodes to the public in collected form.
One of the most interesting "learning experiences" NASA had was the Mercury Redstone test flight of Nov 21st 1960.
They launched the rocket and instead of putting it into space it returned almost unscathed to the launch pad 2 seconds later. It reached the dizzy heights of 4 inches and left them with the interesting challenge of working out how to drain the fuel from an almost fully fueled rocket that was no longer connected to the pad.
Less than six moths after this fiasco which was precipitated by the clamp on an overlong cable failing, Alan Shepard rode one of these rockets into space.
*stands*
I am Feersum Endjinn.
LOVED that book, although it got me into a lot of trouble with friends many years ago as I drunkenly tried to claim that vacuum balloons (as featured quite havily in the book, if I recall correctly?) could possibly help us get in to space, me thinking of 'space' as high up above the karman line, my friends thinking it (probably quite correctly) as orbital velocity. I still remember the pitying looks on their faces as they came to perceive previously unseen strata of my ignorance.
Must be twenty years since I last read it — time to dust it off and give it another read! :)
" get in to space, me thinking of 'space' as high up above the karman line, my friends thinking it (probably quite correctly) as orbital velocity"
XKCD pointed out that it's easy to get into space (it's just a matter of altitude), but hard to get there in a way that lets you *stay* up there. The latter is a matter of speed more than altitude, although if your perigee is less than a couple of hundred miles, you'll eventually find yourself contemplating the virtues of aerobraking.
XKCD pointed out that it's easy to get into space (it's just a matter of altitude), but hard to get there in a way that lets you *stay* up there.
I've pointed out a few times that "throw yourself at the ground and miss" is a poor description of flying, but a fairly accurate description of orbiting.
Feersum Endjinn
I loved that book, although it took me three tries to finish it. It really does throw you in the deep end, in a very strange world, without any preliminary explanation. It's a style of storytelling I wish I were good at. I'm the kind who wants to explain everything, which makes for a boring read.
Clever of Spacex to put out this (mostly) unseen footage. The launch date of Falcon Heavy is just about to be announced. It keeps realities/perspectives in check, getting three rockets to behave side by side, then separate and land in unison, is going to be one hell of ride.
Musk is looking ahead, predicting how a potential major failure of Falcon Heavy would get reported after so many sucesses, of late.
I've never missed a launch yet, whatever the time, never boring to me, there are always slight differences to see, if you know where to look.
That last clip, it comes in at quite a rate then sorts it all out very fast.
"Oh, do fuck off!" Says I in awe and respect.
AI's do work -- they work rather well without our meddling.
Mr Hawking - be very afraid.
Keep up with the naming system, please.
The best legacy to Iain.M.Banks I can think of.
This is a very interesting exercise in openness. Wouldn't it be refreshing if the likes of Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Intel and others (you know who you are) were as open with us about their failures? Sadly, they usually over-hype the good and cover up the bad until the volume of web traffic about the failures reaches their PR departments. Even then they are often dismissive.
Well done Elon and others for spending their Internet cash piles on serious endeavours. And I hope that the Americas cup is not won by Oracle again - he doesn't deserve it!
100% success.
Every time the rocket survived long enough to blow up while attempting to land, it had already delivered its payload to orbit. Landing was a bonus.
Alternatively they haven't failed a landing since the first one worked. Yet. Well there have been a couple of geostationary launches where there wasn't enough fuel left to attempt landing, so they didn't try.
When they launch Falcon Heavy and have 2 first stages that separate simultaneously and attempt to land, that should be an interesting day. Would be a bit sad if they managed to crash them into each other, for example.
A rocket/orbiter/spaceship won't do us any good if Earth happened to be hit by an asteroid, either. At best that might get the richest people off the planet, but wouldn't protect even a fraction of a percent of Earth's flora & fauna, and the human survivors would have the prospect of spending their remaining days on a planet that makes Earth's most barren desert look like the freaking rainforest by comparison.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
