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."

28 of 122 comments (clear)

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

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

    Sorry.

    --
    Argh.
  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.
  4. 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 jdigriz · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    2. 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."

    3. 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.
    4. 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
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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."

    8. 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.

    9. 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).
    10. 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.)
  5. 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
  6. 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

  7. 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.

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

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

  9. 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 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.

    2. 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!
    3. 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
    4. 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!"
    5. 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.

  10. 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!"
  11. 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
  12. It's obvious by 955301 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Clearly this was a software problem.

    --
    You are checking your backups, aren't you?
  13. 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."