Those two astronauts are never coming down at this rate
FAA grounds SpaceX after rocket falls over in flames.
Submitted 2 months ago by True@lemy.lol to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
MrNesser@lemmy.world 2 months ago
werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Don’t worry, I’m thinking about starting my own rocket company so we can go get them!
In our first year, I plan to deploy at least 3 fully functional 1/50th scale prototypes.
That’s really what sets us apart from the rest. Our commitment to 1/50th scale prototypes. I can’t wait, it’s going to be pretty sweet!
So, the plan is to launch a rocket carrying a thin string. The astronauts will reach out to catch said string. Then, they will pull a strong chain with the string so they can tie the space station to the chain. Then they will slowly climb down until reaching atmosphere. At the point they will jump with a parachute or continue climbing down slowly. It’s their choice.
a_wild_mimic_appears@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
somewhat relevant xkcd what-if: what-if.xkcd.com/157/
MrNesser@lemmy.world 2 months ago
This must be that string theory u keep hearing about.
Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 2 months ago
Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 2 months ago
This was a landing failure of a booster after returning from it’s mission. Boosters have always been expendable one-and-done parts that would be jettisoned to burn up in the atmosphere. Boeing currently has no roadmap for reusable boosters, meanwhile SpaceX has launched this particular booster 23 times! These booster failures are extremely rare and any booster recovery for any space agency/company that isn’t SpaceX is notable. SpaceX is the only agency/company that has recovered and reused a booster, and they’ve done so hundreds of times.
…wikipedia.org/…/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heav…
Note there was 1 launch failure this year which was their first launch failure since 2016, almost 10 years with hundreds of launches between failures.
The last booster to be lost on a landing was in 2023 and not even a booster failure but simply rough seas:
First booster to fly for the 19th time. Despite the landing being initially successful, the booster later tipped over during transit due to rough seas, high winds and waves, the stage was unable to be secured to the deck for recovery and later tipped over and was destroyed in transit. SpaceX has already equipped newer Falcon boosters with upgraded landing legs that have the capability to self-level and mitigate this type of issue.
So in short, yes it is bad that a booster which shouldn’t have been lost was. But in terms of crew safety this isn’t a huge concern. SpaceX simply has an incredible track record for successful missions and has become the “safe” bet in aerospace
rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months ago
I’m not sure if I even would want to board a SpaceX at this rate
todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 2 months ago
A booster crash landed, so now you’re afraid of the capsule?
Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
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.
PassingThrough@lemmy.world 2 months ago
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.
SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world 2 months ago
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.
Beryl@jlai.lu 2 months ago
Especially when you take into consideration the fact that the booster landed (and subsequently fell over) on a floating platform out at sea.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
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.
Krzd@lemmy.world 2 months ago
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.
CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I doubt this grounding will last long since it’s unlikely to affect other flights. They’re just looking for an understanding of why this happened and it could very well be due to some wear that wasn’t expected.
werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It’s kinda went Boeing Boeing!
The space station astronauts peed a little when SpaceX got grounded. The alternative is to jump with a parachute.
eleitl@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Or they could ask the Russians really really nicely.
pyrosis@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I remember the old videos of rockets exploding on launch pads when we were first building them. We have come a long way.
I suspect they will just learn something new from this and they will last even longer.
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
i’d be more shocked if a spacex launch didn’t end in flames.
essteeyou@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I don’t think anyone has a better record of landing their rockets.
MisterMoo@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Their CEO is a terminally online white nationalist anti-Semite who supports the overthrow of American democracy. I’ll be rooting against them and enjoying their every setback until that changes.
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
think nasa does since they actually landed on the moon.
ripcord@lemmy.world 2 months ago
…why? The vast vast majority don’t.
The guy who owns it is a piece of shit, but they absolutely are crushing it in the launch business.
kokesh@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Why would they ground the whole fleet, the only bad outcome is economic for the company.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Why does OP keep promoting state propaganda?
True@lemy.lol 2 months ago
The state want people to believe that SpaceX is bad?
Most people here keep telling me that VOA is a propaganda News outlet without any proof.
If it’s a propaganda news outlet then it would not publish something like that.
limonfiesta@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I mean, Voice of America is explicitly a state run propaganda organization used to advance American goals overseas.
I think the confusion most people have is that they incorrectly believe that propaganda means lies, it doesn’t.
Propaganda is information published and used to influence opinions and actions. Doesn’t matter if it’s accurate, or inaccurate, information.
So yeah, VOA is a US government run propaganda outlet. While it doesn’t mean that they’re some disinformation factory, they also weren’t breaking news either, so I would recommend using sources without that baggage.
shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
The day was not that long ago where every booster was expended after every launch. So the fact that this thing launched 23 times before failing is quite frankly amazing.
phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
True but also something that should have been tested for and known before it was upright and fuelled again. I.e. why didn’t safety checks catch the issue(s)?
shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
Oh, absolutely. And this failure here will just show that these are things that need to be done in the maintenance, which will make them last even longer.