NASA Launch Failure

[Woo482]

so now they can monitor the Carbon in water near Antarctica ?




(just joking I am not that stupid)

 

[flying coffin]

RRDtool in the video?

Was that RRDTool graphs in the video? If so, that's very cool!

The Taurus really jumped off the pad. We need a TaurusXL add-on!
I'll make the RRDtool graphs when orbiter gets ported to linux

 

[SiberianTiger]

Let's not forget that JAXA's IBUKI mission that launched recently, is under way. It's equivalent in purpose to the lost satellite's. So, from the pure scientific standpoint, it was just a reduction in amount of data to process.

 

[tblaxland]

Let's not forget that JAXA's IBUKI mission that launched recently, is under way. It's equivalent in purpose to the lost satellite's. So, from the pure scientific standpoint, it was just a reduction in amount of data to process.

That is true. OCO had the advantage of being in the "A Train" so its data could be correlated with data from the other satellites.

 

[Andy44]

Well, they should've used a Craftsman satellite and launch vehicle. Then they could just fish it out of the water, take it back to Sears and get a new one.

 

[RisingFury]

Why the hell did they not use a Delta II to launch it?! It's got a 138/140 launch record, compared to 6/7 for TaurusXL (now 6/8). I mean, sure... spaceflight involves some risk, but you'd want your high value sat to be flown with as little risk as possible, no?

 

[MajorTom]

NASA had to switch to Craftsman tools when their toolbag got lost in orbit a few months ago...

 

[tblaxland]

Why the hell did they not use a Delta II to launch it?! It's got a 138/140 launch record, compared to 6/7 for TaurusXL (now 6/8). I mean, sure... spaceflight involves some risk, but you'd want your high value sat to be flown with as little risk as possible, no?

Delta II would've been quite an overkill for a 450kg payload, no?

 

[Zatnikitelman]

Yea, unfortunately, except for Orbital Science's small roster (Taurus, Minotaur, Pegasus) and now SpaceX's Falcon 1 there are no real small American launchers.

 

[RisingFury]

Blah... too bad they couldn't find some extra payloads to send up there and increase the mass that way.

Doesn't matter how you try to excuse it, this loss sucks big time.

 

[cljohnston]

I must be a jinx: That was the first launch from Vandenberg I ever got to see from the beginning from my rooftop (in Hollywood)!
Usually, I'll catch 'em after the fact when the launch is after sunset and I'm out & about on the street, when the twisting irridescent smoke trail catches my attention.
I get the launch alert emails from Brian Webb, but they're usually DoD payloads, so you only get a 4-6 hour window.
This time I was up on my roof at 1:55:30 PST and got to see it rise from behind the building across the street.
Sweet!
(Funny, though: It look like a laser dot, with no long tail of flame that I've come to expect.)

 

[JamesG]

Delta II would've been quite an overkill for a 450kg payload, no?

Apparently not. It would have have had the Delta V to get to orbit. Fairing, upper stage, and all. Then they might have figured out a way to get the fairing off.

Oh well, the expense of a sat designed to prove global warming was a waste of money IMO anyway.

 

[Spicer]

Well said James G. I agree with you! I'm a non-believer in the issue that the OCO was meant to detect. I think the greenhouse effect is a bunch of hooey created by the same people who insist that we all eat organic foods.

One thing I don't get was that since the fairing didn't release, why would that cause it not to reach orbit? Was it the additional weight from the fairing? I imagine that the launch algorhythm didnt' take into consideration the extra weight from the fairing.

 

[DaveS]

One thing I don't get was that since the fairing didn't release, why would that cause it not to reach orbit? Was it the additional weight from the fairing?

Yes. the Taurus was never designed to inject the dead-mass of the fairing into orbit, as well as a heavy payload. The combined mass of OCO and the fairing was beyond what the Taurus was capable of placing into orbit.

 

[simonpro]

One thing I don't get was that since the fairing didn't release, why would that cause it not to reach orbit? Was it the additional weight from the fairing? I imagine that the launch algorhythm didnt' take into consideration the extra weight from the fairing.

Because of Newton's law. Extra mass reduces acceleration, as well as maximum kinetic energy, and that means the rocket doesn't have enough power to place the satellite into orbit.
The guidance algorithm can't compensate for a rocket not being powerful enough, that's against the laws of physics.

 

[tblaxland]

Apparently not. It would have have had the Delta V to get to orbit. Fairing, upper stage, and all. Then they might have figured out a way to get the fairing off.

I'm not sure how much tongue-in-cheek your post contains, but I'll respond anyway. Abort-to-orbit scenarios are generally not required to be considered in planning unmanned missions. I very much doubt the cost could be justified given the probabilities of fairing separation failure being so low.

Oh well, the expense of a sat designed to prove global warming was a waste of money IMO anyway.

OCO was not designed to prove global warming. Its goal is to gain a better understanding of CO2 regulation in the atmosphere. From the mission page:

...the processes that regulate the exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere, the oceans, and the biosphere are not completely understood...
...measurements will be combined with data from the ground-based network to provide scientists with the information that they will need to better understand the processes that regulate atmospheric CO2 and its role in the carbon cycle. This enhanced understanding is essential to improve predictions of future atmospheric CO2 increases and their impact on the climate.

 

[RisingFury]

Oh well, the expense of a sat designed to prove global warming was a waste of money IMO anyway.

That's because you and so many people believe that science always thinks it's correct. Far from it. Any result that would have been obtained from the OCO would have been good. Doesn't matter if it proved GW or disproved it, at least the answer would have been definitive.

 

[Andy44]

What's with the global warming crap all over the board lately? Can't we all just get along?

"ignorant, bigoted and misinformed"

 

[JamesG]

Abort-to-orbit scenarios are generally not required to be considered in planning unmanned missions. I very much doubt the cost could be justified given the probabilities of fairing separation failure being so low.

Not quite low enough... Given the expense of the payload, the lift vehicle, and the associated development and launch costs, its a case of "penny wise, pound foolish".

OCO was not designed to prove global warming. Its goal is to gain a better understanding of CO2 regulation in the atmosphere. From the mission page:

But when you read between the lines and the politics behind how NASA missions get funded, this project designed expressly with a pre-convieved outcome in mind.

Doesn't matter if it proved GW or disproved it, at least the answer would have been definitive.

Hardly. It would have been just another data set open to "interpretation". Anything else (including immature insults) belong in the "global warming" thread.

 

[tblaxland]

Not quite low enough... Given the expense of the payload, the lift vehicle, and the associated development and launch costs, its a case of "penny wise, pound foolish".

OK, lets throw some numbers at it...

How often has a fairing failed to separate from the payload? Just looking at the last 20 years (~1400 flights), I can't think of any instances, but lets say there is a 1 in 1000 probability of this problem occurring. So in 1400 flights, we would have 1.4 occurrences. Now, what would the probability of being able to salvage the mission even if we could get it into orbit, 1 in 2? So that would be 0.7 missions saved. At what cost? 200kg fairing * $10,000/kg * 1400 missions = $2,800 million.

So, $2,800 million to save 0.7 missions OR $2,800 million to buy another 1-5 science missions, depending on size. What would you do?

These numbers are largely guesstimates on my part, so feel free to dispute them