The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

User avatar
CrimsonFALKE
Posts: 404
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by CrimsonFALKE »

Karst45 wrote:
CrimsonFALKE wrote:Well in space you'd need a lot of thrusters on a ship almost all over really
that or a way to reverse the truster exhaust port.

i think the harrier have something that could be interresting for space fighter if only it could rotate 360 degree

Well thats to do basic stops but to manuver a ship you will need well I guess directional jets.

Alexandr Koori
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:20 pm
Location: Moscow

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Alexandr Koori »


User avatar
CrimsonFALKE
Posts: 404
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by CrimsonFALKE »

This is a tragedy and my heart and prayers go out to the family. I hope this doesn't divert effort from the space race.

User avatar
Username
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 1:57 am
Location: Denial

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Username »

CrimsonFALKE wrote:
This is a tragedy and my heart and prayers go out to the family. I hope this doesn't divert effort from the space race.
I would be very surprised if it doesn't at least put a divot in Virgin Galactic's investor interest.

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Nemo »

We may already have a determination on how it broke up, even if we don't know which part failed. The twin tail booms swing up into a high drag position for aerobraking on descent. There is a two step control process to enable that; a lock/unlock lever and an engage/disengage lever. Protocol is to only unlock the boom when it is needed, but it was unlocked during the powered ascent. The boom swung up without further input seconds later as the craft passed mach 1. This resulted in too much stress on the air frame, which was buffeted and ripped apart.

So a software or hardware glitch engaged the boom without input, and the pilot(s) disengaged the safety lock inappropriately.

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Arioch »

The copilot disengaged the safety lock prematurely. He's the one who died, so we'll probably never know why he did this.

Dragoon
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: US North Carolina: Eastern standard Time Zone
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Dragoon »

It's unfortunate that one crewman died, Aviation pioneers tend to pay a very heavy price for any advancement. Fortunately, a single accident shouldn't put a damper on the project. It's unusual for any sort of advanced aircraft to make it through development without an accident.

The NTSB, or FAA will want a full investigation which will slow he project down for a bit..but they should be able to get moving again..unless some politician decides to jump on the incident.

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by discord »

reminds me of the disasters regarding the first JAS-39 a horrible accident caught live on tv, everyone called it a disaster...except the engineers, they went 'finally something went wrong! now what went wrong and how can we fix it?' because you do NOT want those kinds of bugs still around when it goes into production.

actually the JAS was very accident free, only two major incidents during the entire development phase, both caught live on tv with audience during official open show and tells, bad timing, and almost killed the project.

Zakharra
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:46 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Zakharra »

discord wrote:reminds me of the disasters regarding the first JAS-39 a horrible accident caught live on tv, everyone called it a disaster...except the engineers, they went 'finally something went wrong! now what went wrong and how can we fix it?' because you do NOT want those kinds of bugs still around when it goes into production.

actually the JAS was very accident free, only two major incidents during the entire development phase, both caught live on tv with audience during official open show and tells, bad timing, and almost killed the project.

A guest, and the host, on a national radio news show today expressed an opinion that the rocket industry should never have been privatized, that it should still be run by the government (all NASA controlled?). Needless to say I disagree with that. If the government wants to build rockets, let it do so, but they shouldn't restrict private companies from building rockets or space planes/shuttles either.

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

Considering that the rocket industry hasn't been privatized, that is a strange claim to make. But I guess there is a lot of confusion over who is running what, how, and why.

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Arioch »

Also, NASA doesn't build rockets and never has. Lockheed-Martin and Northrop-Grumman and Boeing/Rockwell do, on NASA's behalf. The space industry has always been in the hands of private industry, and there have always been accidents and screw ups; the only difference now is that they can be blamed on corporate managers instead of NASA managers.

After every NASA accident, there was always some talking head saying that NASA was incompetent and the space program should be privatized; now the other group of idiots get to say the reverse.

Senanthes
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Senanthes »

Unfortunately, accidents happen under extreme conditions at the slightest provocation, and aerospace flight certainly qualifies as extreme conditions...

Which doesn't make it any less of a tragedy. :(

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Grayhome »

So that is the general feel this thread is going for? Orbital Science got a 40+ soviet constructed piece of junk out of storage, used it, it explodes, and it's just a common, run of the mill error that NASA makes all the time?

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

Considering that the Soviets made some damn fine engines, it is not hard to imagine why a company might want to use some of them, considering how hard it is to get rocket engines in general.

Some statistics. Claude Lafleur's Spacecraft Encyclopedia, 2014
Russia - 2975 successful - 203 failures - 93.60% success rate
USA - 1435 successful - 152 failures - 90.42% success rate
Europe - 215 successful - 17 failures - 91.7% success rate
China - 183 successful - 17 failures - 91.5% success rate
Japan - 79 successful - 14 failures - 84.85% success rate
India - 29 successful - 10 failures - 73.75% success rate

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Arioch »

And of course, the Soviets always accurately reported their failure rate...

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

It turns out that it is actually quite difficult to hide a failed rocket launch. They tend to be remarkably visible events. Considering that even in the very early days of their space program, their failures were actually documented and now widely known, including the first human casualties in space. Like Vladimir Mikhaylovich Komarov, who died in Soyuz 1 on re-entry, April 24th 1967. They may not have published everything at the time, but they did keep internal documents, and a lot of those were released after the Soviet Union collapsed.

When it comes to politics, 2+2 can equal 6, but when you're trying to go to space, 2+2 has to equal 4. It's not like they could just pretend their failures didn't happen and succeed through the power of ignorance. Ignorance may produce hot air, but it doesn't produce delta v. :P

Even if we just look at the post cold war world, there is also still no way to reasonably hide a rocket failure, since the people who are trying to put a spacecraft into orbit generally want to know where it went.

The information is hardly classified. You can look for yourself if you'd like.

Alexandr Koori
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:20 pm
Location: Moscow

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Alexandr Koori »

In time of Glasnost' madness 1988-1993 many documents was reclassified. And all of spacecraft industry, as I know. Do you want to read about incident on launch R-16 in 1960? Nobody knows about it before end of 80-th. Now -at your pleasure. Do you want to see drawings of Buran? At your pleasure.

This is just most significant examples.

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

The Defense Support Program, replaced the flawed Missile Defense Alarm System in 1970, and has been keeping track of unannounced missile launches ever since. From Iraqi short range tactical missiles, to North Korea's ballistic missile tests.

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Nemo »

Hard to keep secret, like the N1 program. Which didn't even exist until 1989. No, before that it was just a fake out to the US to make them THINK there was a space race going on. Hardy har, foolish Yankees.

Granted, the Soyuz has a long and fairly reliable history. The US ultimately opted for the technically more complex space shuttle, which saw its share of failures. Had the Soviets pursued the Buran, I imagine it would have faced many of the same issues, and each would have learned from the other. Presupposing they remained honest that is. Challenger and Columbia, Apollo 1, etc etc etc., due to the nature of the American system of politics these failures were loud and the causes widely disseminated. No one at the time learned anything from the Soviet failures, like the N1 or Proton rockets in development, because of their inability to face embarrassment. Whether we actually know the full truth remains an open question. Its difficult to prove a liar is not lying when asked to take his word for it.

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

The statistics I'm using are only taking into account rocket launches that were attempted. If you look at the statistics, most of the rockets with 100% success rates are also rockets that have single digit launch attempts. Going to space today is rocket science. People aren't just throwing these things together with a hammer and duct tape.

So yes, in the sense that even extremely minor defects and mistakes can ruin an entire launch, it is "run of the mill," to have rockets explode. Although that isn't the wording I would choose myself.

(My brother, who is an actual rocket scientist, had a lot to say about why the N1 failed. Layman's condensed summary though, there are good reasons why the US chose to use a smaller number of larger rocket motors, and good reasons why the Soviets could not overcome the not-insignificant engineering hurdles required to do so themselves.)

Post Reply