• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Close-up video of Proton rocket failure

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Chaotic42 said:
Well, I don't know the details of the crash, I've just heard that the computer wanted meters and the instruments were giving readings in feet (or the other way around).
Click to expand...

Every advanced math teacher I've ever had always taught me to do a 'reality check' when I got an answer to a problem. Do the units check out? Is the answer reasonable? Computers love precision. They can get very exact about the wrong answer. Geeks love the 'gee whiz' factor and tend to forget all the shiny toys have a greater purpose but, how cool they are while doing it isn't one of them.
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
Every advanced math teacher I've ever had always taught me to do a 'reality check' when I got an answer to a problem. Do the units check out? Is the answer reasonable? Computers love precision. They can get very exact about the wrong answer. Geeks love the 'gee whiz' factor and tend to forget all the shiny toys have a greater purpose but, how cool they are while doing it isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

This was more of a management error. No one ensured that the teams were using the same units:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/mco990930.html

The answers presumably passed a reality check when each team assumed (incorrectly) that the inputs were in the same system which they were using. I don't think this is a case of "geeks getting distracted" as much as it is an overall failure of engineering.
 
Chaotic42 said:
This was more of a management error. No one ensured that the teams were using the same units:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/mco990930.html

The answers presumably passed a reality check when each team assumed (incorrectly) that the inputs were in the same system which they were using. I don't think this is a case of "geeks getting distracted" as much as it is an overall failure of engineering.
Click to expand...

I think we said the same thing albeit with a different perspective. I have to ask though why the person(s) inputting the numbers never twigged they were off by a factor of ~3.
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
Why was there no self destruct?
Click to expand...

Soviet/Russian rockets don't have a self destruct on them. If things go wrong they are supposed to cut the engines, however that didn't happen here. They are lucky that nobody got killed. To make it even more fun the Proton uses Hypergolic fuel that is extremely toxic.
 
Brovane said:
Soviet/Russian rockets don't have a self destruct on them. If things go wrong they are supposed to cut the engines, however that didn't happen here. They are lucky that nobody got killed. To make it even more fun the Proton uses Hypergolic fuel that is extremely toxic.
Click to expand...

That's just wrong. I think they carry the fatalism too far. How can the scientists go along with that? They all can't be suicidal maniacs.
 
MongGrel said:
Wonder if their ICBM's are similar, they could launch and attack and blow themselves up 😛
Click to expand...

I know that the US Submarine launched tactical missiles do not have a destruct package. They only install the destruct packages on test weapons.

Unless you count the warhead(s) going off at the end of the flight at the target! 🙂
 
Wow pretty impressive. Hopefully it was unmanned. Reminds me of that time a Russian rocket did something similar because someone installed the upright sensor backwards. Oops.
 
pcgeek11 said:
I know that the US Submarine launched tactical missiles do not have a destruct package. They only install the destruct packages on test weapons.

Unless you count the warhead(s) going off at the end of the flight at the target! 🙂
Click to expand...

Was teasing a bit, I meant nuke themselves, but they wouldn't arm before then I imagine.
 
Wow like implied earlier in the thread the comments on youtube with the bickering looked like a Star Wars vs Star Trek geek flamefest. (pun)
 
Darwin333 said:
Do rockets launched in Florida have self destructs of some sort built in to them? I am in to model rockets and have seen rockets go horizontal like that and end up heading towards people. Now that's dangerous enough on a very small cardboard model rocket but a friggen flying bomb like that can easily fly out of the buffer zone and then plant itself in a highly populated area.

Anyone know how far away from the pad that rocket blew up?
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety
 
MongGrel said:
Was teasing a bit, I meant nuke themselves, but they wouldn't arm before then I imagine.
Click to expand...

different type of warheads are subject to different arming schemes. For instance a warhead mounted atop an icbm/slbm is not launched armed. There is a component of the arming mechanism called environmental sensing device (ESD) that measures if the weapon is operating under certain circumstances. For instance, an icbm warhead would experience strong acceleration (launch phase) followed by coasting then a period of free fall (ballistic phase then reentry). The ESD senses parameters such as acceleration curve, pressure and temperatures and only arms the weapon when these occur in a correct order and within specific parameters.
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
That's just wrong. I think they carry the fatalism too far. How can the scientists go along with that? They all can't be suicidal maniacs.
Click to expand...

From my research, the Proton rocket in this example does not use range safety like US rockets do. But there is a huge difference launching from Cape Canaveral with population centers nearby vs a launch from Baikonur in the middle of the sparsely populated Kazakhstani steppes. From what I have read, there exists a capability to cut out the engines but that cant happen before 42 seconds of flight have elapsed. Presumably to give the rocket a chance to clear and fly enough distance from the launch pad; the one thing they want to save around there!
 
NetWareHead said:
different type of warheads are subject to different arming schemes. For instance a warhead mounted atop an icbm/slbm is not launched armed. There is a component of the arming mechanism called environmental sensing device (ESD) that measures if the weapon is operating under certain circumstances. For instance, an icbm warhead would experience strong acceleration (launch phase) followed by coasting then a period of free fall (ballistic phase then reentry). The ESD senses parameters such as acceleration curve, pressure and temperatures and only arms the weapon when these occur in a correct order and within specific parameters.
Click to expand...

Sensor has encountered an unknown problem, and has been shut down to prevent damage to your missile. An error report has been generated

Unspecified error
Click to expand...

If this problem persists, contact your OEM vendor for assistance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top