back to article Rocket Factory Augsburg breaks down the SaxaVord blowout

With impressive speed and candor, Rocket Factory Augsburg (RFA) has provided an update on the anomaly that caused last week's rocket firing at SaxaVord in Shetland, Scotland, to end explosively. According to RFA's co-founder and COO, Dr Stefan Brieschenk, the plan had been to run the first stage's engines for 35 seconds until …

  1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    "Enjoy the footage"

    That's what I like about rocket science. The people involved are generally very mature and intelligent, and they can admit failure without blushing.

    Not like most high levels in banks or other private corporations who seek to cover up their failures at all costs . . .

    1. A Non e-mouse Silver badge

      Re: "Enjoy the footage"

      Exploding rockets tend to be harder to cover up compared to dodgy accountancy.

      1. John Robson Silver badge

        Re: "Enjoy the footage"

        Even Blue Origin appear to have some publicity for their recent failures, and they're alot less open and public than some other companies.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Enjoy the footage"

        "Exploding rockets tend to be harder to cover up compared to dodgy accountancy."

        Dodgy accountancy is easy to perpetrate, but difficult to cover up, as many famous corporate implosions have shown. What's different between the two is that rocket science goes wrong with some immediacy, whereas the dodgy accounting can be (with increasing difficulty) carried forwards for a few years.

      3. I am the liquor

        Re: "Enjoy the footage"

        Unlike your auditors, nature cannot be fooled.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: "Enjoy the footage"

          A certain class of Auditors would beg to differ!

          Although with a bit of imagination (something those particular Auditors are not famed for), one could possibly classify them as a "force of nature" :-)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Enjoy the footage"

      "The people involved are generally very mature and intelligent, and they can admit failure without blushing."

      That is because in any *real* science/engineering field you cannot get away with throwing something together and hoping it will work.

      i.e. Science/Engineering has rules that usually cannot be broken without *known* and possibly some *unkown* negative results.

      You learn something new with these types of failures and move forward, if you can survive the financial hit.

      In the world of IT the idea is make it quick and work around the issues later, if possible.

      This attitude is historic in the industry and we have accepted it for decades.

      The ability to admit this failure by RFA is a continuation of the scientific mind set, you know you got something wrong and are driven to understand what and correct it.

      There is no shame in it and it is a step forward in the journey towards their ultimate goal.

      The quest for knowledge and truth is simple and direct.

      N.B.

      Particularly liked the desire to release this info to possibly assist others in the field.

      This is also part of the scientific mindset ... you freely share knowledge if you can.

      :)

    3. frankvw

      Re: "Enjoy the footage"

      It's not "failure". This was a test. Tests are intended to find out what works and what doesn't. This test served that purpose. Explosions during tests are good. They help prevent explosions during missions.

  2. jake Silver badge

    It wasn't so much an explosion ...

    ... as it was a rather fast burn down.

    Lots of heat and oxygen tends to have that affect.

  3. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

    SpaceX just had a bad day

    One landing leg didn't work, the rocket tipped over and the video switched to a different camera before the inevitable RUD completed.

    Skip to 1:08:55 https://youtu.be/gCEEYJahjaE

    1. richardcox13

      Re: SpaceX just had a bad day

      It was the twenty-third launch for that booster. One individual booster with more reuse than all other rockets combined.

      As failures go it is small.

      (|From the video appears a landing leg failed, which could indicate further checks for stress crack like problems while refurbishing boosters is needed.)

    2. Anonymous Coward Silver badge
      Flame

      Re: SpaceX just had a bad day

      The booster landing is always a "nice to have" - they don't particularly mind as long as the payload reaches its target.

      Yes it's a shame to lose B1062, but after 23 flights I would say it's done a decent job. Many said that you'd never be able to re-use a booster! I can't remember exactly, but I think they were originally designing/aiming for 12 flights. 23 is remarkable!!

    3. Gene Cash Silver badge

      Re: SpaceX just had a bad day

      What really sucks is the FAA has now decided to ground the F9. This blocks Polaris Dawn and a lot of other things.

      1. Spherical Cow Silver badge

        Re: SpaceX just had a bad day

        I won't be surprised if that decision was a mandatory initial reaction to any failure, and can be reversed quickly after a very brief review (Does this put anyone in danger? No. Good, carry on then).

  4. HammerOn1024

    Immediate

    That failure was immediate to engine start up. That's unfortunate, but if they have the money, it'll get fixed. I wish them success.

  5. Sceptic Tank Silver badge
    Go

    Foot too heavy on the gas pedal

    Erratum

    Technical Requirements Spec. § 5.1.4.9.2.c(iii) on page 47 should read: "... in a *controlled* explosion."

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Don't understand

    They said 'the CO2 and water fire suppression systems were not adequately sized to deal with the unfolding damage"

    Errr, isn't that basic planning? How did they get permission to use something explosive without adequate fire protection?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Don't understand

      The CO2 and water fire suppression systems were sized for what they *expected* would/could happen.

      This failure has revised that estimate and is 'One' of the things they have gained knowledge on.

      Not everything can be calculated beforehand *if* you have never launched this rocket before.

      How do you calculate the 'possible' maximum damage when you have nothing to go on, the failure modes are best guesses and how they interact with each other is also a best guess.

      When SpaceX had RUD events they suffered more damage than they were expecting and then they learnt something new and improved the design of the launchpad etc.

      This is how new science/engineering works !!!

      This is what makes it 'FUN' !!!

      :)

    2. Spherical Cow Silver badge

      Re: Don't understand

      I'm not sure any suppression system could handle that much high pressure oxygen being forced into a fire.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like