10 Rocket Launches That Went Horribly Wrong 

Made me jump!

That's outside of the scope of this presentation

They should make a video "10 Re-entries That Went Terribly Wrong" and have Space Shuttle Columbia that costed the lives of 7 astronauts.

@@rezzer7918 It's because the channel is biased. The whole world saw the solid fuel ROCKETS explode and kill seven people all through failures made by american workers. The usa has killed more people in 1 launch that the rest of the pace going nations put together.

@@rezzer7918 Looks like mishaps causing death and serious injury are out... Others include The Nedelin Catastrophe in 1960 and The Intelsat 708 launch in 1996. However, it seems like the N1 Rocket should have made the list.

@@rezzer7918 Apparently, the scope of this presentation is to make the Russians look bad.

tumble weed roles past .........@...

yeah pretty much all regular media channels covering rockets get just about everything wrong lol. hell they didn't even get the name of the launch site for spacex correct.

Buffer overflow killing a rocket is... something else

Integer overflow, technically. Buffer overflows involve streams of data, originally ASCII strings.

It's not a buffer overflow. It's an integer overflow.

It scared me to death lol

Yeah. This is pretty bad. I can't trust any of this. Also said the starship flight went "horribly wrong" at stage seperation... but it never made it anywhere close to stage seperation.

and he said the upper stages 9 engines didn't light.. Starship has 6. 3 Sea level, 3 vacuum.

It’s a (tragic) technicality, but the SRB didn’t explode - the external fuel tank did after the leaked hot gases from the SRB burned through the skin of the tank. Both SRBs spiraled away from the explosion, out of control, until destroyed by the range safety officer. Prior to the explosion, the orbiter was traveling at almost Mach 2; the damaged SRB and tank structural damage created aerodynamic forces that tore everything, including the orbiter, apart. The massive explosion happened an instant after, which engulfed the Shuttle and tank. I don’t know, however, if most of the Shuttle’s damage was caused by the explosion, or by being aerodynamically ripped apart. As you undoubtedly know, the crew capsule portion was found relatively intact at the bottom of the ocean. Such a tragedy that should not have happened. The Shuttle was a big deal then, space being far from routine. Like millions of others, especially kids at school, we watched the launch on TV in northern Wisconsin, jokingly around, not paying really close attention. Mrs. Bangs was recording it on the VCR, like she always did. I was almost sixteen, so maybe a sophomore, and the freshmen and juniors were also there - small school; I graduated in a class of nine. When it happened, we did what every other person on the planet did, who were watching…just stared in shock. Something profound and serious and unexpected and tragic happened in front of our eyes. Not since Pope John Paul II’s attempted asassination (Phelps had a lot of Catholics, even in our public school) had we been so jarred by reality. And for me at least - 15’s a pretty impressionable age - not again til 9/11. For a lot of us, Challenger will probably always be something of a sacred event in our lives.

Lord. Good laf.

And nobody who knew rockets thought it would do any more than it did.

It did very well. Now if it will just repeat that every time it launches.

Refer to that 1 as a *Lightbulb* moment 😂

Why not just use an SR71 and a some O2 tanks.......Engines would Stall when Atmosphere is gone (boundary of Space) 🤔🤔 Reverse the Exhaust cones to Front of TFE allowing for Rapid rate of Air Fuel ratio on Decent back to Earth? Faster Decent would have Jump start effect on Turbine Fan Engine (TFE) Plane is Hypersonic 🤔

That's impressive, your dad has a cool job. I'd want to tell everyone if I were in your shoes as well.😂

@Mediocre_JT pardon me for establishing the authority of the statement's source.

You gotta launch to fail so get your dad to give Bezos kick up the jacksy!

@@kristideeleyYour dad is 100% correct. I’ve been in aerospace (propulsion) for almost 40 years, the silver lining of any failed launch attempt is that the best way to learn how to do something right is to learn what NOT to do to make it fail. The fault trees we create are humongous when trying to think of all the things that can go wrong, but the problems arise when it was something we did NOT think of. Cheers to your dad! My best friend from high school is a manager up in Kent. Blue Origin is an amazing company. 👍🏼

@@Rocket_scientist_88True enough. I bet it has to be extremely hard to handle, though, if and when the telemetry is somehow compromised or nonexistent, and the engineers are left going “wtf.”

MAX-Q is explained in EVERY single rocket launch by hosts, yet authors of this movie seems to forget what it means 🤣

"Maximum dynamic pressure" is what they meant to refer to. That combines forces from the acceleration, atmospheric drag, etc...all forces acting on the vehicle. 26,000 feet sounds about right.

@@cyril-rr2jkya, agreed. Mr. Meteorologist did kinda crack a funny, tho, in the absence of a Max Q explanation.

almost like private enterprise is ALWAYS more efficient than gov projects......nahhhhhhh

They also push the equipment to failure to learn from it...

Furthermore, the Atlas is not really "America's workhorse" today since its first stage is powered by a Russian rocket engine developed during the Soviet era. In fact, this is precisely why it has been permanently retired. "America's workhorse in space" is the Falcon 9.

Falcon/SpaceX is independent operator. And for that reason they do shit that goverment contractors would take decades to do. I started on Atlas in 1990 when Atlas was first going commercial. Their first 2 "commercial" Atlas I launches failed, due to Centaur upper stage engine failure. Each shut down the program for nearly a year. Falcon fails and they cheer just because their vehicle cleared the tower or whatever, and they push on. Goverment oversight is a huge ball and chain.

I was there when Atlas transitioned to RD-180. Scratchin my head. The Russian propuslion team was sequestered in a cubilcle in the blockhouse and I'm thinkin, "How are we gonna launch Nat'l seurity payloads like this?" @@rbrtck

The Ariane 5 test flight failure was caused by an issue with converting a 64 bit integer to a 16 bit integer. It was the same system used on the Ariane 4, but Ariane 5 was higher performance and accelerated faster, causing the 64 bit encoded value to overflow the 16 bit value on conversion. The overflow caused the horizontal bias to suddenly go from a large positive value to a large negative value and the rocket's control system understood that the rocket was essentially flying backwards and made control inputs to try and "turn around."

The Atlas-Centaur combo was not a workhorse, you're right. At the same time, the Centaur family upper stages ( combined with various lower stages ) have been used extensively for decades, so I can see the term applying to just that part of the rocket shown.

Something something stack overflow.

This guy's just making shit up to get views. He doesn't research any of this. Can't even get the name "Boca Chica" correct.

Titan D? What the frak is a Titan D? And your Ariane analysis is equally suspect. But you did well at sounding confident, despite not knowing what you’re talking about.

it survived the last launch hehe

"completely destroy", seriously? it was up and running 6 months after the first launch with upgrades even, doesnt look like "complete destruction" to me.

It did it blew up

@@harryvlogs7833 Granted, but the ship wasn't planned to go into orbit either. They were testing the separation systems, which failed. It was to do one flip as part of it process. Least they did get valuable data from it.

@Ragetiger1 yes it was planned to go to orbit Elon said. He also so it had 50% of getting there

it did not get "shot out of the sky", rockets have a flight termination system built in

And unchimped! 🐵

Typical Russians!🤥

Any idea what happened that time? What did you allegedly see?

​@@pimpinaintdeadhoнет у него идей кроме этой сказки😂

Have a nice day

*Thank you for sharing these good moments. I'll leave this comment here and review it every time someone likes it. great videos*

All of the Saturn 5 rocket launches we successful. There were glitches with some of the flights but none of them "fell apart".

@@jimfarmer7811 Go look at the footage.

This was the recent 2023 launch. The narrator completely botches the story. ("Some engines failed to fire," as the video shows the not-yet-active second stage engines, is hilariously stupid.) Stage separation was in fact successful; the booster failed to re-ignite it's engines and was unable to return for a landing as planned (the video shows the booster falling out of control untl the self-destruct is activated.) The second stage proceeded as planned for a while (apparently the narrator doesn't know this), before it had its own problems, and the flight was terminated over water.

@@jpdemer5 This was not the recent November 2023 launch (the second prototype test), this was the April 2023 launch (the first prototype test). You mostly describe the second test correctly other than: 1. The booster did infact relight all but one of it's mid ring engines after stage seperation for the boostback, but they quickly began to fail. 2. Based on language from SpaceX that the booster was a RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly), many assume the booster was NOT terminated by the FTS (Flight Termination System). Jury is still out on that at this time.

he got at least 2 things wrong abt starship :P 9 engines and "as u can see, a few engines stopped working" *proceeds to show view of ship engines (never ignited)*

No it didnt. It failed from the start. The launchpad itself was so poorly designed that it caused 3 engines to die before liftoff. If you honestly believe that that went much better than anyone expected, then you have bought into the propaganda.

@@jasonkay9345 LOL Elon stated, if it gets off the launch pad that a win. “The system didn't think they were healthy enough to bring them to full thrust so they were shut down." The rock tornado started after engines were bought to full thrust. You obviously believe everything you see in social media as fact. Yes it ate the launch pad (pretty sure if you designed it it would not have), but it got 24 miles into the air and gave SpaceX plenty of great telemetry. No one with half a noggin thought it would actually get to space, not even Elon.

@@jasonkay9345 BS. The launch went well and shown how strong the structure is even despite being bombarded by debris at launch and spinning in the atmosphere. Not even FTS could break it. All of the issues are now fixed and starship is scheduled to fly again on Nov 17.

je trouve ça excellent :D

Всё зависит от того ...мы покупаем или продаём.

Nothing good comes from tejus...

Its a laucnh system and a space ship, not an oversized Fireworks display. It failed miserably, every part of it, from the Lauch pad, to the way to compex engine clusters, to the computer that controled this mess and finally, it was even unable to safely self terminate when ordered to. It was a failure and the only thing that I find amazing about this is that people treat it like some sort of show, as if this was the expected and wanted outcome. They want to bring people into space with this thing. Are you people going to enthusiastically cheer if a manned version of starship explodes minutes after launch? especially given the fact that starship does not have and is not meant to have a Abort and Rescue system. It went better than expected they say, when it was meant to reach space and it simply didn't. Again, its a rocket, not a fireworks display for someone entertainment.

It failed WOKE naive ...

if it worked, it would have terminated the flight. Its right there in the name - FLIGHT TERMINATION SYSTEM. If it fails to terminate the flight, then it, BY DEFINITION didnt work.

@@jasonkay9345 Going from how the comment read, I am expecting that this is mere wordplay to most of musks fans. Its a multi bilion dollar fireworks display to them. Everytime They cheer the loudes when any of the boosters or Starships are violently destroyed by a large explosion. I am just glad that these are unmanned flights, I fear the day when SpaceX has bribed enough people to be allowed a manned testflight of that thing and the crew of noble idiots that they stuff in there gets torn into tiny shreds because Musks so desperatly wants to outshine the N1 as the "most powerful rocket". And he doesn't even understand that the N1 isn't even a Rocket at all.

That was a test of the N-1 moon rocket, the USSR's answer to our Saturn V. The reason so many were killed was a Soviet general sent to observe and report on the launch to Moscow wanted to sit closer, and the rest of the crowd didn't want to seem like cowards or like they had anything less than the most patriotic confidence that they got it right. When engines failed after launch and the 300-plus foot tall tower of tanks full of kerosene and liquid oxygen crashed back on the pad, they briefly realized they were too close.

Now all information is available, so read it before writing nonsense. It was October 24, 1960, long before N-1. And not during the launch. During pre-launch preparations, an abnormal start of the main engine occurred. The disaster was terrible, many people died (including General Nedelin), but now enough details are known.

@@MrVladimirSP Yes it was the Nedelin Catastrophe involving an R-16 rocket.

@@cyril-rr2jk Actually the infamous N-1 pad explosion did NOT kill anyone despite its sheer force, as all the personnel & their families have been evacuated to safe distances well before the launch, but the launch pad was obviously destroyed.

@@MrVladimirSP I hadn't heard of any corrections of the version in a documentary years ago. The Soviet/Russian preference for keeping things hidden when they don't need to be, leading to such corrections, can be so annoying sometimes.