Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Pez4allTheFirst t1_j1x6nls wrote

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

337

Altruistic_Price7572 t1_j1xfgwe wrote

Did it go yet?

12

Mackheath1 t1_j21b1rz wrote

I think the question is whether it came yet.

3

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

Arcosim t1_j1y8p86 wrote

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

VikingBorealis t1_j1yeqhi wrote

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

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

36

mfb- t1_j1zgotj wrote

> 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

VikingBorealis t1_j1zhzjg wrote

None of those headlines says "failure"

−16

mfb- t1_j1zm1i7 wrote

"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

LittleBirdyLover t1_j22hzu7 wrote

Yea, I agree. I’d argue “explodes” is an even more severe and negative descriptor compared to “failure”. That guys reaching.

4

VikingBorealis t1_j1zsp52 wrote

Explodes is an event, it's descriptive. It's different from calling something a failure.

−19

arcosapphire t1_j1zzjn7 wrote

Okay but like what about the one that says failure? You said none of them say "failure" yet one literally says "failure" in the headline.

16

VikingBorealis t1_j20132x wrote

It's not the primary event in the sentence. It merely specifies what the cause was.

−11

arcosapphire t1_j203rwp wrote

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

VikingBorealis t1_j20anc5 wrote

You know very well what I meant which is why you didn't mention it first as well. So stop trolling.

−4

BalkothLordofDeath t1_j20bluw wrote

You tried and failed. No use in crying about it or trying to wiggle and squirm your way out of it. Just accept it and do better.

6

VikingBorealis t1_j20d7cw wrote

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

arcosapphire t1_j20ckhq wrote

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_j20dq81 wrote

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

> 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

CodDamnWalpole t1_j20tugo wrote

Don't argue with redditors. It's not worth it. They'll die on any hill they happen to be standing on.

4

VikingBorealis t1_j20wl8x wrote

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

toodroot t1_j22wle9 wrote

> no exactly a secret that western news are biased to western achievements...

Thanks for explaining your motivation.

−1

HawkMan79 t1_j2347vw wrote

What exactly do you think his motivation is?

Are you saying western news isn't clearly western biased?

0

BalkothLordofDeath t1_j20b9xt wrote

“Firefly Alpha failure blamed on premature engine shutdown” see if you can spot it in this headline. Don’t strain yourself though, sometimes reading is a real toughie.

3

VikingBorealis t1_j20cofh wrote

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

TheGreatestOutdoorz t1_j22634o wrote

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

VikingBorealis t1_j233xkt wrote

I'm not the one praising news for bring biased. So keep trolling

−1

otter111a t1_j1z5u1p wrote

Pretty sure challenger was a failure. We didn’t learn very much but it confirmed many modes of failure nasa was already well aware of.

9

VikingBorealis t1_j1z64tu wrote

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

goibnu t1_j1z8w69 wrote

It had a commercial payload. That's a different kettle of fish.

8

VikingBorealis t1_j1zdsfs wrote

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

RGJ587 t1_j20xb4k wrote

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

david4069 t1_j2eqdm9 wrote

>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

ProtoplanetaryNebula t1_j1ztrtm wrote

Glad to see some sense and not the usual reddit "China bad" type commentary we see in any posts concerning China.

5

Specific_Main3824 t1_j1xfpdk wrote

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

131

MaybeTheDoctor t1_j1xz7lo wrote

We all remember the first spacex booster landings

41

Plantsandanger t1_j1y0syf wrote

And the only people who don’t remember NASA’s failures were unfortunate participants in them

27

MaybeTheDoctor t1_j1y5qj4 wrote

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_j1y8dj3 wrote

If the failures were deleted from history, how are you sure they exist? Is there a list I can read, I’m curious.

4

MaybeTheDoctor t1_j1y95wy wrote

Statistics - math is a great predictor

No new tech is developed with zero fails and 100% success :)

Great try - but believe in science

14

froggythefish t1_j1y9ib6 wrote

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

MaybeTheDoctor t1_j1ybomy wrote

USSR and Russia has been famous for re-writing history. No open society does that and it is to Chinas credit that they stopped that practice as well - hurray for the new openness

6

froggythefish t1_j1ycmhi wrote

How has the USSR re-written history? You’re providing no examples

−6

MaybeTheDoctor t1_j1ye80u wrote

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

froggythefish t1_j1yemsr wrote

Your example of rewriting history is cosmetic photoshop? Editing people out of pictures has been around for almost as long as pictures themselves.

−1

MaybeTheDoctor t1_j1yez7k wrote

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_j1yf995 wrote

okay?

0

Inverted_Harlet t1_j1yfxhq wrote

Come on :-)

New York Post ?

And on "Diversity"?

Show something real

1

froggythefish t1_j1yg5g3 wrote

even petapixel reported on it. and petapixel is a image news site, they have nothing to do with politics. This is more real than your theories about secret soviet space failures or whatever.

1

MaybeTheDoctor t1_j1yhsgn wrote

Not exactly the same league of lies ... :-)

Give us something more substantial - like proof of the election was stolen or something like that :-)

2

froggythefish t1_j1yi48u wrote

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

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

Psychomadeye t1_j26gd1f wrote

>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

waamoandy t1_j1yjjzd wrote

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

froggythefish t1_j1yjuxc wrote

These were not “deleted from history”, it’s easily accessible, albeit unfortunate information.

5

TheGreatestOutdoorz t1_j226l5n wrote

It was “erased” by the Soviet Union and only acknowledged after the Soviet Union fell. The better words would be suppressed or hidden, but I think we all know what he meant.

1

nycsingletrack t1_j224dio wrote

There was also a launchpad explosion that killed a large number of ground crew and observers.

Google “Nedelin catastrophe”

Also “Plesetsk launch pad disaster”

1

Titan-Lim t1_j1y9plw wrote

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

[deleted] t1_j1ya145 wrote

[removed]

−2

[deleted] t1_j1yes4m wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_j1yewn5 wrote

[removed]

0

Soulwindow t1_j1ycizh wrote

That's not remotely true. The USSR was very open in regards to their space program and frequently shared information with the US

1

MaybeTheDoctor t1_j1yebml wrote

Russia only announced the launches AFTER they were launched, and never announced any that failed. It is a simple history fact.

3

BackwardGoose t1_j1yg9so wrote

USSR open? They never were, and Russia is not open either ...

3

Plantsandanger t1_j200exw wrote

I seem to recall a ver publicly displayed charred corpse that allegedly cursed out his bosses on the way down for their cowardly failure to stop a bound-to-fail rocket

1

FappinPlatypus t1_j1zwjcw wrote

Exactly. To quote Thomas Jefferson “I haven’t failed, I found 10,000 ways that don’t work.”

3

Thorhax04 t1_j1x2geg wrote

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

32

kittyrocket t1_j1x5hcm wrote

Yep, I'm hoping they keep on working at it. First time success is pretty rare for a rocket.

10

QuimmLord t1_j1xrr9f wrote

What’s the benefit to methane as a fuel compared to traditional rocket fuels?

7

smolpnrg t1_j1xxjbg wrote

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

QuimmLord t1_j1xxtov wrote

Thank you for the in depth explanation! I had a feeling it had to do with efficiency or similar

3

[deleted] t1_j1x4jpy wrote

[removed]

−6

[deleted] t1_j1xb08q wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_j1xc6w3 wrote

[removed]

−9

SPYK3O t1_j1xght8 wrote

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

32

No-Trust-7517 t1_j1y73pv wrote

they are state controlled private space companies which are way better then whatever the hell we let Boeing turn into

17

froggythefish t1_j1y8ien wrote

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

smithsp86 t1_j1xjxt8 wrote

Not at all private. This is nothing like spacex, blue origin, or rocket lab.

5

Uptown-Dog t1_j1y00j4 wrote

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

Eric1491625 t1_j1zkxmz wrote

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

Augustus420 t1_j1xjuka wrote

Hopefully not at all private in an capitalist sense. Hopefully just means non-government.

−13

Aaron_Hamm t1_j1xnwlt wrote

What's wrong with private business?

6

Augustus420 t1_j1xvj3g wrote

The means of production should be owned either by the people at large or directly by the workers.

−8

Aaron_Hamm t1_j1xxec1 wrote

Just saying things doesn't make them so, but anyways:

How would the people at large own a company?

3

Maringam t1_j1ycrlb wrote

The same way it’s already done: cooperative shared ownership and board direction

3

Aaron_Hamm t1_j1yf0n1 wrote

Fun fact: publicly traded companies also fall under the "owned by the people at large" category...

5

carloselunicornio t1_j1yqznl wrote

>publicly traded companies also fall under the "owned by the people at large" category...

It's pretty obvious what they mean by "people at large", and it sure doesn't mean shareholders.

1

Aaron_Hamm t1_j1zu0dw wrote

Why doesn't it?

3

carloselunicornio t1_j1zv4w9 wrote

Because "people at large" means "most people", and most people aren't shareholders.

1

Aaron_Hamm t1_j1zw4q3 wrote

Most people actually are shareholders...

2

carloselunicornio t1_j1zxce8 wrote

You believe that most of the world's population are shareholders?

Can you substantiate that claim? Because I find it hard to believe.

1

Aaron_Hamm t1_j1zy1l6 wrote

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

carloselunicornio t1_j1zzpg3 wrote

>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

Aaron_Hamm t1_j206riz wrote

>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

carloselunicornio t1_j21suhv wrote

>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

Aaron_Hamm t1_j21u8wb wrote

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

Lol dude, that's how you find out if someone's using good logic: find out where it takes you.

1

carloselunicornio t1_j21umpz wrote

>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

Aaron_Hamm t1_j21ut6u wrote

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

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

1

carloselunicornio t1_j21v65p wrote

>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

Aaron_Hamm t1_j21vef8 wrote

Yes, most people are shareholders in the western world.

Sorry you didn't know that?

1

carloselunicornio t1_j21w4wn wrote

>Yes, most people are shareholders in the western world.

Can you back that up? With numbers?

>Sorry you didn't know that?

I'm loving the snark, keep it up.

1

krashlia t1_j1xxc7n wrote

That doesn't mean anything in China. That doesn't mean anything wherever there exists a government that lives by an ideology that says it wants to end private property.

−3

Augustus420 t1_j21is9z wrote

What do you think private property means in this context?

0

TheOtherAisle t1_j1xlrxk wrote

It's China. They put cameras outside bathrooms with facial recognition technology to stop people from stealing toilet paper. What do you think?

−8

King_Pecca t1_j1xppc4 wrote

Are you Chinese, living in China, or just guessing?

9

MaybeTheDoctor t1_j1xzdik wrote

Being open about failure is a huge step forward in credibility

29

LeaveIt4Later t1_j20ryzv wrote

Or did it work a treat and they're trying to stop us from making our own awesome fart powered spacecraft.

3

ItsMeFergie t1_j1zj7ot wrote

No failure here! Huge success! Rocket first stage landed in village in the middle of no where. Classified satellite orbiting nominally! /s

−6

MrBrucsski t1_j1xqehu wrote

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

16

ComradeGibbon t1_j1y526d wrote

You don't want or maybe do want to be downwind of that thing when it launches.

3

LoremIpsum10101010 t1_j1ygnia wrote

Disappointing, but failure is the best teacher. Next time!

7

falcon_640 t1_j1xv3nb wrote

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

5

yotreeman t1_j1xwlwc wrote

Because the US in the 60’s (and now) has always just been an unproblematic utopia.

−2

falcon_640 t1_j2093o8 wrote

Of course not. The US has a ton of problems , I said that because for some reason people on this sub hate china.

Im just happy for space exploration in general.

0

Staar-69 t1_j1yrj9o wrote

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

4

Shrike99 t1_j21kp8w wrote

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

jegodric t1_j1yub48 wrote

But why use methane as one of the fuel sources?

2

andygates2323 t1_j1zswai wrote

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

llcdrewtaylor t1_j20pu9b wrote

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

2

chiarde t1_j1zywew wrote

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

1

LeaveIt4Later t1_j20rqb4 wrote

It worked in that crappy movie called Thunderpants though

1

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

EmptyBarrel t1_j20xjdl wrote

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

−1

WellOkayMaybe t1_j1yovva wrote

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

Just Schrodinger's Rockets.

−4

jpfeif29 t1_j1xyaar wrote

None of those words go together to make a success

−5