4 ms·

Indian space program hit by another launch mishap

19 points by japaget 16y ago

demallien 16y ago
This really puts into perspective the successful launch of a SpaceX Falcon9 with Dragon capsule earlier this month. Although the Falcon 9 can only do LEO launches for substantial payloads, they still managed to do it without having a single catastrophic launch failure. Here's a link to video of the explosion - eerily reminiscent of Challenger :( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYLO-XoDkBM&feature=player_embedded# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYLO-XoDkBM&feature=playe...!
- cd34 16y ago
  Everyone has a perfect launch record until they experience their first catastrophic failure. Falcon9 has had how many launches? and none were heavylift, they were all medium lift. (The answer here is two.) GSLV has had a 4 for 7 success ratio. Challenger was the 25th mission, Columbia was the 107th. Apollo 1 (which wasn't named Apollo 1 until later) was the only catastrophic failure, Apollo 13 being a successful failure. Apollo 6 experienced problems, missed its intended orbit, failed the original mission, but not catastrophically. Ariannespace has launched 200 missions, I believe 1 catastrophic failure, 2 non-catastrophic failures. In 2008, SpaceX had a failure two minutes into launch on their Falcon 1 platform. In 2006 and 2007, they lost two, with the latter making it to orbit, but being lost after five minutes. When SpaceX has more than two launches under their belt with the Falcon 9, then I think we can champion the success over other designs.
  - shareme 16y ago
    Its not the design..its the effing process! SpaceX uses a vertical process, everything is done in-house..India outsources the rocket motors from Russia, etc.. SpaceX founder's thesis is that using a vertical process you have the opportunity to reduce both costs and failures.. In fact SpaceX's percentage of failures to successes has decrease which was one of the founder's predicts of the thesis being correct.
    - varjag 16y ago
      Mind you, the vertical process was how every single space agency on the Earth was doing it until recently.
    - cd34 16y ago
      The first two of four Falcon 1 launches ended in catastrophic failure -- Fuel leak and booster hitting second stage during staging. Both Falcon 9 launches have been a success. India uses the same engines that the Russians have used for their Progress supply ships and Soyuz Rockets. Tried and true, numerous launches and successes behind them - a design that has been mostly unchanged in the last 30 years. There are two parts to Elon Musk's thesis. 1) vertical process is more reliable - so far, 66% launch success rate. 2) Space cargo would be one tenth the price of existing solutions. One needs only review the Iridium contract to realize that $452 million is not one tenth of Arienespace's bid - it is about 105%. So, that cost savings is not being passed through to the US taxpayer, or, his estimate of 10% of the cost of conventional heavy lift systems was a bit overzealous. In addition, their bid for the ISS resupply contract exceeds the Progress supply flight costs. In order for any solution to be 10% the cost of an existing solution, you have to get a rocket to escape velocity with less fuel, a more efficient engine using 10% of the fuel or, fuel that is 10% the cost of existing fuel, or some combination thereof. I don't believe rocket technology can become efficient enough to meet those claims. Even the Delta IV which is the Dragon's direct competitor, had 18 launches, with one partial failure where the satellite didn't make orbit. One might contend that the Falcon project would need 36 more successful launches before he could say his process is more reliable than the Delta IV platform. If he compares it to Ariennespace, he's got another 400 launches to go.
      - randallsquared 16y ago
        In order for any solution to be 10% the cost of an existing solution, you have to get a rocket to escape velocity with less fuel, a more efficient engine using 10% of the fuel or, fuel that is 10% the cost of existing fuel, or some combination thereof. I don't believe rocket technology can become efficient enough to meet those claims. I think it's clear that fuel costs are not the major part of the cost of a launch to orbit. Development, support, and manufacture of the vehicle itself are much more important, and those are areas that seem ripe for innovation, which is why SpaceX can hope to achieve major reductions in cost as they ramp up flight frequency.
- pjscott 16y ago
  The Falcon 9 is strongly based on the Falcon 1, which had its kinks worked out over the course of several unsuccessful launches. If anything, this is a testament to SpaceX's approach of failing cheaply, and re-using hardware that they know works. Really, I don't think there's any simple thing you can point to and say "That's what they're missing". It's just too complex an undertaking for that. In any case, I wish them all the best of luck.
joe24pack 16y ago
just proves that going to orbit is still rocket science ...
Charuru 16y ago
>we found the control command did not reach the actuators (of the strap-on boosters), Gotta write more unit tests. I'm completely serious, I wonder what their process was.
- train_robber 16y ago
  Local media reports that the physical connections got severed due to unexpected pressure on the vehicle. How could that have been covered in a unit test?

19 points by japaget 16y ago

This really puts into perspective the successful launch of a SpaceX Falcon9 with Dragon capsule earlier this month. Although the Falcon 9 can only do LEO launches for substantial payloads, they still managed to do it without having a single catastrophic launch failure. Here's a link to video of the explosion - eerily reminiscent of Challenger :( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYLO-XoDkBM&feature=player_embedded# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYLO-XoDkBM&feature=playe...!

cd34 16y ago
Everyone has a perfect launch record until they experience their first catastrophic failure. Falcon9 has had how many launches? and none were heavylift, they were all medium lift. (The answer here is two.) GSLV has had a 4 for 7 success ratio. Challenger was the 25th mission, Columbia was the 107th. Apollo 1 (which wasn't named Apollo 1 until later) was the only catastrophic failure, Apollo 13 being a successful failure. Apollo 6 experienced problems, missed its intended orbit, failed the original mission, but not catastrophically. Ariannespace has launched 200 missions, I believe 1 catastrophic failure, 2 non-catastrophic failures. In 2008, SpaceX had a failure two minutes into launch on their Falcon 1 platform. In 2006 and 2007, they lost two, with the latter making it to orbit, but being lost after five minutes. When SpaceX has more than two launches under their belt with the Falcon 9, then I think we can champion the success over other designs.
- shareme 16y ago
  Its not the design..its the effing process! SpaceX uses a vertical process, everything is done in-house..India outsources the rocket motors from Russia, etc.. SpaceX founder's thesis is that using a vertical process you have the opportunity to reduce both costs and failures.. In fact SpaceX's percentage of failures to successes has decrease which was one of the founder's predicts of the thesis being correct.
  - varjag 16y ago
    Mind you, the vertical process was how every single space agency on the Earth was doing it until recently.
  - cd34 16y ago
    The first two of four Falcon 1 launches ended in catastrophic failure -- Fuel leak and booster hitting second stage during staging. Both Falcon 9 launches have been a success. India uses the same engines that the Russians have used for their Progress supply ships and Soyuz Rockets. Tried and true, numerous launches and successes behind them - a design that has been mostly unchanged in the last 30 years. There are two parts to Elon Musk's thesis. 1) vertical process is more reliable - so far, 66% launch success rate. 2) Space cargo would be one tenth the price of existing solutions. One needs only review the Iridium contract to realize that $452 million is not one tenth of Arienespace's bid - it is about 105%. So, that cost savings is not being passed through to the US taxpayer, or, his estimate of 10% of the cost of conventional heavy lift systems was a bit overzealous. In addition, their bid for the ISS resupply contract exceeds the Progress supply flight costs. In order for any solution to be 10% the cost of an existing solution, you have to get a rocket to escape velocity with less fuel, a more efficient engine using 10% of the fuel or, fuel that is 10% the cost of existing fuel, or some combination thereof. I don't believe rocket technology can become efficient enough to meet those claims. Even the Delta IV which is the Dragon's direct competitor, had 18 launches, with one partial failure where the satellite didn't make orbit. One might contend that the Falcon project would need 36 more successful launches before he could say his process is more reliable than the Delta IV platform. If he compares it to Ariennespace, he's got another 400 launches to go.
    - randallsquared 16y ago
      In order for any solution to be 10% the cost of an existing solution, you have to get a rocket to escape velocity with less fuel, a more efficient engine using 10% of the fuel or, fuel that is 10% the cost of existing fuel, or some combination thereof. I don't believe rocket technology can become efficient enough to meet those claims. I think it's clear that fuel costs are not the major part of the cost of a launch to orbit. Development, support, and manufacture of the vehicle itself are much more important, and those are areas that seem ripe for innovation, which is why SpaceX can hope to achieve major reductions in cost as they ramp up flight frequency.
pjscott 16y ago
The Falcon 9 is strongly based on the Falcon 1, which had its kinks worked out over the course of several unsuccessful launches. If anything, this is a testament to SpaceX's approach of failing cheaply, and re-using hardware that they know works. Really, I don't think there's any simple thing you can point to and say "That's what they're missing". It's just too complex an undertaking for that. In any case, I wish them all the best of luck.

joe24pack 16y ago

just proves that going to orbit is still rocket science ...

Charuru 16y ago

>we found the control command did not reach the actuators (of the strap-on boosters), Gotta write more unit tests. I'm completely serious, I wonder what their process was.

train_robber 16y ago
Local media reports that the physical connections got severed due to unexpected pressure on the vehicle. How could that have been covered in a unit test?