NASA Fails To Launch

RockX

Banned
WASHINGTON (AP) — A rocket carrying an Earth-observation satellite plummeted into the Pacific Ocean after a failed launch attempt Friday, the second-straight blow to NASA’s weakened environmental monitoring program.

The Taurus XL rocket carrying NASA’s Glory satellite lifted off early Friday morning from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, but fell to the sea several minutes later. The same thing happened to another climate-monitoring satellite two years ago with the same type of rocket.

“We failed to make orbit,” NASA launch director Omar Baez said at a press conference Friday. “Indications are that the satellite and rocket … is in the southern Pacific Ocean somewhere.”

Officials explained that a protective shell atop the rocket didn’t come off the satellite as it should have about three minutes after launch. That left the Glory spacecraft without the velocity to reach orbit.

The 2009 failed satellite, which would have studied global warming, crashed into the ocean near Antarctica. Officials said Glory likely wound up landing in the same area. Both were on Taurus rockets launched by Orbital Sciences Corporation of Dulles, Va.

The $424 million mission is managed by the NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. NASA paid Orbital about $54 million to launch Glory, according to Orbital spokesman Barron Beneski. The Taurus rocket has launched nine times, six of them successfully.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-04-07-48-04
:lol:

Failed to launch twice, NASA just blew $500 million of our tax dollars to study something that doesn’t exist.
 
Same type of rocket... Um... Yeah. Let's try again. Same rocket, same satellite! No changes because it worked so well the first two times!
 
I don't understand why they feel the need to launch from near sea level. Wouldn't it make more sense to fly the rocket up to 140,000 feet with a big jet then launch from there? :confused:
 
Gosh folks, we're so sorry. We really need another 500 million plus maybe another 350 million just to be sure we have enough to do it right this time. Huh? What are you? Some kind of denier? This is important and we have no time to lose. Failure is not an option. Well, I mean, a third failure is not an option
 
Seriously, there must be a lot of nepotism at NASA because there's no way these are the finest engineers on the planet
 
In the case of the X series, they were slung underneath a plane and went into freefall before the rockets fired. They also never tried to enter orbit and only had fuel for a limited flight and payload.
That was also 60 years ago. Spaceship one did the same type launch and then went into space. Either way, it proves you wrong. That's what happens when a guy with an arts degree delves into science. :)
 
That was also 60 years ago. Spaceship one did the same type launch and then went into space. Either way, it proves you wrong. That's what happens when a guy with an arts degree delves into science. :)

The X-15 was retired from service in 1970, I make that just over forty years, so maths doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

Spaceship One didn't try to put a half tonne payload into Earth orbit which requires accelerating up to 17,500 mph, it flew a sub orbital trajectory and only reached a speed of around Mach 3. There is an air launched rocket from the same company called Pegasus which can put small compact payloads in low Earth orbit.

Pegasus (rocket) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Pegasus_-_GPN-2003-00045.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Pegasus - GPN-2003-00045.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Pegasus_-_GPN-2003-00045.jpg/270px-Pegasus_-_GPN-2003-00045.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/2/26/Pegasus_-_GPN-2003-00045.jpg/270px-Pegasus_-_GPN-2003-00045.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_one#cite_note-0
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why they feel the need to launch from near sea level. Wouldn't it make more sense to fly the rocket up to 140,000 feet with a big jet then launch from there? :confused:

I must have missed this before, explain to me how a jet engine would work at 140,000 feet with no oxygen?
 
The X-15 was retired from service in 1970, I make that just over forty years, so maths doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

Spaceship One didn't try to put a half tonne payload into Earth orbit which requires accelerating up to 17,500 mph, it flew a sub orbital trajectory and only reached a speed of around Mach 3. There is an air launched rocket from the same company called Pegasus which can put small compact payloads in low Earth orbit.

Pegasus (rocket) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_one#cite_note-0


Of course none of that matters.
 
I must have missed this before, explain to me how a jet engine would work at 140,000 feet with no oxygen?

I should have said 45,000 feet. Again, the concept is not only workable, it has been used since the 1950's to launch rockets. And the B52, with a payload capacity of 70,000#, could launch such a rocket.

Don't get all butt-hurt because you looked like a fool again with your art degree.
 
Back
Top