SpaceX rocket landing attempt

  • #26
Dotini
Gold Member
621
229
Damn !
No kidding.

I was watching very carefully on a 27" HD screen. At about 2:19, the 2nd stage appeared to ignite while the 1st stage was still thrusting. I could be wrong about that, but the ensuing explosion filled my screen, and the sky filled with smoke and debris. Musk identified a 2nd stage oxygen tank overpressure, but not as the root cause.
 
  • #27
34,483
10,608
SpaceX had such a good track record :(. The first stage landing looked like a problematic part, but I didn't expect that.

One failure out of 19 launches is still the average ratio, but it will certainly delay several things significantly (including the idea of manned launches).
 
  • #28
124
38
SpaceX had such a good track record :(. The first stage landing looked like a problematic part, but I didn't expect that.

One failure out of 19 launches is still the average ratio, but it will certainly delay several things significantly (including the idea of manned launches).
It's 2015.

There are 3 humans in LEO on the ISS. Another rocket failure.

A much needed reality check as people talk about a successful Mars mission by 2040. Our technology is nowhere near any such time line for a trip to Mars. We can barely service 3 astronauts in LEO.

The Shuttle was touted as the most advanced machine ever made. Buzz Aldrin criticized it for exactly that reason. The ISS, the Shuttle, the JWST...victims of technologies that have frenzied and eaten up resources far beyond what they were designed for.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
3,379
943
... the 2nd stage appeared to ignite while the 1st stage was still thrusting.
It looked like that to me as well, but it could be just 'appearance of'.
If that actually happened, it's hard to believe. That is that something as simple as an incorrect timing of scheduled events could explain it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
34,483
10,608
A much needed reality check as people talk about a successful Mars mission by 2040.
You can stop progress completely with reality checks that are pessimistic enough.
2040 is 25 years away. 25 years before Apollo 11, the first unmanned V2 rockets reached space (but not orbits).
We can barely service 3 astronauts in LEO.
3 to 6. We can, but sometimes we might have to send more rockets than planned because no technology is 100% reliable.
 
  • #31
124
38
You can stop progress completely with reality checks that are pessimistic enough.
2040 is 25 years away. 25 years before Apollo 11, the first unmanned V2 rockets reached space (but not orbits).
3 to 6. We can, but sometimes we might have to send more rockets than planned because no technology is 100% reliable.
Man on Mars maybe by 2075 or so.

Apollo is peanuts next to a Mars mission. Also, there is not a technological infrastructure ready to take on such a mission. There are not warehouses full of engineers and other warehouses full of piles of money all ready to start churning away if the President and Congress gave the green light.

We are at stage zero. No launch vehicles, no spacecraft, no habitation, no anything. Stage zero. We are grasping at straws trying to just find a reliable means of servicing an orbiting ISS.
 
  • #32
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
16,239
6,311
Tom,

The whole mars landing thing has been totally beaten to a pulp on this forum. Try a forum search. I think the consensus agrees w/ you. I certainly do. There are a few Pollyannas who still think it may happen in the next couple of decades but I'd like to have some of what they're smoking.
 
  • Like
Likes Dotini
  • #33
34,483
10,608
Apollo is peanuts next to a Mars mission.
So is a suborbital rocket compared to Apollo.
No anything is the situation of 1944. Now we have things. We launched missions to Mars - we even set up a communication infrastructure there for the rovers. We launched humans into space. We assembled things in orbit. We had humans living in space for more than a year at a time.
Mars is heavier and much farther away than the Moon, sure. But we have much more than the Apollo program had in 1944. It would need a strong political will, for sure. Not necessarily from the US.

I'm not saying it will happen, but I cannot rule it out. In the same way you probably would have claimed in 1944 that a manned mission to moon within 25 years is completely impossible.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #34
124
38
So is a suborbital rocket compared to Apollo.
No anything is the situation of 1944. Now we have things. We launched missions to Mars - we even set up a communication infrastructure there for the rovers. We launched humans into space. We assembled things in orbit. We had humans living in space for more than a year at a time.
Mars is heavier and much further away than the Moon, sure. But we have much more than the Apollo program had in 1944. It would need a strong political will, for sure. Not necessarily from the US.

I'm not saying it will happen, but I cannot rule it out. In the same way you probably would have claimed in 1944 that a manned mission to moon within 25 years is completely impossible.
I don't know why anyone in 1944 would have said a manned mission to the Moon was impossible. It was within the engineering capabilities of known rocketry at the time. Engineering is not magic but rational application of technology.

Rovers are machines. Not organic human beings. There is no technology to send a man to Mars, get him there in a healthy state, sustain him for a stay and then return him to Earth. There are not teams of researchers available to do the basic science, develop the necessary technologies. We can barely recirculate water in the ISS for a few months without resupply....there is no room for error on a Mars mission. You don't need one water processing back up system but 5...and they all need to be tested in Martian conditions. Multiple pre human landers would be necessary, redundancies...pre mission non manned flights. None of which we have a scrap of technology to do.

In the 1960's there was an infrastructure of 'dirty hand' engineers who emerged from WW2. This is why the advances in nuclear energy and delivery systems was even more phenomenal than the Space missions. This type of infrastructure does not exist today. There are thousands of pieces of a puzzle that need to be developed and brought together...by who?

The JWST is minuscule in technological needs compared to a manned mission to Mars. It's a decade behind schedule and multiple times over budget. Multiply this a hundred times for what is needed to sustain a manned mission with zero room for error.
 
  • #35
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
... We are grasping at straws trying to just find a reliable means of servicing an orbiting ISS.
That assertion doesn't really survive a reality check given the ISS has continuously occupied for the last 14 years. One might as well resurrect "man was not meant to fly" come the next cancelled plane flight.
 
  • Like
Likes clope023 and mfb
  • #36
479
84
It seems to me that the number one reason that the odds may be higher that we don't put a man on Mars by 2040 or even 2075 for that matter is public will to fund the research needed. Whenever I see words like "eaten up resources" especially when applied to the exploration of space, I can't help it, I bristle. If we look at any graphic of government spending it should be obvious the odds are those funds wouldn't have been "eaten up" in any better endeavor, but more likely to go to another useless tank or bomber that will rust away without ever having been used or to be shuffled off the board into some Classified area so no records need be kept

.... and the public as a whole applauds this and uses the Moon Landings not as a positive high water mark, a thing of pride that incidentally had many offshoots and benefits into wildly varied fields but as some embarrassing reductio ad absurdum lever usually in the form of "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we (insert mundane goal here) and whatever did happen to Tang?" :P

I suppose it is impossible to extrapolate but I'm betting the odds are we wouldn't even be having this discussion as we are, lacking the technology, had not the moon landing been undertaken. I also can't help but wonder what the world would look like if say Wilbur had been very convincing in arguing that glorified kites were eating up the proceeds from the bicycle shop.

I'm glad that private enterprise is now somewhat involved but I'm frustrated and angry that we dropped the ball after Apollo 17 because to me it reveals a misguided set of priorities and a lack of education and understanding of the value of research and exploration.

On a positive note I sincerely hope SpaceX recovers quickly and continues to strive for lofty goals. I really dislike being pushed into sounding like Alan Rickman doing Marvin from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe.
 

Related Threads on SpaceX rocket landing attempt

Replies
7
Views
847
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
131
Views
8K
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
182
Views
12K
Replies
2
Views
703
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
82
Views
7K
Top