|
FoolyCharged posted:I mean, America can't really judge China for their rockets going boom given we've blown them up with multiple people inside several times now. I mean, yeah we can because this is at least a yearly occurrence for China now, not to mention one-stage orbital rockets are loving stupid as poo poo specifically because of this goddamn mess, whereas we kill astronauts in non-training/testing incidents at the rate of... 0.2 per year. Spaceflight is risky, the point is to *not* have uncontrolled debris raining down from launches though. Most everyone except China is pretty on the ball on that.
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
To my knowledge, China is the only country that's killed people not involved with the space program.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
Pekinduck posted:To my knowledge, China is the only country that's killed people not involved with the space program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Zucker - 3 spectators killed. Not a country and I'm not sure if there was actual spaceflight. Also a couple of US firemen dealing with wildfires caused by a launch, I don't know if they count as involved with the space program or not.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
MrQwerty posted:Spaceflight is risky, the point is to *not* have uncontrolled debris raining down from launches though. Most everyone except China is pretty on the ball on that. TBQH the risk of hurting or killing anyone is pretty goddamn remote. Like, it's stupid that China is running so close to the edge of what their rocket can manage that they can't afford to put a system on it for the most bare-bones of re-entry control. Just "in the pacific" would be fine. But also I don't think it's an unconscionable risk. The funny thing about the treaty that I mentioned before, it's the nation-state's responsibility to pay for damages even if it was some corporation that did the launch. So the US wouldn't let anyone like SpaceX do a launch this way, because then the US gov't would be on the hook for SpaceX's fuckups. So that's why everyone besides China is more on the ball. That and the potential diplomatic / prestige blowback. tldr China don't care
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
loving gently caress why does the earth have to be full of so much empty space
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
gently caress you china you couldn't even gently caress this up in an interesting way i mean im glad no one died and all but poo poo that was anticlimactic
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
Nashville still exists. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
Klyith posted:
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
Zippy the Bummer posted:gently caress you china you couldn't even gently caress this up in an interesting way Yeah, but with how much of earth's surface is ocean it wasn't really unexpected. It let me idly daydream about space junk smashing stuff for a few days, that's enough for me.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 20:41
|
|
|
Statistically speaking what are the odds it's still got enough inertia to just keep bouncing on water until it hits Mar-a-lago?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
That's no satellite, it's a submarine! And it's heading for maralago
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
Klyith posted:TBQH the risk of hurting or killing anyone is pretty goddamn remote. Like, it's stupid that China is running so close to the edge of what their rocket can manage that they can't afford to put a system on it for the most bare-bones of re-entry control. Just "in the pacific" would be fine. But also I don't think it's an unconscionable risk. Why can't they simply have a remote controlled self destruct on board? (To control timing and/or make the debris smaller)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:35
|
|
|
Smaller debris isn't necessarily better. It's extremely expensive to put anything into orbit so putting x pounds of explosives you don't ever intend on using into a rocket is just not going to happen. Plus I imagine having a bomb on board would only dramatically increase the chances of something going horribly wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
Funky See Funky Do posted:Plus I imagine having a bomb on board would only dramatically increase the chances of something going horribly wrong. Many rockets do have a self-destruct, but it's for when the rocket is launching if it goes out of control or something else is major wrong. Particularly solid rockets, because there's no way to turn those off other than blow them up. At that point you can use a very small explosive, due to the whole full of rocket fuel thing. Not sure if China bothers though. Spinz posted:Why can't they simply have a remote controlled self destruct on board? (To control timing and/or make the debris smaller) In space you don't want to explode anything because space debris is bad. During reentry most of the rocket will break up into smaller pieces anyways. The metal walls of the fuel tanks are pretty thin & light, they're easy to rip apart by that type of force. That's why I said that most of the bits are basically sheet metal that's not super-dangerous. The engines though are big solid things, which would be hard to blow up. And I imagine putting an explosive right next to a rocket engine would be pretty hairy. But the biggest thing is, if they had the spare weight allowance to add a thorough self-destruct, they'd probably have the weight to add some tiny engines to control the thing and vaguely select where it comes back into the atmosphere. It doesn't take much nudge to do that in orbit. They're at the very limit of what their rocket can do.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
..............did everyone die yet?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 17:50
|
|
|
This must be hell, all the bad posters are here 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
Guys it's May 10th, whose ready to watch the rocket come down???
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
i figured out the perfect place to send this thread to
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 18:58
|
|
