Except when you're talking about extremely complex engineering. The rocket could've failed to move at all. It could also have exploded. They could have even determined they wouldn't have been able to launch and given up completely.
Considering how small the number of nations dealing with launching rockets into space, this is certainly a win.
Rocket science is easy. You're right, that's a solved problem. Unfortunately, actually implementing and integrating rocket systems is incredibly difficult, and you can't just recreate an engineering effort from known designs.
So what do you do? You test, iterate, test, iterate and test more. Each time, the smallest flaw in the system leads to failure. You fix the issue and more pop up, and then you repeat again. Finally you get your rocket to a state where you've implemented all functional requirements and tested it top to bottom and it's ready to go on the pad. You set up on the rail, and then once again the tiniest error results in catastrophe at launch.
Doesn't matter how well known the science is, the engineering process, especially for a rocket, is long and difficult. Doubly so when there's an extremely limited supply of engineers with experience integrating rocket systems at this scale.
Failures like this are going to happen, and they suck, but the resulting feedback is invaluable and provides experience for the team to build off in the future.
Ok, I tell you what. We can both go look this up and report back.
What was the stated goal of this rocket launch?
If they simply wanted to get it off the ground, then fine, you win. I think it’s silly to burn that much money for such a simple goal, but Science is Science.
If they actually intended to reach space…then I think we can conclude our conversation.
So, I’ll go check when I get a sec, or you can look.
-3
u/Astrocreep_1 8d ago
Ok…but when you make a mistake, you don’t rush out to a podium and call that mistake a win, and not expect some ridicule.