Cubesat Launch Ends in Failure 122
Change writes "The CalPoly Cubesat group's launch yesterday has been a failure. It seems the first stage did not separate from the Dnepr rocket properly, and the vehicle crashed about 25km south of the launch site. More will be known when the debris is recovered and analyzed. A second launch is still in the works, but the loss of the 14 satellites from this launch is an unfortunate end to quite a lot of hard work of many engineering students."
The Rules (When the BFH does not apply) (Score:3, Insightful)
Thou Shalt Make Backups
Failing Rule Number 1... [slobrews.com]
there goes my chance to see if in space they really can hear you scream
Re:The Rules (When the BFH does not apply) (Score:1)
"Cubesat" (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry.
Re:"Cubesat" - spaceballs! (Score:1)
Re:"Cubesat" (Score:1)
Cubeless stupid! Harmonic simultaneous Time Cubesat [timecube.com] is Omnific, Infinite, Ineffable and ON DUTY. Russian Dneper denies reality of Time Cube, meets firey doom at hands of Cubic GOD!
Re:"Cubesat" (Score:1)
Re:"Cubesat" (Score:1)
Re:"Cubesat" (Score:2)
Wrong Vehicle! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wrong Vehicle! (Score:2)
Re:Wrong Vehicle! (Score:1)
Re:Wrong Vehicle! (Score:2)
And so was the football team,
and so was the motorcycle,
and so was the rocket.
A student project that worked! (Score:2)
http://www.azinet.com/starshine/ [azinet.com]
Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:5, Funny)
Makes you wonder how much of the aging Soviet and US nuclear missile arsenal actually works :) I have this picture of WWIII breaking out and both the US and Russia push the button only to be incinerated by their own missiles as they fall from the sky 20 yards from the launch site :)
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:3, Informative)
"The failed launch attempt comes two weeks after a successful Dnepr launch from Russia's Yasny Launch Base, an active strategic missile facility.
That July 12 liftoff carried the U.S. spacecraft Genesis-1, an inflatable module developed by Las Vegas, Nevada's Bigelow Aerospace as a prototype for future orbital space habitats. Genesis-1 continues to do well, relaying telemetry and images from orbit."
Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:2)
Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:1)
Leave them on, and just "miss" by a little bit and you solve a lot of problems.
Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:2)
Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:2)
Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:3, Funny)
One of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "Well Mr. President, the way I see it we have two options. On one hand we can replace the boosters with new ones, but that is both dangerous and extremely expensive. On the other hand, we can start a nuclear war by August 17th when they expire."
Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:2)
That was done as a move to save money. In the end, the missiles required so much modification to transform them from ICBMs into launchers that it
Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:2)
Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:5, Interesting)
Contrary to popular belief (and Hollywood movies) one doesn't just drop a nuclear warhead or "blow it up" and get a mushroom cloud. Thinking about these sorts of problems has been going on since at least 1960. Read up on the NIKE system [nikemissile.org] (no, not the shoes) for a bit of history on air defense guided missile systems.
An exceprt on the guidance system:
There are numerous layers of logic like this that are designed just for the issue you bring up. Clearly an ICBM should have enough smarts to know that it hasn't left reached it's target if it is only 20 yards from the launch site and the onboard altimiter never reached a height of over 200 feet.
Take a look at those links. I think you'll find the history of these systems very interesting. Since some of the technology is rather old, it is somewhat easier to understand (think of modifying a transistor radio versus an iPod full of SMT parts).
Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... (Score:3, Informative)
The Navy even more so than the USAF. The Navy will actually call in a SSBN from patrol occasionally. The warheads on one or more missiles will be removed and replaced with ballast. (No other modification is made to the missile, and the only operational interfac
Oops (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oops (Score:2)
You tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try. - Homer Simpson
Re:Oops (Score:1)
More than 14 satellites were lost. (Score:4, Informative)
Economic value and scales (Score:2)
More questions: Is the cost of the "lost" satellites enough to justify the loss of confidence in future launches and potential revenue that could be made from them?
Yet another question: Is the crashing of rockets and the loss of entire payloads common?
Russian luanch failure rate? (Score:2, Interesting)
Its got to be pretty damned high.
Re:Russian luanch failure rate? (Score:1)
Re:Russian luanch failure rate? (Score:1)
On a comment about a Russian launch faulure asking about the failure rate is random and trolling.
There have been a number of launch failures on smaller projects (The planetary societies Solar Sail experiment for instance) over the last few years.
I am open to the idea that its a mis-perception because we dont hear about success, but dont just bash me for trolling and then throw out an unsobsantiated statement to disprove my question.
Point me to a source that has the numbers.
Re:Russian luanch failure rate? (Score:2)
Re:Russian luanch failure rate? (Score:1)
from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll [wikipedia.org]) "In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls."
Just because I make a statement that I expect the answer to my question to show a cer
Re:Russian launch failure rate? (Score:2)
Re:Russian luanch failure rate? (Score:2)
Overall the Russian failure rate is about the same percent the US (and the ESA for that matter) - roughly 2%.
Re:Russian luanch failure rate? (Score:1)
Re:Let Me Get This Straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw a graphic of launch insurance costs for commercial satellites a few months ago, the costs are really spiralling out of control. But until we have a space elevator or anti-gravity, riding an explosion of chemicals to orbit is the best system we got.
Re:Let Me Get This Straight... (Score:2)
Or have a bunch of launch engineers gather around meditating, and mentally levitate the payload into orbit. A similar probability of happening
All kidding aside, what ARE we supposed to do to get stuff into orbit more efficiently/effectively/inexpensively in the medium term? Because I don't see space elevators happening for a long, long time, if ever. And anti-gravity is a pipe-dream.
Re:Cal Poly SLO (Score:1)
Re:Cal Poly SLO (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cal Poly SLO (Score:2)
Re:Cal Poly SLO (Score:2)
Re:Cal Poly SLO (Score:1)
Re:Cal Poly SLO (Score:2)
Anyone want to take a gander at why the Rose Float engineering committee for the Cal Polys is always waiting on the "SLOw" guys to respond?
It all has to do with high schoolers picking out colleges: "I want to go to a school that sounds sciency, but is actually a party school"
"Well, you might want to consider Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. It has the same name as the real engineering school out in Pomona, but has a real party school feel to it. And, right down the road
Re:Cal Poly SLO (Score:1)
The real engineering school that's 27 spots lower on the list, that is.
Re:Cal Poly SLO (Score:1)
CPSLO was the first. It continues to consistently outrank Pomona in nearly every discipline. It also continues to outrank Pomona in starti
Cube Status Report (Score:4, Funny)
Cubesat: below ground
Spongebob's Pants: merely square
Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, decreasing worry would be the desired outcome of my suggestion.
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:2)
Why not set the good example? And BTW, you spelled "usefull" wrong. (Are your eyes working today?)
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:2)
I am not a rocket scientist, but I imagine if you were to implement your vision, I think the rocket would be too heavy.
Sounds expensive (Score:2)
Weight which people who use 2nd hand ICBMs as launch veichles can't afford.
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:1)
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, while losing a payload sucks, it doesn't justify the weight and monetary cost of a payload recovery system and the infrastructure required to go get said payload wherever it lands. The satellite itself would end up needing to be a much more robust design to survive the dynamic environment of an ascent abort.
It's all a numbers game - with the worldwide launch success rate around 97%-98%, it's simpler/cheaper simply to buy the insurance or eat the loss.
Many of these less proven launch systems (such as Dnepr, Falcon) have given very inexpensive rides to orbit to help establish a track record while they work out development issues. The track record is important, because an established launch record helps lower the insurance premium, which is a very large fraction of launch costs to commercial customers. That's why you see a lot of student projects (which are done on the cheap, and usually are uninsured) blowing up.
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:2)
I was under the impression that no one was willing to insure payloads because the risk was too high.
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:2)
I was under the impression that no one was willing to insure payloads because the risk was too high.
It's all about the numbers. If the premium is high enough, you will find underwriters. The more risk, the more the premium. In the satellite business, the premium for insuring the launch, successful activation, and on-orbit lifetime can be a big portion of the overall budget. For a very expensive commercial satellite (think the billion+ Boeing 701s, like the XM satellites and DirecTV), it can be over 100
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:2)
It seems like every time a rocket blows up or fails to launch the payload is lost. Why? It keeps happening, and the payloads keep being destroyed. Failsafes to prevent this need to be in place. I envision a payload pod with tripple redundant explosive release mechanisms, and capable of re-entering the atmosphere from orbit. I'd love to just once hear: "rocket blows up, payload recovered, re-launch expected after payload is tested and re-certified."
There's only so much redundancy that's feasible when you
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:2)
Cheaper to just build cheap rockets and expect a certain number to fail.
Failure rate will never be zero, it will only get smaller.
At some point it isn't worth it to pay for the next level in reliability.
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:2)
They got what they paid for (Score:2)
It comes down to cost. The mass fraction these small rocket
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:3, Interesting)
In 1984, two communications satellites that had been left in low parking orbits after booster failures were recovered during a Space Shuttle mission (STS-51A). [spacenet.on.ca] However, after the Challenger accident the Space Shuttle was permanently taken out of the commerical satellite launch and recovery business for fairly obvious reasons. The reason you don't hear about payloads recovered from the failure of single use launchers is that it would cost far m
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:2)
In the case of the rocket motor blowing up of its own accord (as opposed to destroyed by launch safety control), there wouldn't be anything you can do. The whole thing just goes BOOM! (not boom, BOOM!) with little warning. A medium sized Delta II rocket that exploded a few hundred meters above the pad in 1997 damaged the pad and destroyed some equipment on the ground. Google it, videos are spectacular
Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. (Score:1)
The only reasonable options are first try really hard
Re:Good. (Score:2)
I am an Engineering student, and I resent your anonymous, cowardly and entirely unsubstantiated remark.
I'm sure it's only you who find optimistic and naive people annoying!
This is a good lesson (Score:1)
This is hard way to learn a lesson (Score:1)
But losing 18 satellites is insane.They should have tried it with fewer satellites.
It's obvious (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's obvious (Score:2)
wmv3? again? (Score:2)
OK, I'm just whining.
Re:wmv3? again? (Score:1)
Cubesat = more space junk (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I really want my own cubesat.
Re:Cubesat = more space junk (Score:1)
It does seem a lil sloppy to pack a rocket with soon to be spacejunk. Whatever happened to making a volcano for Science Fair?
Re:Cubesat = more space junk (Score:1)
It is already a problem. Depending on who you talk to, there are something like 10000 objects in orbit already. (I guess it depends on what size thing you're worried about)
I guess finding "launch windows" is less and less about orbital mechanics and more like merging onto a freeway at rush hour.
Re:Cubesat = more space junk (Score:1)
Re:Cubesat = more space junk (Score:1)
If only... (Score:1)
14 sats? no wonder it failed.... (Score:1)
http://www.nickscipio.com/funstuff/archive1/image
What a great ending for your thesis. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What a great ending for your thesis. (Score:2)