Technology, Science and the Environment.

[leicsmac]

No separation, forced to remote abort, spectacular fireball.

 

Well, it got off the ground, at least.

[EnderbyFox]

I loved the commentary on that "The vehicle has a rapid unscheduled disassembly" do you mean it exploded mate?

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, EnderbyFox said:

I loved the commentary on that "The vehicle has a rapid unscheduled disassembly" do you mean it exploded mate?

 

Yeah, that's always been part of the SpaceX lingo.

[stripeyfox]

7 minutes ago, EnderbyFox said:

I loved the commentary on that "The vehicle has a rapid unscheduled disassembly" do you mean it exploded mate?

well I guess rapid unscheduled disassembly is technically the truth!

[Free Falling Foxes]

1 hour ago, EnderbyFox said:

I loved the commentary on that "The vehicle has a rapid unscheduled disassembly" do you mean it exploded mate?

I wonder how SpaceX would describe LCFC in recent times?

'The team has experienced a inability to initiate a proactive, meaningful and committed, forward positive aptitude.

[The Bear]

A bit like "have you tried forcing an unexpected reboot?" in I. T. 

 

Turn it off and on. 

[SpacedX]

56 minutes ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

I wonder how SpaceX would describe LCFC in recent times?

'The team has experienced a inability to initiate a proactive, meaningful and committed, forward positive aptitude.

Whilst mindlessly happy clapping, celebrating, whooping and cheering failure. 

 

Perhaps they should start playing this at their launch 'parties'?

 

 

We actually deserve to go down for this alone. Utter embarrassment. 

 

Actually, it wasn't all a failure for Space X. I guarantee that they already know what caused the separation failure and aside from that, the Super Heavy performance appeared to be nominal. 

 

 

[Blarmy]

21 hours ago, The Bear said:

A bit like "have you tried forcing an unexpected reboot?" in I. T. 

 

Turn it off and on. 

Not really. Forcing a reboot, if possible, is better than just killing the power. And I don’t know any IT people who would call a forced reboot unexpected. 

[reporterpenguin]

On 20/04/2023 at 17:29, Line-X said:

Actually, it wasn't all a failure for Space X. I guarantee that they already know what caused the separation failure and aside from that, the Super Heavy performance appeared to be nominal. 

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to describe Super Heavy’s performance as nominal, it lost a lot of engines (maybe as many as 8?) and was way lower and slower than it should have been by stage separation. It looked like at least one of the two hydraulic units blew itself apart as well, which can’t have helped the control. It was very impressive how the structure stood up to the spiralling towards the end though, I was expecting the aero forces to tear it apart well before the FTS activated. 
 

My suspicion at the moment is that most of the problems can be traced back to the launch. The lack of flame trench, diverter, or any kind of deluge system looks to have been an epic misjudgment. You could see enormous chunks of concrete flying around at quite a speed, it completely decimated the pad underneath to the extent that there isn’t much left. It seems quite likely that Super Heavy took some damage from that, perhaps taking out a few raptors and ripping off the hydraulic unit covers. 

They’ve got quite the rebuild job to do on the pad before they’ll be able to launch again. They’ll get it to work though, this ship and booster were well obsolete compared to the newer ones that are nearly ready to fly. The switch to electric vectoring rather than hydraulic will hopefully retire a lot of risk. 

[SpacedX]

13 hours ago, reporterpenguin said:

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to describe Super Heavy’s performance as nominal, it lost a lot of engines (maybe as many as 8?) and was way lower and slower than it should have been by stage separation. It looked like at least one of the two hydraulic units blew itself apart as well, which can’t have helped the control. It was very impressive how the structure stood up to the spiralling towards the end though, I was expecting the aero forces to tear it apart well before the FTS activated. 
 

My suspicion at the moment is that most of the problems can be traced back to the launch. The lack of flame trench, diverter, or any kind of deluge system looks to have been an epic misjudgment. You could see enormous chunks of concrete flying around at quite a speed, it completely decimated the pad underneath to the extent that there isn’t much left. It seems quite likely that Super Heavy took some damage from that, perhaps taking out a few raptors and ripping off the hydraulic unit covers. 

They’ve got quite the rebuild job to do on the pad before they’ll be able to launch again. They’ll get it to work though, this ship and booster were well obsolete compared to the newer ones that are nearly ready to fly. The switch to electric vectoring rather than hydraulic will hopefully retire a lot of risk. 

Excellent post - and I agree entirely. I was simply speculating based upon what we knew at the time (or as it transpired, didn't know) - and obviously elements of the Spac X spin. Part of which was, that the expectation and objective being simply to clear the tower and get the thing airborne. Righto then. 

 

Saying that, Space X are aspirationally trying to develop a booster that can operate without a flame trench/flame diverter or water suppression system. You are absolutely right, clearly debris impact struck the raptors and there is one angle in particular from which you can see the loss of hydraulic unit covers. It also reached Max Q later than planned and clearly the lack of thrust combined with the loss of trajectory prevented separation of starship. 

Edited 22 April 2023 by Line-X

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65339934

 

"This month, the global sea surface hit a new record high temperature. It has never warmed this much, this quickly.

Scientists don't fully understand why this has happened."

 

Well, bugger.

[The Bear]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65339934

 

"This month, the global sea surface hit a new record high temperature. It has never warmed this much, this quickly.

Scientists don't fully understand why this has happened."

 

Well, bugger.

Probably a tipping point which we couldn't predict has been crossed. 

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Probably a tipping point which we couldn't predict has been crossed. 

Probably the case, yeah.

 

Driven by our own complacency and arrogance that the world is both ours to do with as we like and that it won't change if we do.

[yorkie1999]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Probably the case, yeah.

 

Driven by our own complacency and arrogance that the world is both ours to do with as we like and that it won't change if we do.

And the Sun.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

And the Sun.

Sure, average Earth temperatures have been warmer than right now in the past, thanks both to the Sun and to other cycles.

 

Doesn't change the fact that this time human activity is responsible for at least the speed of the change (fast, by comparison to other such changes), the consequences of it, and that short-sighted self-interest has driven that change.

[yorkie1999]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Sure, average Earth temperatures have been warmer than right now in the past, thanks both to the Sun and to other cycles.

 

Doesn't change the fact that this time human activity is responsible for at least the speed of the change (fast, by comparison to other such changes), the consequences of it, and that short-sighted self-interest has driven that change.

The article does say that one factor may be down to a reduction in shipping pollution, so maybe the planet is heating up due to a lack of pollutants in the atmosphere, or is it just coincidence.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

The article does say that one factor may be down to a reduction in shipping pollution, so maybe the planet is heating up due to a lack of pollutants in the atmosphere, or is it just coincidence.

Albedo factor because of that sulphur regulation could be a contributor, yes.

 

But I'm not entirely sure that's a reason to continue to use such pollutants, rather a reason to use less things that emit carbon in the first place as well.

[WigstonWanderer]

Sighting of a Pygmy Blue Whale and calf off the WA coast

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-27/blue-whale-calf-spotted-wa-south-coast-endangered/102269188?utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web

As I glanced up at the TV I genuinely thought it was a submarine at first 

Edited 27 April 2023 by WigstonWanderer

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65385834

 

Dissent in the ranks at BP then.

 

"Some of the UK's biggest pension funds are to vote against reappointing BP's chairman over a decision to weaken its climate plans.

It comes after the energy giant cut back its target to reduce emissions by the end of the decade."

 

A comment on the following: "

Courteney Keatinge, senior director for ESG research at Glass Lewis, said the company does not see BP's actions to reduce its climate targets as a financial risk because the world will continue to use oil and gas past 2050.

"We are not operating under a net zero 2050 scenario, the demand is going to be there [in 2050], people will be flying planes and heating their homes", she said.

 

I think it's rather bold and perhaps foolhardy of Mdme Keatinge to suggest it's a certainty that the infrastructure will still be in place for people to use for heating homes and flying planes by 2050 (except for an elite few perhaps), and not, say, in the process of being dismantled by war and conflict over vastly reduced resources, brought about by unending reliance on the very fuels she thinks we'll still be using. If we continue to think and act like her, that is.

Edited 27 April 2023 by leicsmac

[WigstonWanderer]

39 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65385834

 

Dissent in the ranks at BP then.

 

"Some of the UK's biggest pension funds are to vote against reappointing BP's chairman over a decision to weaken its climate plans.

It comes after the energy giant cut back its target to reduce emissions by the end of the decade."

 

A comment on the following: "

Courteney Keatinge, senior director for ESG research at Glass Lewis, said the company does not see BP's actions to reduce its climate targets as a financial risk because the world will continue to use oil and gas past 2050.

"We are not operating under a net zero 2050 scenario, the demand is going to be there [in 2050], people will be flying planes and heating their homes", she said.

 

I think it's rather bold and perhaps foolhardy of Mdme Keatinge to suggest it's a certainty that the infrastructure will still be in place for people to use for heating homes and flying planes by 2050 (except for an elite few perhaps), and not, say, in the process of being dismantled by war and conflict over vastly reduced resources, brought about by unending reliance on the very fuels she thinks we'll still be using. If we continue to think and act like her, that is.

The Ukraine war and resulting energy shortages/price hikes seems to have emboldened the fossil fuel industry to thumb their noses at climate change action. Woodside are another who seem intent on just stonewalling. Their CEO was on a TV lecture series called “The National Press Club” last week moaning about climate change protesters and virtually threatening the government with reduced investment if they dare to try to raise the pitiful amount that Australia gets from its resource taxes.

 

Bunch of absolute first rate cvnts the lot of them.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

The Ukraine war and resulting energy shortages/price hikes seems to have emboldened the fossil fuel industry to thumb their noses at climate change action. Woodside are another who seem intent on just stonewalling. Their CEO was on a TV lecture series called “The National Press Club” last week moaning about climate change protesters and virtually threatening the government with reduced investment if they dare to try to raise the pitiful amount that Australia gets from its resource taxes.

 

Bunch of absolute first rate cvnts the lot of them.

It is a rather dark fact that they can laugh and thumb their noses all they wish - the last laugh will be that of the Earth. That's a certainty.

 

Of course, that's not exactly what you'd call an optimal outcome, so yeah, something needs to be done to remind these folks of that and let them know stonewalling is unacceptable.

[FoxesDeb]

BBC News - Climate change: Spain breaks record temperature for April

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65403381

 

Some news from my part of the world

[leicsmac]

11 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

BBC News - Climate change: Spain breaks record temperature for April

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65403381

 

Some news from my part of the world

[Tommy G]

19 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65385834

 

Dissent in the ranks at BP then.

 

"Some of the UK's biggest pension funds are to vote against reappointing BP's chairman over a decision to weaken its climate plans.

It comes after the energy giant cut back its target to reduce emissions by the end of the decade."

 

A comment on the following: "

Courteney Keatinge, senior director for ESG research at Glass Lewis, said the company does not see BP's actions to reduce its climate targets as a financial risk because the world will continue to use oil and gas past 2050.

"We are not operating under a net zero 2050 scenario, the demand is going to be there [in 2050], people will be flying planes and heating their homes", she said.

 

I think it's rather bold and perhaps foolhardy of Mdme Keatinge to suggest it's a certainty that the infrastructure will still be in place for people to use for heating homes and flying planes by 2050 (except for an elite few perhaps), and not, say, in the process of being dismantled by war and conflict over vastly reduced resources, brought about by unending reliance on the very fuels she thinks we'll still be using. If we continue to think and act like her, that is.

The UKs biggest pension funds will be under immense pressure to invest in companies that have ESG at the forefont of their business. It's gaining massive momentum and not just in the FTSE world. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

The UKs biggest pension funds will be under immense pressure to invest in companies that have ESG at the forefont of their business. It's gaining massive momentum and not just in the FTSE world. 

You would hope so, you would hope it would translate to sufficient action being taken, and you would also hope that there aren't that many like Mdme Keatinge bound and determined to get in the way.

 

The stakes are pretty high.