Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Science

New Supersonic Jet Test Less Than Successful 259

Posted by michael from the seat-cushion-can-be-used-as-a-flotation-device dept.
saberwolf writes "The BBC is reporting in this story that the first test of Japan's supersonic jet didn't go quite as planned when it crashed into the ground seconds after takeoff on its test rig. It looks like a successor to the world's only supersonic passenger jet, Concorde (built jointly by the British and French in the 1960s) is still some way off." Reuters has more pictures.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Supersonic Jet Test Less Than Successful More

New Supersonic Jet Test Less Than Successful

Comments Filter:
  • For any Chinese readers that can't view BBC web sites due to the "Grate Firewall of China", here is another source for the story. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/14/10261851 38340.html - HeXa
    • It also appears as if the Woomera test range is not the place to test things that fly if you want to take it home later.
      Today's failure was the second project to experience recent difficulties at Woomera. Last October, an experimental rocket crashed after its guidance fins moved during flight and sent it off course following its Woomera launch. The rocket, the Hyshot scramjet being developed and trialled by Australian and British designers, was supposed to have gone to an altitude of 300km but only reached 61km before it crashed.

      - HeXa

  • 300 passengers? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by PeeOnYou2 ( 539746 )
    With this kind of press before it even accepts any passengers, I can't say as there will be too many people who won't be a little leary and just hop right on... maybe if it was free... then again.. free death.. i don't know...

    not sure i want to trust a computer to fly a jet when they wont even test it in windy conditions... and what about bad weather? hm...


    • Did anyone else notice that, if you look closely at the right pictures, this thing took out some sort of building, compound?

      You can't see it in the amusing but fairly cruddy BBC Real Video clip [bbc.co.uk] but it's fairly clear in this reuters shot [yahoo.com], you can clearly see the security fencing.

      I guess, in the current climate, they're keen not to emphasis this thing's ability to take out man-made structures.

    • Did you read the story? Actually can you read?

      Not a single component of the jet model failed. What failed was the solid fuel booster rocket that was supposed to bring it into position for testing.

      Which is a pity.
  • At least it didn't hit any buildings....

  • I wasn't the jet that crashed! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 14, 2002 @11:32AM (#3881504)
    Please!

    Nobody seems to understand that it was the rocket booster that failed, not the test jet. The test jet wouldnt' be activated until something like 18 miles above the ground.

    The test jet didn't fail. It was a completely unrelated accident.

    -- Daniel

    • Re:I wasn't the jet that crashed! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Sunday July 14, 2002 @12:14PM (#3881646)
      Nobody seems to understand that it was the rocket booster that failed, not the test jet. The test jet wouldnt' be activated until something like 18 miles above the ground.

      It could have been either the jet or the rocket that caused the failure, as both would need to use their control surfaces to keep the flight stable. Set a fin or a flap the wrong way, and you go spiralling into the ground. Which looks a lot like what happened.
      • Depends, in the Hyshot test last year, from the same launchpad last year, A fin came off the second stage, also wiping out a fin on the first stage, as the rocket came off the pad. This test still made it to 60-odd km altitude, and this rocket was spin-stabilised.

        I doubt (though I don't know) that this rocket was spin stabilised, simply because the payload was non-symmetric, and spin-stabilisation would have greatly added to their problems. My guess would be either some mechanical failure (the rocket broke in half), or the gyros failled in some fashion, under the high force of ignition or takeoff. Failure of the gyros is far more likely.

        I always find it amazing just how high the failure rate is for what should, after 50 years, be routine rocketry.

        • I always find it amazing just how high the failure rate is for what should, after 50 years, be routine rocketry.

          Rockets tend to be highly complicated and fragile machines. Most of a rocket is fuel. When they fail a large explosion is rather typical.

        • I always find it amazing just how high the failure rate is for what should, after 50 years, be routine rocketry.

          Yeah, I mean it's not like it's rocket science or anything....

    • Don't blame ME for crashing. I'm not a Jet. I don't even play football.

      ... waits for downard modding... tick, tick, tick

    • Before this test there was criticism that the Japanese don'thave enough aerospace experience to be building commercial jet airliners, let alone (b)leading edge supersonics.

      The fact that they can't even get it together to launch the test seems significant to me, even if it is the rocket that failed.
      • Before this test there was criticism that the Japanese don'thave enough aerospace experience to be building commercial jet airliners, let alone (b)leading edge supersonics.

        That's because they waste all that time doing that silly math n' stuff. If they would only have hired the Rocket Man, who doesn't bother with those things, then everything would have been OK.

      • Huh? What kind of a stupid idea is that? Japan's factories have been building F-15J's for years under license from McDonnell Douglas. How the hell are they supposed to GET aerospace experience if they don't design airplanes? How the hell are they supposed to know what works if they don't have failures to analyze?

        Building airplanes is complicated. If you don't have failures (DURING TESTING), you're not trying hard enough. If you still have failures in production, you're incompetent and need to find a less dangerous job.

  • Booster rocket failure? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Troed ( 102527 )
    A booster rocket was supposed to take the craft up - and then the craft would glide supersonically down.

    It crashed a few seconds after takeoff - so it can only be the booster rocket that failed - right? If so - this might not be that devastating since it says nothing about the actual craft itself .. (more about booster rockets .. )

    • It crashed a few seconds after takeoff - so it can only be the booster rocket that failed - right?

      The booster rocket provided the thrust, but the plane was big enough to drastically affect the aerodynamics (it was bigger than the rocket). A control systems failure or mechanical failure on either vehicle could have caused the accident. I'm sure there will be a press release when they figure out what exactly went wrong.

    • It crashed a few seconds after takeoff
      Well, at least it achieves results faster than concorde...
      it took the European plane decades to achieve this level of carnage.
  • Are they trying something really innovative, or did the technological knowledge from the 60's vanish??

    Obviously they are not those who built the 60's version, but why do they encounter so much difficulties 40 years after a successful project?
    What's the technological reason?

    • The problems is the concorde are so numerous it's amazing that they even fly it. The Japanese are trying a design that would eliminate those problems. It's not surprising that they would encounter setbacks.
    • Are they trying something really innovative, or did the technological knowledge from the 60's vanish??

      Obviously they are not those who built the 60's version, but why do they encounter so much difficulties 40 years after a successful project?

      What's the technological reason?

      This plane is designed to be bigger, faster, and have far better fuel efficiency.

      It's a very different design, and so of course has to go through a lot of testing. Even aircraft based on more conventional technology have to go through this (you don't think they'd put, say, a 747 on the runway without doing test flights to verify the design, right?).

      The ony down side to this test is that they won't really learn much from it. The craft or booster failed while taking off, not when cruising under flight conditions.

  • Why publicize the first test? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Brento ( 26177 ) <brento.brentozar@com> on Sunday July 14, 2002 @11:33AM (#3881513) Homepage
    If people were around shooting photos the first time one of my programs were run, the carnage would make this look like child's play. Why would you want to publicize your first tests of anything?!?

    • Not much bothers us Aussies, but we do like to know when people go around launching experimental supersonic jets.

      It's a good question though - how many unexplained UFO sightings are actually an aerospace corps or military contractors hiding bad tests?

    • (* If people were around shooting photos the first time one of my programs were run, the carnage would make this look like child's play. Why would you want to publicize your first tests of anything?!? *)

      At least you don't have to build a new one from scratch when it munges.

      Boy would that be frustrating. If there is a hell, that is what programmers are going to have to do: program in assembler, and if it does not run perfect the first time, your source is wiped clean and you have to start over.

      Actually, once I wrote a compile script that inadvertantly wiped out the source to a batch process program. I went ballistic. I had to rekey it from a marked-up listing. Good think it was not 100K lines of code.
    • If your first software runs were very expensive, and some (all?) of it were public money, you should expect someone to be around to photograph the BSOD's.
      • If your first software runs were very expensive, and some (all?) of it were public money, you should expect someone to be around to photograph the BSOD's.

        Really? Like Carnivore, perhaps? I can't remember the last time I saw a government software project go up in flames for all of us to see. When it fails, it's vigorously swept under the carpet.
        • Really? Like Carnivore, perhaps? I can't remember the last time I saw a government software project go up in flames for all of us to see. When it fails, it's vigorously swept under the carpet.

          That's a good argument.

          Working backwards then, that raises the question, Why don't they just hush up, cover up, etc. the rocket/plane test failures?

          Maybe because it is not easily concealed. (Of course, you could just machine gun all the photographers along the perimiter fence.) Maybe large expensive software projects should not be allowed to happen in secret, so that the failures and successes are transparent to the public. Nah. It will never happen.

  • Old and Modern (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mickwd ( 196449 ) on Sunday July 14, 2002 @11:38AM (#3881529)
    Used to work at Heathrow in London.

    Concorde still draws crowds of admirers, and it still looks the most futuristic passenger plane in "common" commercial use, even 30+ years after it came into service.

    What else is there this old that still looks as good......?
    • Well, I don't know about you, but a 60's vette, or Jaguar E-Type still seems to be the best looking car out there. So it looks like all the cool looking design skills were also lost back then too. It's a shame too, those were some nice looking cars.

    • Re:Old and Modern (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Concorde still draws crowds of admirers, and it still looks the most futuristic passenger plane in "common" commercial use, even 30+ years after it came into service.

      What else is there this old that still looks as good......?
      The answer every geek knows: UNIX!
    • What else is there this old that still looks as good......?

      Well, you know I'm 30+ years old.....booboom tish.

    • Re: Volkswagen beatle (Score:2, Insightful)

      by guybarr ( 447727 )

      What else is there this old that still looks as good......?

      Volkswagen Beatle.

      when a car is still manufactured ~60 years (in latin america) after design.

      when a car that was manufactured before I was born is still operative sufficiently for my day-to-day needs, and not as a collector's item.

      than that is, in my biassed opinion, good engineering design == real beauty.

    • I saw some recent naked pics of Farrah Fawcette recently... She definitely still looks good after a lot more than 30 years!

      T

  • Rcoket Failure (Score:2, Informative)

    by AmiNTT ( 539586 )
    It would appear to me that it was not the test aircraft that failed, but the rocket. Judging by the pictures, it looks like the rocket was not balanced properly, causing it to veer to one side.

    I've often wondered about a "rescue" system for payloads, much like the escape rockets for the old Apollo rockets. Having this kind of a system in place could help save payloads from destruction during first and second stage failures.

    Its too bad though. I hope that they continue testing. And I sure hope that model had lots of insurance.:(

  • Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Psiren ( 6145 ) on Sunday July 14, 2002 @11:50AM (#3881586)
    I wonder what it sounds like to hear 100 Japanese rocket scientists screaming "Doh!" at the same time...

  • Video of the crash (Score:5, Informative)

    by mlas ( 165698 ) on Sunday July 14, 2002 @11:53AM (#3881599) Homepage
    BBC also has a short RealVideo clip [bbc.co.uk] of the crash, replete with one very freaked-out kangaroo fleeing the crash site.

  • Ultimate Taboo (Score:2, Interesting)

    by donnacha ( 161610 )


    Talk about avoiding awkward subjects! The quite impressive Concorde website [britishairways.com] manages to not once mention the crash! Even the extensive sections on safety enhancements [britishairways.com] and the plane's history [britishairways.com] refer only vaguely to the "August 2000 suspension of service".

    Flyer Beware!

    • Re:Ultimate Taboo (Score:3, Insightful)

      by alienmole ( 15522 )
      I experienced a similar thing when taking a helicopter ride in Hawaii - the helicopter operators there had recently had a rash of accidents, some of them fatal, which had been in the news. My g/f and I called up some of the companies, and asked them about their accident record, before picking which company to fly with. Luckily we had some outside info, otherwise we'd never have been able to tell anything at all about their safety records. One company, which had had multiple fatal accidents, would only acknowledge that "yes, they had had some 'incidents'". Further questioning resulted in evasive answers about things like the safety improvements that had been made since then.

      So I agree: flyer beware! Don't expect that a company which is about to launch you into the air in a highly unstable and potentially very dangerous vehicle is going to be honest with you about the risks...

  • I understand that developing aircraft is not a cheap business - but the BBC news article says the test model, an unpowered but presumably remote-controlled glider, cost $80Million. I'm sure lots of slick technology went into the test article, but I gotta ask: how could a glider cost $80Million? (The rocket launch was valued at $7Million, BTW.)

  • Sonic boom: how were they going to eliminate it? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Sunday July 14, 2002 @12:35PM (#3881711) Homepage
    The BBC article mentions that "Developers, who include Mitsubishi and Nissan, hope that the new supersonic plane will have noise levels similar to the Boeing 747. That would mean that it would be able to operate far more widely than Concorde, which is notoriously noisy." This was also mentioned in previous news stories about the planned aircraft.

    Nothing I've seen, however, explains how they were planning to deal with the sonic boom.

    Or are they just referring to the noise level when in subsonic operation? In which case, like the Concorde, it could only go supersonic over water... but then how could it "operate far more widely" than the Concorde?

    • When i lived in england, the Concorde would fly right over our house (pretty high up too), and I tell you, that plane is LOUD. The house rattled and it cut through EVERYTHING. And that's it going subsonic...

      A 747 is loud, but theres a world of difference between a 747 and a subsonic Concorde.

      The new quieter plane will be able to "operate far more widely" because you won't get people bitching about the noise every single time it flies over.

    • Re:Sonic boom: how were they going to eliminate it (Score:5, Informative)

      by Cally ( 10873 ) on Sunday July 14, 2002 @04:40PM (#3882607) Homepage
      The BBC article mentions that

      "Developers, who include Mitsubishi and Nissan, hope that the new
      supersonic plane will have noise levels similar to the Boeing
      747. That would mean that it would be able to operate far more widely
      than Concorde, which is notoriously noisy." This was also mentioned in
      previous news stories about the planned aircraft.

      Nothing I've seen, however, explains how they were planning to deal
      with the sonic boom.

      Or are they just referring to the noise level when in subsonic
      operation? In which case, like the Concorde, it could only go
      supersonic over water... but then how could it "operate far more
      widely" than the Concorde?
      As a kid I often stayed at my Grandfather's place on [multimap.com]
      the north coast of Cornwall (non-UK readers: the 'foot' that sticks out of the UK to the south-west.) You'd often hear the sonic boom from Concorde accelerating through (or decelerating back through) the sound barrier above the Bristol Channel. It sounded like a distant roll of thunder on a hot summer's day. (Of course it was always hot and sunny back then... </nostalgia &gt& .) This location was at least fifteen miles *horizontally* from the point the boom originated; I don't know the height they'd do this, but the point is sonic booms from something big enough to carry passengers carry a *long* way.

      Nowadays, I live in South London [streetmap.co.uk], which happens to be on the flight path for Heathrow (along with most of the rest of south/west London...). The windows are double-glazed, which makes a nice Concorde test: when you can hear aircraft noise indoors, it's *always* either Concorde, or a low-flying police surveillance camera. (We live in a police state over hear, because guns are illegal. Gosh, how I wish I lived in the USA, so I could defend myself against the crushing power of the State! < /troll > ) I usually pop outside to watch it pass overhead if I have the time, 'cos I grew up somewhere where aircraft were either contrails, or Tornados, Jaguars and A10s practicing low-level flying: these split the sky open and were gone usually within 10 seconds, rarely long enough to get much of a look. The difference in noise level is very noticeable compared to the usual commerical widebody heavies flying at the same altitude (?5000 feet?). It's also noticeable how long and slim Concorde appears compared to a 747 at the same altitude; it appears to be perhaps 60% of the size, and the fuselage is barely discernable; on a modern stretched 747, you can easily distinguish upper and mid and lower-deck rows of windows.)

      The reason the Concorde is so damn loud are the Rolls Royce Olympus engines. They're optimised for supersonic flight, which makes them horribly inefficient -- they have to burn a *lot* of fuel to provide reasonable thrust at low air speeds (and given the airframe's delta-wing profile, "low speed" is relative: I haven't the numbers, but she takes off and lands *very* fast. Most supersonic military aircraft for the last 20 years or so have had variable geometry flight surfaces (BAE Tornado, f'rinstance, or the US Tomcat. Or that fskcing GORGEOUS Russian aircraft with the twin air intakes below the fuselage... but I digress) - the wings are swept forward for low-speed operation, then back into a delta configuration for high speeds.

      This is another reason the Concorde's so expensive to run, which was another factor in it's commerical (lack of) success. Now, what I'm wondering - and I'm slightly puzzled why there hasn't been a /. story on this - what will happen to the competing next-generation passenger aircraft planned by Airbus and Boeing, pre-9/11? IIRC Airbus had settled on a 'superjumbo' carrying 700+ passengers, and Boeing had taken the brave - nay, reckless! - decision to go for a "super Concorde", a high-volume production, wide-body, supersonic passenger aircraft, carrying 250-400 passengers (compared to the original 60's version, with a maximum of ~110 passengers and crew.)

      Anyone able to enlighten me on this?

      • By the time these jets actually start to enter production, 9/11, while it'll hardly have been forgotten, will be long ago enough in the memory that the impact it's had on air traffic will have disappeared. Additionally, the US economy should be out of recession by then. Heck, *Japan's* economy might come out of the toilet by then.

        Oh, and as another poster has pointed out, Boeing's current toy isn't supersonic, it's just high subsonic (~Mach 0.95 rather than the standard ~0.8).

      • The sonic boom does not occur as an aircraft passes through the "sound barrier." The boom is the passage of a shock wave from a supersonic aircraft, and the shock wave exists as long as the aircraft is supersonic. The shock wave can be thought of as the sound trapped in a thing cone because it cannot go faster than the aircraft, so it all "stacks up" in the shock wave.

        For example, when the Space Shuttle landed at White Sands, New Mexico, we heard the double boom as it went by Phoenix, AZ. It was still supersonic at the time.
      • I don't know the height they'd do this, but the point is sonic booms from something big enough to carry passengers carry a *long* way.

        Concorde cruises at 55,000 feet, +/- 5,000. It has to fly that high so that the air density is low enough to reduce friction heating to an acceptable level. Only once it's flying subsonic can it descend to lower levels.

    • Any plane flying at hypersonic has multiple sonic cones - plane, engines, etc. These can be placed so that they extinguish each other due to interference patterns. This means that from another viewpoint they will amplify each other. If the "another" point in question is above the plane it is a "who cares about the dead fish" case.

      On a different note, Concorde is hellishly noisy when subsonic. It is the bigger problem (most of the flight is above water). Unfortunately this problem is quite hard to solve as all recent development into noise efficient engine shapes (new boeings, new airbus, new engines on russian jets) has gone into subsonic turbofans. The knowledge from these cannot be applied into hypersonic engines right away.
    • Or are they just referring to the noise level when in subsonic operation?

      You obviously havn't heard concorde flying subsonic. It must be the loudest civil aircraft by a long way.

      In which case, like the Concorde, it could only go supersonic over water... but then how could it "operate far more widely" than the Concorde?

      The want to fly this between Japan and the US. LAX is more or less due west from Kansi. With nothing other than the Pacific in between. They also want to make a supersonic airliner with much greater range, since there is no way Concorde could cross the Pacific without finding places to land and refuel.

  • NMD (Score:5, Funny)

    by craw ( 6958 ) on Sunday July 14, 2002 @12:35PM (#3881713) Homepage
    In related news, Pentagon officials at a hastily called press conference announced a successful test of the National Missile Defense system. The scheduling of this test was not publicized in advance due to concerns about terrorism. An anonymous DoD source stated that, "Ahhh, that was our test. We finally got it to work. No wait, in fact we have had many successful secret tests. Yeah, that's the ticket!"
  • It looks like a successor to the world's only supersonic passenger jet, Concorde

    You seem to be forgetting the Tupolev TU-144 [www.bird.ch], dubbed Concordski in the west due to its uncanny resemblence to Concorde. Although faster than Corcorde, its crash at the Paris Air Show effectively put an end to its challenge to Concorde in the commercial marketplace. Nonetheless, it was used as a passenger carrying jet in the Soviet Union in 1977 and early 1978 until another crash put and end to its career. Concorde is, therefore, the only currently operating supersonic passenger jet.

    • You seem to be forgetting the Tupolev TU-144 [www.bird.ch], dubbed Concordski in the west due to its uncanny resemblence to Concorde.

      Apparently Tupolev copied some aspects of the design. Yet there are differences such as engine placement and the retractable cannards.
      In terms of speed, payload and range the TU-144 is a superior aircraft.
    • The Paris crash was actually caused by a French Air Force fighter interfering in the Tupolev's flight path. The Russian pilot (a highly regarded test pilot) overstressed his plane while trying to avoid hitting the Dassault Mirage, which was not supposed to be there. [pbs.org]

      I don't think Tupolev ever planned to offer the 144 on the open market.

      Most of the asessments I have seen seem to think that the Tupolev in its final form had a superior airframe design overall, but terrible engines. NASA purchased a TU-144 as a test platform. Last I heard, that unit was for sale [biztobiz21.com] The asking price was $10, 000,000 IIRC. I believe it is the only currentl flying 144, although there are eight complete airframes in existence.
    • I gather the engines were not as good as the Concorde. Concorde had the Rolls Royce Olympus engines - superb, old design first used on the Lightning, and susequently on th Vulcan [uk0.net].

      I heard that the Tupolev TU-144 needed afterburners to pass through the sound barrier, and possibly also to remain there.

      It is quite difficult to design an engine that must have all air going through the engine at subsonic speeds, for the air surfaces like turbine blades to work, and yet propel the plane at supersonic speeds. Think about it.

      The answer is the nozzle at the back.

      Cheers, Andy!

  • Not a Jet, just a model! (Score:4, Informative)

    by jonbrewer ( 11894 ) on Sunday July 14, 2002 @12:58PM (#3881823) Homepage
    While the Slashdot crew is busy arguing whether it was the rocket or the jet that crashed, and who in the world would fly on such a beast, no one is taking into account that this was just a scale model!

    The superjet, a 1:10 scale model of a plane that would be able to fly twice as fast as the Concorde, dived into the ground shortly after take-off (Reuters)

    Were this a crash of a real jet, yes, it would news. The crash of a model, no.

    • An $80m model... (Score:3, Informative)

      by andaru ( 535590 )
      This was no balsa wood, cardboard tube rocket with the little plastic guy w/parachute in the nose cone.

      This test alone cost $7m. They presumably need to build another $80m model to proceed with the other tests, which are probably not penny candy either.

      Besides, the video of it crashing is spectacular. That alone makes it newsworthy.

  • Premature separation? (Score:4, Informative)

    by thebigmacd ( 545973 ) on Sunday July 14, 2002 @01:22PM (#3881916)
    From my limited observations of the Reuters photos and BBC video clip, it appears that the booster rocket left the pad without the test glider. Immediately after leaving the launch rails, the booster tipped over, indicating that there was an unintentional mass imbalance (hence, gimballed boosters counteracting a non-existent payload) that threw the flight path out of whack. Can anyone tell whether the rocket flopped away from where the payload should have been, or in another direction. If it fell away from the payload, the payload must have become unattached.
  • It takes more than desire and a theme song to master the laws of aerodynamics. Here's an example of a bunch of talented and dedicated individuals doing something they've been trained for, and there still was an unexpected failure.

    Of course, that's why they do lots of unmanned testing before letting a test pilot with a degree in aeronautical engineering and a few thousand hours of flight time take up the first one.

    I would remind people that supersonic aircraft have been built before, so this problem has been "solved" just like the sub-orbital booster problem has been "solved."

  • it seems to me that the concorde crashed shortly after take-off a few years ago. ladies and gentleman, we have a race on our hands!
  • According to the Reusters article, "They plan flights with twice the 6,000 miles range and half the noise of the Anglo-French Concorde...," but according to the British Airways Concorde fact sheet [britishairways.com], the range is 6000km. So double that and you get 12,000km, or 7457 miles, which would put it out of reach of the ten longest commercial air routes [zyworld.com], including service between California and Australia. But I guess Japan isn't too concerned about that particular route :-)

    At least service between the U.S. East Coast and Tokyo would be cut from the current 11 hours on ANA [fly-ana.com] down to a much more tolerable 6 hours.

  • Latest news on the launch (Score:3, Informative)

    by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 ) on Sunday July 14, 2002 @06:46PM (#3883040)
    I've just seen an Australian news broadcast with interviews of the parties involved and they say that the model separated from the rocket at lift off.

    The indication was that the model fell back onto the launch pad and the rocket then went out of control.

    And the winner on the day was: Sir Isac Newton!
    • I wondered about that when I saw the shots of the rocket shortly before it hit the ground (no, not on the pad - 10 seconds later). In the photo of the assembly on the pad you can see the wings of the model, but in the final shots, even the ones in which the rocket is shown spiraling in the sky, the model isn't visible.

      If the guidance system is programmed assuming the model is attached, and the model is not, it may not respond very well.
  • My farther is the range operator at Woomera and was present for the recent test's. It was the rocket delivering the payload that failed rather then the payload itself.

    If the rocket had managed to deliver the payload it would have been a huge step forward in the design of air craft as the model had been computer generated skipping the whole process of wind tunnel testing etc . . .

Slashdot Top Deals

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz

Close