Who said failure can't be beautiful?

Mar 30, 2025 6:56 PM

rigello

Views

32014

Likes

652

Dislikes

6

Germany's Isar Aerospace launched their first Spectrum rocket from the launch pad in Norway. Soon after liftoff the rocket started wobbling, lost attitude control and exploded upon contact with water surface.
https://spacenews.com/isar-aerospaces-first-spectrum-launch-fails/
Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKLQxe2MvpQ

Bummer dudes.

11 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Add another data point and move on to the next attempt.

1 year ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Space is hard. I hope they keep going and keep trying

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I hope the Elder Scroll wasn't damaged.

1 year ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I was gonna say there're two failures in office right now and they're both fucking ugly.

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Good thing it was an Isarübung, not a Weserübung...

1 year ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

ROFL.

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

love how the shockwave cleared off the snow on the building on the left

1 year ago | Likes 87 Dislikes 0

well spotted old "Eagle Eyes".

1 year ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I was watching it interact with the plume.

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Thanks, I didn't saw that. :)

1 year ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

Thank you!

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

C'mon guys, it's not brain surgery!

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Oh wonderful, more pollution in our oceans .

1 year ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

The front's not supposed to fall off. I'd just like to make that clear.

1 year ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 1

*clap*

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well, carboard is out.

1 year ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

1 year ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

1 year ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

This isn't a failure can people stop reporting bullshit. The maker's even stated before hand they expect the test flight to be over in less than 30 seconds.

1 year ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

Straight form SpaceX playbook. They were aiming at orbital launch. It didn't happen. You can call it 'partial success', I'm OK with that. But don't go 'This was a triumph!' on me, you're no GLaDOS.

1 year ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

https://xkcd.com/1133/ "If it (the bottom end) starts pointing towards space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today"

1 year ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Don't worry Germany, one day you'll make a rocket that can even reach London!

1 year ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It's worth mentioning that this was expected and thus no payload was carried by the rocket. The engineers said they needed about 30 seconds of data transmitted starting from take-off and they got that. That's why they call it a successful launch and not a failure.

1 year ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Straight form SpaceX playbook. They were aiming at orbital launch. It didn't happen. You can call it 'partial success', I'm OK with that. But don't go 'This was a triumph!' on me, you're no GLaDOS.

1 year ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

Partial success, then. You need to keep in mind that they had to aim for something outside of what was likely to happen. I mean, imagine that against all odds the rocket would have passed that 30 second mark without any issue, would you hit the self-destruct at that point or would you continue to record the data input as long as the flight is stable? "Continue" would be the logical answer. But in rocket science you can't just eyeball it and see what happens. You need a plan for what to do if,

1 year ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

against all odds, the flight keeps being stable. On the other hand I find it a bit unfair to use that "against all odds"-scenario as the defining standard for what defines a successful mission.

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

... Hydrobraking?

1 year ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I'm surprised they let it crash, rockets typically self-destruct in the event of a guidance failure.

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Place and time. Self-destruction so close to the launch facilities would've definitely damaged the pad.

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That can't be good for the local ecosystem at all.

1 year ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

No. Not very bad either though.

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's an oxygen-propane rocket, all the propellant would have burned up or evaporated very quickly leaving aluminum and composite debris in their target area. Worst bit would be any hydraulic fluid. A boat would have been worse thanks to the fuel oil.

1 year ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Rockets just don't want to work nowadays

1 year ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Did they fill it with sodium?

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Diet Cola and Mentos.

1 year ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The Germans V2ed the fish!

Good, next target is R'lyeh.

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

took all their scientists seems like

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

What a gorgeous launch site. Tanegasima's got nothing on this.

1 year ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Andøya. Yes, its beautiful up there.

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That's everything but beautiful.

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFyMAaeYdvs Scot Manley already has a video up. Initial assessment.

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Meh. Manley still is a SpaceX fanboy, I stopped watching him about an year ago.

1 year ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yeah.. I always enjoyed his content but the non-stop spaceX stuff just leaves a bad taste in my mouth

1 year ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

None of this is beautiful. Imagine the spill of very toxic fuel

1 year ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

if the fuel can be used on your bbq, i'm pretty sure it isnt toxic.

1 year ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

It uses propane as fuel, which is not very toxic at all, and also a gas so pretty much all of it will have burned up in that pretty fireball.

1 year ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Thanks. I should've read the article before posting my reply

1 year ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I got up early to watch this. They cut the feed, so we didn't even get to see the boom when it happened. Heard it though.

1 year ago | Likes 107 Dislikes 0

Where’s the kaboom? There’s supposed to be an Earth shattering kaboom?

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Amazing how far are you located ?

1 year ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

They cur the video, but there was still audio, pretty sure that's what GP meant, not that they were close enough to hear it directly.

1 year ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Correct. Boom on the audio

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I HATE when they pretend shit isn't happening. NASA has a big history of this. SpaceX has finally kind of owned it, at least with experimental unmanned launches. But the whole cut away and pretend it's not happening is maddening. Like the Apollo plan to just switch off the radios and ignore them if the astronauts got stranded in space or on the moon. Let everyone experience what's happening. It will be better for everyone.

1 year ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

Agreed, that’s bullshit

1 year ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

At least they didn't shut down all air-traffic throughout the region with their failed launch. Unlike a certain South African fascist's recent attempt.

1 year ago | Likes 211 Dislikes 24

Yeah, because it's in the Fjord's vs somewhere within public airspace... I hate Musk more than you, I've been banned from Reddit on multiple accts this week for lambasting his dumbass, but that's just stupid to say when one is launched from mainland US and the other from a distant Norwegian location specifically picked because it's NOT in public space....

1 year ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 16

SpaceX's debris also traveled significantly further than just US public airspace lol.

1 year ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Back in the Good Old Days (tm), the FAA would shut down airspace for over a thousand miles downrange from launch sites before every launch. That was massively disruptive for commercial aviation though, and something like a decade ago they changed to only shutting the immediate area around the launch site preemptively. The parts farther down range where there's enough time between an explosion and debris reaching flight altitude for aircraft to get out are only closed after a mishap.

1 year ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

"I hate Musk more than you" Cool, I get the feeling you were banned more for being a prick than hating Musk.

1 year ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 7

Reddit sold out to musk months ago.

1 year ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

like this is not a joke or a meme, don't buy it? fine, go make a burner on reddit, insult Elon musk somewhere public & test it.

1 year ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Could SpaceX also not pick somewhere not in public airspace? Seems like something in their control and they chose not to.

1 year ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 4

^ yes, they could

1 year ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 5

Launching rockets into space is way more efficient when closer to the equator due to earth's spin. That's also where most people live though.

1 year ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

have you actually looked at the trajectory and looked for one that over flew less people? please outline that flight path. the one they "chose not to" use.

1 year ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

I think a lot of it has to do with using existing infrastructure at NASA.

1 year ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Not really, starship launches from boca chica texas, not cape Canaveral (yet), but still all rocket launches over all areas involve exclusion zones, NOTAMs and NOTMARs as well as predefined debris/safety and abort corridors

1 year ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

I just kind of assumed they could share the crawlers, fuel setups, and water cooling, etc.

1 year ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Can anyone explain to me why you would attempt to fly an orbital rocket so far from the equator?

1 year ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 0

They're all good orbits, Brent.

1 year ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

because it was a test flight to transport norwegian satellites into orbit for the norwegian space agency, so they used the spaceport that already existed in norway...its for weather satellites that are supposed to observe the arctic, so they need a sun synchronouse orbit which differs a lot from the equatorial speed, so not much to win there, and its also super low anyways...

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If I see this correctly you can fly directly over every part of the world because the earth is rotating in direction x and the satelite is flying in direction y. I don't know anything about the technical implications.

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

No idea. Maybe at this stage they prefer to sacrifice few kilos of payload to have the launch pad closer to home.

1 year ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

They plan to launch from Guiana as well, but they'll do 700 kg to SSO from Norway.
A perfect equatorial launch to a 0° orbit saves about 465 m/s out of the overall ~9.4-10.0 km/s budget to LEO. I think Guiana (~5 °N) is about 425 m/s surface velocity. KSC (~28 °N) is closer to 240 m/s unless I've screwed up my trig, which puts Andøya (69 °N) at ~30 m/s.

1 year ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

French Guiana* technically, since Guiana is a fully independent country that doesn't have a launch pad.

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Right, apologies. My only excuse is I've trained a neural network to recall three-letter acronyms but it tends to mess up fully formed names as a result. Will provide feedback.

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If it was a polar orbit?

1 year ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

if you plan on flying a polar orbit it isnt any more efficient to launch at the equator. also if dont plan on orbiting it doesnt matter where you launch.

1 year ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 0

This one was orbital. You're right it must be a polar orbit and wouldn't matter. For some reason I thought they might start West-to-East and then adjust round to polar but that doesn't make much sense.

1 year ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

the ISS's orbit is what it is cause its a compromise for efficiency between biakonur and cape canaveral. the only orbital inclination where you can be sure the equator will be the most efficient launch point is geosynchronous

1 year ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It takes a lot of fuel to change the orbital inclination that much, much better to launch into the orbit then make minor adjustments.

1 year ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0