It Really Is Rocket Science

tony9, Dec 10, 2:08pm
Problem when applying Auto Repair/IT trouble fixing to Rockets.

We have a problem, wiggle this, try now, no good. Wiggle that, try now, no good. Start it up again and try again - KaBoom!

bitsnpieces2020, Dec 10, 2:56pm
When do they start calling for volunteer astronauts, with a 1/3 chance of success?

ronaldo8, Dec 10, 3:42pm
Did you not read the story?

tony9, Dec 10, 3:51pm
Yes, I have been following SpaceX closely.

It blew up near landing, it was not supposed to do that.

apollo11, Dec 10, 4:21pm
I thought it was bloody amazing. They didn't expect it to go perfectly either, but were mainly collecting data. It was interesting watching those raptor engines gimbolling wildly as they tried to compensate for the engine that failed.

ronaldo8, Dec 10, 9:00pm
To elaborate.
I see absolutely no connection between what they see as a successful test and your ramble about wiggling connectors. Hence my question as to if you'd even read the article, there is a no similarity whatsoever in methodology.

marte, Dec 10, 9:12pm
It's a test, so yes it is. That's the reason of the test, the test is to get results.
The result? It blew up.

bitsnpieces2020, Dec 11, 8:49pm
so if it didn't explode it'd be a failure? LOL.

exwesty, Dec 11, 11:29pm
It was a RUD. Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly

marte, Oct 10, 8:59pm
They learnt stuff, which was the main point in doing it.
From what I read it was cashed by 'low pressures in the fuel tank' & given that Earths atmospheric pressure is greater than Mars is, on Mars it would have worked.

It's quite impressive that they could even try to land a rocket back on Earth in a reverse of its launching.
NASA went the ( I think it was a bad idea ) way of using a reusable space shuttle & that set back exploration by a about a decade, even to the point of America having to rely on the Russians.

Share this thread

Buy me a coffee :)Buy me a coffee :)