Catastrophic success.

@redscorpion9411

3 жыл бұрын

The task had failed successfully.

@TeslasTacos

3 жыл бұрын

Red Scorpion true

@maritimeshark1467

3 жыл бұрын

Mission failed successfully

@Gurashi

2 жыл бұрын

Take my up vote..

This is literally the rocket equivalent of “Error: Task failed successfully”

The Kerbals would be proud.

@Rezstar_

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

My new goal in life: to become a Pirate Rocket Scientist.

Rocket Builders: "Pfff! That was totally meant to happen!"

@doormarci2

7 жыл бұрын

You made me laugh IRL. Thank you :D

@jasonpatowsky6929

6 жыл бұрын

Calculated!

I want to pay attention to what the guy was saying, but his awesome eyepatch kept distracting me.

@SuperSMT

7 жыл бұрын

Is he Mark Watney?

@DECODEDVFX

7 жыл бұрын

He's former NASA administrator Dale Myers, who unfortunately passed away two years ago aged 93. He was a very interesting guy, whose first task as administrator was to get Apollo 13 back to Earth!

@EricIrl

6 жыл бұрын

A true great in aviation history. He was a key figure in both North American Aviation and later, NASA. He worked on many NAA aircraft such as the Harvard, Mustang, F-86 Sabre etc before getting involved in their rocket and space projects. He lost his eye as a young man in a car accident.

@samsignorelli

6 жыл бұрын

Who knew Nick Fury worked for NASA?

"Nonononononono *YES!*"

Engineers love it when their error handling works correctly first time 😉

This perfect little upload contains a lot of my favourite things. It's from one of my all time favourite documentary series, Moon Machines. It shows the footage of a wonderful dinky little rocket, the Little Joe. Even the launch angle adds to its beauty. We see the Little Joe in flight, perfect, white and silver. It even breaks apart beautifully, just slowly unwrapping, revealing pristine white rocket tubes within. The launch abort system works perfectly, showing us another rocket firing its white smoke. And finally the whole is accompanied by one of my favourite pieces of Philip Sheppard's music, anthemic chords over a driving 7-beat rhythm.

@PassiveSmoking

7 жыл бұрын

I think the footage was recorded in slow-motion for analysis after the mission, the real breakup was a lot faster.

@Roddy556

7 ай бұрын

Agree 100%

Didnt add enough struts.

@eMenak

10 жыл бұрын

Should've used MechJeb

@jackboyd2464

10 жыл бұрын

John Poliniak You clearly didn't get the Kerbal Space Program reference. The widely accepted rule in that game is that if your craft waves/spins/breaks you add more struts until it doesn't.

@carlosluque2346

10 жыл бұрын

Jack Boyd or MOAR BOOSTERS

@originalmetalman9430

9 жыл бұрын

lamorte42 not enough rockets

@44R0Ndin

8 жыл бұрын

Forgot to turn on SAS

EPIC! we call it "rocket science" for a reason. we wanted to test the emergency system, and the rocket for the test effed up...and the emergency system did its job. LOVE IT.

Task Failed Succesfuly! Although, all jokes aside, this is a really cool example of failure leading to success, and this is one of my favorite rocket launches ever.

this was a perfect test because the rocket that was testing it kinda failed, and pulled away like it was supposed to

@Actinide5013

5 жыл бұрын

it was a test for a system designed for the situation of a failure the rocket just unintentionally failed the LES did the job perfectly how ironic can the world be?

@falcon759

3 жыл бұрын

"kinda failed" No, catastrophically failed (the rocket broke apart), which was a perfect test, even though unintended.

@CuboydMC

3 жыл бұрын

Yes that's exactly what they said in the video.

Yeah, the Saturn's guidance system was an engineering masterpiece -incredibly reliable and redundant yet worked with flawless precision, like everything with Apollo the guidance technology at that time made larger strides then at any other time before or since (although WW2 saw huge jumps as well). Considering any newer guidance systems would have been built upon an already incredible foundation I'd like to think they'd marry all digital has to offer with the stunning engineering from Apollo

@MikeSkanz it is from a documentary called "Moon Machines". I HIGHLY recommend that you watch it.

I have always loved this story.

What a beautiful sight. I can't imagine watching in person.

@dwmzmm Oh, the Saturn V guidance system did indeed work very well. But its components are all long obsolete and are unavailable. You'd really have no choice but to design a new guidance system with contemporary components. It would perform even better and be much smaller, lighter, cheaper and consume less power. It would be even easier to protect against lightning, e.g., by using optical fiber for communication busses and through redundancy.

@absurdengineering

4 жыл бұрын

ApolloWasReal It worked so well, in fact, that the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) was recently restored (see curiousmarc’s videos), and used to fly simulated missions using the original flight software. There is also a very accurate VHDL model of the AGC, that you can run on tandem with the real thing, and they behave identically (within the confines of what’s important).

@jshepard152

3 жыл бұрын

There's a guy who works at the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama as a docent. He's a former IBM engineer who helped build the Saturn V guidance system. I met him about a year ago. Pretty cool.

RIP Dale D. Myers.

Thanks for uploading this, just what I was looking for. (Past attempts at an in-flight abort.)

Very good video. Exactly what I was looking for.

I dig how simple this system is.

first read about this story in 'Angle of Attack' (Gray). Thanks for putting this up -great to have the video footage and personal reminiscence from those who were there.

Absolutely fantastic. I wish we could get back to this point as a society.

@MrGrace

11 ай бұрын

Agreed. Complete cooperation of everyone to reach a common goal.

@rdfox76 It is from a series that was on the Science Channel called "Moon Machines". It is a truly fantastic series that is all about the engineering behind the Saturn V, CM, LM, Guidance Computer, Space Suit. I HIGHLY recommend it. I think you can buy it on amazon.

“I got this” - LES

Actually Max Launch Abort System carries separate escape thrusters as well, but they're mounted on the fairing rather than in a tower on top of the fairing.

@roguemale57 Yes, Constellation was a good idea. I'm not sure, but I think development of the spacecraft is still going on. It may look like an Apollo CSM, but that's where the similarity ends - there's been 50 years of advances in avionics since then!

Centrifugal forces. Im no rocket scientist but the rockets are designed to operate under certain conditions, and those conditions don't include rotational forces. So the strength of the rocket is along it vertical axis not around its horizontal axis. This isn't what would be considered mild rotation. The g's created by that spin would be quite large.

@nathanaelvetters2684

5 жыл бұрын

The22NITSCHKE centrifugal forces *gag* sorry to be that guy

Sweeet! thanks for the footage!

This was an awesome video! Super interesting. Wonder if they were concerned about the mini rocket pushing the crew into space lol

November 1965? I'm pretty sure the Little Joe II booster that failed was A-003, which was launched in May 1965

"The failure is always an option" - Adam Savage

Outstanding!

This was the first "successful failure" of the Apollo program!

Great video...👍

@ApolloWasReal I disagree with your assessment about the Saturn's guidance system. It was absolutely superb and very well demonstrated by taking a direct hit by lightening during the Apollo - 12 launch.

So we screwed up the abort test, so we aborted the flight.... it worked perfectly.

Too bad that Dale Myers never wrote a book about Apollo. It would have been fascinating.

Those parachutes are huge!

@rdfox76 This clip was taken from the 5 part DVD set called "Moon Machine's". Hope that helps

@roguemale57 As for the capsule on the booster, yes, this was and still is the way to go so long as rockets occasionally blow up -- which they do. The shuttle's fatal (literally) flaw was the arrogance of its designers who thought the rockets would be so reliable that no crew escape system was required. Now that we know better, there's no way to retrofit one. The Apollo escape tower and rocket, plus its well-protected heat shield, is still a very good design.

So cool

Look up "Moon Machines" , I think most of the episodes are on KZread. This clip is from either the Command Module or Saturn V episode, I can't remember which one. The whole series is excellent.

perfectly sucessful faliure

this is really so Kerbal! :)

I couldn't stop smiling the whole time. it's events like those that define irony.

great point

Awesome.

Odd little mistake there, the A-003 launch, the Little Joe partial failure, was in May '65, but the film says November.

You bring up a great point and you are partially right. Liquid fuel and liquid engines are heavier, and unless you are also lifting the service module up and away, there is only the very small amount of monopropellant for the attitude control jets, the control jets are not very powerful, and even if they were to fit larger and larger monopropellant engines on the capsule, they are not powerful and would be heavy and inefficient. Last I checked, SRBs are less risky than liquid and more powerful.

00:20 a pirate

the 3 wire is a simple system.. many sensors were monitored in the instrument unit, lots of conditions would trigger an abort, and fire the les.... also a nifty handle in the command module...but flyboys never pull the quit rope. lolz

Oogh. That wreck of the Little Joe looked a lot like other footage of a much more tragic failure. I almost had to look away.

The saturn five was the most powerful rocket ever built and was way ahead of its time. After the apollo program was cancelled they chucked out the plans for the saturn five. Ironically, nasa is going back to the tried and true capsule on top of booster format.

I love the Saturn V

@salade2760

5 жыл бұрын

Dont we all

Flux capacitor stopped fluxing

Isn’t that the Little Joe 2 Abort test?

I see what you mean and I know what you are talking about, but carrying fuel inside the command module would be very heavy, and NASA likes being able to shed the extra weight of a LAS when it is no longer required. On a command module, like Apollo or Orion will have, a very limited amount of fuel is aboard, and it is for the control jets during reentry, but I do like SpaceX's and Blue Orgin's idea

whats the name of the guy with the eye patch narrating the little joe launch?

Actually I think you have it backwards. The Shuttle SRB's had great specific impulse but a very poor thrust to weight ratio because if its thick heavy casing. The Shuttle SRB's were seen as a low cost alternative to its more powerful liquid cousins back in the final 1972 design. SRB's are the most risky. The Office of Management and Budget insisted on less expensive solid boosters due to their lower projected development costs. NASA would have chosen liquid boosters.

Well it showed it would work.. in a different way..

I believe that is what NASA calls a "Successful Failure".

where can i see the entire documentary

Task failed successfully

What was this clip taken from? I'd love to get a copy!

You are a genius and I like you, you really know your stuff, and otherwise we would debate this forever. I think they both have their pluses and minuses, and once SpaceX and Blue Origin do some real testing we can see. But good luck convincing NASA to use the thrusters, they love their top-mounted SRB LASs...

@oisiaa thx!

I’ve always thought the escape tower was rather nifty

I love it when a plan doesn't come together.

A Perfectly Successful Failure

@ApolloWasReal The saturn rocket system (crew vehicle on top of booster) is a proven system as you pointed out. eg. an effective escape system. We can build on apollo & we can enhance it - nasa described the cancelled constellation program was described as apollo on steriods. Advances in; technologies (today's mobile phones have bigger processors than those in apollo vehicles!) & delivery systems (solid rocket boosters) -ensure crew vehicle sizes triple that of apollo.

Fuel is still there with or with out the tower. You must have maneuvering fuel. Either need to escape or maneuver, but not both. You only need a few secs on a liquid rocket. Solid rocket fuel requires a much larger/complex escape system. Solid fuel does not turn off, or vaporize, and its explosion can eat up a parachute for miles. Thus, Orion needs a 5 story, massive escape system which alters the size of the launcher and its cost. All because the Senate has mandated SRB's be used.

I didn’t know Nick Fury worked for NASA!

space is cool

@nythreefer Dale Myers

@roguemale57 I don't see any reason not to allow private space exploration; I just doubt that the money is there. Private enterprise works when there's a short-term payoff in money. The return from space exploration is longer term and largely intangible, making it better done by governments. High flying airplanes have only a tiny fraction of orbital energy, though they do get you above much of the air that causes dynamic pressure and heating.

Where did they do such tests ?

@almostfm

5 жыл бұрын

For Apollo, White Sands New Mexico. They did similar tests on the Mercury LES at Wallops Island, Virginia.

Jebediah is amused.

@roguemale57 I'm pretty sure the plans are still around if NASA wants them. But they wouldn't want to build another Saturn V, nor should they. Technology has moved a bit since 1973. Would you still want to build the exact same guidance system today? Of course not. You use the old systems as engineering guides for designing new ones. You don't just clone them.

There is no way you can ever launch a orbital craft from a plane keeping it cost effective. As some mentioned nasa did put pilots in to space with the X-15, but there is no practical use for sub-orbital space flight other than tourism and small no gravity expieriments which isnt really nasa's field. The private sector has already built multible launch vehicles the most succesful is the SpaceX series of spacecraft which I guess will proove to be very succesful.

Task failed successfully.

must of hit the glass sky ceiling up 60 miles.

Error: Task Failed Succesfully.

Tower escape systems can be risky, heavy and expensive. Directly escaping from capsule thrusters is safer and happens to cost less because the fuel is already there used for maneuvering. Max Launch Abort System (from Orion not chosen by NASA **FAIL), Blue Origin escape system, Dragon escape system, are all more modern and safer escape systems. Tower ejection is also dangerous and you don't have escape all the way to orbit.

anybody know what documentary this is from?

@BunnyRaptor

10 жыл бұрын

This is from the TV documentary "Moon Machines," it was on the science channel a couple years ago. You can buy the set of episodes on DVD.

@chrislong3439

10 жыл бұрын

Moon Machines as I recall. They play it on Science Channel occasionally. It discusses all of the aspect of the Apollo program, from the construction of the space suits to the lander. Very good series!

for tests like this or also the crew dragon in flight abort test from spacex i wonder why they don't just strap a literal bomb to the booster and detonate at max q.

why didnt this work on the challenger when it exploded?

@absurdengineering

4 жыл бұрын

Challenger’s problem was that it wasn’t ready to fly on its own at this point in the flight, e.g. the hydraulic flight control system was inactive, and also the attachment to the rest of the stack wasn’t designed to separate as soon as the external tank lost pressure. Even then it’d have been extremely hard to guarantee survival, since the orbiter would likely be impacted by something that could compromise either its ability to fly, or could impart enough momentum that the resulting corrective aerodynamic forces would exceed its load limits; it would then disintegrate either because of high control loads or because of veering too far away from the airstream. The people who knew the design well basically said that this type of failure could not be made survivable in that design, even on a best-effort basis, IIRC (i.e. the “best effort” for the unlikely scenario would highly increase the risk for a nominal mission - think e.g. of the outcome of an inadvertent flight control deflection on the orbiter during powered ascent).

You mean it was meant to fail, but it fail and the fail became actually a win? It sounds like maybe they engineered the fail in such a way that if it was a fail it would actually be a win they just didnt know it.

Can someone tell me where this is from? Sounds like maybe it was a documentary? thanks!

@im.thatoneguy

9 жыл бұрын

***** Supposedly from Moon Machines: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Machines

@lancer525

8 жыл бұрын

+Gavin Greenwalt Supposedly? Someone is using adjectives and doesn't know what they actually mean...

@reeds2185

8 жыл бұрын

+lancer525 'supposedly' is an adverb

@lancer525

8 жыл бұрын

Wow... Have that much time on your hands? The mere fact that you have to use pejorative means that your position is worthless. Thanks for making my point... I didn't have to do a thing. Idiot.

@reeds2185

8 жыл бұрын

+lancer525 Oh the irony, you made his point with your argument as basis and your reaction as evidence.

How can a rocket completely rip apart from such a mild rotation?

@digitalrailroader

5 жыл бұрын

it was the centrifugal force from the roll; you ever ride the Gravitron carnival ride? the force that pushes you into the "seat" and the "seat" up to the ceiling in that ride was the same force that pulled the Little Joe apart and created the "Perfect" test for the Launch Escape System.

@marvinkitfox3386

5 жыл бұрын

"such mild rotation" Vehicle was rotating at 335 degrees per second. at skin surface, this imparted 6.79g of acceleration. The Algol solid boosters in the rocket body were pressing against the outer shell with some 14.3 tons of force, each. *no ways* would this be correctly described as "such mild rotation"

@ApolloWasReal The official constellation program is cancelled but, parts of it are still being developed by nasa via a political loophole. I think its a bad idea to allow privatisation into space exploration although, richard branson's effort is a brave move. Launching from a plane flying at high altitude is something i think nasa could've pursued more. The X-15 was an exciting project in itself.

I dont know, maybe from the super high aerodynamic pressure on the vehicle as it goes supersonic through the atmosphere? hehe :-)

@samsignorelli

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah....given how high the roll rate was (335 degrees per second), and that the altitude was a little over 12,000 ft, it's amazing the rocket survived the flight stresses as long as it did. I don't think people bitching about how "easily" the rocket broke up truly understand the stresses it went through.

@KayoMichiels

5 жыл бұрын

@@samsignorelli Not to ention.. the footage could have been recorded at a higher framerate and we only see the slowmotion video of the test.

What is a pirate doing here ?

(Windows Popup) Task Failed Successfully!

1:40

Task Failed Succesfully.

Task failed successfuly

so it was a failure.. but it was a huge success! hahah thats awesome

Solid rocket fuel did not make a great rocket back then either.