1816
1817

Space-X flight Failure. (gizmodo.com)

izcenine が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Coconut_Twister 151ポイント152ポイント  (39子コメント)

Correct. SpaceX had three failures before their first success. In contrast, NASA had close to 15 or 20 failures. SpaceX has the luxury of learning from Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo for their Falcon 9 design.

[–]SkunkMonkey 65ポイント66ポイント  (8子コメント)

And those failures were during testing. This is the first failure and loss of craft during launch. The other failure was a failure to make orbit but no destruction of craft during launch.

I'd say SpaceX is doing quite well on the shoulders of NASA.

[–]theasianpianist 67ポイント68ポイント  (6子コメント)

No, the first three failures for SpaceX were during actual launches (at least two of them were). Ashlee Vance's biography mentions that they lost government payloads on at least two of them (one USAF satellite and a bunch of experiments from NASA).

[–]zlsa [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think that NASA and the USAF treated those as tests of SpaceX rather than mission-critical payloads.

[–]SgtDirtyMike [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

While the 3 failures were actual launches, only the 3rd flight was a truly commercial/government venture. The first failure was carrying FalconSat, which was a satellite developed by Air Force Academy students. The second failure was carrying "DemoSat" was was presumably a test payload. The 3rd failure contained the most valuable payload - Trailblazer, PRESat, NanoSail-D and the remains of individuals that paid to have their ashes in space.

You have to remember that whenever a gov't or commercial entity launches a rocket into space, that vehicle will always be given a mission. Typically rocket launches are not just to test the vehicles themselves, but they also have a specific purpose. For example, NASA would never test it's Orion vehicle on a ballistic trajectory. They would either do an orbit around the moon via a translunar injection (similar to Apollo) or simply reach low-Earth-orbit.

[–]theasianpianist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I thought I remembered reading that the third flight actually had a dummy payload as nobody trusted SpaceX at that point to actually get into orbit.

[–]Coconut_Twister 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah that was it. I read her biography as well but couldn't quite remember the details. They were very much in testing, but if you're going to launch a rocket into orbit, might as well carry some kind of payload while you're at it.

[–]SkunkMonkey 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I stand corrected, my recollection on that was a tad fuzzy.

[–]reph 5ポイント6ポイント  (15子コメント)

However the Saturn V never went xplodey, despite using technology that's a half century older. These recent commercial designs are still less reliable than NASA's at its best.

[–]ch00f 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

The Space Shuttle experienced two disasters that resulted in loss of life...

All three Apollo I astronauts were burned alive during a test.

Apollo 12 was struck by lightning twice and almost had to be aborted.

Skylab failed to extend its thermal shield and had to be repaired in orbit.

The Mars Climate Orbiter crashed because of unit conversion error.

The Hubble space telescope had a faulty lens that had to be repaired in orbit.

Gemini 8 had a failure that resulted in an uncontrolled spin of the craft that almost killed the crew.

Apollo 13 had some issues.

Hell, the upper stage of a SaturnV had a rapid unplanned disassembly while testing the launch escape tower.

Space is hard. Now just as it was then.

[–]Accujack [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You're not even mentioning the multiple program failures at NASA that resulted in Billions of dollars spent for little gain. Canceled programs that were too ambitious, and cost overruns for programs that never fully reached their goals.

[–]mozumder [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

0 out of 10 Apollo Saturn V launches failed: 0% failure rate.

2 out of 135 Space Shuttle launches failed: 1.5% failure rate.

Space is hard, but NASA did much better than SpaceX.

[–]Okryt 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

It never exploded, no. But Apollo I was a disaster (all three crew burnt alive during a test) and Apollo 13 is so famous I shouldn't even need to mention it.

[–]EETrainee [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Apollo I never used the Saturn V rocket though, nor went into space. Apollo 13's damage occured actually completely after all three of the Saturn V launch and transfer stages had been used and ejected (S-IVB, S-II and S-IC), so it's more of a payload system failure than a rocket failure like with SpaceX here.

[–]mozumder -4ポイント-3ポイント  (9子コメント)

I have no idea why so many millennials love Elon Musk and Space X.

NASA it its peak were SO much more inspiring and bold than anything SpaceX is coming up with, even with SpaceX riding on NASA's shoulders.

The Space Shuttle alone is some amazing sci-fi. And, back when it was originally proposed, they were talking about sending up dozens of shuttles at a time to build giant space stations with artificial gravity.

The stuff today that millennials are stuck with is just so.. boring?

Too bad Nixon killed off NASA.

[–]Coconut_Twister 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

NASA was great in its heyday when it had the financial backing of the U.S. Government and the excitement of an entire country. Since that time, space travel has become arguably boring. The retirement of the shuttle program marked the end of an era, but SpaceX has brought some life back into space exploration. We find that exciting.

[–]mozumder -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's sorta like finding Chinese clone smart phone vendors exciting, instead of an original iPhone.

[–]Coconut_Twister [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I see what you mean, but it's more like Apple retiring the iPhone and forcing their most loyal customers find the most similar alternative. It's a less refined product, but it's all we got.

[–]mozumder [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's such a defeatist attitude.

You're supposed to push your fellow citizens for a larger NASA budget, instead of private space launches.

[–]WienerJungle [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Because like you said NASA is kind of dead. So Space X is the best option.

[–]mozumder [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

The best option is to push government to expand NASA's budget.

SpaceX is just marginal at best. They're not going to be able to push the space travel state-of-the-art like a heavy duty government project would be able to do.

Sorry kids, but nothing beats LOTS OF MONEY when doing big things.

Go big or go home.

[–]WienerJungle [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Well unfortunately that's not reality right now and Space X is. You ask why Millennials love Space X? Well it's because baby boomers killed NASA. So they'll make do with Space X until more emphasis is put on NASA again which seems like it won't be for a while.

[–]mozumder [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

But SpaceX isn't going to do anything new for the foreseeable future?

As in, no new technology.

There's nothing to differentiate it from Arianespace or ULA or any of the other rocket vendors.

And, if you want cheap rockets, look at the Indian space program. SpaceX is just trying to be like them: build the same rockets, but cheaper.

Also, even with the limited budget NASA has, they're doing some amazing work, such as the incredible Mars Curiosity landing.

[–]Nachteule -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't worry, you got NSA instead. Instead of using billions for the sky they use them to spy. Instead of checking millions of stars they check check billions of internet users. What a wonderful change...

[–]wiretapp [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

standing on the shoulders of giants.

[–]factoid_ -1ポイント0ポイント  (12子コメント)

Yeah Nasa can't throw stones. Their rockets killed three crews and they once crashed a Mars probe because they failed to convert between metric and imperial

[–]valax 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

NASA didn't actually make that mistake, Lockheed Martin did. NASA used metric whereas Lockheed used imperial (why the hell you'd use imperial in the first place is a mystery)

[–]kamicosey 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

How did that mistake crash the mission? Was it like someone miscalculated how much gas to put in it or was it like some obscure calculation made us craft a slightly too heavy screw which caused a .003% weight distribution inequality which put our 60 million mile trajectory off by 38 feet and due to unexpected turbulence in the Martian atmosphere unaccounted for drag was created causing the craft to crash?
One of those two scenarios I hope

[–]valax 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

A piece of software from Lockheed Martin supplied input to the system in imperial format but the NASA-built system expected the values to be in metric, causing the thrusters to produce far less thrust than was needed to be able to make a safe landing.

[–]kroshnapov 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lockheed Martin's software calculated thrust in pounds, while NASA's software expected to receive data in Newtons. As a result, the spacecraft's course correction was faulty and it flew too low in the Martian atmosphere.

[–]Jay9313 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it was something like trying to orbit at 3000ft instead of 3000m. I just made those numbers up, but you get the point

[–]factoid_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's been a while, but as I recall it, one piece of the craft was using metric calculations and the other was using imperial. It ended up deploying either too high or too low, and crashed because of it.

[–]Supa66 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

From my recollection, it was in determining the orbit distance. They needed to be x km, but the calculations were in x miles, thus sending the craft way too close to Mars.

[–]Roznak 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

If this was a human mission then 7 astronauts would have been killed.

[–]dmpastuf 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

If it was a human mission the launch abort system likely would have activated and boosted the astronauts away from the vehicle

[–]Falcrist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

likely

I want to share your optimism, but remember: this remains to be seen.

[–]Coconut_Twister 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree. If an anomaly was detected and the craft underwent a self destruction, then part of that self destruction sequence would have included jettisoning the crew capsule. They successfully tested the abort system just recently actually.

[–]factoid_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

True. Though if I'm going to nitpick, I don't think anyone is going to put 7 astronauts on a Dragon any time soon. They will probably send 3 or 4 + cargo.