41–50 of 95 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, play KSP. Once you flip a rocket, its nearly unrecoverable and it just accelerates into the ground.
I wonder if the reusable rockets from SpaceX could recover from a flipped position during re-entry?
I almost expect a statement that this was a successful test of the self-destruct mechanism. ... Oops, looks like they really did it.
I hope there's a way to disable the self-destruct mechanism when they start doing manned flights!
The shuttle had its own variant although that was manual, not automatic http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4262479 I believe it doesn't matter what the craft is, there is always some manner of self-destruct to ensure a larger population isn't threatened by debris from an exploding rocket.
I would guess each case has to weigh its pros and cons for inclusion of a system. There is such thing as acceptable risk to population. If FAA mandated them carte blanche, Michael Bay movies would become documentaries.
Better video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qv2VEX9iyI SpaceX Statement: https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/502976401729798144/photo/1
SpaceX Statement in full (copied from facebook page):
Earlier today, in McGregor, Texas, SpaceX conducted a test flight of a three engine version of the F9R test vehicle (successor to Grasshopper). During the flight, an anomaly was detected in the vehicle and the flight termination system automatically terminated the mission.
Throughout the test and subsequent flight termination, the vehicle remained in the designated flight area. There were no injuries or near injuries. An FAA representative was present at all times.
With research and development projects, detecting vehicle anomalies during the testing is the purpose of the program. Today’s test was particularly complex, pushing the limits of the vehicle further than any previous test. As is our practice, the company will be reviewing the flight record details to learn more about the performance of the vehicle prior to our next test.
SpaceX will provide another update when the flight data has been fully analyzed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The shuttle had its own variant although that was manual, not automatic http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4262479 I believe it doesn't matter what the craft is, there is always some manner of self-destruct to ensure a larger population isn't threatened by debris from an exploding rocket.
It does matter. I doubt you'll load 300 willing passengers on a 747 if it was widely known it had a self destruct. I would guess each case has to weigh its pros and cons for inclusion of a system. There is such thing as acceptable risk to population. If FAA mandated them carte blanche, Michael Bay movies would become documentaries.
>>The unmanned rocket was destroyed when its self-destruct system was triggered after an unexplained malfunction. It's interesting these rockets are equipped with self-destruct systems. What scenario would warrant a rocket purposely self-destruct?
"We've got to tunnel one of these vehicles into the ground by trying something really hard." - Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX
I'm glad I can joke about this because nobody was hurt. Saw the headline at the top of the frontage and it immediately brought back memories of seeing Challenger on the news when I was 9, which rather changed my perspective on space travel at the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
please explain
As an experimental vehicle, you're generally supposed to be pushing the limits of what it can do to find those limits. Essentially, they're saying "no accidents means we aren't trying hard enough to break the thing".
Maybe they tested the control system's abilities by pushing it over very quickly.
I bet there's people at SpaceX who were involved on the DC-X that did a successful translation to horizontal and back in 1995. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o
Hope SpaceX has enough spare hardware that they can get quickly back up to testing again. I don't see any reason they wouldn't since they have produced quite many leg sets already - maybe they were planning to moving to newer hardware iterations anyway and the vehicle was "expendable", or at least the risk with dangerous tests was more acceptable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The shuttle had its own variant although that was manual, not automatic http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4262479 I believe it doesn't matter what the craft is, there is always some manner of self-destruct to ensure a larger population isn't threatened by debris from an exploding rocket.
It does matter. I doubt you'll load 300 willing passengers on a 747 if it was widely known it had a self destruct. I would guess each case has to weigh its pros and cons for inclusion of a system. There is such thing as acceptable risk to population. If FAA mandated them carte blanche, Michael Bay movies would become documentaries.
Especially since it is understood that space travel is dangerous, while air travel is regarded as safe.