NationStates Jolt Archive


SeaLaunch rocket explodes spectacularly and expensively

The South Islands
01-02-2007, 06:40
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A rocket carrying a commercial communications satellite exploded Tuesday during launch from an oceangoing platform in the Pacific.

"There was an explosion as we were lifting off," said Paula Korn, a spokeswoman for Sea Launch Co., which was launching the Boeing Co.-built NSS-8 satellite for Netherlands-based SES New Skies.

The self-propelled converted oil platform used for the launch had been cleared of all personnel before the launch attempt.

The launches are conducted remotely by a mission control team aboard a ship several miles away.

Korn said she did not know the condition of the platform. SES New Skies said in a statement that the satellite was a total loss.

The blast occurred at the scheduled 3:22 p.m. PST launch time. It was not known if the Zenit-3SL rocket actually lifted off the platform.

A webcast of the launch was halted and replaced with the message: "Anomaly on NSS-8 mission. Broadcast concluded."

A failure review oversight board will be formed to determine what happened, Korn said from Sea Launch's home port in Long Beach.

NSS-8, which was insured, was to have been used for audio, video, data and Internet services for countries in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and Asia, Sea Launch said.

SES New Skies has five other satellites in orbit and another under construction.

NSS-8 was intended to replace the company's existing NSS-703 satellite, which will now have to remain in its orbital position to continue serving customers until at least 2009, the company said.

A satellite now under construction, NSS-9, will be launched in 2009, allowing another satellite, NSS-5, to move into position to replace the NSS-703, the company said.

"The NSS-8 launch failure is thus not expected to have an impact on existing customers or revenues," SES New Skies said.

The companies did not disclose the cost of the rocket or its payload.

Sea Launch is owned by Boeing, RSC-Energia of Moscow, Kvaerner ASA of Oslo, Norway, and SDO Yuzhnoye/PO Yuzhmash of Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine.

The company said it sends its vessels to the equator for each mission because the physics of Earth's rotation allow rockets to carry heavier payloads than they could from other locations.

The system has had 23 previous launches since its first in 1999.

During the third launch, on March 12, 2000, the rocket failed to gain enough speed to reach orbit and a communications satellite was lost. During a June 28, 2004, launch, an upper-stage engine shut down prematurely and left the payload in a lower-than-planned orbit, but the satellite was later raised to the right position.

The Zenit-3SL has three stages, all fueled by kerosene and liquid oxygen. It is about 200 feet tall and 14 feet in diameter at its widest.



Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/30/failed.launch.ap/index.html)

Watch the spectacular video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMG2SBwIcrM).

Look at the size of that fireball...this, friends, is why you make sure to have good insurance on your multi million dollar satellite.
Christmahanikwanzikah
01-02-2007, 07:08
... it didn't even come close to taking off. how sad.
The South Islands
01-02-2007, 07:12
... it didn't even come close to taking off. how sad.

But it still made a big boom. And really, isn't that all that matters?
Christmahanikwanzikah
01-02-2007, 07:13
But it still made a big boom. And really, isn't that all that matters?

Hah. Yeah, it made a big boom. Big booms are nice.

It could've been bigger... :D
The South Islands
01-02-2007, 07:35
Indeed, It could have. Perhaps if a Proton or N-1 would have been perched on the platform, it would have been boomier.

w00t for making up words
Dododecapod
01-02-2007, 08:34
Indeed, It could have. Perhaps if a Proton or N-1 would have been perched on the platform, it would have been boomier.

w00t for making up words

As I understand it, Protons can't actually explode. The advantage of having solid fuel instead of liquid.

They can go off course, out of control, fail to ignite, or fall apart, but not explode.
The South Islands
01-02-2007, 08:37
As I understand it, Protons can't actually explode. The advantage of having solid fuel instead of liquid.

They can go off course, out of control, fail to ignite, or fall apart, but not explode.

Proton rockets are not Solid fueled. It uses hypergolic fuels. Very few, if any, modern rockets use solid fuels in the primary rocket. Mostly, solid fuels are used in boosters.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/probrizm.htm
Dododecapod
01-02-2007, 08:41
Yup, you're right (took a look at Wiki). It's just the boosters on the shuttle at the moment apparently.

Though, I do have to ask why. It shouldn't be that hard to determine how much thrust you're going to need and just use that much solid fuel, and the safety aspects are greater.
The South Islands
01-02-2007, 08:45
Yup, you're right (took a look at Wiki). It's just the boosters on the shuttle at the moment apparently.

Though, I do have to ask why. It shouldn't be that hard to determine how much thrust you're going to need and just use that much solid fuel, and the safety aspects are greater.

One of the big issues with a Solid fuel is you can't stop the reaction. With a liquid fueled rocket, you can just shut the valves, and the controlled explosion stops. With a solid rocket, the thrust continues until the fuel is exhausted.
Dododecapod
01-02-2007, 08:49
One of the big issues with a Solid fuel is you can't stop the reaction. With a liquid fueled rocket, you can just shut the valves, and the controlled explosion stops. With a solid rocket, the thrust continues until the fuel is exhausted.

Yeah, I know. That's why I suggested using a preset quantity - surely by now we know how many burn-seconds are going to be needed to put a satellite into a particular orbit, so we can "tune" a solid-fuel to that many burn-seconds.
Kyronea
01-02-2007, 09:56
Yeah, I know. That's why I suggested using a preset quantity - surely by now we know how many burn-seconds are going to be needed to put a satellite into a particular orbit, so we can "tune" a solid-fuel to that many burn-seconds.

But by doing so we give up the margin of error, an immensly important factor in launches.
Risottia
01-02-2007, 10:38
[QUOTE=The South Islands;12278818
Look at the size of that fireball...this, friends, is why you make sure to have good insurance on your multi million dollar satellite.[/QUOTE]

That's why you should be wiser and trust solid, good-old-fashioned launchers like the RosKosmos Progress and Sojuz... and that's why RosKosmos and ESA got the lead about satellite launches. Better tech, better reliability...
The South Islands
01-02-2007, 11:50
That's why you should be wiser and trust solid, good-old-fashioned launchers like the RosKosmos Progress and Sojuz... and that's why RosKosmos and ESA got the lead about satellite launches. Better tech, better reliability...

This was a Zenit rocket that blew up. Russian made.

And actually, the U.S. has launched more satellites the past few years (after the collapse of the Soviet Union) than both the ESA and Russia.
Andaras Prime
01-02-2007, 12:36
Wow what an explosive waste of money!