another russian launch failure
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013...-russian-launch-from-pacific/?test=latestnews
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013...-russian-launch-from-pacific/?test=latestnews
Intelsat 27 -Failed Launch
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 28
- Views 5K
yep russia isnt running a good space program, earlier investigations uncovered corruption and use of non space certified parts......
russia has attempted to blame other countries, in very creative ways....
I am very concerned for soyuz, since such a widespread problem may also have infected soyuz, the only vehicle to get humans to and from ISS
russia has attempted to blame other countries, in very creative ways....
I am very concerned for soyuz, since such a widespread problem may also have infected soyuz, the only vehicle to get humans to and from ISS
Sea Launch Failure
Not Dish related per se, but of interest. Feel free to move.
Looks like Dish will be sticking with ILS for some time. Sea Launch had a failure with the Intelsat 27 launch. Seems the main engine cut off 20 seconds after liftoff, leading the the whole unit crashing into the pacific. The current claim is that an automatic cutoff was sent due to following the wrong trajectory. Either way, looks like until Falcon 9 gets going more, ILS and the less-used-by-Dish ESA Ariane-5 and the practically-government-only American ULA Atlas/Delta will be the only games in town.
http://rt.com/news/satellite-rocket-pacific-ocean-222/
Youtube of the launch broadcast (up until it was terminated, no audio)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVCWokch2oQ
Not Dish related per se, but of interest. Feel free to move.
Looks like Dish will be sticking with ILS for some time. Sea Launch had a failure with the Intelsat 27 launch. Seems the main engine cut off 20 seconds after liftoff, leading the the whole unit crashing into the pacific. The current claim is that an automatic cutoff was sent due to following the wrong trajectory. Either way, looks like until Falcon 9 gets going more, ILS and the less-used-by-Dish ESA Ariane-5 and the practically-government-only American ULA Atlas/Delta will be the only games in town.
http://rt.com/news/satellite-rocket-pacific-ocean-222/
Youtube of the launch broadcast (up until it was terminated, no audio)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVCWokch2oQ
Is it me or,does there seem to be a lot more failures these days?Maybe it's just the fact we are able to get the information so easily?One would think with technology being much more advanced that failures wouldn't be so numerous though.
Another reason we should be taking and getting our space program up and going again and take it back 
I think it's because there are (1) more launches, (2) the launch vehicles are more complicated, (3) launch failures are harder to hide since they are televised, and (3) the Ruskies have stopped liquidating people for "mistakes" thereby lowering the incentives for getting stuff correct the first time.
The Russians lost many of their knowledgeable and experienced people to other industries and even other countries when it became hard or impossible to make a living. The Russian space program isn't what it used to be, and with the political meddling it ain't gonna get better any time soon.
EchoStar 16 was lucky to slip through the failure gate. They say the last Breeze failure was caused by very long burns accompanied by solar heating. overpressure popped a pipe. Going to let it cool down more between burns. Got to wonder if that was the problem for the earlier failures also. Loral just recently announce that their multiple solar panel failures over 6-8 years had been attributed to various things but were actually all one manufacturing error. The solar panel construction was not vented properly and the panels expanded, causing various other things to go wrong on deployment.
No kidding, the week Russia has a launch failure, Iran gets a monkey to space and back....
The way you state it here it sounds like Sea Launch was at fault. It wasn't there problem the rocket malfunctioned and came down. Sea Launch's part was flawless.
For that, there are videos of the Russian N1 moon rocket. There were four launches and four explosions. One of which destroyed the launch pad. They claim that it was the largest man-made non-nuclear explosion ever.
You would think if the trajectory is off right from the get go, that the Hi Tech device would be able to adjust on the fly, instead of shutting down and crashing to earth ...
There have been a fair amount of launch failures over the yeares because as the old saying ("it aint rocket science, ya know") infers that launching large rockets is an extremely difficult thing to do WITHOUT a failure, even here in the 21st Century. It is so difficult, there really should be MORE failures. Essentially the rocket engines are great big BOMBS and we ignite them, and we have to prevent the huge bomb from blowing up the payload. That aint easy. In fact, it is beyond the most difficult thing to do. There are other factors that make rocket launches very dicey, such as winds aloft, and more. That's why so many Shuttle launches were delayed or "scrubbed" not to mention several such delays to launch of communications satellites because conditions have to be JUST SO nearly perfect for a successful launch. This is why NASA and the private sector believe rocket technology just can't do the job of getting people into space for the future, both because of cost and how utterly a roll of the dice a rocket launch is. The problem is that it is still "rocket science" and not "a walk in the park," which has it own dangers .
.There have been a fair amount of launch failures over the yeares because as the old saying ("it aint rocket science, ya know") infers that launching large rockets is an extremely difficult thing to do WITHOUT a failure, even here in the 21st Century. It is so difficult, there really should be MORE failures. Essentially the rocket engines are great big BOMBS and we ignite them, and we have to prevent the huge bomb from blowing up the payload. That aint easy. In fact, it is beyond the most difficult thing to do. There are other factors that make rocket launches very dicey, such as winds aloft, and more. That's why so many Shuttle launches were delayed or "scrubbed" not to mention several such delays to launch of communications satellites because conditions have to be JUST SO nearly perfect for a successful launch. This is why NASA and the private sector believe rocket technology just can't do the job of getting people into space for the future, both because of cost and how utterly a roll of the dice a rocket launch is. The problem is that it is still "rocket science" and not "a walk in the park," which has it own dangers
I agree with you.Still,it just seemed such a routine thing for the space shuttles not only launch but,successfully land 3 or 4 times a year.That was in the 80's,I suppose one major difference was a solid commitment to the space program during that time.I also sort of look at like flying.They are basically bombs in the air,and there are many of them in the sky at any given time,yet it doesn't seem that there are as many failures as there were decades ago.The made in China quote kind of rings a bell to me.You can't expect to launch satellites,shuttles,rockets,etc,successfully when corners are being cut.
At least they still have a working rocket transportation to orbit. We don't even have that now ,since we retired the shuttle program.
