Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cubesat Launch Ends in Failure

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the damn-shame dept.

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."

122 comments

  1. The Rules (When the BFH does not apply) by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thou Shalt Make Backups

    Failing Rule Number 1...

    there goes my chance to see if in space they really can hear you scream

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:The Rules (When the BFH does not apply) by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Shit happens; One would think that the efforts of Burt Rotan would be taken a little bit more seriously. But maybe I'm missing something, maybe Mr. Rotan's solution is a little complex.

  2. "Cubesat" by HugePedlar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well there's your problem - everyone knows cubes aren't aerodynamic.

    Sorry.

    --
    Argh.
    1. Re:"Cubesat" by Tackhead · · Score: 0
      > Well there's your problem - everyone knows cubes aren't aerodynamic.

      Cubeless stupid! Harmonic simultaneous Time Cubesat is Omnific, Infinite, Ineffable and ON DUTY. Russian Dneper denies reality of Time Cube, meets firey doom at hands of Cubic GOD!

    2. Re:"Cubesat" by zo1dberg · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that must really slow it down. With the massive amount of air in space and all...

    3. Re:"Cubesat" by ThatsNotFunny · · Score: 1
      everyone knows cubes aren't aerodynamic.
      Up yours, human! signed, Locutus of Borg
      --
      "Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
    4. Re:"Cubesat" by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Hey, with enough fuel, everything is aerodynamic!

      --
      Get your Unix fortune now!
  3. Wrong Vehicle! by Mikkeles · · Score: 2, Funny

    The failure occured because the Dnepr is not a rocket.

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    1. Re:Wrong Vehicle! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      It is also not a motorcycle

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    2. Re:Wrong Vehicle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's also not a river?

    3. Re:Wrong Vehicle! by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      It is also not a sports team.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    4. Re:Wrong Vehicle! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Well, since I was born in Ukraine, Zaporojie, right on the Dnepr river, I can say that in fact the region was named after the river.

      And so was the football team,
      and so was the motorcycle,
      and so was the rocket.

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
  4. student projects by Toba82 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    As usual, a student project fails. Too bad it had to be someone else's fault - it's much less acceptable that way.

    --
    I pretend to know more than I really do by mooching off google and wikipedia.
  5. Old Ballistic missile was used... by gasmonso · · Score: 4, 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/
    1. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, have there been ANY successful launches from these former-ICBM platforms? Ones launched from submarines have failed, from land have failed. If I were a satellite maker, unless I was looking for the insurance payout, I wouldn't even consider such an unreliable service even if it were free.

    2. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by jdigriz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds like Mutually Assured Destruction to me. The system works!

    3. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by Brett+Johnson · · Score: 3, Informative

      From TFA:

      "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."

    4. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      We should remove the warheads from an ICBM and launch a few into the Sea of Japan off the coast of N.Korea to "test" our ICBMs.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    5. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by SupremeChalupa · · Score: 1

      Why remove the warheads?

      Leave them on, and just "miss" by a little bit and you solve a lot of problems.

    6. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Doesn't make me wonder. The Minuteman III and Polaris missiles have solid boosters with "end the world by" dates. Once a booster is expired, they either test fire it (sans warheads) or scrap it. The warheads can be reused on a fresh new booster.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    7. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by jaxom_01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I watched a show the other night which talked about how the US pulled 14 TITAN II missiles out of thier silos, relocated them to Vandenburg AirForce Base, removed the warhead and changed them over to carry a payload into space. 13 out of 14 were launched and 13 out of 13 were successful. The last TITAN II missile was kept as a static display at Vandenburg AFB. I think it all depends on what missiles are being re-used for payload launches. The TITAN II missiles were good for it because they were man-rated. They were designed from the beginning to be reliable enough to carry a man into space (Gemini missions) -Aaron

      --
      The post made with 100% recycled electrons
    8. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ack! Trident, not Polaris. Stupid brain.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    9. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by shawnce · · Score: 1

      Review the successful Minotaur. Russia also has had success with theirs despite this failure.

    10. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by andrewman327 · · Score: 2, Funny
      "The Minuteman III and Polaris missiles have solid boosters with 'end the world by' dates."


      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."

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    11. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by dan828 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Heinlein wrote about such a scenerio. It was mentioned in passing in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress as "the wet firecracker war."

    12. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Minuteman III and Polaris missiles have solid boosters with "end the world by" dates.

      Well, that's a sort of self-fulfilling guarantee, innit? When those missiles are used, it'll be the end of the world...

    13. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by lelitsch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The solid booster ones should be in reasonable shape, but the Dnjepr is based on the SS-18--a liquid propelled rocket. And yes, given the usual quality of Soviet manufacturing, I do wonder how many of the SS-18 would actually go boom. After all, since they probably only flight tested a few percent of the total production, anyone who took a few shortcuts on the assembly line was probalby reasonably safe. That's unlike satellite launching systems where pretty much every rocket ever assembled will be fired at one point or another.

      I don't know about the USSR first hand, but in Eastern Germany it was very common to assemble some percentage of the production very carefully (public demonstrations, testing, the one the party leaders get delivered) and do a very slipshot job on the rest.

    14. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      I don't remember that. And it's been less than 10 years since I borrowed TMiaHM from my brother and read it... Maybe it's time for me to read it again.

    15. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by dougman · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I'm assuming you're just kidding, at least about the US arsenal. This is something that is taken very seriously. Confidence in the performance of weapons is managed through stockpile surveillance, assessment and certification, and refurbishment.

      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 (no, not the shoes) for a bit of history on air defense guided missile systems.

      An exceprt on the guidance system:

      The computer command circuits initiate detonation of the warhead by sending a burst command to the missile by the way of the missile tracking radar system. Upon receipt of the burst command, the command detonation control circuits activate the warhead detonation devices. In a surface-to-surface mission, the burst command does not detonate the warhead. Instead, the burst command arms the barometric fuze, which detonates the warhead at preset altitude above the target, and disables the fail-safe circuits. The fail-safe control circuits operate if ground guidance ceases or if a malfunction occurs within the missile. Should either condition prevail for approximately 2 seconds, causing interruption of the hold-off pulses from the transmitting circuits, the fail-safe circuits cause automatic destruction of the missile.

      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).
    16. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... only one?

    17. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by Mayhem178 · · Score: 1

      Mutually Assured Destruction? That's MADness.

      --

      "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

    18. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relatively recently I've noticed a higher number of non-U.S., non-Israeli rockets failing just after lift-off. There's this incident which affected several satellites at once. There was the India incident: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0607/10gslvfailure / which happened at the Satish Dhawan space center on an Indian island.

      If the old ICBM's safety parameters failed then the failsafes (command detonation control circuits) were activiated, courtesy of dougman explaining the internals. Why? If the flight trajectory was clear from ground to space, what happened?

      Likely case: a malfunction.

      Less likely case: an orbiting object in space or high altitude got in the way of the payload during the last seconds prior to lift-off, the altimetry engineers who coordinate at intervals with NORAD and USSPACECOM saw this and had no choice but to detonate.

      A (hopefully) much less likely case:
      1. A territorial dispute between espionage agencies (assuming one or more of the onboard sats was in part a spysat I think this is unlikely given the fact they were engineering students project sats).
      2. The U.S./Israel hegemony with their fascist conservative leaderships do not want an international presence in space. This political element is still something of a (space) military monopoly. One of Richard Cheney and Co.'s long term objectives is to build nukes and weapons in space without government or citizens oversight. Someone with power in military intelligence or in the Bush Administration may have ordered electronic countermeasures against the cubesat prior to lift-off or just after lift-off.

    19. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm assuming you're just kidding, at least about the US arsenal. This is something that is taken very seriously. Confidence in the performance of weapons is managed through stockpile surveillance, assessment and certification, and refurbishment.

      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 interface that is even temporarily broken is the ordinance train for nose fairing jettison.) The submarine will transit to a simulated patrol area off of the Cape or Vandenburg and will await launch orders. When the launch order is sent (using actual strategic circuits) the (actual strategic) missile will be fired from its (actual strategic) tube and head downrange.
       
      The USAF hauls the missile out of it's tube, ships it to Vandenburg, preps it, and launches it out of a special launch facility.
       
       
      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.

      There not only should be - there are . (US) [ICBM|SLBM]'s have a whole series of interlocks to prevent the physics package from being fired unless it has reached it's intended target. (Further details are, as you might guess, classified.)
    20. Re:Old Ballistic missile was used... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      I watched a show the other night which talked about how the US pulled 14 TITAN II missiles out of thier silos, relocated them to Vandenburg AirForce Base, removed the warhead and changed them over to carry a payload into space. 13 out of 14 were launched and 13 out of 13 were successful. The last TITAN II missile was kept as a static display at Vandenburg AFB.

      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 was *more* expensive than simply buying new ones.
       
       
      The TITAN II missiles were good for it because they were man-rated. They were designed from the beginning to be reliable enough to carry a man into space (Gemini missions)

      Despite sharing the same name, the ICBM and the Gemini booster were each different birds under the skin. In particular the variant used for Gemini was produced on a separate production line with specially trained workers and and a different (and Gemini specific) QA program from the ICBM version. (The ICBM versions was produced in Denver, while the Gemini version was built at a dedicated plant in Baltimore.)
  6. A student project that worked! by lecithin · · Score: 1

    See project Starshine:

    http://www.azinet.com/starshine/

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
  7. Oops by siphonophore · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought about joining that group when I was at Cal Poly, but then decided I was too lazy. Good thing, I saved myself some serious heartache!

    --
    Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
    -Scott Adams
    1. Re:Oops by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      I thought about joining that group when I was at Cal Poly, but then decided I was too lazy. Good thing, I saved myself some serious heartache!

      You tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try. - Homer Simpson

    2. Re:Oops by shnozhb · · Score: 1

      They recruit from the CSC/CPE dept there a lot...not many volunteer. Some people even use CubeSat as their Senior Project. How disappointing to watch your senior project go up because of a(nother) French mistake. bastards.

    3. Re:Oops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You saved yourself a lot of good times too. The excitement was in building a satellite, not in watching it go into space. Once it's up there the learning part is mostly over.

    4. Re:Oops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The excitement was in building a satellite, not in watching it go into space.
      Then why was there a "launch party?"
  8. More than 14 satellites were lost. by nacnud75 · · Score: 4, Informative

    There were 18 satellites on board not just the cube sats. BelKA-1 Baumanets UniSat-4 PICPOT and CubeSats: AeroCube-1 PolySat 1 PolySat 2 ICEcube-1 ICEcube-2 ION HAUSAT-1 KUTESat Merope Ncube-1 Rincon 1 Sacred SEEDS Voyager

    1. Re:More than 14 satellites were lost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gesundheit!

    2. Re:More than 14 satellites were lost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I wish this cube had been on it.

  9. Russian luanch failure rate? by MrTester · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone know what the Russian launch failure rate is over the last 5 years?
    Its got to be pretty damned high.

    1. Re:Russian luanch failure rate? by Roliverio · · Score: 1

      Random comentary out of your ass i think?, and no, is lower than the american failure rate. (just to justify the trolling)

    2. Re:Russian luanch failure rate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5-10%

    3. Re:Russian luanch failure rate? by MrTester · · Score: 1

      Sure.
      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.

    4. Re:Russian luanch failure rate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Currently, the mission reliability factor for the rocket is 0.97"

      From http://www.kosmotras.ru/nd2.htm

      Now its 0.96 (if this was launch n 161.)

      Its a pity anyway.

    5. Re:Russian luanch failure rate? by ilyaaohell · · Score: 1

      Uh, excuse me, but you did more than just ask a question. Your last line was: "Its got to be pretty damned high." That's why that dude jumped on you (rightfully).

      --
      UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.
    6. Re:Russian luanch failure rate? by RubberDuckie · · Score: 1

      And of course 68.3% of statistics are made up on the spot.

    7. Re:Russian luanch failure rate? by MrTester · · Score: 1

      Oh for crying out loud.

      from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) "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 certain result does not make me or my statement a troll anymore than your "(rightfully)" makes you a troll.
      We make a statement or ask a question, then, rightly or wrongly, state our opinion or expectation. The end. That is not the same as a troll and does not deserve to be bashed. If we are wrong then we deserve to have someone come on and say "Well actually..."

      I dont even know why I am pursuing this. Done.

    8. Re:Russian luanch failure rate? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Anyone know what the Russian launch failure rate is over the last 5 years? Its got to be pretty damned high.

      Overall the Russian failure rate is about the same percent the US (and the ESA for that matter) - roughly 2%.
  10. Let Me Get This Straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you put an expensive payload (in terms of person-hours and, perhaps financial cost) onto a rocket that you don't know will work?

    why not test fire a couple rockets, verify they work and then load 'em up?

    i guess they felt "lucky."

    "lucky" doesn't cut it.

    if you thought a couple test lauch were expensive, how about a couple test launched full of real payloads? isn't that much more expensive?

    1. Re:Let Me Get This Straight... by Manhigh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't matter how many you fire. Theres no guarantee the next one will work.

      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.

      --
      "Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
    2. Re:Let Me Get This Straight... by sgage · · Score: 1

      "But until we have a space elevator or anti-gravity, riding an explosion of chemicals to orbit is the best system we got."

      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. Unless we reverse engineer one of them crashed UFO's they've got stashed at Area 51. Hmmm...

      - sgage

  11. Cal Poly SLO by Bryansix · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I would like to point out that this is a failure of Cal Poly SLO students. Students at Cal Poly Pomona actually have brains.

    1. Re:Cal Poly SLO by hamfactorial · · Score: 0

      Irrefutable!

      --
      Did you know subscribers can see articles in the future? Holy shit!
    2. Re:Cal Poly SLO by UpShot · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new SLO overlords.

    3. Re:Cal Poly SLO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, c'mon, how smart can someone who has to spend in Pamona actually be.

    4. Re:Cal Poly SLO by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't pick on the SLO kids or the short bus they rode in on...

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    5. Re:Cal Poly SLO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, just cause we go to the REAL Cal Poly doesn't mean you aren't special too...

    6. Re:Cal Poly SLO by shnozhb · · Score: 1

      http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/ brief/univmas/umwest/tier1/t1univmas_w_brief.php ./start_childish_taunting

    7. Re:Cal Poly SLO by rjoseph · · Score: 1

      Ha ha, very funny (why it's modded to 4 I'll never know). SLO kids may ride the short bus, but I don't see you designing, construction, planning, and coordinating the launch of student-built sats from all over the world.

    8. Re:Cal Poly SLO by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      You also don't see me blowing up 18 satellites and a rocket either...

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    9. Re:Cal Poly SLO by JoeLinux · · Score: 1

      Damn straight...go Broncos, beat Mustangs.

      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 is UCSB, where Playboy recruits from the school newspaper. Plus, you can go down to Isla Vista and check out all the girls trying to earn their 'Frat Boy Party Favor' merit badges."

    10. Re:Cal Poly SLO by rezaman · · Score: 1
      It has the same name as the real engineering school out in Pomona,

      The real engineering school that's 27 spots lower on the list, that is.

    11. Re:Cal Poly SLO by shnozhb · · Score: 1

      yeah, you're right...we should judge schools based on the quality of other schools approximately 100 miles away. Come on, lets face it...Berkeley sucks because it's within 100 miles of Sacramento St. UCLA is just too close to Cal State Long Beach for my liking. And frankly with all of those B colleges so close to MIT, I can't even fathom how crappy of a school it must be.

      CPSLO was the first. It continues to consistently outrank Pomona in nearly every discipline. It also continues to outrank Pomona in starting salaries for its graduates.

      For the forseeable future, Cal Poly (yes, that is its name. Pomona is Cal Poly Pomona) will continue to be the best (read: highest ranked among smart people) Cal State school.

      note: this statement has no application to UC or private schools.

  12. Re:"Cubesat" - spaceballs! by sparr0w · · Score: 1

    should'a been a winnebago! barf, get me eagle 5!

  13. Cube Status Report by Sabaki · · Score: 3, Funny

    Timecube: above god
    Cubesat: below ground
    Spongebob's Pants: merely square

  14. Rocket Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on guys, it's not rocket science.

  15. Shouldn't happen more than once. by pontifier · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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."

    --
    -John Fenley
    1. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Why not just outfit the whole rocket with the magical "tripple redundant explosive relaese mechanisms" (spelling errors preserved for integrity) and then you wouldn't ever have to worry...

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    2. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      I envision a payload pod with tripple redundant explosive release mechanisms, and capable of re-entering the atmosphere from orbit.

      I am not a rocket scientist, but I imagine if you were to implement your vision, I think the rocket would be too heavy.

    3. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by webologist · · Score: 1

      especially with human payloads....

    4. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by Jurph · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Such a subsystem would be a custom design for each payload (engineering design man-hours). It would also have to be able to anticipate or react to any of the hundreds of failure modes of a launch vehicle -- solid booster failure, liquid engine failure in any stage, stage separation failure, guidance system anomalies, guidance computer crashes, gyro alignment errors, and more, requiring exhaustive telemetry of the launch vehicle. It would add a significant weight penalty to every launch (forcing many payloads to move up at least one booster size and eliminating many smaller boosters from carrying any payload at all). It would have to be tested for survivability from the thermal and vibrational launch environments (more engineering man-hours). And last but not least, payloads would have to be redesigned to survive the ride back to earth in that subsystem (mass, power, and structure penalties and engineering man-hours).

      You would more than double the cost of your payload hedging against the risk of a 1-in-30 booster failure. For satellite programs so important that a booster failure can't be tolerated, they just build spare payloads.

    5. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by cyclone96 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This has been looked at a few times...but the only launchers that currently have payload recovery capability are manned ones (for obvious reasons).

      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.

      --
      Worst...sig...ever!
    6. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      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 strapping payloads to a rocket that needs to punch through the atmosphere and reach orbital velocity. You'd have to toughen the payload to handle the huge aerodynamic stresses, add a thermal protection system and parachutes, etc. The added weight, complexity and overall expenses would probably far exceed the costs of replacing the payload.

    7. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by nuggz · · Score: 1

      It's too expensive.

      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.

    8. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by pontifier · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm not a computer, and exact regurgitation of data is not the area choose to excell in. If you can't understand what I'm saying because I spelled a word incorrectly, then you need to work on your magical thinking skills. words are a means of sharing ideas, and if the words transmit the idea then their job is done. So shut the fuck up unless you are going to talk about something usefull.

      Yes, decreasing worry would be the desired outcome of my suggestion.

      --
      -John Fenley
    9. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exploding Rocket + Explosive Release = Saved Payload?

      Somehow the math doesn't seem to work out, and I'm not even a rocket scientist.

    10. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am a computer, and exact regurgitation of data is the area I choose to excel in. If you can't understand a joke when you see it, you need to work on your magical sense of humor. jokes are a means of sharing humor, and if the words transmit the joke then their job is done. So lighten up Francis, until you get a sense of humor... Yes, increasing the amount of levity would be the desired outcome of my suggestion.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    11. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by KevinIsOwn · · Score: 1

      I believe an insurance policy would be much cheaper. It's not like they sent the blueprints for the satellites in the rocket too..

    12. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by pontifier · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I had wondered about the costs of a launch. I had no idea insurance was a major cost, but it makes sense. I'm glad the success rate is so high, I guess failures get more attention than sucesses.

      --
      -John Fenley
    13. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by pontifier · · Score: 1

      Yes, I see. It would be more complicated, and if the failure rate is so low, then the added expense would be wasted if it wasn't used. Better to not have to recover from failure, or just try again.

      --
      -John Fenley
    14. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by jrockway · · Score: 1

      > So shut the fuck up unless you are going to talk about something usefull.

      Why not set the good example? And BTW, you spelled "usefull" wrong. (Are your eyes working today?)

      --
      My other car is first.
    15. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by theycallmeB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except for the 'rocket blows up' part, it has happened. Twice.

      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). 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 more to install a recovery system than it does to buy insurance.

    16. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by ajs · · Score: 1
      it's simpler/cheaper simply to buy the insurance or eat the loss.

      I was under the impression that no one was willing to insure payloads because the risk was too high.
    17. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by harr2969 · · Score: 0

      As several people have suggested the idea of triple redundant containment is probably over the top. I was thinking perhaps a single containment unit for all cargo and an attached explosive-launched chute. However, what if the fuselage doesn't blow up and the cargo is stuck inside? Do you put explosives on the load to blow the fuselage? How much explosive would that take? How thick would the cargo containment have to be to avoid blowing the cargo when the main unit fails/blows up, and then again when the escape charge blows? How expensive would it be to launch each rocket with a heavy containment unit capable of withstanding an escape charge? Certainly there are a number of engineering challenges there. It would be nice though.

    18. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by cyclone96 · · Score: 1


      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 million dollars.

      Because of the hefty premium, many satellites forego the insurance, and the US government (which spends the most on satellites) is self insured.

      Lloyd's of London is the most well known underwriter. They discuss it some here

      --
      Worst...sig...ever!
    19. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by MonsoonDawn · · Score: 1

      Why not? For the same reason jet engines aren't designed to withstand a blade-shattering turbine failure. Ever see pictures of a jet turbine that shatters a blade while powered up? Looks like 4-year when crazy with some scisors and construction paper. In both cases the forces involved are so insane that proper protection would prevent the vehicle from operating. We can either make the object safe or you can make it useful. At this point we can't do both.

      The only reasonable options are first try really hard to prevent failures and second buy lots of insurance.

    20. Re:Shouldn't happen more than once. by theycallmeB · · Score: 1

      I suppose it all depends on what conditions and failure modes you want the payload to be able to survive.

      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.

      If you have a failure or thrust loss in one of the later booster stages, the payload makes it into space but either does not achieve orbital velocity or can not make it to its final orbit. This is the most common problem for geosynchronous communications satellites, which are some of the most expensive things launched. The last booster stage is the one where using more exotic engines pays off the most, it also needs to fire multiple times and both increase failure rates. If you can not push the satellite into a useful orbit with its maneuvering fuel, you chuck it into the atmosphere in a controlled way so you no longer have to pay to watch over it. If you didn't reach orbital velocity in the first place, physics will do this for you. Either way, the weight of a heat shield, aerodynamic casing and parachutes/soft landing equipment will be very expensive. And if your boosters all work fine, then the satellite has to be able to detach from all of this stuff, which could add more failure modes late in the launch cycle.

      The best case for recovery would be an in-atmosphere abort where you can wait a few seconds before triggering the range safety device. You could use the existing staging system to pop to last stage off the top of the rocket stack after shutting down the main engines. Adding a drag-chute and a couple other things so the last boost stage can be dropped from the payload (and destroyed separately) would not be hard or heavy. What would be heavy and hard to do would be adding enough parachutes, airbags and structural integrity to the payload, support truss and shrouds to survive landing with anything useful left.

      Satellites are very carefully designed to withstand the stress of a sustained acceleration applied from one direction. Impacts are hard on equipment, but less so on soft, squishy things; a 20G bounce would utterly destroy a satellite (this is a GUESStimate, my degree is in aerospace engineering, but undergrad does not cover the intricacies of satellite design) but that crappy airline seat is rated for you to WALK away from 30G+ impacts. Satellites are also built, tested and moved about in full clean-room environments. So you actually need to land the satellite with an air-tight shell around it, and if the seal breaks that means every part has to be cleaned or replaced before the satellite can be used again to prevent contamination and corrosion. The Space Shuttle cargo bay is only opened in clean environments for this same reason.

      While there are a number of challenges associated with an aborted launch outlined above, all can be solved with technology available right now. The Space Shuttle actually has two different launch abort modes depending on when and what goes wrong (an SRB turning into the fuel tank invalidates both). This is partly because it was already designed as reusable vehicle that lands on a runway. The replacement CEV will have also have an abort option, as cost is not much of a factor when in comes to astronaut safety and many of the parts are already there because of the need to parachute-land after re-entry. But for satellites the limiting factor is very much cost. It is cheaper to buy an insurance policy than to provide a recovery option for even the most benign failure modes. The moment this changes, Boeing, Lockheed or Ariane will immediately announce it as an option on their launchers.

      PS - sorry for the length of my response, I tend to ramble, now back to thesis writing
      PPS - stupid thesis

  16. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Engineering students are the most annoyingly optimistic and naive people on Earth. I hope this prepares them for the reality of engineering; long hours, low pay, and probably your shit is going to get canned or blow up anyways.

    1. Re:Good. by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

      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!

      --
      Pirate Party UK
    2. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I am an engineering student working on my master's in computer engineering and I find it hilarious.

  17. Sounds expensive by ColourlessGreenIdeas · · Score: 1

    I'm sure that could be done, but it would probably add too much weight.

    Weight which people who use 2nd hand ICBMs as launch veichles can't afford.

    --
    In soviet russia stale jokes recycle you!
  18. I'm glad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm overjoyed to see these worthless satellites (turds would be more of an appropriate term) get destroyed. The only way it could have been any better would be to have the retards that built them on the rocket as well.

    Ha. Ha. You students have the IQ of wet shit. Miserable failures, the lot of you!

  19. This is a good lesson by axus · · Score: 1

    Rocket failure is part of launching satellites, losing all their hard work for something stupid is something that happens a lot in the space industry. They should be glad that they aren't out 20 million dollars for a real satellite, which is part of the job.

  20. It's obvious by 955301 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Clearly this was a software problem.

    --
    You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    1. Re:It's obvious by theJML · · Score: 1

      I know, if there was a known issue with reliability on this rockets, software should have coded around it!

      --
      -=JML=-
  21. wmv3? again? by kwerle · · Score: 1

    Could we have this stuff in a format non-windows-users can view?

    OK, I'm just whining.

  22. +1 funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs! Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!

  23. This is hard way to learn a lesson by in2mind · · Score: 1
    Rocket failure is part of launching satellites, losing all their hard work for something stupid is something that happens a lot in the space

    But losing 18 satellites is insane.They should have tried it with fewer satellites.

    --
    Wincopy
  24. Cubesat = more space junk by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that thinks launching small satalites in space makes the inevitable task of cleaning up "space junk" much harder? I mean, in low enough orbit the decay rate is great and it's not a problem, but once these things start going geosynchronous, this could be an issue.

    Disclaimer: I really want my own cubesat.

    1. Re:Cubesat = more space junk by deviceb · · Score: 1

      I want my own satellite too... even if it only projects porn onto clouds from the heavens /shrug.
      It does seem a lil sloppy to pack a rocket with soon to be spacejunk. Whatever happened to making a volcano for Science Fair?

      --
      Kill your TV
    2. Re:Cubesat = more space junk by CodeMasterPhilzar · · 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.

      --
      --- Just another Code-Monkey
    3. Re:Cubesat = more space junk by NigelBeamenIII · · Score: 1

      There are more ways to remove the satellites from orbit than to wait for their orbit to degrade. I can't speak for other small satellite developers, but our (non-CubeSat) LEO mission has a designed end-of-life mode which will deorbit it after our mission is completed. However, I have heard that not all design teams choose to do this as it does require a little more effort to add that.

    4. Re:Cubesat = more space junk by odyaws · · Score: 1

      I worked on one of these projects when it was just getting started 5 years ago, and this was one of the problems we had to look in to. The CubeSats were destined for Low Earth Orbit (~300 km was our design case), and would deorbit due to aerodynamic drag in a month or two.

      --
      Still trying to think of a clever sig...
  25. One word solution: Outsource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the US should outsource its space mission to the Indians... At least they have a better success rate!

  26. If only... by eyecantremember · · Score: 1

    If only they hadn't had to turn to old modified Russian missiles to get their projects up. If only the US government would subsidize rockets and missiles for civilian scientific research rather than every possible military purpose, they wouldn't have had to.

    1. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA has recently canceled funding for Universities in the US to launch satellites aboard their craft/rockets. On top of that, it's 10X more expensive and 100% more likely to be delayed.

  27. Informative?! Which part?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Currently, the parent is modded "+1 Informative"
     
    What I want to know is this:
    Is this the "informative" part:
     
    ...these worthless satellites (turds would be more of an appropriate term)...
    or is this it:
     
    You students have the IQ of wet _blank_

     
    Or maybe it's this:
     
    Miserable failures, the lot of you!

     
    On a positive note: that's the best laugh I've had ALL week long.
  28. They got what they paid for by amightywind · · Score: 1
    t 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."

    It comes down to cost. The mass fraction these small rockets deliver to orbit is tiny. I doubt that a robust abort system that you suggest is economically feasable. The researchers would not have bought the cheapest ride possible if reliability was paramount. This same rocket splashed the European Cryosat last year. The Russians conducted the postmortem in total secrecy as usual, treating their customers poorly, and probably did not get to the root of the problem. You get what you pay for. A Taurus or Pegasus rocket (Orbital Sciences) seem to suite the mission and are a lot more reliable.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:They got what they paid for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Cryosat was launched on a Rockot vehicle, marketed internationally by Eurockot Launch Services GmbH in partnership with Khrunichev in Russia. They were very public about that failure, and it was traced to an error in the sequence of commands programmed for the ascent. See http://www.eurockot.com/alist.asp?cnt=20040861&mai n=3&subm=101 for the press release regarding the findings.

      In my experience, the Russians tend to be fantastic: forthright, professional and honest. If their conclusions sometimes take a while to come out, it's usually because they are being thorough and won't talk about something until they're sure about it.

      Speaking of Rockot, they are launching KOMPSAT-2 in about 12 hours time (7am UTC).

  29. 14 sats? no wonder it failed.... by lynxpardinus · · Score: 1

    The moment I read the post this picture came to my mind:
    http://www.nickscipio.com/funstuff/archive1/images /needatruck.jpg

  30. Economic value and scales by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Question: Is there an economic incentive to faking the loss of the satellites in the payload?
    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?

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  31. What a great ending for your thesis. by Born2bwire · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, they took the UIUC sat down with them. Those guys are just down the hall from me. Maybe I should leave them a fruit basket or something. Still, that's the best excuse I could imagine why you would not have your final data for your thesis. "After years of research, design, and testing, our experiment was posed to finally give us data when it blew up. It was the Russian's fault."

    1. Re:What a great ending for your thesis. by NateTech · · Score: 1

      The test results were inconclusive.

      --
      +++OK ATH
    2. Re:What a great ending for your thesis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking as a software engineer who worked on the KUTEsat at the University of Kansas, although the project ended in such a tragic manner, I got a lot out of it. It exposed me to embedded systems development (my current career path), introduced me to some really dedicated people and gave me a credible Master's project topic. All in all, an unforgettable experience despite the disappointing conclusion.

  32. Re:Russian launch failure rate? by MurphyZero · · Score: 1

    http://www.planet4589.org/jsr.html though you'll have to count the launches yourself. And Russian rocket results are comparable to US and European results. Each group has people who know what they are doing and people who don't, or are new. The new guys fail pretty regularly early on, but if they can survive the business long enough they tend to do well. The incompetents, well, that's what safety organizations are for (see for example the rocket involved in the Solar Sail experiment, a converted Russian sub missile). The guys knowing how to launch rockets still fail in the 1-3% range. Part of the problem is that one or two failures still keep you in that range unless you have hundreds of launches. and only the Russians have vehicles with more than 200 launches. Those were designed before even the Shuttle AND have more than 2 failures. Anything over about 95% success rate in the rocket business is doing alright.

    --
    Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
  33. Re:wmv3? again? by kmccabe · · Score: 1

    The format was chosen by the Launch Provider; the video was saved from their stream, and I was in a hurry to put it up and didn't have a copy of Premier on hand to do transcoding. FWIW, plays fine for me in mplayer. :)