Launching near the equator is very helpful for geostationary orbits, much less so for polar orbits.
Posted on 08/21/2024 8:05:51 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
An explosion put a dramatic end to a test fire of a new rocket being developed by the German company Rocket Factory Augsburg.
The explosion occurred on Monday (Aug. 19) while Rocket Factory Augsbug (RFA) was test firing the first stage of its new RFA ONE rocket. The test was meant to lay the groundwork for a planned debut launch as early as this year from SaxaVord Spaceport, a new facility being developed in the Shetland Islands, around 100 miles (160 kilometers) northeast of the Scottish mainland.
A video published by the BBC shows the rocket engulfed in flames after an explosion from the base of the rocket. Reuters also posted a video of the explosion to X, depicting the initial moments of the explosion before flames and smoke obscure the test stand.
RFA posted a statement to X following the incident, noting that, while no personnel were injured, the anomaly "led to the loss of the stage." The company is now working with SaxaVord Spaceport to investigate and analyze the anomaly.
The U.K. Civil Aviation Authority likewise posted a statement noting that it's "in contact with those involved to make sure the industry continues to have the highest levels of safety."
SaxaVord Spaceport aims to be the first fully licensed vertical orbital launch facility in Western Europe, and received a license in late 2023 to launch up to 30 vehicles a year. Rocket Factory Augsburg aimed to be one of the first companies to launch from the new spaceport with its RFA One rocket.
RFA has conducted several previous hot fire tests, including one in May 2024 that saw the same rocket stage fire four of its nine Helix engines. It is unknown how many engines were fired in yesterday's catastrophic test.
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
If SpaceX pulls of the catching on the launch pad of the booster phase of the Starship super rocket, that will be an truly amazing piece of engineering.
From V2 to Kaboom—eighty years of European devolution.
TL was (I think he’s still alive) cardboard cutout east coast liberal POS. Funny in spots, but a POS.
Glad it was evening. I always enjoy a good light show.
5.56mm
Well by the standards of the time, I probably would have been a liberal too back then, but I would have gotten off the bus around 1970.
Scott Manley has it at the end of a recent video, seems to have edited in a zoom and some slow-mo. Blowed up good.
And of course, “National Brotherhood Week” would get cancel-cultured today.
A little bit about LM acquisition of Terran Orbital, then the rocket blowin’ up:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=d_cOb5ptPwA&t=18m14s
definition of a rocket scientist: an aeronautical engineer who blows shit up until something finally flies ...
lol
I thought the ideal was to launch closer to the equator so centripedal force helps. Why are these guys going to the far north Shetland islands, with lousy weather to boot?
Manley’s nice dive into the V2. The first pictures from space were taken in 1946 by the US using a descendant on the V2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFECEAp3pWU
Build another, try again. Learn from the failure.
How many V-2 (A-4s) did the Nazis blow up until they got the bugs out of them and started launching them at England?
It is that the culture at SpaceX that is unique and valuable, and I don't see ANY European (or at least, not any WESTERN European) business being able to replicate it, because Europe is so heavily invested in DIE the excellence and success is ALWAYS secondary to DIE considerations and constraints.
For SpaceX, one of the things I admire greatly about them is that they DO seem to regard failures as "successes" because they are committed to finding and fixing the flaws to ensure future successes. And they do it. It isn't just fluff. They are committed to that mindset. So, their risk-averse mindset is very different. They are wiling to tolerate failure (as long as it is not caused by incompetence) if they can learn from it and correct it.
NASA cannot do that. They can't. They don't have the culture. And they are so risk averse that they are nearly frozen with their feet in cement. And, in my opinion, they not only don't have the culture, they no longer have the talent.
At NASA, that is DIE at work.
Because of DIE, they have ensured that their mission is not space flight. It is political advocacy, Muslim Outreach, Feminist advocacy, Climate Change, etc, etc, etc, etc.
NASA is providing jobs to people they think need to have jobs. And because they are not choosing the most competent or most talented engineers (and instead, choosing people who have the right skin color, the right "gender", or...ugh...the right politics, they have intentionally and deliberately destroyed their culture.
Any talent they still retain at NASA is so securely encased in their DIE, government run, risk-averse, CYA, Political culture that their actual competent engineers are utterly worthless. Worthless. WORTHLESS.
It saddens me more than I can say. I used to be a huge fan of NASA. How could I not be? I grew up with NASA. I was into the Mercury 7, Gemini, Apollo, Space Shuttle, etc. I had the GI Joe with the capsule that floated in the water and the silver foil space suit. I read books on it. Built model rockets. The whole nine yards.
Then came Challenger.
That was when I had my first glimmerings that there was a rot inside NASA that, at the time, I had no way of putting my finger on, and as an American citizen, had absolutely zero insight into. I was quite downcast about that. It was as if a part of me had never grown up, and was still able to enjoy that child-like love of what NASA was doing.
When the Challenger Report came out, it forced me to leave that child-innocence behind, and that was a very sad thing for me. I enjoyed that detached, child-innocence. It was fun. Before Challenger, NASA had all the advantages of a government run agency, and none of the drawbacks. After Challenger, NASA had all the drawbacks of a government run agency, and none of the advantages (or at least none the produced superior results)
In stark contrast, when SpaceX put out that simply awesome and entertaining video SPACEX LINK: How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster which showed glorious explosions and failures, interjected textual humor, all set to the incomparably appropriate John Philip Sousa: The Liberty Bell March it brought back the joy and fun of space flight.
And because they were able to succeed, it showed it wasn't just a PR stunt. They learned lessons from EVERY SINGLE ONE of those failures, and quickly incorporated those fixes into their next version, often achieving success only weeks or months later. The proof is in the pudding for the culture of SpaceX because of that proven success.
Mark my words: Other countries will never be able to do that. Communist China may indeed be able to steal or copy technology, but in an Asian Communist shame culture, they will never catch up as long as SpaceX stays true to their course and continues to innovate and advance.
Launching near the equator is very helpful for geostationary orbits, much less so for polar orbits.
SpaceX has the other advantage over typical U.S. corporations (except maybe Amazon) in that they do not fret over the next quarter’s earnings, but are thinking long-term.
Yes...success can (but doesn’t always) encourage that mindset.
. . . zat’s not my Department, says Werner von Braun. . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.