Breaking: Unmanned rocket explodes on launch

[Earth_First]

Source: CNN

Developing.

Update:

(CNN) - An unmanned NASA rocket exploded early Tuesday evening.

According to NASA, the Orbital Sciences Corp.'s Antares rocket and Cygnus cargo spacecraft were set to launch at 6:22 p.m. ET. It was set to carry some 5,000 pounds of supplies and experiments to the International Space Station.

"There was failure on launch," NASA spokesman Jay Bolden said. "There was no indicated loss of life.



Read more: CNN.com

---

Will update as information becomes available...

[marzipanni]

1. Rocket and Supplies for International Space Station blew up - NASA live streaming:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/launch/orbital.html#.VFAbcBaK8s8

[herding cats]

2. Six seconds after liftoff.

:large

[Blue_Tires]

3. I was just outside trying to watch the launch

When the time came and I didn't see anything, I thought the cloud cover was probably too thick...

[Raine1967]

8. Same here. Last night a NASA representative was at our watch sight.

She wan't here tonite.

This is really sad. So far it appears that no one was hurt. I had hoped the payload was ok, but looking at the video, it doesn't look like it.

[bigwillq]

4. Damn. Totally forgot about the launch tonight.

Was all set to watch it last night but it got postponed.

[Fred Sanders]

11. Me, too. Classified "crypt equipment on board"..... What would that be?

[joshcryer]

17. Typical ITAR language, IMO.

[Trajan]

5. This was Orbital Sciences' first commercial payload?

Hmm ... methinks that rocket launches are not quite as simple as some wish to believe ...

[Neurotica]

18. Not the first launch of antares/cygnus

Previous ones were successful

[Trajan]

33. Hey ... one out of three ain't bad, right?

So, given that 3 astronauts might occupy a manned flight - they only lost three of nine ...

[MH1]

69. OSC has been in the space business for years. But this isn't their first launch failure.

If I heard it correctly on NPR it is at least their third.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences_Corporation

[Trajan]

71. Understood ... I've actually worked with them before

In the godforsaken place known as Palmdale Space ...

My point was - private operators tend to understate the difficulties ... it's when we lose vehicles that it seems to get everybody's attention ...

[longship]

6. NOT a NASA rocket. It was Orbital Sciences Corp. rocket.

Failures are expected on these things, occasionally. But one would hope that the company should have their shit together before committing to an ISS resupply launch. We'll have to see what went wrong.

[ga_girl]

30. this was orb-3 resupply

Both orb-1 and orb-2 were successful in launch, rendevous, berthing, on ISS ops, unberthing, re-entry to planned destruction. There was also a demonstration flight to ISS, orb-1d. Three successful ISS resupply flights before the failure.

[Ykcutnek]

7. The privatization of space exploration just literally blew up in our faces. nt

[Neurotica]

19. So there has never been a launch failure before...?

The space business is inherently risky and everyone who works in the industry knows this and accepts it.

[jtuck004]

36. It's the privatization thing some of us wish would blow up. Prefer this be done by the

people. The best things are, imo.

Don't really care for Space, Inc. (I know, nuance...etc.) Still, I think "our astronauts" do better at inspiring people to reach than "their employees" will.

But I'm old, and I talk with ponies.

[BlueEye]

38. To be fair...

NASA (as in the public sector NASA) has had numerous failures of it's own, and has killed at least 17 astronauts that I can think off. (Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia). Rocketry is extremely risky work, no matter who is doing it. Doesn't matter if we're talking about privatized companies, or the 100% state controlled Soviet Union (they were VERY good at exploding rockets).

[jtuck004]

64. " Doesn't matter if we're talking about " < Actually, it does. Because those deaths and failures

were in the service of the country, not a search for profit.

Big fucking difference.

[BlueEye]

66. The astronauts who will ride to the ISS on privately built rockets

in the coming years... Are they not serving their country? If, god forbid, should they die, did they die solely in the search of profit?

No, they will not have. These astronauts are serving their country and taking risks for the betterment of humanity, regardless of whether they rode to orbit aboard the Shuttle (built by Rockwell Collins, a corporation) or the SpaceX Falcon 9 (also built by a corporation.

[jtuck004]

67. No, and fuck no. They are contracting to, selling their services. Street corner or governement

contractor is very similar, though the people who work on street corners most often demonstrate a better sense of humanity and moral values than ANY government contractor.

Done by the people all the losses and profits accrue to US, not some loathsome contractor. It is a company, they do it for profit. No profit they shut the doors. Astronauts stuck in space? Too bad. Maybe get a bailout from...the taxpayers.

Argument over.

Not meant to be disrespectful to you - him I don't care about - but you aren't like related to Ronald Reagan, are you? Sounds just like the things he said as he fucked over the country with the help of the people.

[BlueEye]

70. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. You clearly know very little about the CCDev program...

Or NASA in general.

Those astronauts that will be going to space on private rockets work for NASA. Once they get to orbit, they will board the International Space Station, which is certainly not privately owned/operated. We the taxpayers are paying private companies to do these simple space taxi operations while NASA can concentrate on bigger missions, like deep space exploration and eventually Mars. This is a far better allocation of resources than the Shuttle program, which was a money drain. I can not think of anybody at NASA (which is filled with liberals/Democrats, btw) that doesn't support this arrangement. Let the private sector do the mundane stuff, while NASA does the "big" stuff that will ultimately be remembered. Space Launch System is public-sector NASA, not CCDev like the Orbital Sciences and SpaceX rockets.

And what the hell are you even saying about profits and losses? This is how NASA has ALWAYS worked. NASA sets an objective. NASA's engineers then issue an RFP for rocket/vehicle/supporting equipment, which the private sector responds to. After procurement is complete, NASA engineers and contractor engineers work together, and the program is executed. The astronauts always work for NASA, although many astronauts have been employed at contractors firms of course.

In the end, the contracts make huge profits, NASA achieves wonderful scientific progress, and thousands of jobs are created in the process. This is how NASA worked from day one.

The private companies will leave astronauts to die??? LOL, that's a stupid argument, and is totally false. You realize the companies are required to have contingencies, or else NASA can terminate their contract, right?

And then you delve into an ad hominem argument comparing me to Reagan. Nice.

[Neurotica]

39. In general, I'm not a big fan of privatization of government functions, but the commercialization of

space is starting to demonstrate economic growth: it's opening doors for startup companies with new innovations and it's creating a lot of jobs. Unlike other privatization efforts, costs have actually come down, making access to space more affordable. And NASA supports these commercial companies and understands the value. Some aspects of space clearly belong with NASA, but others can be done more effectively by private companies (as has always been done since the beginning of the space race).

Orbital is a good company. I worked there. My husband worked there. We have many friends and former colleagues there. There are incredibly smart people there who work incredibly hard to help bring SCIENCE missions into being and benefit humanity.

[jtuck004]

65. "it's creating a lot of jobs." < so did slavery. That's a sad excuse for privatization, something.

that has cause us as Americans to be poorer and less safe.

Just because someone on a plantation get's paid, doesn't mean they aren't part of something really bad. The great things we have done were done as a country, not some thieving private business.

[BlueEye]

72. Thank you for sharing that.

I have a relative on the NASA side in procurement. She routinely works with SpaceX, Boeing, and Orbital on CCDev projects, and has nothing but good things to say. She is very supportive of NASA's current approach, letting commercial entities do the LEO flights, freeing up resources for NASA to explore deep space.

Ignore Jtuck004. To suggest that anybody working at a for-profit entity is actually enslaved is an insane notion, and is actually offensive to the memory of people who suffered under real slavery.

[Neurotica]

74. That's nice to hear

And thank you for your post #70 that explains accurately and in great detail how NASA and private companies work together to execute space/science missions. (I'm too aggravated at this point to try to correct people's misconceptions…)

[MADem]

50. Yes, I have mixed emotions, too.

Good exchange of views in this thread. I hope that however we progress, that we actually see some progress. It bothers me that we have no transport to the ISS and have to rely on Vlad for a ride.

[Orsino]

57. And any review of what went wrong...

...will be called proprietary, or a trade secret, so we will never learn what is geing done to improve the likelihood of our next contracted lift's succeeding.

[Neurotica]

77. Not true. We will know the findings of the Failure Review Board

Once the investigation is complete.

[joshcryer]

25. Outsourcing, really.

Those Russian engines.

[happyslug]

37. The last report I read, said the Russia rockets were better then US Rockets

The reason behind that was simple, during the "Space Race" of the 1960s, the Russians kept pushing their designs to the furthest they could be pushed, while the US took the position of designing something new, the Apollo and Saturn V Rockets. The net result was the US "won" the race to the moon and the Russian realized they had to go back a start fresh.

The next step for the US was the Space Shuttle but between it and cuts in NASA budgets, basic research on how to build rockets was cut back to almost zero. On the other hand, the Soviets went all out to develop new rockets, at first to catch up with the US, then to just design better rockets.

By the 1990s, these two trends had produced a situation that exists to this day. The US has by far the better electronic technology, but when it comes to basic rocket design, the Russians are clearly #1. Given the end of the Cold War NASA soon saw it was cheaper to buy Russian Rockets then to buy what was by then inferior US Rockets. NASA kept the Space Shuttle going way beyond its life expectancy and turned to Russia when it came to actual Rockets to fire into Space.

Do to the end of the Cold War, Russia Rocket Scientists jumped at the chance to stay employed and off the bread lines and catered to NASA and to a limited degree the US Air Force (Through it was clear the US Air Force did not want to use Russian Rockets to launch their satellites but it was also clear the US Air Force would get their rocket suppliers to buy Russian Rocket engines so to minimize costs). Thus after 2000 more and more US Rockets started to use Russian Rockets as their first Stage.

For Example the Atlas V rocket (An all new rockets with traces its design to both the Atlas I and Titan I Rockets of the 1960s), The Atlas V uses a Russian Rocket, the RD-180 as its first stage. There has been only one failure in 49 launches since 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V

The other main Air Force Launch vehicle the Delta V has had 27 launches since 2002 with only 1 failure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV

The Soyuz-FG has been in use since 2001, it has had 46 successful launches out of 46 attempts (i.e. NO failures).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz-FG

It is being replaced by the newer Soyuz 2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz-2_(rocket)

The Soyuz series of launchers (Staring in 1966 till today) has been launched 1740 times and is considered the most reliable rocket today. Mostly do to upgrades since 1966 when it was viewed as a stop gap till a moon rocket could be developed (but never was).

[joshcryer]

45. The NK-33s were last built in the 70s.

We're talking almost 45 year old rocket engines.

The entire design of the Antares is to make a cheap rocket with antiquated rocket engines, heck, the second stage is a solid rocket engine!

Yes, absolutely, they were retrofitted and "upgraded" you could say, but the launch shows that nearly 45 years of age is going to result in something you can't plan around.

It doesn't help that the engine is being half-built/operated by a Ukrainian company (and who knows how the conflict there is affecting the build out).

I'm not trying to detract from Russian historical involvement in engine design, I believe that we were actually astonished when we discovered how far ahead of us they were. I am arguing that the current state of our programs is to outsource to Russia to save money, not because somehow magically Russia's exported engines are better. We know how they work and we can make them ourselves (the RS-68 is almost a copied hybrid design).

SpaceX's Falcon shows what an American company can do, for 2x-4x as cheap.

[RobinA]

51. As A Child

of the '60's and '70's who grew up watching Gemini and Apollo, and one who lived near a major GE Aerospace facility, going to a high school filled with their kids, I could just cry.

[GGJohn]

31. NASA has had their share of spectacular failures.

In the early days of space exploration, plus the tragedy of Apollo 1, Apollo 13, Space Shuttle's Challenger, Columbia.

There is always going to be failures when dealing with such complex machines.

[LeftInTX]

48. Saw a few unmanned NASA launches blow up in California

Emphasis is on unmanned. Happened several times over a period of 2 and 1/2 yrs that I lived there.

[kentauros]

54. Contrary to popular belief,

NASA doesn't actually build anything, other than some research equipment for other (and smaller) projects. Everything associated with the space program vehicles and controlling equipment is contracted out, i.e., private corporations. NASA is more of an overseer agency, with some research on the side (research is a large portion of their budget, again contrary to popular belief and knowledge.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. VIDEO: NASA rocket bound for International Space Station explodes after launch

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/video-nasa-rocket-bound-for-international-space-station-explodes-after-launch/

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. Ooooooooooh ahhhhhhhhhhhhh

[tom_kelly]

16. That blowed up real good n/t

[C Moon]

20. Looks like a lot of debris shot out. I hope no one was injured.

[Helen Borg]

10. Wow, these rockets still explode in mid air...

Wonder what went wrong...

[Thor_MN]

13. Still? Accidents happen, parts fail.

Mid air is where they are going to explode, when they do.

[Helen Borg]

46. I expect cheap, mass produced devices to fail

Not expensive, mission critical equipment that should have redundancies built into the system. Or at least good diagnostics to catch the problem in advance

[Thor_MN]

52. One can not plan for every failure

And a given rocket is limited in ability to create redundancies. If space flight were easy, we would be vacationing in orbit. Hell, I have been alive for the entire existence of manned space flight, you expect them to absolutely perfect having tons of oxidizer and fuel in close proximity in a system light enough to send into orbit?

If it is so simple, why don't you supply them with YOUR design?

There is a redundant, replacement supply rocket that will lift off (next week?) from Russia. So they have your redundancies covered. And just for they record, the rocket that blew up was a private, for profit, endeavor. You want cheap, mass produced devices, privatize the industry.

[Helen Borg]

56. If I were in charge, there would be no failures. Haha!

[Thor_MN]

58. I belive there may be some openings at the company once they figure out what went wrong

May you should apply, instead of just complain?

[Helen Borg]

63. I already have a technology job... I may, otherwise...

[Thor_MN]

68. I'm sure you have never had anything not work perfectly at your job

Your mistakes likely don't cause huge fireballs, but anyone who claims they have never made a mistake at work is quite simply a liar.

[Helen Borg]

73. Haha! Yeah, mistakes that don't cause expensive rockets to blow up are ok.

[Thor_MN]

75. That doesn't even make sense.

So I assume that you have run out of ways to justify your complaining about things that you couldn't begin to attempt yourself.

[Helen Borg]

76. You are free to make whatever assumptions you like, obviously.

[Thor_MN]

78. Already have figured out that you don't know much about technology

and like to complain of thing you don't know about.

[dballance]

21. Wow, we still have product recalls?

NASA's record is a lot better than GM's and a lot of other companies. Companies from baby buggies to microwaves.

[marzipanni]

12. Orbital Sciences links

http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/MissionUpdates/Orb-3/

About the Orb-3 Mission

<snip>
The Orb-3 mission represents the fifth launch of the company’s Antares rocket in its first 18 months of operations. It will also be the fourth cargo delivery mission to the ISS by a Cygnus spacecraft, including the 2013 demonstration flight. For Orb-3, Orbital will deliver its largest load of cargo to date, carrying approximately 5,050 pounds (2,290 kilograms) of cargo to the ISS for NASA. At the conclusion of the Orb-3 mission, the company will have carried a total of 13,378 pounds (6,078 kilograms) of essential supplies, equipment and scientific experiments to the ISS and will have removed 13,444 pounds (6,097 kilograms) of disposal cargo, a vital capability for the maintenance and operation of the Station.

[Blue_Tires]

14. List of lost cargo:

[progressoid]

35. damn.

[KinMd]

22. They're going to blame Obama..bet on it....

conveniently forgetting who was in the White House during the two space shuttle disasters.

[gvstn]

29. I saw this tongue in cheek comment over on Gawker.

OMG!Ponies! brilliantly summed up the tomorrow's GOP response today.

I blame Obama for this.

When Reagan was in office, we blew up a half-dozen astronauts. When Bush was in office, we blew up another half-dozen.

If there was a Republican in office, one thing was for certain:

We'd be blowing up astronauts!

But instead, we're dicking around, just blowing up empty goddamn rockets. Well that ain't no kind of America that I want to live in. Our space program was founded on blowing up astronauts. The first Apollo mission blew up astronauts. Two space shuttles blew up astronauts. It's what we do best.

Enough of this Democrat pussyfooting around! Let's get back to manned missions designed to blow people up!

[BlueEye]

40. Hahaha...

As sick as that is, I laughed pretty hard when I pictured some GOP idiot saying it angrily on Faux News

[KinMd]

23. Former astronaurt Mark Kelly..

(Gabby Giffords husband) said on CNN said the crypto equipment wouldn't be military or weapons

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. "crypto equipment" sounds like a cloaking device (nt)

[Fred Sanders]

27. There were computers in the inventory, must have had some super secret security hardware or

software?

[kentauros]

55. Thought I had just now

is that it could have been some kind of hacking-prevention. Because the last thing you want are people hacking into the controller systems of the ISS. There's likely enough redundancy built in to prevent anything disastrous from happening, but you still don't want anyone but authorized people to have access.

[Fred Sanders]

26. All time space launches and failures, via table:

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logsum.html

The Atlas Able was not so able, 0 for 3 before being scrubbed.

[krispos42]

28. Uh-oh

My small company makes parts that are used by aerospace companies in one way or another.

I hope it wasn't our fault! :-\

[SCVDem]

32. What happened to the

escape rocket we used to have on top of the capsule to get it out if things go sideways?

We couldn't use it for the Shuttle but since we're going back to the manned capsule, it may be something to think about.

[bananas]

49. This was cargo, which doesn't use it.

It's cheaper to insure the cargo and do-over.

For people, launch escape systems are required (also called launch abort system).

[BootinUp]

34. This is what happens when

knowledge previously learned is sent through the privatization capitalist mill.

[Neurotica]

41. Really? I don't even know how to respond to that.

NASA has always worked hand-in-hand with industry.

[BootinUp]

42. Yes. Really!

[BootinUp]

43. So you think that 50-60 years we shouldn't have learned

how to design rockets?

[Neurotica]

44. Like other technologies, rockets have evolved over time to become more efficient.

That's why today we are not using the same rockets we used at the beginning of the space age.

Failures happen. It doesn't matter who's at the helm. It's a fact of life in this business, although that doesn't make what happened today any better.

It's a heartbreaking day for everyone involved in the space industry.

[Major Hogwash]

47. Is Mitt Romney's Bain Capitol involved with this particular rocket?

Stay tuned, because you're right on the money about how bad the private companies screw up technical stuff like this all the time!!

[Feral Child]

53. K&R n/t

[malthaussen]

59. Wonder if it was insured.

Does Lloyd's still underwrite anything?

-- Mal

[KinMd]

60. The rocket had old Russian engines..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/29/antares-rocket-explosion-the-question-of-using-decades-old-soviet-engines/

[lovuian]

61. Bush and the Republicans are responsible

as well as the Republican Congress retiring the Shuttle without any other back up except Russia
The agenda of America not educating our children is showing folks

the issue is WHY are we using RUSSIAN engines from the 60's
Why aren't we using our OWN engines because we don't have any

[KinMd]

62. And the engines were junk when they were new...

I guessing if we moved some money from defense to NASA...We'd still be pretty secure