Breaking: Unmanned rocket explodes on launch
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
(6,011 posts)herding cats
(19,558 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)When the time came and I didn't see anything, I thought the cloud cover was probably too thick...
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)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
(72,790 posts)Was all set to watch it last night but it got postponed.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)Hmm ... methinks that rocket launches are not quite as simple as some wish to believe ...
Neurotica
(609 posts)Previous ones were successful
Trajan
(19,089 posts)So, given that 3 astronauts might occupy a manned flight - they only lost three of nine ...
MH1
(17,573 posts)If I heard it correctly on NPR it is at least their third.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences_Corporation
Trajan
(19,089 posts)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
(40,416 posts)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
(183 posts)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
(1,305 posts)Neurotica
(609 posts)The space business is inherently risky and everyone who works in the industry knows this and accepts it.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)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
(449 posts)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
(15,882 posts)were in the service of the country, not a search for profit.
Big fucking difference.
BlueEye
(449 posts)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
(15,882 posts)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
(449 posts)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
(609 posts)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
(15,882 posts)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
(449 posts)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
(609 posts)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
(135,425 posts)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
(37,428 posts)...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
(609 posts)Once the investigation is complete.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Those Russian engines.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)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
(62,265 posts)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
(9,884 posts)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
(9,951 posts)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
(25,053 posts)Emphasis is on unmanned. Happened several times over a period of 2 and 1/2 yrs that I lived there.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)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
(101,258 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,308 posts)tom_kelly
(957 posts)C Moon
(12,207 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Wonder what went wrong...
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Mid air is where they are going to explode, when they do.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)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
(11,843 posts)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
(3,963 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)May you should apply, instead of just complain?
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)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
(3,963 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)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
(3,963 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)and like to complain of thing you don't know about.
dballance
(5,756 posts)NASA's record is a lot better than GM's and a lot of other companies. Companies from baby buggies to microwaves.
marzipanni
(6,011 posts)About the Orb-3 Mission
<snip>
The Orb-3 mission represents the fifth launch of the companys 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
(55,445 posts)progressoid
(49,919 posts)KinMd
(966 posts)conveniently forgetting who was in the White House during the two space shuttle disasters.
gvstn
(2,805 posts)OMG!Ponies! brilliantly summed up the tomorrow's GOP response today.
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!
As sick as that is, I laughed pretty hard when I pictured some GOP idiot saying it angrily on Faux News
KinMd
(966 posts)(Gabby Giffords husband) said on CNN said the crypto equipment wouldn't be military or weapons
muriel_volestrangler
(101,258 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)software?
kentauros
(29,414 posts)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
(23,946 posts)The Atlas Able was not so able, 0 for 3 before being scrubbed.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)My small company makes parts that are used by aerospace companies in one way or another.
I hope it wasn't our fault! :-\
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)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
(27,509 posts)It's cheaper to insure the cargo and do-over.
For people, launch escape systems are required (also called launch abort system).
BootinUp
(47,047 posts)knowledge previously learned is sent through the privatization capitalist mill.
Neurotica
(609 posts)NASA has always worked hand-in-hand with industry.
BootinUp
(47,047 posts)BootinUp
(47,047 posts)how to design rockets?
Neurotica
(609 posts)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
(17,656 posts)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
(2,086 posts)malthaussen
(17,175 posts)Does Lloyd's still underwrite anything?
-- Mal
KinMd
(966 posts)lovuian
(19,362 posts)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
(966 posts)I guessing if we moved some money from defense to NASA...We'd still be pretty secure