Page 1 of 1
Rocket fail
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:41 pm
by Lighthawk
(CNN) -- A satellite and the unmanned rocket that carried it apparently crashed into the Pacific Ocean shortly after lifting off from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on Friday morning, NASA said.
A protective shell atop the Taurus XL rocket did not separate as planned, slowing the rocket and preventing it from going into orbit, NASA officials said, citing initial information. The rocket carried a satellite, known as Glory, that was to have collected information to help scientists better understand the Earth's climate.
The satellite and rocket apparently fell into the southern Pacific, they said.
"This is a pretty tough night for all of us," said NASA official Ron Grabe.
The mission was designed to collect data that scientists planned to use to better understand how the sun and tiny atmospheric particles called aerosols affect the Earth's climate.
NASA went into contingency mode about six minutes into the launch at 5:09 a.m. ET.
"Glory Launch: It looks like we have a problem with launch. Standby," NASA said on Twitter. "The launch team is working through its launch contingency plan, including collecting data from the launch."
Source
Re: Rocket fail
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:14 pm
by Mikey
Yeah, I read about this this morning. Apparently, they're all set to try again - in 2013. Also, it seems that this isn't the first time a similar problem has affected a Taurus launch.
Re: Rocket fail
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:17 pm
by Tyyr
That's what happens when you don't put anti-sieze on the bolts.
Re: Rocket fail
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:56 pm
by Mikey
Tyyr wrote:That's what happens when you don't put anti-sieze on the bolts.
So, in essence, you're saying that NASA seems to have forgotten the "WD-40 and duct tape" rule?
Re: Rocket fail
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
by Tyyr
Nasa is spectacularly good at making the ridiculously complex work. They tend to foul up the simple little things. Using O-Rings without the right temp rating, forgetting to convert metric to imperial, that sort of thing.
Re: Rocket fail
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:10 pm
by Lighthawk
Tyyr wrote: forgetting to convert metric to imperial
Still my favorite blunder ever. As Robin Williams put it "I did the calculations in feet, but I programmed the Lander in meters. So, instead of landing, fucker buried! 100 million dollar oopsy!"
Re: Rocket fail
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:04 am
by Teaos
I tend to be little forgiving, when you have 10,000 little jobs to do, statistically your bounf to mess up 1 or 2 sometimes no matter what procedures you have in place.
Re: Rocket fail
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:26 pm
by Tyyr
Rockets are among the most complex high precision vehicles made, even little things kill you. So yeah, you've gotta be forgiving about the occasional fuck up. Still darkly funny when a multi-million dollar probe digs its own grave because someone forgot to turn meters into feet.
Re: Rocket fail
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:53 pm
by McAvoy
I have to agree. It's easy to keep track of the big things, but small things usually get away from you.
Re: Rocket fail
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:19 am
by stitch626
Its like education. When you start getting into the complicated math and sciences (like high level calc and dynamics) you begin to make stupid mistakes with the simple math (like adding double digit numbers) more often.
At least that was my experience.
Re: Rocket fail
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:15 pm
by Tyyr
Oh lord, the number of diff eq problems I fucked up because I dropped a negative somewhere. Ugh.
Re: Rocket fail
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:43 pm
by Mikey
IDK... my brain has erected a formidable mental block covering anything regarding my experiences with Calculus IV and V.
Re: Rocket fail
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:02 pm
by McAvoy
stitch626 wrote:Its like education. When you start getting into the complicated math and sciences (like high level calc and dynamics) you begin to make stupid mistakes with the simple math (like adding double digit numbers) more often.
At least that was my experience.
As a mechanic, I could get a part in and out in record time and have it run perfectly but forget about that one screw or nut or bolt that is only hand tight. That's why the US Navy has inspectors called CDI's or Collateral Duty Inspectors that inspect a job and tools after you are done making sure everything is in order and done right. You don't want to leave a tool inside a jet doing high Gs where it can damage or destroy things while being banged around in there. CDI's also use an 18 inch rule where you look around 18 inches past where you worked to make sure everything is good to go.