Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Snargfargle

Uh, Maybe We Ought to Think About This For a Bit First?

41 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

9,370
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
14,453 posts

image.png.8890b421f31c7234d0d2ccb6acfa0c6d.png

Quote

The reusable – when it doesn’t explode – spacecraft uses an onboard computer to control its descent to a landing pad.

Well, the Space Shuttle only exploded 1.5% of the time. That doesn't seem like all that much, until you consider the fact that if commercial aviation had the same failure rate it would equate to 25,950 deaths every day in the US alone.

Edited by Snargfargle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,068
[WORX]
Members
12,638 posts
19,907 battles
4 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

image.png.8890b421f31c7234d0d2ccb6acfa0c6d.png

Rockets... Back in the "greatest generation ever (1940s ish)" they were reliable... 80 years later (gen X in control).. How can this proven technology fail?

Wheels worked in the stone age, they work now... Rockets worked in the 1940s, now the go BOOM!

Go figure....

I love science...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,045
[WPORT]
Members
8,103 posts
13,161 battles

SpaceX Starship SN10 launch - as it happened: Mars-bound prototype finally lands but explodes shortly after

Anthony Cuthbertson

Wed, March 3, 2021,
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/spacex-starship-sn10-launch-live-140010689.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,175
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
4,265 posts
12,206 battles
8 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Rockets... Back in the "greatest generation ever (1940s ish)" they were reliable... 80 years later (gen X in control).. How can this proven technology fail?

Wheels worked in the stone age, they work now... Rockets worked in the 1940s, now the go BOOM!

Go figure....

I love science...

Where rockets really reliable in 40s I’m not so sure . You didn’t hear about every failure back then . Don’t discount science today there’s a lot of brilliant people out there . It’s just that today every mistake you make is magnified by 100 . Back in the day they hid it from you . 

Edited by clammboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,370
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
14,453 posts
1 minute ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

SpaceX Starship SN10 launch - as it happened: Mars-bound prototype finally lands but explodes shortly after

Anthony Cuthbertson

Wed, March 3, 2021,
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/spacex-starship-sn10-launch-live-140010689.html

A scientist once did a cost-benefit analysis of "reusable" spacecraft and found that they were anything but cost efficient. NASA and the Russians have had pretty good luck with landing people alive in armored capsules from non-reusable spacecraft, not so much with reusable ones.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,045
[WPORT]
Members
8,103 posts
13,161 battles
2 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

A scientist once did a cost-benefit analysis of "reusable" spacecraft and found that they were anything but cost efficient. NASA and the Russians have had pretty good luck with landing people alive in armored capsules from non-reusable spacecraft, not so much with reusable ones.  

I'm sure there are a few kinks to work out.

I like the concept of vehicles that can travel to and from space as reliably as you or I can drive our car to commute to work.
We've not reached the "George Jetson" level of technology, though, let alone Star Trek and Star Wars & etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,068
[WORX]
Members
12,638 posts
19,907 battles
12 minutes ago, clammboy said:

Where rockets really reliable in 40s I’m not so sure . You didn’t hear about every failure back then . Don’t discount science today there’s a lot of brilliant people out there . It’s just that today every mistake you make is magnified by 100 . Back in the day they hid it from you . 

But even then, rockets have a good track record (considering its a device that goes BOOM!). If we use the NASA shuttle program as our source of rocket information...

It only went BOOM one time (and forgive me father for any morbid thoughts regarding the BOOM that took innocent human lives). That boom just so happened in the 80s after "ignition and lift off" phase.

I guess what I am alluding too... The testing, trials and lives have been shed in order to prove it works... I just dont see the need to change the formulation of the past to test it again now... It obviously, as Snag highlighted... Failed...

That is my condemnation with the failed test... 

Edited by Navalpride33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,370
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
14,453 posts
3 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I'm sure there are a few kinks to work out.

I like the concept of vehicles that can travel to and from space as reliably as you or I can drive our car to commute to work.
We've not reached the "George Jetson" level of technology, though, let alone Star Trek and Star Wars & etc.

Flying to space places a lot of stress on components, maybe too much with our current materials technology to make a system reusable. Many things can be built to last a long time in a controlled environment and with the proper maintenance. Other things are non-reusable because the environments they are used in physically preclude it, like nuclear reactor pressure vessels.

Speaking of the Jetsons. It still amazes me how many people don't really know the difference between fact and fiction. With so much "sci fi" being produced people have become complacent to actual scientific events. There are things happening in space exploration and astronomy that people should be watching and talking about by the, However, they hardly get recognized at all by any but the people involved and a few science enthusiasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,175
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
4,265 posts
12,206 battles
2 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

But even then, rockets have a good track record (considering its a device that goes BOOM!). If we use the NASA shuttle program as our source of rocket information...

It only went BOOM one time (and forgive me father for any morbid thoughts regarding the BOOM that took innocent human lives). That boom happened happened in the 80s after "ignition and lift off."

I guess what I am alluding too... The testing, trials and lives have been shed in order to prove it works... I just dont see the need to change the formulation of the past to test it again now... It obviously, as Snag highlighted... Failed...

That is my condemnation with the failed test... 

Well there have been plenty of close calls and the first few rocket boosters NASA tried were big time failures . It's a dangerous business and besides the horrible tragedy of Apollo 1 and the space shuttle we have been good . 

There all brave men and woman and the scientists who figured it all out are brilliant but times change they way you do things changes if you want to move forward I think . I I just don't know about private space travel .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,068
[WORX]
Members
12,638 posts
19,907 battles
1 minute ago, clammboy said:

I I just don't know about private space travel

The monetization or the privatization of space travel.... I draw the line there... No company should profit from it...

You are correct sir...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,191
[HINON]
Members
14,005 posts

We had plenty of rockets explode before. This isnt strange with new technologies. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,191
[HINON]
Members
14,005 posts
4 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

The monetization or the privatization of space travel.... I draw the line there... No company should profit from it...

You are correct sir...

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,068
[WORX]
Members
12,638 posts
19,907 battles
33 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

Why?

Because Federal regulation will still be present, IMO... No company (at least in the transportation sector) can truly be full capitalist... Especially, when space became a utility for public and Government clients. I just dont see public space travel not being full capitalist...

What company business model you'll end up with ?Amtrak of space travel... have you ever taken an Amtrak train ride lately ??? Exactly...


Not to mention. if you live in the good ol USA... Mail delivery is in the Constitution.. Its a right for every US citizen to have the mail delivered... It doesn't state how its done nor in a timely manner.. 

Space.... At time of posting, no constitutional right is mentioned... Now you have to amend the constitution to include space...


This was just a brief... Mainly its dinner time... My stomach is fighting with my largest organ... 

Edited by Navalpride33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[WOLF9]
Members
4,678 posts
58 minutes ago, clammboy said:

Where rockets really reliable in 40s I’m not so sure . You didn’t hear about every failure back then . Don’t discount science today there’s a lot of brilliant people out there . It’s just that today every mistake you make is magnified by 100 . Back in the day they hid it from you . 

   They also didn't have a 24/7 news cycle to fill, and armies of vapid, empty headed "journalists"  eager for low hanging fruit.    Plus, rocket going kablooey looks sexy and sells more ad space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,852
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,824 posts
4,285 battles
1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said:

Rockets... Back in the "greatest generation ever (1940s ish)" they were reliable... 80 years later (gen X in control).. How can this proven technology fail?

Wheels worked in the stone age, they work now... Rockets worked in the 1940s, now the go BOOM!

Go figure....

I love science...

I don't think rockets could be called reliable in the forties, the Germans hit themselves just as often as they hit the Brits. By the 60s we had things worked out though.

And rockets still work very reliably. Shuttle only went boom twice in what, almost 40 years? We have countless NASA and private launches, not to mention other counties, that go off without a hitch. Elon has his Falcon 9 working well. So to say they don't work reliably is just wrong.

What doesn't work reliably is new rockets. We're not going to haul out the old Saturn V again, so we need other things to go further, especially for longer missions. Everything has a development period, for rockets that period is one where there are a lot of explosions. Remember when Falcon 9 was blowing up every other launch attempt? Remember when Starship was a joke that seemed to collapse every time they put it on the pad? Now they've got something like looks like a grain silo flying like the shuttle (OK, maybe not quite, but to have any aerodynamic control over that thing is amazing). Give it 5 years and I bet Starship works as reliably as Falcon 9. We have plenty of working rockets, but we're also working on bigger and better ones. Just because the newest generation of a technology is still in development doesn't mean we can't reliably make older generations of that same technology work.

1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said:

But even then, rockets have a good track record (considering its a device that goes BOOM!). If we use the NASA shuttle program as our source of rocket information...

It only went BOOM one time (and forgive me father for any morbid thoughts regarding the BOOM that took innocent human lives). That boom just so happened in the 80s after "ignition and lift off" phase.

Twice actually, though Columbia broke up less spectacularly than Challenger.

1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said:

I guess what I am alluding too... The testing, trials and lives have been shed in order to prove it works... I just dont see the need to change the formulation of the past to test it again now... It obviously, as Snag highlighted... Failed...

That is my condemnation with the failed test... 

I don't get what you're saying. We want to go to the Moon again and Mars in some sort of reliable and sustainable fashion. That's not possible with the current rockets, so we're making the next generation. I'd say there's definitely a need to change and iterate past designs.

Also I don't think this launch was a total failure. It launched, flipped, fell (with style), rotated, and landed. Clearly the landing system needs work, but apparently they knew that already. But it was an improvement over the last flight, so I don't think it's fair to call it a failure. They're not sending it to space anytime soon, but it's not like they have to completely start over now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,370
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
14,453 posts
43 minutes ago, Fletcher7_1944 said:

   They also didn't have a 24/7 news cycle to fill, and armies of vapid, empty headed "journalists"  eager for low hanging fruit.    Plus, rocket going kablooey looks sexy and sells more ad space.

Do you know what the largest YouTube channels now are? they are the "5-minute hack" and "5-minute recipe"-type channels. None of these things work and a good number are actually dangerous but the group that puts them out have figured how to work the YouTube algorithm to recommend their channel so that they get all the views. YouTube won't take them down because they generate ad revenue.  Much the same thing is going on with the "news" sites now. So-called news nowadays only has to contain the right key words to get the Google algorithms to recommend it. It's all about speed and exposure nowadays. Many articles are spewed out so fast that they are oftentimes not even spell checked, much less checked for proper grammar or factual content. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,068
[WORX]
Members
12,638 posts
19,907 battles
2 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

Twice actually, though Columbia broke up less spectacularly than Challenger.

One was the as the "ignition and lift off" phase...

The other was not a Rocket related accident... It was more a heat-shield incident... Not related to Rockets..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,852
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,824 posts
4,285 battles
Just now, Navalpride33 said:

One was the as the "ignition and lift off" phase...

The other was not a Rocket related accident... It was more a heat-shield incident... Not related to Rockets..

Fair enough, I was thinking more overall spacecraft related things. Though if you want to be pedantic the Challenger had little to do with actual rocket technology, that was a materials science fail where people ignored what happens to things when they get cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,068
[WORX]
Members
12,638 posts
19,907 battles
Just now, AJTP89 said:

Fair enough, I was thinking more overall spacecraft related things. Though if you want to be pedantic the Challenger had little to do with actual rocket technology, that was a materials science fail where people ignored what happens to things when they get cold.

Alluding to the last part of your OP.. I think that rockets have gotten civilization pretty far... For more ambiguous missions I think rockets are not the solution... 

 So I guess I dont know what the test failure proves.. But yeah, it does do a great boom boom!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,852
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,824 posts
4,285 battles
34 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

For more ambiguous missions I think rockets are not the solution... 

Agree with you there, something better is needed. But the technology for anything better is nowhere near being viable yet so we're using rockets for now.

34 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

 So I guess I dont know what the test failure proves.. But yeah, it does do a great boom boom!

It's a win-win in my book, successful landing AND an explosion, hard to beat that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,642
[RLGN]
Members
15,645 posts
27,355 battles
2 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

Rockets... Back in the "greatest generation ever (1940s ish)" they were reliable... 80 years later (gen X in control).. How can this proven technology fail?

Wheels worked in the stone age, they work now... Rockets worked in the 1940s, now the go BOOM!

Go figure....

I love science...

And yet we just had our second ‘seven minutes of terror’ landing of a rover on Mars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,068
[WORX]
Members
12,638 posts
19,907 battles
7 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

And yet we just had our second ‘seven minutes of terror’ landing of a rover on Mars.

Rockets are bad landing tools... :Smile_veryhappy:

The soyuz reusable capsule is a great testament to the 7 min of terror... So far its all we got...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,191
[HINON]
Members
14,005 posts
2 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

 

Are horses mentioned in the constitution? How about automobiles? Trains? Planes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×