Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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