• NASA launch failure, satellite falls in ocean
    58 replies, posted
[quote]he protective nose cone of an Orbital Sciences Corp. Taurus XL rocket carrying NASA's Glory environmental research satellite apparently failed to separate after launch Friday, preventing the spacecraft from achieving orbit in a $424 million failure. [b]"All indications are that the satellite and rocket is in the southern Pacific Ocean somewhere," NASA Launch Director Omar Baez said in a morning press conference.[/b] It was the second nose cone failure in a row for a Taurus XL rocket following the 2009 loss of another environmental satellite, reports CBS News space analyst William Harwood. "I think it's not an understatement to say tonight we're all pretty devastated," said Ronald Grabe, a former space shuttle commander who now manages Orbital's Launch Systems Group. "But we will recover, the team will bounce back because they're all professionals. Orbital Sciences will bounce back with the Taurus vehicle."[/quote] [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/04/scitech/main20039189.shtml[/url] No comment from me, these things happen there's just too many things going on with rockets and it only takes one problem to fuck shit up.
[quote]"All indications are that the satellite and rocket is in the southern Pacific Ocean somewhere,"[/quote] I bet the indications were a big splash in the southern Pacific Ocean and lots of yelling in the control room.
At least nobody died
[img]http://www.myremoteradio.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Cloverfield1.jpg[/img]
The thread title made me laugh
I wouldn't drive a Taurus to the supermarket. I certainly wouldn't trust a Taurus to lift my $424M satellite either.
Whoops. . .
Fucking bollocks :mad:
Wow, took a second to really sink in... All that money and expectations etc. :gonk: Now I kind of want to go swimming.
[QUOTE=imadaman;28423847]Wow, took a second to really sink in... All that money and expectations etc. :gonk: Now I kind of want to go swimming.[/QUOTE] I'll come with. We'll split 50/50, you search the top half of the pacific and I'll get started on the bottom.
There's no way they'll be able to recover anything from the crash other than scrap metal I'd say.
[QUOTE=Nerts;28424043]There's no way they'll be able to recover anything from the crash other than scrap metal I'd say.[/QUOTE] Naaah the fish are pretty good about taking care of satellites. Those fucking eels though :argh:
I kind of find it ironic that it sunk in the ocean...I heard that if we invested the same amount of money for 1 year for NASA, it can fund centuries of underwater expeditions. Seriously, our oceans are still a mystery. Maybe we should learn more about our planet before what's above it.
What a waste of money.
[QUOTE=Nahyan;28424173]I kind of find it ironic that it sunk in the ocean...I heard that if we invested the same amount of money for 1 year for NASA, it can fund centuries of underwater expeditions. Seriously, our oceans are still a mystery. Maybe we should learn more about our planet before what's above it.[/QUOTE] Actually... I agree with you. I think there should be more money put towards underwater exploration.
I think we've explored like 2% of our oceans and quite frankly that's a lot more interesting.
[QUOTE=Nahyan;28424173]I kind of find it ironic that it sunk in the ocean...I heard that if we invested the same amount of money for 1 year for NASA, it can fund centuries of underwater expeditions. Seriously, our oceans are still a mystery. Maybe we should learn more about our planet before what's above it.[/QUOTE] do you have a source?
[QUOTE=Aw_Hell;28424440]I think we've explored like 2% of our oceans and quite frankly that's a lot more interesting.[/QUOTE] 2.1% now
Seriously though, this is just... augh. Damn it to hell. What a colossal waste. [editline]4th March 2011[/editline] :frown:
lol atlantis has better net coverage than canada now thats sad
I guess they didn't fix the problem that affected the first launch after all.
[QUOTE=Nerts;28424043]There's no way they'll be able to recover anything from the crash other than scrap metal I'd say.[/QUOTE] At least they can use the scrap to trade for hats!
Well, this is what happens when you use a shoddy launch system. When you have a 75% failure rate, I think it's time to start using a better system.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28426653]Well, this is what happens when you use a shoddy launch system. When you have a 75% failure rate, I think it's time to start using a better system.[/QUOTE] Yeah, soon NASA is going to be putting iPhones on weather balloons.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28426653]Well, this is what happens when you use a shoddy launch system. When you have a 75% failure rate, I think it's time to start using a better system.[/QUOTE] I guess there's a reason why "rocket science" is still synonymous with really complex stuff.
[QUOTE=Clavus;28428527]I guess there's a reason why "rocket science" is still synonymous with really complex stuff.[/QUOTE] A lot of the times it isn't even complex stuff, it is NASA's idiocy that is the issue. The Challenger Explosion is a great example of this.
Vandenberg launches two rockets every month without NASA's help. I'd like to see their failure rates.
[QUOTE=Pepin;28428644]A lot of the times it isn't even complex stuff, it is NASA's idiocy that is the issue. The Challenger Explosion is a great example of this.[/QUOTE] I thought the whole space program generally ran on the stance that their manned spacecraft were all experimental crafts? I know that for the entire run of the Apollo missions at least, everything about the crafts were still very experimental. They were always changing things in them.
[QUOTE=MIPS;28431009]I thought the whole space program generally ran on the stance that their manned spacecraft were all experimental crafts? I know that for the entire run of the Apollo missions at least, everything about the crafts were still very experimental. They were always changing things in them.[/QUOTE] NASA: Keeping the duct tape industry alive since 1957.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;28424419]Actually... I agree with you. I think there should be more money put towards underwater exploration.[/QUOTE] Job security for me. :coolfish:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.