thanks for the info.
From: "steven@xxxxxxxxxxx" <steven@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: tccrockets@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 4:14 PM
Subject: [tccrockets] Re: JAPAN's failed rocket launch
Well, I guess I'm going to go out on a limb here with my two cents...
but here goes. I'm not trying to kick up dust... just explain my
perspective....
The article excerpted below is a combination of truths and in my humble
opinion, some miss-representations. Here is what I mean...
Sure space is hard.
And, frankly there aren't enough experienced space engineers to go
around.
Many of the experienced engineers that accumulated their experience
working on the shuttle and other NASA projects have either retired or
moved to STS with a small portion going into commercial ventures.
And while space has matured like any business trajectory and has become
more available to the general business market, it is still hard and it
has a lot of moving parts.
To say that lifting a rocket off the ground is like pushing a noodle and
the atmosphere is thick like molasses... well... that is old news. We
talked about that in the days of Saturn and the Shuttle.
And to say that you don't really know where the rocket is headed at any
given time, well that is why we integrate accelerometer data hundreds of
times per second... and plus you have GPS.
My guess, and of course it is only a guess, is that the reason
commercial rocket companies have difficulties is that they often use the
Russian philosophy of rocket development. Years ago the Russians
developed their model of rocket development which was "build it, fly it,
fix it, fly it again, repeat until it works".)
They had many failures until they came up with the very reliable rocket
launch system they have today.
We, of course, would never tolerate NASA developing their launch systems
through such a philosophy. That is why at NASA the expectation is to
test, and test, and test, and test... to ensure 99.99999% of the
uncertainty is taken out of a launch... and still stuff happens.
However, the SpaceX rep who is quoted in the article says: "Every
rocket-launching government or company—each and every one—has
failures. It’s part of the gig. Normally, you take a deep breath, roll
up your sleeves, figure out what went wrong, and move on to the next
launch." That is what a commercial company tells its investors to
explain why a launch failure occurred. So while that may be a nice
philosophy for investor funded rocket development do we really think
that attitude would be tolerated by a NASA spokesperson?
The first launch SpaceX attempted suffered from the sloshing of the
propellant in the fuel tank during deceleration after engine cutoff and
while weightless in orbit. This is old news. Every liquid propellant
engine that inserts into orbit or has to restart has to deal with how to
keep a propellant pressure head on the pump intake.
Rusty bolts... well that is just quality control, especially from
vendors. And engines shutting down too soon or too late, yup, that
happens.
The key is to have the experienced people on hand who know that these
events can and will occur and who are be able to anticipate them to keep
them from occurring.
Now none of this is to take away from the incredible accomplishments of
SpaceX. Like landing its spent booster on a barge or landing two spent
rockets on pads a football field apart within seconds of each other.
Incredible!! Kudos!
All this said, there is one thing that previous NASA launch vehicles did
not have to contend with and that is the electronics that are available
today. Along with speed, miniaturization, and all that comes with that
capability... is the complexity that can produce unintended
consequences. We all know that complex software can sometimes hide
situations that we just can't anticipate. All you have to do is Google
"catastrophic or near-catastrophic" events that have occurred because
commercial airline auto-pilot software took one action when the pilots
thought it would take a different action.
So in summary... yes space is hard. Agreed. But I'm not sure it is any
harder today than it was in the past... although electronics is allowing
us to push the envelop as to what is possible. So I expect failures
when attempting a return of a booster to a barge. That is new. That
has never been attempted on this scale before. Go for it and if there
are failures ... ok... we learn and go forward.
But I don't expect someone to tell me that sloshing propellant is a
surprise. Or launching a rocket is hard because it behaves like a
"noodle". We've been dealing with that for more than fifty years.
It may well be that we just have a new generation of space engineers
that are coming up to speed and many of them are in commercial space
companies. They will get there just like others before them.
These are exciting times, not only for space exploration, not only for
the commercial companies that will provide a wide variety of
opportunities and choices, but also for the new cadre of space
engineers, scientists, technologists, and others who will learn and grow
and explore.. just like others before them. And my perspective on this
applies not only to commercial and governmental space development in the
US, Japan, India but generally to all rocket development and space
exploration throughout the world.
Be well,
Steven Cerri, B.S. Aero, M.S. Geophysics, MBA
Author of: "The Fully Integrated Engineer: Combining Technical Ability
and Leadership Prowess",
published by Wiley and IEEE
Past member of Activities Board, ASME Pacific Region
Past Deputy Director, Career and Workforce Development AIAA Region VI
STCerri International
231 Market Place, Suite 320
San Ramon, CA 94583-4743 USA
Office: 925-735-9500
Email: steven@xxxxxxxxxxx
Website: www.stevencerri.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevencerri
"Imagine engineers and technical managers as effective
with people as they are with technology."
To signup for free eZine and eBook visit: http://www.stevencerri.com
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [tccrockets] Re: JAPAN's failed rocket launch
From: Dennis Yeh <dennismyeh@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, July 15, 2018 12:14 pm
To: tccrockets@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Theres an awesome article out there that does a much better job talking
about this than i could:
https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html
Here's an excerpt: "To make things even harder, the “throw” starts off in
the sea-level atmosphere, which is both molasses-thick and full of moving
parts (i.e. weather). It’s like trying to throw a ball with precision with
your hand starting under a few feet of flowing water. SpaceX’s head of
vehicle engineering, Mark Juncosa, described the challenge of guiding a
rocket up through the atmosphere: “The rocket is like a wet noodle and
you’re trying to push it to space. It’s flopping around like hell. You
can’t even figure out where it’s going by measuring the trajectory of any
one point on the rocket—you have to measure a few points.”
And with such large forces in play—the weight of the rocket, the speeds,
the thick atmosphere—even a tiny equipment malfunction can immediately
destroy the mission. The problem is, you can’t reliably test exactly how
the equipment will hold up until it actually launches.
SpaceX learned all of this the hard way.
2006: First launch—failure
2007: Second launch—failure
2008: Third launch—failure
Bad times.
The failures were caused by tiny things. Specifically, a corroded nut not
holding up under the pressure, liquid in the rocket sloshing around more
than expected, and the first stage engines shutting down a few seconds too
late during stage separation. You can get everything 99.9% right, and the
last .1% will explode the rocket in a catastrophic failure. Space is hard.
Every rocket-launching government or company—each and every one—has
failures. It’s part of the gig. Normally, you take a deep breath, roll up
your sleeves, figure out what went wrong, and move on to the next launch.
But SpaceX had special circumstances—the company had money for “three or
four launches,” and after three failures, the only launch they had left was
the Or Four one. It was scheduled for less than two months after the third
launch failed. And this was the last chance.
A friend of Musk, Adeo Ressi, describes it like this: “Everything hinged on
that launch … If it works, epic success. If it fails — if one thing goes
differently and it fails — epic failure. No in between. No partial credit.
He’d had three failures already. It would have been over. We’re talking
Harvard Business School case study — rich guy who goes into the rocket
business and loses it all.”"
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018, 10:22 PM shawn stephens <shawn.stephens4@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
space is hard but dang!.....
------------------------------
*From:* Dennis Yeh <dennismyeh@xxxxxxxxx>
*To:* tccrockets@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Sent:* Saturday, July 14, 2018 8:04 PM
*Subject:* [tccrockets] Re: JAPAN's failed rocket launch
Space is hard... SpaceX had three failures before the first successful
launch - if that fourth flight had failed it would have been the end of the
company.
Also, there's a lot more than electronics going into a rocket
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018, 7:52 PM shawn stephens <shawn.stephens4@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Japan’s latest attempts at a private aerospace industry goes down in flames
<https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/japan-private-rocket-launch/>
Now....I'm nooo expert by any means but, I extremely confused how in 2018
there are still "high budget / well funded" aerospace companies that can't
get a rocket more then a few hundred feet off the ground. Am I missing
something here? Everything is smaller, faster, and smarter electronically
so whats the excuse?
- shawn
Japan’s latest attempts at a private aerospace industry goes down in flames
Japan's latest attempts to build a private aerospace industry have hit
another snag. Interstellar Technologi...
<https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/japan-private-rocket-launch/>
