NASA Launch Failure

[Andy44]

I think I heard about a fairing failed to seperate about ten years ago. ETA: google found it, it was an Athena II rocket in 1999.

Interesting article on this current incident: http://www.space-travel.com/reports/The_Case_Of_The_Fairing_That_Would_Not_999.html

 

[tblaxland]

I think I heard about a fairing failed to seperate about ten years ago. ETA: google found it, it was an Athena II rocket in 1999.

Thanks.

The odds narrow to 1 in 700, the conclusion remains the same.

 

[JamesG]

OK, lets throw some numbers at it...


These numbers are largely guesstimates on my part, so feel free to dispute them

Its your logic and formula that is at fault. You already HAVE to lift the fairing. To be able to carry it all the way to orbit requires only slight increase in fuel capacity (and thus structure and engine). Alot of the per lb. cost of a launch is a "sunk cost" that has to be paid per launch and is not tied directly to the weight of the payload delivered in orbit (development, underwriting, etc).

So the point remains that designing a lift vehicle to be as "efficent" as possible and just barely able to get its payload into orbit without any room for error (abort-to-orbit or dynamic orbit change) is not such a good idea.

Also, your "savings" just got blown by this one potentially avoidable failure, not to mention the wasted time (lives?) of the people involved, the science that won't get done, etc.

 

[Andy44]

Doesn't matter anyway, since putting the fairing into orbit would accomplish nothing but adding space junk in this case. You only get one chance to jettison it; there is no back-up system, so assuming you make orbit, your satellite is trapped inside the fairing. If it seperates from the upper stage it will bang into the fairing. No matter which way this goes, if the fairing doesn't seperate at the right time you lose.

 

[tblaxland]

Its your logic and formula that is at fault. You already HAVE to lift the fairing. To be able to carry it all the way to orbit requires only slight increase in fuel capacity (and thus structure and engine). Alot of the per lb. cost of a launch is a "sunk cost" that has to be paid per launch and is not tied directly to the weight of the payload delivered in orbit (development, underwriting, etc).

Sure, you have to have the fairing anyway but you only need to push it to about about 1/2 the energy compared to if you push it all the way to orbit. And I know about sunk costs. Both of those factors are why I used $10,000/kg. SpaceX, for example, quotes about $18,000/kg on a Falcon 1. I expect it would be significantly more for a Delta 2.

Also, your "savings" just got blown by this one potentially avoidable failure, not to mention the wasted time (lives?) of the people involved, the science that won't get done, etc.

OCO mission cost to date was $273 million. So, no, the savings didn't get blown. They could afford to have the same failure a number of times over and still be in front.

Doesn't matter anyway, since putting the fairing into orbit would accomplish nothing but adding space junk in this case. You only get one chance to jettison it; there is no back-up system, so assuming you make orbit, your satellite is trapped inside the fairing. If it seperates from the upper stage it will bang into the fairing. No matter which way this goes, if the fairing doesn't seperate at the right time you lose.

I applied a 50% probability of saving the mission once the assembly (payload+fairing) arrived in orbit. That's a bit on the optimistic side, I think, and lowering only makes the numbers look better for not including an abort-to-orbit option.

 

[simonpro]

What's with the global warming crap all over the board lately? Can't we all just get along?

"ignorant, bigoted and misinformed"

It's an incredibly interesting and quite important part of our lives. Plus it's good fun watching the two sides get worked up about it. All the hippies start stamping their feet whilst all the gas guzzlers go purple in the face as they have no evidence to argue with.

So the point remains that designing a lift vehicle to be as "efficent" as possible and just barely able to get its payload into orbit without any room for error (abort-to-orbit or dynamic orbit change) is not such a good idea.

Actually, it's a very good idea. The failure modes of components such as the fairing are so rare that it's just not worth considering them when designing a launch vehicle. The extra mass (contrary to what you say, a lot of extra mass will be required) would involve a redesign of the entire vehicle.
Just remember, on something lik 99.7% of flights this extra mass capacity will be useless, and it won't help anyway. If the fairing doesn't jetisson correctly then the satellite will be just as useless in orbit as it will be lying at the bottom of the sea.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, your "savings" just got blown by this one potentially avoidable failure, not to mention the wasted time (lives?) of the people involved, the science that won't get done, etc.

No. You cash in the mandatory insurance and build a second satellite for a fraction of the initial money, as the R&D costs are already paid. ESA did the same with Cryosat after it's launch vehicle failed.

The second Cryosat will launch in November 2009 - and that together with many improvements under the hood (for example a duplicated radar payload), for even less money than for the first Cryosat.

---------- Post added at 09:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 AM ----------

Just remember, on something lik 99.7% of flights this extra mass capacity will be useless, and it won't help anyway. If the fairing doesn't jetisson correctly then the satellite will be just as useless in orbit as it will be lying at the bottom of the sea.

Exactly. Even if the launcher could carry it: The satellite inside would not be able to deploy.

 

[Andy44]

No. You cash in the mandatory insurance SNIP

NASA is mandated to carry insurance covering replacement of the spacecraft?

 

[Urwumpe]

NASA is mandated to carry insurance covering replacement of the spacecraft?

Yes, all launches are insured. I don't know any example where this was avoided, for most launch providers, the insurance papers are part of the launch contract.

 

[JamesG]

I think USAF payloads don't have commercial insurance or bonds. But since every supplier and contractor involved probably does for thier piece in case they get stuck with the "pin the tail on the donkey" of the blame if anything goes wrong with a launch, it effectively does.

I concede the point that getting a doomed bird to orbit is not helpful or practical. :hmm:
More of a reason to make everything man-rated and launch it with a couple of astronauts so that if any thing doesn't go right, they can send someone out to go beat on it with a hammer. :lol: