Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Uprated "10-ton" Ariane 5 Fails

Posted by chrisd on from the boom-boom-boom dept.

Soft writes "The latest version of the European Ariane 5 booster ("ESC-A") has failed on its first launch. Liftoff was good up to booster separation but the core stage shut down one minute afterwards or so. The rocket was supposed to lift ten metric tons (22,000 lb) to geostationary transfer orbit, versus 6.7 for the previous Ariane 5G (and 5 and 5.3 for the latest Atlas 5 and Delta 4). Arianespace planned to retire its other launchers (Ariane 4, Ariane 5G) in favor of Ariane 5 ESC-A. Next launch, of space probe Rosetta, was due in mid-January."

42 of 306 comments (clear)

  1. Good news for DIY rockets by sabinm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I consider this good news--a nation with billions of dollars invested in a project get the same results as some amatuer projects : kerplop. Gives me hope that non institutionalized entities can make it to space despite the negative publicity they get because of the trial and error process.

    Can't say that they shouldn't be in space when some one this big fouls up too.

    --
    http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
    1. Re:Good news for DIY rockets by sabinm · · Score: 4, Informative

      In other words, one of the reasons that amatuer development is so limited is not simply cost. It's large space programs saying things like "we have experience and the finances to absorb failure, so that is why we reccomend you stay out of it. "the stars are not for man" kind of philosophy, if you get my drift. I'm not saying that it's great that something blew up, I'm saying that the it's bunk to say things like "leave this to the pros. space exploration is too complicated for civilians." or haven't you noticed, that instead of when airplanes, televisions, and computers were in the early stage of innovation, there aren't many private backers of orbital ventures. Is that a coincidence? BTW, I could really do without commenting on the moderation and have an intelligent conversation. You might almost think that moderation has any great bearing on the subjects that we discuss :)

      In other words, this unmasks the myth that somehow exists that private innovators have no place in the big league of space. If billions of dollars and hundreds of scientists, plus the backing of a unified europe fails sometimes too, maybe there is hope for those who don't have as much resources but have the same if not greater desire.

      --
      http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
  2. Yet Another Space Launch Failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey, why can't they get this right? It isn't rocket sci- ...oh, never mind.

  3. Again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When the very first Ariane 5 rocket launched, it blew up on the pad, taking with it, the (uninsured) Cluster probe. The new and improved Ariane really isn't....

    1. Re:Again?? by MavEtJu · · Score: 3, Informative

      On the pad? Try again.

      --
      bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
  4. At Least they are Persistant by Coffee+Warlord · · Score: 5, Funny

    "He speculated the mission might have to risk a flight rather than see years of research and millions of euros go to waste."

    Kudos to them for keeping at it, at least. Too many space missions/projects are canned after a few failures. If we're going to get ANYWHERE in space in the next 100 years, we need more of this persistance. Take some risks, see what happens.

    (Admittedly, I don't know how wise it would be to scrap it now and tell the gov't you just wasted a zillion bucks, but still.)

  5. Re:the effects of socialism by sebmol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    umm, the Challenger disaster or the Apollo crisis anyone?

    --
    "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
  6. Why are we picking on thr Russians? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This failure 'was the fourth failure of an Ariane 5 rocket in its 14-mission history'

    When the recent Rusian launch failed it was a 'Huge Faliure', 'A Terrible Blow'. etc.. Admitedly it was a big sattelite, but the Russian's success rate in space is better than anyones. This makes the ESA look pretty stupid.

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    1. Re:Why are we picking on thr Russians? by chill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can you back up that claim that the Russian's have the best success rate in space?

      For decades the Russian space program was shrouded in secrecy. They publicized only their successes, and frequently lied about them as well. i.e. -- gutting their 1-man capsule, stuffing 3 people in there and claiming it was a new capsule.

      Often, the only way we knew what was going on was successive spy sattelite passovers. Pass #1 showed a rocket; pass #2 showed a blast crater strewn with debris. These trials were denied by the Kremlin.

      I'm not saying you can't be right -- I'm saying I want to see where you get your stats from to justify the claim.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:Why are we picking on thr Russians? by ck1dog · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's a nice table here (middle of page) showing some raw numbers between 1957 and 1998. Basically, 3022 of 3092 (97%) total launches were successful.

    3. Re:Why are we picking on thr Russians? by mangu · · Score: 5, Informative
      Can you back up that claim that the Russian's have the best success rate in space?


      The insurers can. I work for a company that operates satellites, and the lowest insurance costs are for Russian launchers, because of their proven success rates. BTW, the insurers are British.

  7. Two payloads lost by doormat · · Score: 5, Informative

    There were two satellites on board, a Hotbird TM7 spacecraft, which would have served TV and music. It was supposed to replace Hotbird 3 at 13.0EL, though now that obviouosly wont happen.

    Also the Stentor spacecraft was on board, this satellite was equiped with six Ku transponders, and was destined for 11.0WL.

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
  8. I remember the last one... by Sanity · · Score: 5, Funny
    I was studying Computer Science at Edinburgh University when the first Ariane 5 rocket exploded in flight. A guy, I wish I can remember his name but he was quite senior, from the ESA came to speak to us about why it had happened. Basically, it was an unhandled exception in some could which shouldn't have been running when the rocket was in-flight which caused both navigation systems to fail.

    He was a great speaker, his lecture was actually really funny in places. He joked about how rockets, by nature, tend to explode (just look at the early Chinese rockets centuries ago), so this one was really just fulfilling its mission prematurely. My favorite line was something like:

    The primary navigation system failed at 37.126 seconds after take-off. The backup navigation system failed at 37.778 seconds after take-off for exactly the same reason. Reproducability is normally something scientists like to see - but not so much in this case.
    1. Re:I remember the last one... by Mike+Monett · · Score: 3, Informative

      ARIANE 5 Failure - Full Report

      "The reason why the active SRI 2 did not send correct attitude data
      was that the unit had declared a failure due to a software
      exception."

      "The OBC could not switch to the back-up SRI 1 because that unit had
      already ceased to function during the previous data cycle (72
      milliseconds period) for the same reason as SRI 2."

      "The internal SRI software exception was caused during execution of
      a data conversion from 64-bit floating point to 16-bit signed
      integer value. The floating point number which was converted had a
      value greater than what could be represented by a 16-bit signed
      integer. This resulted in an Operand Error. The data conversion
      instructions (in Ada code) were not protected from causing an
      Operand Error, although other conversions of comparable variables in
      the same place in the code were protected."

      "The error occurred in a part of the software that only performs
      alignment of the strap-down inertial platform. This software module
      computes meaningful results only before lift-off. As soon as the
      launcher lifts off, this function serves no purpose."

      "It has been stated to the Board that not all the conversions were
      protected because a maximum workload target of 80% had been set for
      the SRI computer. To determine the vulnerability of unprotected
      code, an analysis was performed on every operation which could give
      rise to an exception, including an Operand Error. In particular, the
      conversion of floating point values to integers was analysed and
      operations involving seven variables were at risk of leading to an
      Operand Error. This led to protection being added to four of the
      variables, evidence of which appears in the Ada code. However, three
      of the variables were left unprotected. No reference to
      justification of this decision was found directly in the source
      code. Given the large amount of documentation associated with any
      industrial application, the assumption, although agreed, was
      essentially obscured, though not deliberately, from any external
      review."

      http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_plasma/missions/clus ter/about_cluster/cluster1/ariane5rep.html

    2. Re:I remember the last one... by GregWebb · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yup, that's roughly it, data overflowed.

      The reason the code was still running after launch at all was that it was related to rocket gyroscope calibration and took a long time to set up. By setting it to carry on after launch as opposed to shutting down bang on takeoff was that, if there was a late abort, there could also be a really quick restart because they didn't have to recalibrate. This was sensible and was used at least once.

      What wasn't sensible was:

      * Carrying over code from Ariane 4 to 5 without checking the spec for differences, as it overflowed unprotected due to a ground speed reading Ariane 4 couldn't have achieved

      * Having a redundant backup that was identical on the assumption that they'd only need one for random hardware failure. With this as a software failure, the two went almost simultaneously.

      --

      Greg

      (Inside a nuclear plant)
      Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!

  9. How long does it take?! by FyRE666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I missing something here? I mean, we managed to send a bunch of guys over to the moon over 30 years ago with the combined processing power of today's toasters, yet now we have a 33% failure rate on the latest technology, computer designed craft and all that experience?! What are they using cheap taiwanese chipsets and Fujitsu hard drives in these things or something?

    Ironic that /. just hard an article about modern consumer goods being unreliable when compared to items from 5 years ago. Looks like the space agencies are following the same path...

    --
    Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
    1. Re:How long does it take?! by Keebler71 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Last I checked, France hasn't even launched a monkey into space so who do you mean by "we"?

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    2. Re:How long does it take?! by FTL · · Score: 5, Insightful
      >Am I missing something here? I mean, we managed to send a bunch of guys over to the moon over 30 years ago with the combined processing power of today's toasters, yet now we have a 33% failure rate on the latest technology, computer designed craft and all that experience?!

      The Europeans are attempting to send large payload into orbit without spending 1% of the US GNP in the process.

      Remember that the Europeans are the ones who pioneered comercially affordable access to space. They suceeded brilliantly. Now they're trying to do even better. At the moment they're having problems with their new generation of rocket.

      --
      Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
    3. Re:How long does it take?! by simong_oz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Am I missing something here? I mean, we managed to send a bunch of guys over to the moon over 30 years ago with the combined processing power of today's toasters, yet now we have a 33% failure rate on the latest technology, computer designed craft and all that experience?!

      I think one of the things people don't realise about the Apollo program is just how much it cost.

      I remember reading that at the height of the Apollo program, the amount of money being spent was 40 cents per day for every single American. Think about that for a minute - it is an absolutely staggering figure, especially when you consider that it's not in today's money terms. There is now way that any project is ever going to get that level of funding again.

      --
      "Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
    4. Re:How long does it take?! by bpowell423 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      40 cents per day for every single American really isn't that staggering of a figure when you realize we throw away more than that on Cokes and potatoe chips. So we put people on the moon for less than we spend on Cokes... cool. :)

  10. More links and commentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From:
    http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ariane/v157/i ndex.ht ml
    ".... Arianespace has scheduled a news conference for 1300 GMT (8 a.m. EST) Thursday to provide information on the mishap. ......"
    So we get more details tomorrow.

    From:
    http://www.spacedaily.com/news/launchers- 02s.html
    ".... Wednesday's flop could jeopardize Arianespace's dominant position on the commercial satellites market. The Ariane 5-ESCA is the European consortium's latest weapon in its battle with Boeing and Lockheed Martin of the United States for domination of the world satellite launch market. ......"

    It appears the Ariane 5 has proven to be one troubled rocket. It appears the US companies (Lockheed-Martin and Boeing) have gotten on track again with their new redesigned Atlas and Delta launchers. Actually, I think it is fun to some kind of space race again, even if it is just to orbit.

  11. Well.... by MacAndrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, not all our "space stuff" is government, such as Pegasus, and most of the projects are run by contractors. NASA just picks the worng, er, right programs to fund. Someone quipped that while most agencies have a public relations dept., NASA is a public relations dept. that happens to have an agency. In other words, politics.

    It should be noted that our arms race gave a huge boost (ha-ha) to the space program that came as a very heavy price. Yes, I'm glad we got some peaceful dividends from ICBM work, but this could have been achieved more cheaply, as with the Ariane.

    I wouldn't be too quick to pick a winner by political system or nationality. The Ariane is quite the success story, and now the Russians are picking up some significant American contracts with their wonderfully reliable booster, and it looks like the Chinese will in time get it together. The overall payload delivery system will ultimately be quite international -- as any non-jingoistic capitalist would want it to be, competition will spur innovation and lower price. Also, as a peacenik I would be delighted to see everyone preoccupied with getting stuff into orbit and leaving it there, not dropping it on someone else.

    That said -- I will admit feeling a little twinge each time the American space program shrinks one little bit more. Living here, we all have it as just a bit of our pride, silly or not. Same for passenger jets.

    1. Re:Well.... by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Yes, I'm glad we got some peaceful dividends from ICBM work, but this could have been achieved more cheaply,"

      Um... the US space program has had little if anything in common with our ICBM program since the Gemini program at the latest. Sure, the Redstone and the original Atlas were originally made to lob nukes, but once we were launching something bigger than a Mercury capsule, our ICBM boosters just didn't cut it. Unlike the Soviets, we could make nukes that were small enough to be launched on rockets too small for a manned space program (where do you think their head start in the space race came from?).

      I mean, come on, unless you're going to nuke a target on the Moon, what use is a Saturn V in a nuclear war? Sure, it could be used to throw kilotons of conventional explosives half-way around the world (think "Skylab made of C-4"), but...

    2. Re:Well.... by susano_otter · · Score: 4, Funny
      (think "Skylab made of C-4")

      Thanks! Don't mind if I do!

      Mmmm... Skylab made of C4... throw kilotons of conventional explosives half-way around the world... :9
      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    3. Re:Well.... by MacAndrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hmm, I guess it's how you judge the overlap. It's a good question, for one, whether we would have gone to the Moon when we did, or ever, without the race against the Soviets, a race with strong military overtones. Or to ask how much it would have cost to go to the Moon if ICBM and the Cold War had never happened. Either way, it is undeniable the U.S. was terrified of the Soviet Union, particularly its (largely imagined) nuclear missile capability. Kennedy ran in 1960 partly on a fabricated "missile gap" platform.

      Small nukes? I don't think they got really small until the 60's, when we became interested in MIRV's. The ICBM business took its own path when it switched to the far more manageable and reliable solid fuel rockets, the Minuteman series. (I remember a Titan exploding when I was a kid because a wrench was dropped down the silo. It took them a while to figure out where the warhead has gone.) Obviously the Saturn V was designed with a special civilian purpose, but its roots were predictably military.

      It was also not clear for a while whether we might have a manned military presence in orbit. Happily we went the stabilizing route of the ABM treaty instead. Oh yeah, the former ABM treaty -- but that's a whole 'nuther topic!

      My point anyway was to humbly acknowledge that the American dominance of space flight wasn't just due to our brilliance and hard work and love of discovery :); we subsidized it with many billions for grim military reasons, some altogether necessary. The secondary point, before anyone could say the cold war didn't waste trillions, was that military objectives are an inefficient way to pursue civilian space exploration. Programs like Ariane went straight to the target (I'm hoping here that Ariane never had military purposes?).

      Gee, NASM even has a page on the military origins of the space race. I'm finding these things through Google, things I fuzzily recall reading elsewhere over the years. Anyway, what I'm seeing at the moment is a pervasive military motivation, even if the ways the monery was spent didn't always make sense. I would bet Americans somehow felt more secure that it was Americans landing on the Moon rather than Soviets. I remember the vague worries about being incinerated in the 70's quite clearly.

      I don't believe that the civilian space program has ever fully disengaged from the military. The Space Shuttle itself was designed with significiant military purposes in mind. IIRC most of the military business went elsewhere after Challenger, and our satellite launching rockets may still be behind because of exaggerated hopes and hypes that the Shuttle could do it all. As the subsidies have been reduced the space program has suffered, to the point that I believe the military is very concerned with maintaining our current launch capabilities. I assume that the market for military satellites is still strong, and that the U.S. won't be launching these on foreign rockets anytime soon.

  12. Paris, we have a problem... by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 3, Funny

    nah, it just doesn't sound right.

    --
    Repeal the DMCA!
  13. First Ariane 5 failure... by @l3X · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... was due to re-used software code from the Ariane 4 program, except that some values that the soft was supposed to handle were WAY bigger than during the (near perfect, by the way) Ariane 4 program. It was a plain overflow issue... The worst comes: the issue was known and documented, but somehow forgot during the upgrade from V4 to V5...

    Anyway, it's pretty sad (AND NOT DUE TO THE USE OF THE METRIC SYSTEM, for you US fellows ;))

    --
    System.out.println("coucou");
  14. american aerospace and the govt.. by rebelcool · · Score: 3, Informative
    funded, perhaps. But not built. The US govt doesnt build any spacecraft. Other companies do, like boeing, TRW etc. Also, many of these companies put a significant stake themselves in the projects rather than 100% govt. funding. Then there is competition between the companies for the awarding of the contract, so building a machine that works right the first time and consistently pays, literally.

    In europe, most of the major aerospace companies are actually government owned, and there arent very many of them as a result.

    --

    -

    1. Re:american aerospace and the govt.. by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      In europe, most of the major aerospace companies are actually government owned, and there arent very many of them as a result.

      In Socialist Europe, government owns companies. In Capitalist America, COMPANIES own GOVERNMENT!

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    2. Re:american aerospace and the govt.. by Cujo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not strictly true. Most NASA spacecraft are built by contractors, but not all. GSFC has built several small satellites at their own facility with a mix of Civil Service and contractor labor. They also build science instruments to fly on satellites.

      NASA does have a long standing problem of attracting technical talent to the NASA ranks in sufficient numbers. It is also far more difficult to lay off civil servants when budgets are cut. That is why they use so many contractors, and will likely always do so.

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

  15. Re:the effects of socialism by herveb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Humm... do you really know what you are talking about? I think you are just expressing what people whose interest is money thinks. Quiet franckly not everyone is money driven. Life show me that there is no such things as one size fits all. I think your comments do have so truth in it but are not relevant to the current failure of Ariane. If you are a little bit involved in any space related programs (I am am involved with several NASA projects) you will learn that even though we have done a lot of progress in this area since the program started, we are still like infants experimenting. It is true for both the US and Europe and any failure should remind us how much will still have accomplish and how much we already did accomplish.

  16. Re:Those socialist europeans will never get anywhe by Keebler71 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, all of our (American) unmanned rockets are launched on Lockheed and Boeing vehicles. The government owns the launch sites but I seem to recall recently that even that has changed with one of the pads at KSC being purchased by someone. The space shuttle is maintained by a Boeing/Lockheed conglomerate under contract with NASA. And many of our space probes are built at least jointly in cooperation with industry. NASA is the beurocracy (don't mean that negatively) who pays for and manages these programs.

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  17. Re:Well.... (same with the CSA) by MarvinMouse · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Canadian Space Agency is just as bad, if not worse.

    I was really excited when I got employed by them a few years back, and I have some great memories, but I just cannot work for a organization whose largest department is "communications" or more correctly "stickers, posters, and advertising."

    The most aggravating thing about the space agency I found while I was working for them was the fact that they heralded every little success they've had and didn't pay attention to the people who were actually accomplishing work and doing stuff of use.

    The public doesn't like experiments as much as giant big useless toys that the engineers send to space. It was quite sad really. That's why I left after a short while.

    I may one day go back (or go work for the Canadian Arrow, if they get anywhere), but I just remember how disappointed I was when my illusion of the space agency was shattered by the realization of how much of that space agency goes towards advertising and promotion of itself.

    --
    ~ kjrose
  18. French rockets... by doormat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Its like the old joke...

    In heaven....
    The French are the chefs....
    The Germans are the engineers...
    The British are the policemen...
    The Italians are the lovers...
    And the Swiss organize everything.

    In hell...
    The British are the chefs...
    The French are the engineers...
    The Germans are the policemen...
    The Swiss are the lovers...
    And the Italians organize everything.

    (BTW, this was a french made rocket)

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    1. Re:French rockets... by distributed.karma · · Score: 5, Funny

      The trouble with Canada is that they could have gotten French cuisine, American technology and English culture. Alas, they ended up with French technology, American culture and English cuisine.

      --

      --
      If you moderate this, then your children will be next.

  19. Re:Why do metric users use "tons"? by mangu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A metric ton is 1000 kilograms. It fits nicely into the International System, where multiples of 10 are used. The question is not why there is a metric ton, the weird thing is why there is an Imperial ton? How about an Imperial meter, measuring 40 inches? Or an Imperial hour -- oh, sorry...

  20. Re:"pays for" are the operative words by Detritus · · Score: 3, Informative

    NASA does not manage the ELV (expendable launch vehicle) programs, such as Atlas, Delta and Pegasus. These are run and funded by private companies. NASA's involvement is limited to contracting for launch services, just like any other customer, and providing limited launch support from its ground and space network of tracking stations/satellites.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  21. Re:Software Engineering Example by Detritus · · Score: 3, Informative

    There was nothing wrong with the software, as long as it was being used on an Ariane-4. The problem was that the software was not properly modified and tested before being used on Ariane-5. The flight profile of the Ariane-5 was significantly different than the Ariane-4, which caused the software to fail. Think of it as reusing the engine controller from a 2.0 liter engine on a supercharged 3.0 liter engine, without revisiting the assumptions made about engine characteristics in the original software.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  22. First Launch Failures by Detritus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    History says that you should never put your satellite on the first launch of a new launch vehicle, or the first launch of a substantially modified launch vehicle. The odds are that your satellite will need an underwater tracking beacon.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:First Launch Failures by Detritus · · Score: 3, Insightful
      There are several problems with adding an escape rocket system, like that used on early manned missions.

      One, it adds complexity and risk. There are more things that can break and you are adding more pyrotechnic systems to the launch vehicle. There are structural problems. On most launch vehicles, the spacecraft is covered by a fiberglass fairing. This is strong enough to protect the spacecraft from the air flowing over the launch vehicle. It would need a lot of reinforcement, which adds weight, to support the load of an escape tower and the forces it would have to deal with if the escape rockets were fired.

      Two, due to aerodynamics, there is a limited time that the system can be used. Once you exceed a certain speed, the escape system will not work.

      Three, assuming the escape system works, where is the spacecraft going to land? If it is over water, you need a flotation system and enough ships and aircraft to recover the spacecraft in a reasonable amount of time. How much damage to the spacecraft is going to be incurred by the escape, landing and salt water?

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  23. Re:the effects of socialism by Heartbreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I almost wish I could agree, but, for example:

    In October, a Boeing Delta 2 was severely damaged on the pad after a crane operator accidentally ripped the satellite and third stage off the top of the second stage after they were bolted together:
    http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/de lta2_delay_ 021030.html

    LockMart seems to be doing okay lately with the Atlas launches, but can we forget Mars Climate Orbiter and Polar Lander, lost to failure to convert units and and inablility of software to properly detect the ground, respectively?

    And don't get me started on ISS. Too late---ISS is a massive, catastrophic failure in agonizing slow motion. Everybody at NASA is patting themselves on the back because they think they can put more than three crew members on the piece of junk after all---in 2006!: http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/200 2b/120602okeefe.htm
    If you want to see how much the US space program values intelligence and ingenuity, ISS is your answer. A few unmanned rockets blowing up on the pad or on ascent is almost refreshing by comparison.

  24. Re:Oh, please. by Eric+Smith · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I don't know about the veracity of the numbers, but I don't think there's any particular reason that they're suspect.

    Russia was much more pragmatic in several ways about their space program. Once they had a working, reliable, man-rated launch vehicle and spacecraft, they stuck with it. They built other launch vehicles for heavy lift. They didn't try for the super-amazing do-everything all-in-one model made out of 102% pure unobtanium, the way NASA tries to do everything.