Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Thorhax04 t1_j1x2geg wrote

Damn.. that sucks. But hey at least they're trying.

32

to_glory_we_steer t1_j1x5q4q wrote

Pretty normal for rocketry, new engines and fuel types often suffer multiple failures prior to success. On the flipside it seems the test was a partial success.

319

Pez4allTheFirst t1_j1x6nls wrote

I stared at the image of that rocket waayyy too long, waiting for the rocket to launch.

337

Specific_Main3824 t1_j1xfpdk wrote

Failure doesn't equal failure, failure is opportunity to improve.

131

SPYK3O t1_j1xght8 wrote

I have my doubts on how private most of these "private" Chinese rocket companies are.

32

MrBrucsski t1_j1xqehu wrote

I misread the title as "first launch of Chinese private meth-fueled rocket"

16

falcon_640 t1_j1xv3nb wrote

Happy for china.Ignoring its problems, its quite cool to advance so fast in the space industry

5

smolpnrg t1_j1xxjbg wrote

Replying to QuimmLord (#1,108,132)

Higher potential efficiency than most, dependent on the engine. Hydrogen is higher but much less dense and harder to work with (the SLS leaking all over the place was the tiny hydrogen molecules finding their way out). The higher volume of hydrogen means a bigger tank and more mass. Methane is also cleaner burning than kerosene based RP-1 so less likely to clog things up and better for the environment.

13

jpfeif29 t1_j1xyaar wrote

None of those words go together to make a success

−5

MaybeTheDoctor t1_j1xzdik wrote

Being open about failure is a huge step forward in credibility

29

Uptown-Dog t1_j1y00j4 wrote

Replying to SPYK3O (#1,106,476)

Does the government in China typically have a stronger ability to step in/exert pressure on/make demands on private enterprises within that country than their Western counterparts? Sure. But, private still means private there - they have been experimenting with letting companies be private in a wide variety of very important areas as they've found that it can lead to superior results. Make of that what you will, but China is often remarkably results driven.

5

MaybeTheDoctor t1_j1y5qj4 wrote

Replying to Plantsandanger (#1,109,451)

There are plenary YouTube videos with failed NASA launches from 50 and 60s - many were live on tv

Russia on the other hand kept everything secret until after it was launched and a success - and failures were deleted from history

13

froggythefish t1_j1y8ien wrote

Replying to SPYK3O (#1,106,476)

Private companies in China work just like private companies anywhere else, with the only difference being the Chinese government claims partial ownership of all companies. China does this to have the benefits of private companies, while still keeping them state property, so they cannot abuse their power.

13

Arcosim t1_j1y8p86 wrote

Replying to to_glory_we_steer (#1,105,012)

Indeed, the first all-methane stage went well, the second stage (equipped with the four smaller vernier nozzles) is what failed. So that's a lot of data both to improve the first stage's efficiency and to fix any problem that may have caused the second stage's failure.

77

froggythefish t1_j1y9ib6 wrote

Replying to MaybeTheDoctor (#1,110,628)

Of course there were failures, some of which were hidden from the public, the same way every other country hides their technology development from other countries. But I’m asking for a list, because you are saying the USSR hid technological development more than any other country, and I don’t know of many examples.

−1

Titan-Lim t1_j1y9plw wrote

Replying to froggythefish (#1,110,505)

We know they exist because no space agency can pull off great achievements (human spaceflight, space stations, etc) without incidents along the way.

High-profile incidents such as Soyuz 1, Soyuz 11, and the N1 rocket attempts are some examples of Soviet rocket incidents during the space race

Like you said, since official documents have not been released/leaked we can only guess and speculate about what happened with the rest of the launches during that period of time

3

MaybeTheDoctor t1_j1ye80u wrote

Replying to froggythefish (#1,111,062)

Really? That is your question - that have been well documented.

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union

Top google search: https://www.openculture.com/2017/08/long-before-photoshop-the-soviets-mastered-the-art-of-erasing-people-from-photographs-and-history-too.html

So many more places, but given that only a Russian troll would ask this question, I would leave it to you to find yourself.

4

MaybeTheDoctor t1_j1yez7k wrote

Replying to froggythefish (#1,111,331)

Can you show me examples of that happen in other countries, like the US or UK, France or Germany ?

I don't think so, because it it is a classical symptom of failures in the USSR leadership and them wanting to suppress history - which directly translates to any other program, including the Russian space program.

1

froggythefish t1_j1yi48u wrote

Replying to MaybeTheDoctor (#1,111,788)

How is it not the same league of lies?

As for fraud elections, why look at the US, and instead look at countries whom the US tried to overthrow the elections of. A perfect example is Chile and South Korea. Attempted examples include Cuba and Vietnam. Of course I could name, perhaps dozens of countries the US tried to influence the election results of. But you don’t really care.

3

MaybeTheDoctor t1_j1yihcm wrote

Replying to froggythefish (#1,111,828)

I understand this is your job to write these things - but if you cannot see the difference between what a marketing department do and what politicians do you are lost, and have no credibility.

I will undoubtedly talk to you on another thread somewhere else.

2

waamoandy t1_j1yjjzd wrote

Replying to froggythefish (#1,110,505)

Russia was the first country to lose someone in a space vehicle. Vladimir Mikhaylovich Komarov died when the parachute system failed. That was April 24, 1967. Russia also lost 3 cosmonauts in space. The crew of Soyuz 11 died in 1971.

4

WellOkayMaybe t1_j1yovva wrote

It's a Chinese rocket launch - there are no failures.

Just Schrodinger's Rockets.

−4

Staar-69 t1_j1yrj9o wrote

Hasn’t almost every rockets maiden voyage in history ended in an explosion?

4

jegodric t1_j1yub48 wrote

But why use methane as one of the fuel sources?

2

VikingBorealis t1_j1z64tu wrote

Replying to otter111a (#1,115,568)

Also old and established technology, that wasn't very good to start with.

It's mostly truenwith developing and new rockets and technology.

Spaceship ha st had a single test flight that hasn't ended in a spectacular fireball. But also lot a single "failure". All but the last was expected to explode, the last wasn't unexpected either.

−2

VikingBorealis t1_j1zdsfs wrote

Replying to goibnu (#1,116,113)

Early test rockets often pro ide red use pricing for payloads. Some risk the high chance of a failed launch for the reduced cost.

So it really isn't. If it had been a commercial payload on a reliable well tested rocket, yeah, but it wasn't.

3

mfb- t1_j1zgotj wrote

Replying to VikingBorealis (#1,111,351)

> Funny to compare this heading to headings of exactly the same thing with new western rockets though.

In which way?

Same website, maiden flight of a US rocket.

Also a failed maiden flight of a US rocket, same website.

Methane as fuel is new, and new fuels in spaceflight are very rare. Several methane-powered rockets are in development but this was the first actual launch attempt of one of them, leading to the "historic" element.

16

px4855 t1_j1zicxn wrote

It let out a large fart noise and sat there like it didn't do anything at all. Blamed it on the launch pad.

0

Eric1491625 t1_j1zkxmz wrote

Replying to SPYK3O (#1,106,476)

There's basically no company in this industry that is really independent from government, anywhere in the world.

There's a reason why the stock market classifies this sector as "Aerospace and defense". They're just so interlinked.

Almost every component and technology in this industry has a military application, much of the stuff in this industry is subject to tight government regulation, export controls, etc.

5

mfb- t1_j1zm1i7 wrote

Replying to VikingBorealis (#1,118,021)

"explodes" obviously implies a failure (and a pretty severe, too), the second headline literally says "failure", and the third one says "fails" which is the verb corresponding to "failure".

24

andygates2323 t1_j1zswai wrote

Replying to jegodric (#1,113,557)

Methane is having its moment in the sun. Burns cleaner than kerosene (which is important for reuse), easier to handle than hydrogen, not as ghastly as hypergolics or hard to stop as solids.

3

threyon t1_j1ztfj3 wrote

I suspect the mods are busy pruning all the fart jokes from this post.

2

Aaron_Hamm t1_j1zy1l6 wrote

Replying to carloselunicornio (#1,120,911)

By your logic there has never been a company owned by "people at large" in all of history... cool bro. Have fun with that no true scotsman type silliness.

Most people in Europe, America, and probably other places in the world, are shareholders; what currently existing "collective ownership" modeled countries do a better job of involving the general public in business ownership?

1

chiarde t1_j1zywew wrote

The 4th grader in me wonders of it makes fart noises on lift off.

1

carloselunicornio t1_j1zzpg3 wrote

Replying to Aaron_Hamm (#1,121,035)

>By your logic there has never been a company owned by "people at large" in all of history... cool bro.

It is cool indeed but I didn't say that. I challenged your claim that most people are shareholders, which I'm pretty sure is not true.

The initial commenter was obviosly hinting at communal ownership/worker collective type of ownership when he said "people at large", but that's beside the point since you've clearly chosen this hill to die on.

2

arcosapphire t1_j203rwp wrote

Replying to VikingBorealis (#1,121,607)

No, you don't get to wiggle out of it like that.

Your exact words:

> None of those headlines says "failure"

One of them did, indeed, say failure.

And the third example unquestionably says "fails" as the primary verb in the sentence.

13

Aaron_Hamm t1_j206riz wrote

Replying to carloselunicornio (#1,121,342)

>The initial commenter was obviosly hinting at communal ownership/worker collective type of ownership when he said "people at large"

And my point is how are the "people at large" ownership type companies functionally different from publicly traded companies?

Like, I don't know what to tell you; you're the one delving into irrelevant "gotchas"...

>It is cool indeed but I didn't say that.

I never said you did; I drew a logical inference from the assertion in your challenge.

1

arcosapphire t1_j20ckhq wrote

Replying to VikingBorealis (#1,123,336)

What? I don't understand what you're referring to here.

You can't have this both ways. Either you wanted the exact word "failure" in the title, which is covered in example 2, or you want a primary focus on a failure, which is covered by example 3. You can't just rework what qualifies per example to exclude all of them. You are not being consistent.

3

VikingBorealis t1_j20cofh wrote

Replying to BalkothLordofDeath (#1,123,462)

Trolling trolling trolling

Do you understand the massive grammatical different between "firefly alpha failure" and " fireføy alpha launch failure"?

I know the answer, you don't, and if you didn't, you're to much of a redditor to admit you're wrong.

−4

VikingBorealis t1_j20d7cw wrote

Replying to BalkothLordofDeath (#1,123,527)

Trolling trolling trolling

Do you understand the massive grammatical different between "firefly alpha failure" and " fireføy alpha launch failure"?

I know the answer, you don't, and if you didn't, you're to much of a redditor to admit you're wrong.

You only need to show your ignorance in one post.

−1

VikingBorealis t1_j20dq81 wrote

Replying to arcosapphire (#1,123,688)

No I didn't say specifically failure in the title. I said the titles are wired very differently when referring to western vs other launches.

With the Chinese headline the launch is called a failure. NEVER IS the launch referred to as a failure with firefly alpha. You do understand basic grammar enough to see that? They're referring to the specific failure, not calling the launch a failure.

It's not that hard.

−1

arcosapphire t1_j20g94m wrote

Replying to VikingBorealis (#1,123,892)

> No I didn't say specifically failure in the title.

What the...these are your LITERAL WORDS:

> None of those headlines says "failure"

So yes, you did specify that, and you did it in response to a list of examples that included one that said "failure". Verbatim.

> With the Chinese headline the launch is called a failure. NEVER IS the launch referred to as a failure with firefly alpha.

But it is. The headline referred to it as a failure, and went on to talk about the cause of that failure. The failure was, in fact, the subject of the sentence. Since you're so keen on arguing grammar here.

ADDITIONALLY. The third example, which you keep ignoring, talks only about a failure. There is nothing to distract from this. What is your defense there? The only possible defense is to argue that it uses the verb "fails" instead of the noun "failure", yet you specifically just said that the exact word used isn't the point, so what is your defense here?

Edit: Annnd after once again avoiding the question, you blocked me. Yeah, that certainly shows you have a well-founded argument.

5

llcdrewtaylor t1_j20pu9b wrote

What do you expect from a rocket that runs on farts!

2

LeaveIt4Later t1_j20rqb4 wrote

It worked in that crappy movie called Thunderpants though

1

VikingBorealis t1_j20wl8x wrote

Replying to arcosapphire (#1,124,333)

Are you seriusly trying to claim the headline referring to the specific failure of a specific component is trying to say the wjolenlaunch was a failure just to avoid saying you where wrong.

Well that's your hill to die on. But you clearly see there's a general bias to exaggerating failures of in this example Chinese launches, while western launches are treated technically accurate or even leniency. As your own example show, the word failure isn't used untill they're talking about the specific failed component, not for the launch.

Meanwhile the Chinese launch is a failure despite a successful first stage on a first of its kind rocket testing new tech.

Anyway. You're being purposely obtuse and trolling just to troll and argue at the this point. I'm not sure why, it's no exactly a secret that western news are biased to western achievements...

0

RGJ587 t1_j20xb4k wrote

Replying to VikingBorealis (#1,111,351)

Uh.... What?

STS-51-L was a failure by any metric you double possibly come up with.

Sometimes, certain methodology for launch systems incorporate launch failures as learning experiences, with the ground team learning important facts for future iterations. However, not every launch system is developed that way, and any launch system that has human souls on board will be a failure if there is a loss of human life.

And even beyond that, certain payloads are so costly, time intensive to build, and needing to reach the launch window that a catastrophic event will undoubtedly be a failure.

The James Webb Telescope took 30 years and $10 billion to build. If it blows up on ascent, that is a FAILURE.

The Voyager probes needed to be launched in a certain window so as to achieve the flight paths needed for their tour of the solar system, something that was only possible due to a once in-a-generational alignment. Had they blown up, the mission would be a failure.

1

EmptyBarrel t1_j20xjdl wrote

How to shoot a hole in your ozone layer part one. Failed methane fueled rockets.

−1

Shrike99 t1_j21kp8w wrote

Replying to Staar-69 (#1,113,149)

No, plenty of rockets have worked on the first try. What is much rarer is for a given agency (or company) to succeed on their first try.

For example, NASA's first attempt to launch one of their own rockets; Scout, failed - but the subsequent maiden flights of Saturn 1, Saturn V, Space Shuttle, and SLS all succeeded.

Ditto for SpaceX with Falcon 1 failing, and then Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy succeeding. Fingers crossed for Starship.

5

carloselunicornio t1_j21suhv wrote

Replying to Aaron_Hamm (#1,122,637)

>And my point is how are the "people at large" ownership type companies functionally different from publicly traded companies?

You can't see the difference between a workers colective and a joint stock company?

>Like, I don't know what to tell you; you're the one delving into irrelevant "gotchas"...

Yeah, sure...

>I never said you did; I drew a logical inference from the assertion in your challenge.

Yes, you extrapolated to the extreme to prop up your argument.

2

carloselunicornio t1_j21umpz wrote

Replying to Aaron_Hamm (#1,132,863)

>A worker's collective isn't the public at large.

And a joint stock company is?

>Lol dude, I didn't at all, but ok, have fun building straw men to feel good I guess

Have fun with your logical fallacy check list buddy.

2

carloselunicornio t1_j21v65p wrote

Replying to Aaron_Hamm (#1,132,964)

>Yes, it is... Anyone can be a shareholder. That's the whole point...

Anyone can, but are most people shareholders? You know, the public at large? That is the point.

>Being able to put a name to your behavior isn't an insult.

Waiting for the next one.

1

TheGreatestOutdoorz t1_j22634o wrote

Replying to VikingBorealis (#1,123,703)

Yeah, you are trolling with your months old account. Glad you admitted it. How pathetic must your life be to be an internet troll? Must be so sad, lonely and pathetic. But good for you for not offing yourself! I’m sure most people as sad and pathetic as you just take a long walk off a short pier, but you found Reddit trolling to barely keep you going, so good for you and hang in there buddy!

2

Psychomadeye t1_j26gd1f wrote

Replying to froggythefish (#1,110,674)

>Of course there were failures, some of which were hidden from the public, the same way every other country hides their technology development from other countries.

No comrade. The Soviet technology does not fail. Are you a western spy trying to create dissent?

1

david4069 t1_j2eqdm9 wrote

Replying to VikingBorealis (#1,111,351)

>A launch is never a failure, only a failure to launch, especially on new hardware.

An unsuccessful launch would absolutely be a failure if you don't learn something from it.

I get what you're trying to say, but I think if you worded it a bit differently, more people would have been able to get it too.

I don't have enough info to comment on the other statement.

Edit: Just realized this thread was from 3 days ago.

1