SpaceX Rocket launch aborted in final second due to technical problems
abcnews.go.com
abcnews.go.com
Listening to the countdown 10...3 2 1 ignition...sputtering flame...and...nothing...
You could hear the disappointment in his voice for a split second, but only a second. Then right back to professional composure. Calling out commands, putting the rocket back into safe mode.
Impressive even for a failure. Guess I'll be up late again on the 22nd.
It's a little dissapointing, but the most important thing is that the launch be successful, no matter the layers of safeguards and tests that need to happen. It's fascinating to see just how precise a level of control and automation that exists over all aspects of the system.
Well, to truly butcher a saying of our former rulers across the pond, "The launch is dead, long live the launch!"
Deepest, deepest apologies for that one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Streak_%28missile%29
:-(
With the end of the Cold War, the abandonment of Apartheid and the unbanning of the ANC in 1990 both the defence budget and the rocket program budget were slashed and the RSA program and Greensat satellite were put on hold as a result.
An attempt was made to drum up international orders for RSA-3 launches and the development of an even larger variant, the RSA-4, but nothing ever came of it and the entire program was shut down forever around 1994. The sole remaining RSA-3 rocket is on display at the South African Air Force Museum at Zwartkop Air Force Base.
Nowadays South Africa is slowly rebuilding its satellite capability and built two micro-satellites on a shoestring budget, both of which had reasonable service lives in orbit, but it has some way to go to rebuild the capability it lost.
(It was of course immoral, a horrible human tragedy and was objectively worse for 90% of the population, etc.)
Is it an accurate perception that RSA is less of an interesting science/engineering power now than it was in the 1980s? Will this reverse itself?
Acknowledging that interesting developments came about in that period does necessarily justify Apartheid or lessen its immoral nature. Just as (not to invoke Godwin, the systems were totally different) we can acknowledge the amazing technology that German engineers and scientists invented during the Second World War without endorsing Nazi ideology.
With regards to the question of whether RSA is a less interesting science and engineering power, it's complex. Certainly, when it comes to state-funded R&D, especially in defence and space, then yes it's true. The defence industry, while still innovative and very advanced in certain niche areas, has shrunk significantly since Apartheid, shedding many skills and leaving many defence industry companies in precarious financial positions. This is a result of the huge cuts in defence spending since 1990, which gutted the industry. That level of funding would never have been sustainable in a democracy with a universal franchise and serious socio-economic problems though.
To some extent the non-defence private sector suffered too as state R&D dried up almost entirely. It's important to understand that with the trade sanctions of the late 1980s it was state funding and the mining industry which drove most R&D and many companies weren't able to transition to a market-based approach when that stopped. Imagine the impact on the US high-technology scene were US government research funding to be yanked almost overnight from universities and private companies.
Yet there are some encouraging developments, with private companies continuing to try to innovate using private capital. The satellite design and construction industry has re-established itself and is growing fairly well, as are other space-based industries especially astronomy where South Africa is one of the world leaders. Similarly there is small but rapidly-growing tech scene that's creating some interesting things, with two prominent examples being the development of Amazon's EC2 system and Mark Shuttleworth's Thawte Consulting. Mobile telecoms are another interesting area, while there are some aerospace firms doing well, such as Aerosud which is a single-source supplier for both Airbus and Boeing on safety-critical parts.
R&D spending still remains low compared to other countries at South Africa's level but there are signs that that, too is changing. So we'll have to see what the future brings.
As far as I know, the UK is the only country to have launched its own satellite with its own launcher that has given up that capability.
NB The Prosopero satellite is still orbiting after 40 years and was launched from Australia:
The final trajectory (and lack of bunker for the RC guy) reminds me of some of the very unsafe launches we had in my high school shop class. Experimental, untested, overpowered, unbalanced and... flying right through the student parking lot.
"This is not a failure," Shotwell (SpaceEx President) told reporters. "We aborted with purpose. It would have been a failure if we lifted off with an engine trending in this direction."
Perhaps that's PR spin, but I think that it comes from a very responsible position. Well said.
This is a test flight.
I assumed that since the booster stages are not re-usable, the design would be more optimized for "one use". And the controlled explosion of a rocket igniting seems to count as "one use".
Clearly I'm wrong. I guess they are so robust (for saftey & redundancy reasons) that a few seconds of burn don't do any irreversible damage.
But the "explosions" are usually from the rocket self destruction mechanism
Pretty and kinda sad yes, the alternative is worse. I believe there are some videos of russian rockets not self-destructing on Youtube
An Ares I or Liberty launch cannot be aborted like this.
[Edit: I must apologise to the commenter below for just repeating him 10 minutes later - accidental]
1040 GMT (6:40 a.m. EDT)
Gwynne Shotwell, president of SpaceX, says technicians will inspect Engine No. 5 on the Falcon 9's first stage beginning at around 12 p.m. EDT (1600 GMT). Further data analysis of readings from the engine during the ignition prompted SpaceX to order hands-on inspections before clearing the rocket for liftoff. The next launch opportunity is still Tuesday at 3:44 a.m. EDT (0744 GMT), but that is pending the outcome of today's inspection. Shotwell said the abort was triggered one-half second before liftoff after all nine engines were ignited. Alan Lindenmoyer, NASA's commercial crew and cargo manager, said there should be another launch opportunity May 23 at 3:22 a.m. EDT (0722 GMT).
0940 GMT (5:40 a.m. EDT) The target launch time for Tuesday is 3:44:34 a.m. EDT (0744:34 GMT).
0926 GMT (5:26 a.m. EDT) The rocket is being drained of propellant as the launch team backs out of this morning's countdown following an abort moments before liftoff at 4:55 a.m. EDT (0855 GMT).
0915 GMT (5:15 a.m. EDT) NASA plans a post-scrub news conference at 6:30 a.m. EDT (1030 GMT). We'll carry it live.
0905 GMT (5:05 a.m. EDT) The strongback has been returned to a position next to the Falcon 9.
0901 GMT (5:01 a.m. EDT) SpaceX reports the problem triggering the abort was a high chamber pressure reading on Engine No. 5 of the first stage. Aborts are common in Falcon 9 countdowns when computers recognize a limit out of a predefined range. Sometimes the fix is as simple as adjusting the acceptable range in the computer, but with a one-second launch window this morning, there will no opportunity to resolve the issue today.
0858 GMT (4:58 a.m. EDT) The launch team is safing the rocket and Dragon spacecraft after this morning's abort. The next launch opportunity is Tuesday morning at 3:44 a.m. EDT (0744 GMT), assuming whatever issue caused the abort is resolved in time.
0856 GMT (4:56 a.m. EDT) It's not clear what caused the abort just before liftoff, but this will mean Falcon 9 will not launch today. The rocket had a near-instantaneous launch window in which it could fly today.
0855 GMT (4:55 a.m. EDT) ABORT. The ignition sequence started, but there was a countdown cutoff before launch.
The launch window pretty much guarantees that if the rocket launches, and stays on a course that is designed to get it outside of earth's atmosphere using as little fuel as possible, it will meet up with the orbiting space station "by chance". Launching outside of this window means that it would have to spend fuel to realign itself and go find the space station on it's own.