Big Russian Cato (w video)

[Sully]

In Soviet Russia, MESS form completes YOU! (Sorry, haven't finished my coffee yet. I'll come back and improve the joke if I think of something better.)

Meanwhile, here's the BBC story with video:

https://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23140665

 

[aditat2]

Saw that on MSLSD earlier. Big Badda Boom!!!!!

 

[DRAGON64]

Looks like they could some guidance counciling heh heh

 

[dave carver]

In Soviet Russia, MESS form completes YOU! (Sorry, haven't finished my coffee yet. I'll come back and improve the joke if I think of something better.)

Meanwhile, here's the BBC story with video:

https://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23140665

You also missed CoyoteNumber2's post from yesterday on the same subject Maybe you should have your coffee before you do anything :caffeine:

 

[boomtube]

Are you sure that wasn’t filmed at Air Fest last year?

 

[marcusSRG]

WOW!! Just saw this on FB and rushed on to the forum....check out this wide angle video! :surprised:

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=Zl1...=/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zl12dXYcUTo

Looks like they could some guidance counciling heh heh

Heh.

 

[dgreger]

Now, Thats a shockwave!

 

[DRAGON64]

WOW!! Just saw this on FB and rushed on to the forum....check out this wide angle video! :surprised:

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=Zl1...=/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zl12dXYcUTo




Heh.

Now, Thats a shockwave!

I have not seen the youtube vid yet (blocked at work) but in the original linked video, that cameraman had zero skills at catching a flight & cato sequence...

 

[Sully]

You also missed CoyoteNumber2's post from yesterday on the same subject Maybe you should have your coffee before you do anything :caffeine:

Well, I thought of that, but then how do I get the first coffee? It is pretty sad to see me try to make or order coffee early in the morning. And pounding down the coffee the night before, in order to have it on board the next morning, doesn't work very well. :caffeine:

 

[RoyAtl]

sure took them awhile to hit the self-destruct button, if they even did.

 

[shreadvector]

They have NO self-destruct system.

sure took them awhile to hit the self-destruct button, if they even did.

 

[shreadvector]

By the way..."self-destruct" is just that: the automated systems detect a problem that cannot be recovered from and they initiate the self-destruct.

For someone to "hit" a destruct button, it would be a "remote-destruct" system.

sure took them awhile to hit the self-destruct button, if they even did.

 

[DRAGON64]

sure took them awhile to hit the self-destruct button, if they even did.

Not at all, this is a secret Russian program to develope their own "Transformers" and the vehicle malfunctioned when it tried to tansform back into a Mosin Nagant while under full thrust... back to the drawing boards Comrads.

 

[AlexK]

WOW!! Just saw this on FB and rushed on to the forum....check out this wide angle video! :surprised:

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=Zl1...=/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zl12dXYcUTo.

Nice! For those on desktop computers I grabbed the full youtube version of this vid - the mobile version wouldn't load for me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en...ture=player_embedded&v=Zl12dXYcUTo&nomobile=1

Of course, the best part of all this is nobody can go anywhere near that thing until they decontaminate it. Gotta love hypergolic propellants...

 

[cerving]

That's what happens when you don't swing-test for stability before flying...

 

[Sully]

By the way..."self-destruct" is just that: the automated systems detect a problem that cannot be recovered from and they initiate the self-destruct.

For someone to "hit" a destruct button, it would be a "remote-destruct" system.

Wait, you're saying that you can't have a "Self-Destruct Button?" :y: If so, we have a lot of sci-fi/action movie re-editing to do. I always assumed that "self-destruct" referred to the means of actual destruction, whether it is already on board the rocket (or evil robot, or telegram) itself, no matter whether it is automatically triggered or remotely activated by someone else. To me, the important thing is whether the object can be caused to self-destruct or whether we have to blow it up with something else.

I just bring this up, because for the poor Russian LCO, there probably is a whole other set of paperwork to document a self-destruct incident vs. a "regular" destruct. And to your point, they probably have a whole other set of forms for "automatic self-destruct" vs. "remotely-actuated self-destruct."



And by the way, if anybody has a friend in the Russian space program, please send them the link to the Thrust/Weight ratio thread on here.
"In Soviet Russia, angle of attack.....attacks YOU!"
Yes, now I've passed into caffeine-induced delirium... I plead guilty to HWI: humor while impaired.

 

[Wayco]

Three massive thrust vector adjustments is not the way to start a flight. Definitely something wrong with the guidance system from the get go.

 

[GDJ]

One hell of a bang when it hit the ground, and those guys were a good 5 km's away. Wow

 

[Aksrockets]

L3: Denied.

If they would have started with LPR rockets and worked their way up from there, I bet the outcome would be different!

Alex

 

[dave carver]

Well, I thought of that, but then how do I get the first coffee? It is pretty sad to see me try to make or order coffee early in the morning. And pounding down the coffee the night before, in order to have it on board the next morning, doesn't work very well. :caffeine:

I do not function without a pot of MJB European Roast in me...I think I've learned to do it in my sleep...

 

[Zonie]

Would only classify as a "self" destruct button if you were on board.

1...1A...2B...Destruct

Wait, you're saying that you can't have a "Self-Destruct Button?" :y: If so, we have a lot of sci-fi/action movie re-editing to do. I always assumed that "self-destruct" referred to the means of actual destruction, whether it is already on board the rocket (or evil robot, or telegram) itself, no matter whether it is automatically triggered or remotely activated by someone else. To me, the important thing is whether the object can be caused to self-destruct or whether we have to blow it up with something else.

I just bring this up, because for the poor Russian LCO, there probably is a whole other set of paperwork to document a self-destruct incident vs. a "regular" destruct. And to your point, they probably have a whole other set of forms for "automatic self-destruct" vs. "remotely-actuated self-destruct."

View attachment 136526

And by the way, if anybody has a friend in the Russian space program, please send them the link to the Thrust/Weight ratio thread on here.
"In Soviet Russia, angle of attack.....attacks YOU!"
Yes, now I've passed into caffeine-induced delirium... I plead guilty to HWI: humor while impaired.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

That's what happens when you don't swing-test for stability before flying...

But OpenRocket said it was stable.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Needs nose weight.

 

[RoyAtl]

By the way..."self-destruct" is just that: the automated systems detect a problem that cannot be recovered from and they initiate the self-destruct.

For someone to "hit" a destruct button, it would be a "remote-destruct" system.

Whether commanded from external or internal sources, the rocket would destroy itself, therefore, it would be a "self-destruct" system. If it had one.

 

[UhClem]

Whether commanded from external or internal sources, the rocket would destroy itself, therefore, it would be a "self-destruct" system. If it had one.

There is a big difference between self (or auto) destruct and command destruct systems. Self destruct is based on on-board sensors (burn wires in solid rocket motor casings for example) and is entirely automatic.

Command destruct is the traditional RSO with a finger on the button. Destruct criteria is usually based on instantaneous impact prediction. (with data from multiple sources including radar and on board guidance data telemetered to the ground)

For more than you ever wanted to know about flight termination systems: RCC 319-10 (Portions of that document got redacted after the infamous Global Hawk incident.)

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

This thread will self destruct in five posts.

 

[RoyAtl]

There is a big difference between self (or auto) destruct and command destruct systems. Self destruct is based on on-board sensors (burn wires in solid rocket motor casings for example) and is entirely automatic.

Command destruct is the traditional RSO with a finger on the button. Destruct criteria is usually based on instantaneous impact prediction. (with data from multiple sources including radar and on board guidance data telemetered to the ground)

For more than you ever wanted to know about flight termination systems: RCC 319-10 (Portions of that document got redacted after the infamous Global Hawk incident.)

I understand the difference operationally. To a lay person, however, either way, the rocket blows up by itself (not assisted by, say, a shell or a missile), therefore "self-destruct" as a description still applies.

 

[matthew]

L3: Denied.

I thought it looked familiar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogYrvEEM0Ts