It's not rocket science ....
Discussion
The next time you hear or read that well used phrase consider this ...
Upside down sensor blamed for rocket failure
Upside down sensor blamed for rocket failure
Almost as bad as posting a link to the wrong page...
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/artic...
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/artic...
Simpo Two said:
Almost as bad as posting a link to the wrong page...
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/artic...
Didn't want people to miss out on the comments - you know how we all tend to have opinions based purely on the headline ... http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/artic...
The smarter ones will have worked out how to get to page 1.
ETA: Hopefully.
Generally speaking, most major failures in aerospace ARE a result of a simple and usually obvious mistake! This is because the big stuff gets noticed! Building a plane, and you've put the wings on backwards, yup, someones gonna spot that. But building a plane and the pitot tube sensor hole has a burr on it, well, that's much, much, much less likely to be spotted.......
Flight control systems with "backwards" sensors and actuators, or even control code where the co-ordinate system is incorrectly utilised (+ve = left, -ve = right, being reversed etc), is surprisingly common
Flight control systems with "backwards" sensors and actuators, or even control code where the co-ordinate system is incorrectly utilised (+ve = left, -ve = right, being reversed etc), is surprisingly common
Max_Torque said:
Flight control systems with "backwards" sensors and actuators, or even control code where the co-ordinate system is incorrectly utilised (+ve = left, -ve = right, being reversed etc), is surprisingly common
Agreed - I was reading "Skunkworks" the other day and that happened with the first Nighthawk for its first flight. Reading the article it wasn't just carelessness that caused it, but wilfully stupid assembly. Apparently there was evidence of the 3 sensors which were installed incorrectly of having been forced into incorrect positions... Crazy.
Edited by Krikkit on Monday 5th August 12:29
This type of thing doesn't surprise me in the least. It's truly gob-smacking how much really crap mechanical design gets through defence/aerospace-type projects. Once it's there, noone wants to change anything now, even though it was a bracket on a bracket on a bracket whipped up hastily on Catia after a long lunch to pacify someone's ridiculous project schedule...
Max_Torque said:
Generally speaking, most major failures in aerospace ARE a result of a simple and usually obvious mistake! This is because the big stuff gets noticed! Building a plane, and you've put the wings on backwards, yup, someones gonna spot that. But building a plane and the pitot tube sensor hole has a burr on it, well, that's much, much, much less likely to be spotted.......
Like the Avro Tudor crash that killed Lancaster & Vulcan designer Roy Chadwick - during servicing the aileron cables were reconnected the wrong way round 
Impressive - but why?
Rocket assisted landings are essential where there is a very thin atmosphere or no atmosphere at all -such as landing on the moon or Mars.
But where a planet has an appreciable atmosphere, it makes far more sense to make use of wings or parachutes to ensure a gentle landing. This is especially so for landing on earth. Parachutes in particular are lightweight and easily stored.
The problem with using rocket power for a gentle landing is that the fuel for the rockets has to be carried into space in the first place - which means extra weight that could more usefully (and profitably) been used to carry payload.
Rocket assisted landings are essential where there is a very thin atmosphere or no atmosphere at all -such as landing on the moon or Mars.
But where a planet has an appreciable atmosphere, it makes far more sense to make use of wings or parachutes to ensure a gentle landing. This is especially so for landing on earth. Parachutes in particular are lightweight and easily stored.
The problem with using rocket power for a gentle landing is that the fuel for the rockets has to be carried into space in the first place - which means extra weight that could more usefully (and profitably) been used to carry payload.
Eric Mc said:
Impressive - but why?
Rocket assisted landings are essential where there is a very thin atmosphere or no atmosphere at all -such as landing on the moon or Mars.
But where a planet has an appreciable atmosphere, it makes far more sense to make use of wings or parachutes to ensure a gentle landing. This is especially so for landing on earth. Parachutes in particular are lightweight and easily stored.
The problem with using rocket power for a gentle landing is that the fuel for the rockets has to be carried into space in the first place - which means extra weight that could more usefully (and profitably) been used to carry payload.
Well, he wants to go to Mars, and is keen on reusable vehicles. I guess you have to start somewhere.Rocket assisted landings are essential where there is a very thin atmosphere or no atmosphere at all -such as landing on the moon or Mars.
But where a planet has an appreciable atmosphere, it makes far more sense to make use of wings or parachutes to ensure a gentle landing. This is especially so for landing on earth. Parachutes in particular are lightweight and easily stored.
The problem with using rocket power for a gentle landing is that the fuel for the rockets has to be carried into space in the first place - which means extra weight that could more usefully (and profitably) been used to carry payload.
Not sure what "new" technology is being demonstrated though. Since 1974, about ten spacecraft have landed on Mars - most of them successfully, using a combination of parachute and rockets.
Since 1966, a number of rocket powered descents have been made onto the lunar surface - the most recent as long ago as 1973 - so not exactly cutting edge stuff.
Since 1966, a number of rocket powered descents have been made onto the lunar surface - the most recent as long ago as 1973 - so not exactly cutting edge stuff.
A powered landing allows a precise landing spot to be used, and also a lower descent rate at landing, as it is completely controllable. A rocket stage returning under parachute will inevitably be damaged due to the higher descent rate at impact ( and the possibility of being dragged by the 'chutes post-landing ), and if it's an ocean landing there's the inevitable water damage to repair too, nor can it's exact landing spot be controlled in any way
How precise do you need to be?
And I just think that relying PURELY on rocket power is extremely risky and is only necessary when there is no atmosphere to support a parachute or wings.
What about a steerable parachute - as used by sports parachutes? That should surely be able to get you close enough to where you want to set down?
And I just think that relying PURELY on rocket power is extremely risky and is only necessary when there is no atmosphere to support a parachute or wings.
What about a steerable parachute - as used by sports parachutes? That should surely be able to get you close enough to where you want to set down?
Eric Mc said:
How precise do you need to be?
Very - if you don't want to have to drag a large rocket stage in from 'somewhere' in a very large area of unpopulated land a long way from where you build/refurbish/launch them.A pinpoint landing ( as ahs been demonstrated ) onto a landing pad near the processing facility and launch pad will dramatically reduce operating costs for a reusable launcher
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff