Albert VDS Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 And the thought that entertainment doesn't benefit Humanity makes me both laugh and wince.Why does it make you laugh and wince? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soda Popinski Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 True in a way, to date I would say the shuttle has been technically more successful. We still don't know if spacex will actually do it, could be every first stage falls over on landing. Then they still need to beat the track record of the shuttle, which admittedly wont be that hard to do.The Shuttle had over 130 launches, with 2 failures. So, 1.5% failure rate. It was human rated, so I'd expect them to have a better record than non-human payload launches, which I think is about 5%. So SpaceX is par for the course, but I'd hope they could do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frida Space Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Also, the Space Shuttle didn't have an abort system. Orion, Crew Dragon (or whatever it will be called) will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert VDS Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) How SpaceX’s launch failure is also a measure of successCustomers keep faith in SpaceX after Falcon 9 failure Edited July 1, 2015 by Albert VDS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meithan Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Here's another "positive" take on the Falcon 9 launch failure (and the previous recent ISS cargo delivery mission failures), posted on YouTube channel Smarter Every Day (which is fantastic, btw): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superfluous J Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Why does it make you laugh and wince?At how ridiculous it is. Entertainment is an extremely important aspect of life.And at the fact that we're having this discussion on a video game's forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mipe Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 You are forgetting the most important thing: no more smug remarks from obnoxious SpaceX fans about failed launches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 You are forgetting the most important thing: no more smug remarks from obnoxious SpaceX fans about failed launches.I wonder if he's aware of the sheer irony in his post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mipe Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Whatever, as long as they stop shoving "perfect track record" into NASA's face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert VDS Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 A video Horizontally aligned and stabilized rocket size video of CRS-7. At how ridiculous it is. Entertainment is an extremely important aspect of life.And at the fact that we're having this discussion on a video game's forum.True, entertainment is important, and life would be duller without it, but it doesn't help humanity advance.Sure it can inspire people to make decisions that changes a persons life and through that others.But if we didn't have football then we wouldn't be worse off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mipe Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 But if we didn't have football then we wouldn't be worse off.You sure about that?The Sports Market Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert VDS Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) The sports market doesn't hinge on 1 sport, but if it did then we wouldn't have that either.Would we spend our money on something else? Of course.Would our lives be totally different if we didn't have football? No.Would our lives be totally different if, for example, we never had biochemistry?Edit:Air Force ‘Invited’ To Observe Investigation Of SpaceX Launch Failure “Q1. Does this failure prompt review of certification for national security launches?“A1. No, SpaceX remains certified.â€Â...However, later in the day we heard from SMC that certification is not forever. Edited July 2, 2015 by Albert VDS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman703 Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 So... a week from the incident, and no word yet from SpaceX on the cause. Anyone else thought that we would have at least heard something on the cause by now, considering the massive amounts of data being sent back from Falcon9/Dragon? Or is that just too unrealistic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 So... a week from the incident, and no word yet from SpaceX on the cause. Anyone else thought that we would have at least heard something on the cause by now, considering the massive amounts of data being sent back from Falcon9/Dragon? Or is that just too unrealistic?I didn't think so, there's so much data, and they have to look through all of it before they come to a conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 It indicates that there is no obvious "smoking gun" in the data, so they are having to comb through evvery bit of it to reconstruct what may have happened. That could take weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 So... a week from the incident, and no word yet from SpaceX on the cause. Anyone else thought that we would have at least heard something on the cause by now, considering the massive amounts of data being sent back from Falcon9/Dragon? Or is that just too unrealistic?Elon posted that they are going into hex editors to recover corrupted data from during the breakup. I wouldassume that whatever the problem was, none of the sensors saw it coming- they have to model backward from what happened after the accident to develop theorys as to what went wroong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frida Space Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 "On August 21, 2014, Cimarron Composites, a Huntsville, AL, company “which develops and produces high performance composite tanks and pressure vessels,†and who lists SpaceX as a client on its website, suffered a failure of what appeared to be a pressure vessel similar to those used by SpaceX. [...] Cimarron developes a 300 liter type 3 pressure vessel that contains 5,000 psi helium for the Space-X rockets."I'm skeptic, but still, an interesting read.http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-exploration-technologies/2014-incident-may-provide-clue-to-cause-of-spacex-falcon-9-failure/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman703 Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 "On August 21, 2014, Cimarron Composites, a Huntsville, AL, company “which develops and produces high performance composite tanks and pressure vessels,†and who lists SpaceX as a client on its website, suffered a failure of what appeared to be a pressure vessel similar to those used by SpaceX. [...] Cimarron developes a 300 liter type 3 pressure vessel that contains 5,000 psi helium for the Space-X rockets."I'm skeptic, but still, an interesting read.http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-exploration-technologies/2014-incident-may-provide-clue-to-cause-of-spacex-falcon-9-failure/Interesting, but I don't buy it. SpaceX builds its tanks completely in-house to the best of my knowledge. Not to mention they must be tested in some form or fashion before use. On a somewhat similar note, pressure vessels are nothing to mess around with. A simple scuba tank can rival many explosives in sheer destructive power. Not surprised about the damage to their facially from that 'incident'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leszek Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 Interesting, but I don't buy it. SpaceX builds its tanks completely in-house to the best of my knowledge. Not to mention they must be tested in some form or fashion before use. On a somewhat similar note, pressure vessels are nothing to mess around with. A simple scuba tank can rival many explosives in sheer destructive power. Not surprised about the damage to their facially from that 'incident'.According the cited article, SpaceX has moved to producing the tanks in house just like you said. However it also states that this is a recent change. So in order to this be a real connection to the issue, SpaceX had to have used tanks they acquired before moving production in house. As you point out tanks are tested, but the summer 2014 incident was probably a tested tank as well. So we would need to postulate that the relevant failure mode of the tanks is a sudden failure with little to no warning before hand. Further we need to postulate that the cause of the 2014 incident was either never found or misdiagnosed or no fixes were implemented. We would have to postulate that SpaceX either was disinterested in this failure or otherwise deemed it not relevant. (Or else why use the old tank even if you had it in stock?)Not impossible but I agree that you have to add a fair bit of conditions to see it happening.But regardless, even if the proposed link was much more plausible, we have a vast lack of data regarding the event. Any speculation is just that, speculation.Though I find the lack of information a week after the event is disturbing, it implies that this could be one of those round about failures that reads like a Rub Goldberg machine. It starts with a butterfly in China flapping its wings and ends with the SpaceX Falcon 9 tearing itself to pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman703 Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 Do tanks even sit around for along time before being put to use? I had thought that the turnover time between building the rocket and launching the rocket was quite small for SpaceX, as having a built rocket just sitting around unused doesn't benefit you in any way. Gah, I'll take the hurricanes in NY instead. Stupid Chinese butterflies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leszek Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 Do tanks even sit around for along time before being put to use? I had thought that the turnover time between building the rocket and launching the rocket was quite small for SpaceX, as having a built rocket just sitting around unused doesn't benefit you in any way. Gah, I'll take the hurricanes in NY instead. Stupid Chinese butterflies...Well, it does make the solution obvious for SpaceX. We just need to kill all the butterflies. I propose we make butterfly hunting, self evolving, nanites and release them into the wild....what..what are all of you looking at me like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 No Replicators allowed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airlock Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLestat Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 According the cited article, SpaceX has moved to producing the tanks in house just like you said. However it also states that this is a recent change. So in order to this be a real connection to the issue, SpaceX had to have used tanks they acquired before moving production in house. As you point out tanks are tested, but the summer 2014 incident was probably a tested tank as well. So we would need to postulate that the relevant failure mode of the tanks is a sudden failure with little to no warning before hand. Further we need to postulate that the cause of the 2014 incident was either never found or misdiagnosed or no fixes were implemented. We would have to postulate that SpaceX either was disinterested in this failure or otherwise deemed it not relevant. (Or else why use the old tank even if you had it in stock?)Not impossible but I agree that you have to add a fair bit of conditions to see it happening.But regardless, even if the proposed link was much more plausible, we have a vast lack of data regarding the event. Any speculation is just that, speculation.Though I find the lack of information a week after the event is disturbing, it implies that this could be one of those round about failures that reads like a Rub Goldberg machine. It starts with a butterfly in China flapping its wings and ends with the SpaceX Falcon 9 tearing itself to pieces.This is also the helium tanks not the huge LOF/OX tanks, it makes perfectly sense to outsource the small high pressure ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts