this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
259 points (95.4% liked)
Technology
59080 readers
3584 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Seems a little bit unfair to me that a reusable launch system can be grounded for issues on the way back, when discarding launch systems do not have to content with that.
It’s not really because it fell over. It’s because it wasn’t supposed to fall over. Consumable launch materials don’t contend with this because failure to return is a success. This is a failure. This must be learned from and fought against/prevented going forward.
Seems reasonable. This is exactly what the FAA should be doing and is why flying is so safe since every crash and accident becomes an opportunity to learn and adjust procedures to minimize the risks.
Let’s find out why it failed and then identify metrics for when a module can be reused.
i think part of the issue with the 'throw away' systems is they know exactly where that shit will land regardless of success. the re-use systems actively modify their flight path on the way back, and could poptentially veer off into populated places. maybe.
There are (or at least were) actually competent engineers at spacex. While we can't rule out overengineering to an obscene degree, the amount of propulsion is going to be very limited. Basically enough to make minor adjustments and then one last burn to "safely" land.
Which is basically comparable to wind carrying a conventional booster off course. Yes, it is possible but it is mitigated by landing in an ocean and not doing this on windy days.
No, The issue is that there was a failure. Doesn't matter when or where it happens. Something that was supposed to work didn't and we need to understand that before we have yet another Challenger.
Let's put it this way (yay metaphors, these never leave to pedantism and derailment): You just got home from driving to the local fun fair. You close your door and your mirror falls off. It happened AFTER you drove and AFTER you turned off the engine but... are you going to go on any road trips before figuring out what the hell happened?
If you live in Maryland, sure why not? It'll go along with the duct-tape-and-garbagebag oil pan.
If I remember correctly, they steer the rocket a little off from the landing spot until the last second so if anything were to go wrong it crashes in a safe, predetermined spot.
I mean. Traditional systems go through a LOT of very rigorous and documented-ish processes to be reused (not quite Rocket of Theseus but...). They are expected to be unusable after a launch and being able to reuse them is kind of an added bonus.
Reusable systems are specifically designed to be... reused. So if they aren't reusable after a launch, something went horribly wrong and we need to understand why. Because maybe we got lucky and the proverbial door fell off after landing this time. Maybe next time it falls off mid-flight.
The problem is that something unexpected happend, so now we gotta understand it.
Was it caused by something during ascent? Now that's a problem.
If it's something that was caused during decent we "only" need to understand how to spot it, but it won't be a critical flight safety problem.
Especially when you take into consideration the fact that the booster landed (and subsequently fell over) on a floating platform out at sea.
It's a safety issue
Is it? This happened miles offshore.