Boy, was Heinlein mistaken!
Heinlein wasn’t the only one. It was very common for scientifiction to assume there was a jungle beneath those clouds, up until radio telescopes showed how hot the surface really was in the late 50s/early 60s.
I don’t think we had a good idea as to what the temperature was until we (the Soviet Union, but I use “we” as in humanity) sent probes to the surface.
Took a few tries to land one, as they kept failing long before they got there from the heat.
The House Un-American Activities Committee shall hear about THIS!
Looks like we’re each partially right.
Here’s a rundown of the history of temperature observation using radiotelescopes.
Based on the scientific uncertainty of the early 1960s, the first Venera probes hedged their bets, with descent capsules capable of floating and heat-resistant parachutes.
So the probe designers were already considering the strong likelyhood of extreme heat on the surface, due to what the radiotelescope research was telling them.
I’m ignorant of the Soviet Venus landers. I recall a problem with a lens cap, and most of the lander or vital parts melting at some point. Did they use tubes, or transistors? I recall a really bad photograph being digitally cleaned up twenty years later, and that is it.
Let’s hope the third time’s the charm! Relativity Space trying again in about 25 minutes:
Another wayward boat! That guy is everywhere…
Seem to be on hold at T-16 or am I watching an old feed
They’ve done a few holds/resets now for various reasons, but they seem to be counting down again at T-11:30.
Yep priming the igniters , getting close
Looking good so far! I like the blue methane look.
Hmm, I think they lost stage 2 thrust…
Yeah velocity dropping , not good
Well not sure what they are doing but they are cutting away and calling the live stream done
Looks like the second stage never quite ignited. There was a bit of a burp of fire that petered out quickly. Lots of possible failure modes there.
At any rate, clearly they were trying to sandbag on expectations and felt like getting through maxQ was a decent enough win. So, not bad at all for a first attempt.
Yeah saw the sputtering of flame and all, so it was at 127km altitude and going 6500km / hr, where does it land ( ok meet the ground/ sea) or it will just get out of control and break up , some where over the ocean I guess ?
Yup, somewhere east of Florida. Exactly how it breaks up depends on the detailed characteristics of the rocket, but given that it had a full propellant load, it probably broke up before hitting the ground. They also could have triggered the flight termination system (small explosives designed to rip apart the tanks), but given that the rocket didn’t leave its flight corridor, they may not have done so.
A little more than six months after the failure of its New Shepard rocket, Blue Origin has published a summary of the findings made by its accident investigation team.
…the MIT determined the direct cause of the mishap to be a structural fatigue failure of the BE-3PM engine nozzle during powered flight. The structural fatigue was caused by operational temperatures that exceeded the expected and analyzed values of the nozzle material… The MIT determined that design changes made to the engine’s boundary layer cooling system accounted for an increase in nozzle heating and explained the hot streaks present. Blue Origin is implementing corrective actions, including design changes to the combustion chamber and operating parameters, which have reduced engine nozzle bulk and hot-streak temperatures.
I think this is over-optimistic.