SpaceX: It IS Rocket Science.

I just got my latest issue of SPACEFLIGHT, and it had an article about
SpaceX's third failure. The Usual Suspects have long since said and
resaid the usual things. But I'd just like to throw this in:

It is Rocket Science and things don't always work right.

It's been a long time since NASA had so many rockets blowing up that
having LES systems on Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules seemed like
a good idea. Remember the joke about sitting on top of something
built by the lowest bidder on a government contract? In spite of the
odd high-profile failure, there are enough successful flights they
make it look easy. So if soemone wants to do it privately, why
shouldn't it be just a matter of raising enough money, hiring
engineers, and launching?

Because it's NOT easy. Even von Braun had problems with the first
A4's. Vanguard had only what, three successes out of eleven launches,
and it was cobbled together from proven rockets. Let's face it,
you're dealing with something that would be a bomb if it didn't have a
hole at one end. Even a simple design can fail if you cut corners by
not heating the LOX line .... or using LOX in the first place! It
happened both to Gary Hudson with Perecheron and Amroc with their
first launch attempt, when moisture in the air froze LOX valves shut
(although Amroc's dailure was a lot less spectactular).

This is not to say that SpaceX is doomed to fail. But the nature of
the beast demands that that sucess may be hard-won after many failures
...... assuming money and customers haven't run out by then.

Supporters of Mr. Musk should remember that this stuff isn't as easy
as it looks, and fialures --- even multiple failures --- are to be
expected. But his critics should also remember that they eventually
get it right.

Just my two cents.




--
Posted Via Newsfeeds.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Service
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.Newsfeeds.com

Michael Gallagher wrote:
I just got my latest issue of SPACEFLIGHT, and it had an article about
SpaceX's third failure. The Usual Suspects have long since said and
resaid the usual things. But I'd just like to throw this in:

It is Rocket Science and things don't always work right.

It's been a long time since NASA had so many rockets blowing up that
having LES systems on Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules seemed like
a good idea. Remember the joke about sitting on top of something
built by the lowest bidder on a government contract? In spite of the
odd high-profile failure, there are enough successful flights they
make it look easy. So if soemone wants to do it privately, why
shouldn't it be just a matter of raising enough money, hiring
engineers, and launching?

Because it's NOT easy. Even von Braun had problems with the first
A4's. Vanguard had only what, three successes out of eleven launches,
and it was cobbled together from proven rockets. Let's face it,
you're dealing with something that would be a bomb if it didn't have a
hole at one end. Even a simple design can fail if you cut corners by
not heating the LOX line .... or using LOX in the first place! It
happened both to Gary Hudson with Perecheron and Amroc with their
first launch attempt, when moisture in the air froze LOX valves shut
(although Amroc's dailure was a lot less spectactular).

This is not to say that SpaceX is doomed to fail. But the nature of
the beast demands that that sucess may be hard-won after many failures
..... assuming money and customers haven't run out by then.

Supporters of Mr. Musk should remember that this stuff isn't as easy
as it looks, and fialures --- even multiple failures --- are to be
expected. But his critics should also remember that they eventually
get it right.

Just my two cents.

In this business you're a nobody until you've blown one up on the pad.

I'm pretty sure dropping one on the reef, with the payload crashing
through the machine shop roof on a desert island in the pacific easily
qualifies. Really, it doesn't get much better than that. What I intend
to do is get it out of the way early, and just go ahead and blow one up
on the pad, just for the fun of it. And the data, of course. Just fill
the dewar and then blast it, I'm guessing the damage will be minimal.

I'd like to characterize the expulsion forces at the top of the stack,
I'm pretty sure with a suitable system you could get rid of the escape
tower all together.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:57:35 -0400, Michael Gallagher
wrote:

It is Rocket Science and things don't always work right.

....So, if Rocket Scientists get screw things up, and Fast Food
employees screw things up, then...working at Taco Bell *IS* Rocket
Science!

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[