backtop

Print 54 comment(s) - last by OldProgrammer.. on Aug 27 at 9:57 AM
NASA suffers another rocket mishap that saw two experimental satellites crash into the ocean

NASA was forced to destroy an experimental rocket 27 seconds after it unexpectedly went off course during its launch on Friday morning.  The ALV-X1 rocket, which was made by Alliant Techsystems, was launched from the NASA Wallops Flight Facility in Wallops Island, Virginia, and was destroyed after it reached 11,000 to 12,000 feet and most of the wreckage landed harmlessly in the Atlantic Ocean.

"I would be surprised if we don't know what happened fairly quickly," said Kent Rominger, vice president of advanced programs for the company's launch systems.  He also said they regard this incident as "a very big disappointment but not a setback."

There were initial reports that some of the debris hit land, and NASA officials warned residents not to touch it and immediately contact the Wallops Emergency Operations Center.

The U.S. space agency and Alliant Techsystems invested around $17 million total on the rocket and the two satellites that had to be destroyed.  The rocket was carrying the NASA HyBoLT (Hypersonic Boundary Layer Transition) and the SOAREX sub-orbital re-entry experimental package that have been ruined with no immediate backup plans.  NASA hoped the HyBoLT would be able to acquire information about the air flow and heat patterns of vehicles able to fly up to eight times the speed of sound.

The second satellite contained three probes that were to be released back towards Earth so sciences could analyze possible new methods for reentry into the atmosphere.

Unfortunately for NASA, both satellites do not have any viable back-ups, NASA officials said, which means it could take years before similar missions can be launched again.

NASA and Alliant Techsystems have started an internal investigation into what may have caused the rocket to veer off course.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Where have all the rocket scientists gone?
By davideconnollyjr on 8/25/2008 8:34:08 AM , Rating: 2
Why would anyone in their right mind put a payload on an experimental rocket? Is it just me, or does it not take a rocket scientist to figure that one out? The real problem at NASA is that, like their other government counterparts, it is lost on them the value of money, because it is "just the taxpayers money." Everyone in the government figures it is their right to spend our money any way they see fit, and to hell with us if we don't like it. Don't get me wrong, we have a lot of great scientists in the United States, including many talented planetary scientists, but if we had the kind of talent that came to us from Germany during World War II, we would probably be a lot further along in propulsion, and trajectory.




By mindless1 on 8/25/2008 8:45:21 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure they felt a high confidence level in the design, and as for it being an experiment, every time that even a proven design is launched it's an experiment. Space shuttles go BOOM regardless of the time and money spent to try to ensure it doesn't happen.

It could be that the money required to come up with something else is also rather high. How does one not use an experimental rocket? Launch it several times till they have higher confidence? Build a legacy design starting with nothing? Either of those alternatives aren't so cheap either.

As for talent during WWII, there weren't a lot of rockets back then that needed to do anything more than explode. If it veered off course (like this one did), would they prematurely detonate prematurely it or just hope it still struck the same (enemy)?

IMO, the problems are more likely those of QC as everything gets more complex.


By NYBandits on 8/25/2008 9:05:14 AM , Rating: 5
I don't know about these satellites, but often low cost, experimental satellites are launched aboard these experimental rockets. For example, the AFRL and NASA sponsor a nanosatellite competition that gives a free launch to the winning University. Instead of using MORE taxpayer dollars to launch these high-risk, student designed satellites, they often use these experimental launches.


RE: Where have all the rocket scientists gone?
By GeoffNich on 8/25/2008 9:17:51 AM , Rating: 2
Given the budgeting constraints levied on NASA by the Bush Administration, why wouldn't NASA take more risk? The budgets are so tight that it would take all the available money to just do launch system testing and then, there wouldn't be any funding left over for actual science experiments. So, NASA took a calculated risk. They combined both in the same package knowing that there would be a higher risk of loosing both rocket and experiment. The questions that should be asked are: does the tight budget approach achieve the optimal value proposition and can the taxpayers tolerated these types of failures even if the value proposition is sound?


RE: Where have all the rocket scientists gone?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/25/2008 9:45:23 AM , Rating: 2
> "Given the budgeting constraints levied on NASA by the Bush Administration..."

The Bush Administration has raised NASA's budget (from $13.4B to $17.3B.)

The Clinton Administration, on the other hand, cut it deeply, from $14B to $13.4B, despite 8 years of inflation.


RE: Where have all the rocket scientists gone?
By Some1ne on 8/25/2008 2:52:21 PM , Rating: 3
The Bush administration also told them that it's time to return to the moon, and then off to Mars. $4B doesn't even come close to covering that.

Context is important, a $4B increase doesn't mean much in the face of demands for a new $40B program that necessitates cutting back on existing projects in order to budget for it.


RE: Where have all the rocket scientists gone?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/25/2008 4:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
Stuff and nonsense. Bush did indeed propose a mission to Mars. Congress and the media scoffed at it; it didn't get funded, and it died on the vine. End of story. Put the blame where it belongs.

And yes, a 30% increase isn't much. But its far better than the cuts Clinton enacted.


By OldProgrammer on 8/25/2008 7:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
Masher knows not of what he speaks. Bush has saddled NASA with huge new mandates without providing anywhere near the amount of funding they require. While the whole world scoffed at the Mars stuff, the Bush administration still gave NASA a mandate to replace the shuttle with vehicles that could be used for a return to the moon or a mission to Mars. NASA is trying to develop two new launch vehicles (Ares I and V), a new crew vehicle (Orion), and a lander (Altair) with nowhere near the funding such development requires.
Bush's combination of new mandates and inadequate funding is crippling NASA much more than Clinton's budget cuts.
Due to Bush's incompetent leadership, the US will have to pay Russia billions of dollars to transport our crews to the space station for at least three years after the shuttle retires, and probably longer. Possibly much longer.
This at a time that the Bush administration's incompetent meddling produced the Georgia crisis and has us heading toward a new cold war.


RE: Where have all the rocket scientists gone?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/25/2008 10:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "Bush administration still gave NASA a mandate to replace the shuttle "

Err, NASA has been working on a shuttle replacement since the early 1990s, long before Bush ever took office. It was the Clinton Administration that tasked NASA with replacing the shuttle...and NASA spent billions on it, even as Clinton cut NASA funding year after year.

NASA spent well over $1B on the X-33 alone, and cancelled the project with nothing to show for it. And who unveiled the X-33 all the way back in 1996? None other than Al Gore himself:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/09/25/trou...

In short, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.


By OldProgrammer on 8/27/2008 9:57:43 AM , Rating: 2
Masher the X in X-33 stands for experimental. You see any X in Ares-I, Ares-V, Orion and Altair? The point is the X-33 was a research project that had a lot of problems. There are some fascinating reads I could recommend if you really want to learn about it. The Constellation program is not a research program, but a development program to produce a new space infrastructure for the next century.

There was no mandate to replace the shuttle by a given date until the Columbia disaster in 2003, and W set it.

Write about something you know something about.

And as your friend points out, it was the republican congress that cut the NASA budget, not Clinton. I love the way you guys play these stupid games with blaming congress or the president based on whether they are of the party you favor. It is to laugh.


By onelittleindian on 8/25/2008 11:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the Bush administration's incompetent meddling produced the Georgia crisis
Now its Bush's fault that Russia invaded Georgia? Or worse, do you actually think we should have just ignored Russia invading one of our allies and threatening another one with nuclear attack? If so I suggest you put down the crack pipe and back away from the keyboard.


By OldProgrammer on 8/27/2008 9:44:43 AM , Rating: 2
The Bush admin encouraged Georgia to provoke Russia, hinting that the US would come to their aid if Russia invaded. When Russia invaded the bush admin talked big but let Georgia twist in the wind. You probably don't know this because they don't report it on Fox.


RE: Where have all the rocket scientists gone?
By Ringold on 8/26/2008 4:57:55 AM , Rating: 2
Okay. Take a deep breath.

Bush proposes things to Congress. But who sets the budget? Is it Bush? No.. Check the constitution... Thats right. Congress sets the budget.

Who has had Congress since 2006? The Republicans/Bush? No... Check again.. Google if you must.. That's right. Pelosi and Reid.

Now, please explain how Bush has failed to provide funding when constitutionally he has no such capacity to award it.


By OldProgrammer on 8/27/2008 9:40:53 AM , Rating: 2
Very Good, So it was the republican congress that cut NASA funding not Clinton, Right?


RE: Where have all the rocket scientists gone?
By FITCamaro on 8/25/2008 9:35:27 AM , Rating: 2
It might just be "the taxpayers money" but NASA has a budget. One that doesn't increase if something goes wrong. Unlike the money Congress spends which increases whenever they want it to by just printing more money(hence why the federal reserve needs to be done away with).

They obviously felt the rocket would be reliable. And sh*t happens.


By yard80197 on 8/25/2008 1:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
FITCamaro, I for one Agree with your statement that the Federal reserve needs to be dismantled.


By Irvington on 8/25/2008 9:16:55 AM , Rating: 3
Space elevator concepts have many attributes, but are still very much in the theoretical stage. Rail guns and coil guns on the other hand have already been used, at least for small projectiles. If a plasma were employed, direct contact with the rails could be avoided, providing greater safety and durability. Magnetic shielding could be implemented to protect spacecraft such as the shuttle. The only thing needed to boost such cutting-edge technologies is money, lol...

Think about this: though NASA hasn't been cheap, we've earned back our investment on the space program many, many times over in national economic activity!! Seems like a better way of spending federal revenues than what we've been spending it on lately... I believe we need a vision, a way to inspire people in our country as the space program did in the ‘60s. This kind of vision not only inspires, but can also provide much needed exciting job opportunities for our declining economy.




By FITCamaro on 8/25/2008 9:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
Mission to Mars anyone? Oh wait, the average American doesn't give a damn about the space program or going to other planets. They want their next "economic stimulus" check that they get for "free". Of course for a large portion of American's it is free since they didn't pay any real amount of taxes anyway. Those that do make too much money to deserve it.

Pretty sad. Got a $750 bonus recently from work for a job well done. Lost nearly $300 of it to taxes. And I was only taxed on $416 of it(401K).


By Fnoob on 8/25/2008 10:04:48 AM , Rating: 2
Just move to Puerto Rico. Give yourself a nice ~30% raise.


By FITCamaro on 8/25/2008 1:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks but I'll pass.


Repurpose some Minuteman II's ?
By Fnoob on 8/25/2008 9:07:38 AM , Rating: 2
Could we not reconfigure existing Minuteman missiles, which have remarkable reliability (for obvious reasons), to serve for orbital insertions? Seems we could increase their altitudes by controlling their guidance systems and not shutting down stages prematurely.




RE: Repurpose some Minuteman II's ?
By an0dize on 8/25/2008 9:40:45 AM , Rating: 2
Um.... No; we need those for the impending nuclear war with Russia.


RE: Repurpose some Minuteman II's ?
By Fnoob on 8/25/2008 9:54:46 AM , Rating: 2
I hope you are wrong - I haven't quite finished the bomb shelter... sighs.

I do think that with ~500 we could spare a few. Even though we scaled back their potential from 3 to 1 warheads, it still seems like enough to turn Russia into a sheet of glass if we needed to. Speaking of the scale back (START) - do we really believe the Russians have done the same? Especially in light of their stance against our missile defense shield in Poland? I'd assume they feel they can now disregard START and cram as many MIRVs into one rocket as they can in an attempt to overwhelm the new system. I doubt Condi was very convincing...


By RobertAnderson on 8/25/2008 3:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
We already are, Orbital Sciences has a contract from the Air Force to use both Minuteman II motors and Peacekeeper motors. NASA just chose not to use them as the launch vehicle.

http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Minot...


These things happen.
By Misty Dingos on 8/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: These things happen.
By AnnihilatorX on 8/25/2008 7:56:29 AM , Rating: 5
You are contradicting yourself. Space elevator is a theoretical technology that would potentially requires tens hundreds of billion dollars of investment, and a delivery time frame of unknown. The risk, safety aspects are very much unknown since the concept all theoretical at the moment. Unsafe rocket may be but it is the only reliable method and affordable technology at the moment.

I agree that space elevator may be the next big thing but I don't see the need to put significant money on it and stop buying rockets all together now, at least not until we mature nano-technology and bring down the cost of carbon fibre manufacturing.


RE: These things happen.
By Diesel Donkey on 8/25/2008 11:48:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
mature nano-technology and bring down the cost of carbon fibre manufacturing


Forget fiber...it's creating carbon nanotubes that can be easily aligned instead of just in a big pile (like in carbon fiber) that's the problem.


RE: These things happen.
By murphyslabrat on 8/25/2008 12:50:52 PM , Rating: 1
One of the issues with CNT's are that they are difficult to align. There have been several exciting developments that promise to change that, but that doesn't give any grounds to say that they are "easy to align."

Furthermore, the CNT's are very brittle, while they do have excellent tear resistance, I would want to get an expert's opinion before I would suggest them be used in construction.

On the other hand, Carbon-fiber has shown itself to be fairly flexible and strong, while maintaining a light weight. It is already being used in everything from bicycle frames to race cars. It is definitely a more proven material.


RE: These things happen.
By masher2 (blog) on 8/25/2008 1:12:08 PM , Rating: 3
The problem is carbon fibre isn't nearly strong enough to build a space elevator from. The elevator cable(s) have to be strong enough to support their own weight -- no insignificant task when you're talking about a cable 100,000km long.

CNTs were one of the first actual materials with a strength high enough to actually work; before that, people joked about them requiring a material so hard to come by it was called "unobtanium".


RE: These things happen.
By Diesel Donkey on 8/25/2008 2:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One of the issues with CNT's are that they are difficult to align. There have been several exciting developments that promise to change that, but that doesn't give any grounds to say that they are "easy to align.


Perhaps you were just expanding on my point, I'm not sure, but that it the essence of what I was trying to say. I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to when you say that CNT's exhibit excellent "tear resistance", though. The utility of CNT's as a building material is their high tensile strength (about 5x that of steel). They have quite low resistance to shearing or off-axis loads. If you push on them in the middle perpendicular to the axis they aren't strong at all.


RE: These things happen.
By Misty Dingos on 8/25/2008 1:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
I am not contradicting myself. It is obvious that we will continue to use rockets for access to space for sometime to come. What I said was that we should invest more money in the R&D on the space elevator.

If we want to talk system cost. Rockets vs Space Elevator. Well that is indeed an unknown. But as an emerging technology it is likely to be more expensive than the pie in the sky estimates from SE enthusiasts and less than projected from nay-sayers. As a reference point the ISS's lifetime cost is likely to be more than $100 billion US dollars. Even the most fanciful estimate for the Space Elevator is less than that figure. To be fair though the cost of a single space elevator is still only an estimate in any form.

And the reliability of rockets is a subject of great debate. While some rocket designs are more reliable than others the reality is that with each launch of any rocket that is of orbital design is enormously risky. Even if the rocket is successful in launch there still every chance that any payload may still be delivered to the wrong orbit or that system may fail entirely. There have been several examples of failed launches in the last year. Echostar’s failed March launch is a good one.

This leads me back to the question. If we can have an alternative to rocket based systems to put payloads into orbit why don’t we invest efforts and funds in that direction? While small orbital payloads might be delivered via a “gun system” I don’t see how you will ever get people to orbit with them.


RE: These things happen.
By Fnoob on 8/25/2008 2:22:51 PM , Rating: 3
"small orbital payloads might be delivered via a “gun system” I don’t see how you will ever get people to orbit with them."

Inertial dampers!


RE: These things happen.
By masher2 (blog) on 8/25/2008 2:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
As exciting as a space elevator would be, I think airbreathing launch platforms (such as the Skylon) or railgun-type designs have a bit more promise at this point.


RE: These things happen.
By rykerabel on 8/25/2008 3:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
Lofstrom Loop is a better idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop


RE: These things happen.
By FITCamaro on 8/25/2008 8:13:40 AM , Rating: 3
Rockets are pretty reliable. Very few have problems. There's risk with everything but given the number of rocket launches that have happened and the number of accidents or mishaps, their reliability factor is quite high. The only problem is that when something does go wrong, it usually results in a very large loss of time and money.


RE: These things happen.
By Sulphademus on 8/25/2008 8:23:22 AM , Rating: 5
They could make their money back by selling footage of the takeoff and explosion. You dont need a whole hell of alot of adversising to make back $17mil. Compile some footage for a "World's most extreme space explosions" or "When rocket science goes wrong" show.


RE: These things happen.
By FITCamaro on 8/25/2008 8:28:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Compile some footage for a "World's most extreme space explosions" or "When rocket science goes wrong" show.


That made me laugh.


RE: These things happen.
By marvdmartian on 8/25/2008 9:41:02 AM , Rating: 2
Not too sure how much money that might make. I figure the majority of people that would want to see that sort of thing would be your "geek" types.......and let's face it, the video would be on p2p within a few days of it's release, and no geek would buy it after that!! ;)


RE: These things happen.
By Misty Dingos on 8/25/2008 4:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2...

I am not sure what you consider reliable but if my butt is on the line I want better than a 91.1% success rate. And if we are going to exploit space we need better than 91.1%.


RE: These things happen.
By wordsworm on 8/25/2008 9:04:50 AM , Rating: 2
The space elevator isn't possible with current technology. A maglev launcher, on the other hand, is possible. Run it a few km up a mountain (I believe they need 4,000km of runway space) and you have enough momentum to get it into space. Right now, afaik, we simply don't have the material strong enough to deal with the stresses estimated in building it. I have no idea how much it would cost to build.


RE: These things happen.
By Fnoob on 8/25/2008 9:13:00 AM , Rating: 2
Would this be the same as creating an oversized 'railgun' that could just shoot stuff into orbit? Seems that the payload could consist of a smaller rocket/payload - where the rocket doesn't kick in until it reaches apogee. It would just need to be constructed of material that doesn't mind being accelerated from zero to Mach ~10 in one second...


RE: These things happen.
By teldar on 8/25/2008 10:04:24 AM , Rating: 3
The stress is why you would need a long runway. It would have to be long enough to not tear apart a ship.

Not a new idea, really, as Robert Heinlein was writing about it almost 60 years ago.
But it deserves some looking into. If you can get something going even 1/4 of escape veocity, you'd use so much less fuel and have such larger payloads....


RE: These things happen.
By masher2 (blog) on 8/25/2008 12:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
> "...where the rocket doesn't kick in until it reaches apogee."

From an astrodynamics perspective, you'd want the rocket portion to activate pretty much immediately, rather than at apogee, otherwise you'd waste all your gains from the rail launch.

Still, I don't think the hybrid approach will ever work, at least not until we can build a tower 4000 meters straight up. Building a rocket frame strong enough to handle the side stresses is probably a harder problem than a launcher able to directly reach orbital velocity.


RE: These things happen.
By Fnoob on 8/25/2008 2:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
Why waste the fuel having it ignite while still on the rail? I should have said 'just prior to apogee' - before the vehicle begins to shed too much inertia. Seems a simple ;) altimeter/gyroscopic ignition system would work. Obviously the rocket frame would be constructed of CNTs and be reusable. Does the rail really need to be 4000 meters long? Must it be straight up?


RE: These things happen.
By masher2 (blog) on 8/25/2008 2:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
By immediately, I mean immediately upon exiting the rail system, the point at which the payload would otherwise stop accelerating (and begin to decelerate, due to atmospheric and gravitational losses). For a suborbital vehicle, apogee occurs at the point of zero KE, which would require you to essentially "start from scratch". You'd thus give up everything gained from the rail launch...other than the minor advantage of a little less air resistance.

Rail length determines the maximum acceleration needed. Therefore, the longer the rail, the easier the system can be constructed from an engineering perspective, though an extremely long system may raise the overall cost.

Some systems therefor postulate a circular rail, allowing the system to spread the acceleration over several transits of the system. Obviously, the additional centripedal accelerations involved rule out anything but extremely sturdy payloads.

The rail can be perfectly horizontal, except for a tiny section at the end. However, if you mean to launch a functional, fully assembled-and-fueled spaceship (rather than a fixed payload), a horizontal launch incurs additional side stresses which current rockets are not designed to handle. Redesigning them to be strong enough to bear those stresses would likely remove whatever gains you'd get from a suborbital launch, which is why I believe you'll never see such a hybrid system -- it'll generate full orbital velocity on exit, or none at all.


RE: These things happen.
By wordsworm on 8/25/2008 11:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
Adding fuel would be kind of silly. Just get the darned thing into space and use the rotation of the earth to sling shot it wherever one wants it. Use an ion thruster to adjust trajectory after that. Anyways, your earlier comment about having the thing launch at an altitude of 4km is precisely the reason I suggested using a mountain or two. I can only imagine the stresses on the vehicle as it whips in circles up a mountain though. I'll have to let some physics academic figure out that one for us. I'm sure a circumference of 10km would be sufficient, though, to allow for a circular pattern until it reaches the 4,000km length required to get to the velocity needed.

Maybe someone here knows how much it would cost to set up 4,000km worth of maglev track. I can't imagine it would be anything less than outrageously expensive.


RE: These things happen.
By BruceLeet on 8/25/2008 9:34:56 AM , Rating: 1
The space elevator will be constructed 50 years after everybody stops laughing. !


RE: These things happen.
By masher2 (blog) on 8/25/2008 9:41:01 AM , Rating: 2
> "Right now, afaik, we simply don't have the material strong enough to deal with the stresses estimated in building it"

It's already being designed, by a company called LaunchPoint:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5385


RE: These things happen.
By Fnoob on 8/25/2008 10:02:14 AM , Rating: 2
4,000km of runway space? Typo? If not, where in the hell are you going to locate a ~2500 MILE LONG runway? Assuming you meant meters, that's still about 12,000ft so I'm guessing somewhere in Colorado. Hope it has it's own built-in snowblower.


RE: These things happen.
By Basilisk on 8/25/2008 12:36:25 PM , Rating: 2
Skip Colorado. Buy up Kilimanjaro: 4600m elevation-above-base, near equitorial location (3 degree South latitude) and limited snowfall (compared to CO). Could be a revenue generator when not launching satellites: just pulse tourists up to the summit at a lower speed; later, let'm ride down the rail as a thrill ride! :^P


RE: These things happen.
By Fnoob on 8/25/2008 2:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
Goooood times... However, I have been in line for the "Free Fall" ride at Six Flags when the brakes failed and several folks died. I can picture the reverse happening, and we accidentally launch someone into LEO... Oooooops. Don't forget about the waivers.


RE: These things happen.
By Hellfire27 on 8/25/2008 11:23:12 AM , Rating: 2
If we are going to put money into researching theoretical technologies, perhaps anti-gravity would be a better more efficient way to go than a space elevator.


RE: These things happen.
By masher2 (blog) on 8/25/2008 12:25:00 PM , Rating: 3
There's no theoretical basis even for antigravity, whereas the only thing separating us from a space elevator is the ability to make the materials strong and cheap enough.

One is simply a problem in engineering, the other in basic physics. A totally different beast.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki