NASA rocket launch from California fails

[maddezmom]

Source: cfnews13

ORLANDO --
NASA has reported a major malfunction on board a rocket the agency launched from California early Friday morning.

The Taurus rocket was carrying a new multimillion-dollar satellite into orbit to study climate.

But shortly after the rocket blasted off from Vandenberg Air Force Base at 5:09 a.m. EST Friday, NASA said the rocket's nose cone did not detach as planned.

The failure means the rocket did not build up enough velocity to get into orbit.



Read more: http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/march/214534/NASA-rocket-launch-from-California-fails

[SkyDaddy7]

1. That was one thing I loved...

When I was stationed there was watching all the various rocket & missile launches...Sorry this one was a dude but it happens.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

28. You sure it wasn't a dudette?

:rofl:

[SkyDaddy7]

29. LOL! You got me!

I was wondering "WTF?" then I noticed it!

[howard112211]

2. That's one expensive firecracker.

But at least it was for science. The military loses that much money in the couch all the time.

[Kolesar]

3. The spy satellite program is way overfunded

but it keeps Boeing rolling in cash, so Congress gives the CIA whatever the lobbyists want.

[jimlup]

4. The loss of money is shame but...

There real concern is the loss of the science.

[Neurotica]

8. So true...those programs take many years to develop and

there's no way to easily make up for a loss like that.

I'm sure the principal investigator and the whole science team are just devastated.

[boppers]

5. This isn't rocket science folks...

Oh wait, it is.

Time to de-fund NASA until they start hiring folks who know what they're doing.

[greiner3]

6. I believe they have many, many people who do;

'Know what they're doing.' While human knowledge is growing by leaps and bounds mechanical failure still happens. As noted below, failure is a great way to advance knowledge as it shows flaws. The flaws can be repaired/redesigned and the next time the rocket is fired it will probably work as planned. This is of course humans still follow the axiom "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

I believe this is also a lesson in history. If a force is powerful to change the true lesson of history, read Fox News and religions, then humanity does not know from generation to generation what did not work and can't truly adapt circumstances to the problem at hand to improve the situation. War is the best example I can offer.

[boppers]

18. The definition of insanity is...

... sending up an expensive failed rocket system *twice*, with payloads, without having a working fairing explosives system.

I suppose they could keep destroying satellites until they get it right, on the off chance that they'll find something that works.

[neverforget]

22. They have more successful launches than failures

Article about space launches between 1957 and 1999
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2001/03.html

[Trajan]

26. Orbital Sciences has lost 3 of their last 4 launches ...

The previous loss was for the same precise reason.

A recent history of 25% success is hardly worth crowing about ....

Elon Musk had better do his math here as well .... People aren't going to tolerate 25% of astronauts returning from missions ....

[neverforget]

27. Orbital Sciences has problems. NASA overall doesn't with the launches.

OS needs to be given the heave ho but that doesn't mean NASA should stop launching rockets.

[jberryhill]

7. Spoken like someone who definitely doesn't.

[Neurotica]

10. These folks do know what they're doing. Failures happen.

It's a fact of life in the aerospace industry. You can't do a recall once the rocket launches. And even though the type of failure seems to be similar to the one that occurred on the previous launch of this particular vehicle, the cause could be and most likely will be something entirely different.

Having previously worked with people involved in this mission and in others, I can tell you that they are an extremely intelligent, dedicated group of professionals.

They are just as devastated as the NASA science team at the loss of this mission.

[WatsonT]

12. An occasional failure proves they don't know what they're doing?

And how would de-funding lead to hiring better people?

That's like saying we should de-fund the entire school system in the US because of some failing schools and only give them their money back once they turn things around.

[catzies]

33. off-topic: my late father, a NOAA employee, bemoaned NASA's funding levels

and wished NOAA's departments like the National Marine Fisheries Service (where he worked) received respect/support/funding like NASA does.

He'd say, "We know more about outer space than our own oceans!"

Now, back to your regulary scheduled topic. ;)

[boppers]

34. "We know more about outer space than our own oceans!"

True that, but interestingly enough, this launch was to study terrestrial phenomena... I'm guessing people realized that one way to get funding/support was to attach their work to NASA.

[woo me with science]

9. Every time I see a story about NASA, it just makes me sad.

The loss of manned space flight is a huge loss for America.

[Exultant Democracy]

32. I agree.

[tabatha]

11. More details ...

http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?nid=50242

A shroud malfunction 300 seconds into the launch has been identified as the primary cause as the rocket's ascent began to slow down before reaching orbit altitude.

The three CubeSats were designed and built by students from Montana State University, University of Kentucky and the University of Colorado.

[Ratty]

13. What? No conspiracy theories?

This is the second launch of a satellite whose data would be used to study aspects of global warming to have failed. No theories about oil company sabotage? No photoshops of Inhoffe up on the rocket ripping out pieces of the nose cone? C'mon people. You guys can do better than that!

[joshcryer]

14. I think there's an underlying psychological element, the engineers dropped the ball.

Not intentionally, mind you, but they knew what the satellite was going to be and they just lacked oversight. Frankly if there was anyone involved in either project they need to be fired.

Engineers tend to be global warming deniers.

[waddirum]

36. ?

"Engineers tend to be global warming deniers."

Where does that come from? I'm an engineer and worked in a pretty large firm. I didn't encounter climate change deniers in my practice. I did find some who question the carbon cap and trade system of financial derivatives.

[tabatha]

15. According to this article,

"The rocket type, a Taurus XL, has failed before, most recently in a February 24, 2009 launch of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. The same problem occurred then – the external shell did not come away, making it impossible for the spacecraft to go into orbit.

Orbital Sciences Corporation, which makes the Taurus XL line of rockets, supposedly corrected a number of flaws in design found by NASA, including on the failed mechanism. NASA confirmed the fixes in October 2010."


http://www.independent.com/news/2011/mar/04/nasa-rocket-splashes-pacific/

Looks like Orbital Sciences Corporation dropped the ball.

[boppers]

19. "NASA confirmed the fixes in October 2010"

Plenty of blame to go around.

[tabatha]

23. Confirmed is not the same as tested.

[ReggieVeggie]

16. oh great, the climate studying satellite crashes

maybe there'll be another one to replace it before climate change is terminally irreversible

[joshcryer]

20. There will be an OCO-2 (launched on the same rocket!) but no idea about a Glory-2.

The government basically takes a hit when this happens, there's no real "insurance."

[KT2000]

17. Is double and triple backup

a thing of the past?
The early days of aircraft development included backups for most operations - the consequences of failure were all too real and everyghing was so new.

[joshcryer]

21. The failure is in a pyro triggered piston. I don't understand how it could fail.

Someone dropped the ball somewhere down the line.

[Neurotica]

24. This could be something as simple as a part failure.

All the testing in the world can't make up for a deficient part.

Edited to be more articulate: What I meant was a bad part as opposed to a design flaw.

[joshcryer]

30. But pyros are used for a reason, their failure rate is extraoridinarily low.

For two failures to happen on the same pyro design indicates a process failure somewhere. It could be as simple as someone forgetting to disengage the failsafe (you don't want pyros going off as people are attaching the fairing with the satellite, could kill someone).

[Neurotica]

31. Agreed that the failure doesn't look good. However,

I'll be curious to see what the failure analysis board finds.

With respect to your earlier comments about "underlying psychological element" and the engineers "knowing what the satellite would be" and "lacking oversight," your implications are astonishing and could not be further from the truth.

You can't paint such a large group of people in such a monolithic way. Engineers as a whole cannot be said to be "global warming deniers." Some are, but many aren't, just like the population as a whole. My husband is an engineer -- he is not a global warming denier.

What's more, design and testing processes for these products are rigorous. If they weren't, NASA and DoD would not subcontract to the company. Your comments surprise me given that you seem to have some knowledge of the aerospace industry.

[boppers]

35. "If they weren't, NASA and DoD would not subcontract...."

Oh my.

Really?

DoD:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/158250/pentagon-fraud-papers-contractors-defrauded-dod-were-rewarded-285-billion-new-contracts

NASA:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/former-nasa-climate-scientist-pleads-guilty-contract-fraud
http://fcir.org/2010/12/19/fraud-abuse-found-in-nasa-research-funding-to-small-companies/

Both have problems with crappy subcontractors.

[unkachuck]

25. fifty years....

....of building rockets and they still can't get it right....it must be that good American engineering and technology doing what it does best....maybe NASA could ask Russia or China how to build a rocket....or maybe NASA could borrow some working spare parts....

....it makes you wonder about all those nuclear tipped missiles we have; if they'll launch and where will they land? I'm beginning to believe we don't manufacture much in this country anymore because we can't....