Author Topic: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.  (Read 102252 times)

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22325
  • Liked: 603
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #220 on: 02/24/2009 03:39 PM »
Well, it still looked great on liftoff.  Also I cant believe how antonioe's words have cheered me up, and He is the one that works at Orbital!  all I can say is great attitude, and as a result I am 100% sure that Orbital will find the problem, fix it, and keep on going strong:

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline Space Lizard

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 254
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #221 on: 02/24/2009 03:40 PM »
After the loss of Cryosat on Rockot in 2005, this is the 2nd crucial mission for the understanding of global change effects to be lost at launch.

If we're lucky, we'll have Cryosat 2 up there by late this year.

Could an OCO-2 follow too?
I watch rockets

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9892
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #222 on: 02/24/2009 03:53 PM »
Lizard - there was mention of some spares sitting around, but they also talked about advances since OCO was developed so not wanting to commit to an exact duplicate.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9566
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #223 on: 02/24/2009 04:18 PM »
My question about whether some of the experiments in OCO were duplicated by the recent Japanese GOSAT spacecraft has largely been answered, but I am curious as to whether any of the EOS spacecraft carried CO2 detection systems, since this was, after all, one of the rationales for Mission to Planet Earth.

Offline William Graham

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4055
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #224 on: 02/24/2009 04:20 PM »
Could this affect (in terms of delays) other OSC rockets?

There are a couple of Minotaurs coming up, and I was wondering if we could expect more delays to them.

Offline cb6785

  • First Officer A320 / Simulator Instructor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1194
  • EDDS/STR
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #225 on: 02/24/2009 04:22 PM »
Plus JAXA's GOSAT can make a lot of the same measurements. In one OCO briefing a while back someome stated that GOSAT and OCO can measure the same things by using different techniques. So having both would have enabled them to get a higher efficency and more reliability of the measurements. The loss of OCO is definetly nothing to be happy about, but some of the data can be gained now via GOSAT and maybe they will build a new OCO in time, improved with lessons learned via the GOSAT data.
You know, if I’d had a seat you wouldn’t still see me in this thing. - Chuck Yeager

-------------------------------------------------------
Carsten Banach

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3020
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 208
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #226 on: 02/24/2009 05:44 PM »

If we're lucky, we'll have Cryosat 2 up there by late this year.

Could an OCO-2 follow too?

I hope so!  I'm sorry to learn about the failure, and I hope that money can be found for a replacement.

Offline punkboi

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #227 on: 02/24/2009 06:31 PM »
I hope this doesn't happen to the Glory spacecraft in June (since it will also launch on a Taurus XL from Vandenberg)
« Last Edit: 02/24/2009 06:32 PM by punkboi »

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7367
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1519
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #228 on: 02/24/2009 06:45 PM »
I hope this doesn't happen to the Glory spacecraft in June (since it will also launch on a Taurus XL from Vandenberg)

IIRC, Glory doesn't fly until investigation on this failure concludes. It was mentioned in the briefing, I think.

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #229 on: 02/24/2009 06:48 PM »
PS, ordnance explodes.  Ordinance is what sends you to jail if you make something explode.

O.K., O.K.  this has been a rather cr@@py day, so a bit of humor is probably called for; did you ever read Ernest Nagels "Symbolic Logic, Haddock Eyes and the Dog-Walking Ordinance"?  It goes like this:

From the Minutes of a Borough Council Meeting:

Councilor Trafford took exception to the proposed notice at the entrance of South Park: “No dogs must be brought to this Park except on a lead.” He pointed out that this order would not prevent an owner from releasing his pets, or pet, from a lead when once safely inside the Park.

The Chairman (Colonel Vine): What alternative wording would you propose, Councilor?

Councilor Trafford: “Dogs are not allowed in this Park without leads.”

Councilor Hogg: Mr. Chairman, I object. The order should be addressed to the owners, not to the dogs.

Councilor Trafford: That is a nice point. Very well then: “Owners of dogs are not allowed in this Park unless they keep them on leads.”

Councilor Hogg: Mr. Chairman, I object. Strictly speaking, this would prevent me as a dog-owner from leaving my dog in the back-garden at home and walking with Mrs. Hogg across the Park.

Councilor Trafford: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that our legalistic friend be asked to redraft the notice himself.

Councilor Hogg: Mr. Chairman, since Councilor Trafford finds it so difficult to improve on my original wording, I accept. “Nobody without his dog on a lead is allowed in this Park.”

Councilor Trafford: Mr. Chairman, I object. Strictly speaking, this notice would prevent me, as a citizen, who owns no dog, from walking in the Park without first acquiring one.

Councilor Hogg (with some warmth): Very simply, then: “Dogs must be led in this Park.”

Councilor Trafford: Mr. Chairman, I object: this reads as if it were a general injunction to the Borough to lead their dogs into the Park.

Councilor Hogg interposed a remark for which he was called to order; upon his withdrawing it, it was directed to be expunged from the Minutes.

The Chairman: Councilor Trafford, Councilor Hogg has had three tries; you have had only two . . . .

Councilor Trafford: “All dogs must be kept on leads in this Park.”

The Chairman: I see Councilor Hogg rising quite rightly to raise another objection. May I anticipate him with another amendment: “All dogs in this Park must be kept on the lead.”

This draft was put to the vote and carried unanimously, with two abstentions.
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8515
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1026
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #230 on: 02/24/2009 07:45 PM »
antonioe, you have missed a calling. You could so be the next Douglas Adams.

My condolences on OCO, keep up the great penmanship.

Edit:
Speaking of ordnance, that reminds me the dogs been out and I need to go de-mine my yard.
« Last Edit: 02/24/2009 07:47 PM by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline ShuttleDiscovery

  • NASA's first teenage astronaut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
  • UK
    • Shuttle Discovery's Space Page
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #231 on: 02/24/2009 08:16 PM »
I'm sorry to hear about the failure. I hope this issue can be resloved as soon as possible. It's always sad when you think how expensive the satellite was and how useful it could have been... :(

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3020
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 208
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #232 on: 02/24/2009 08:38 PM »
I'm sorry to hear about the failure. I hope this issue can be resloved as soon as possible. It's always sad when you think how expensive the satellite was and how useful it could have been... :(

Indeed.  And of course many people devoted substantial time and effort to the mission, but the good news is that machines can always be replaced!

Offline SF Doug

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Dreamer
  • Fremont, California
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #233 on: 02/24/2009 09:36 PM »
This is the type of thing that you solve inductively.  You eliminate branches (fault tree) and bones (fishbone) and end up with certain ones that you don't have the evidence to eliminate.  This will be the path unless there's a smoking gun in telemetry, which is typically known pretty quickly.

The spaceflight ordnance world has been a bogeyman for a few years now.  Too much consolidation, too much turnover, not enough business to keep the good guys around.

I'm not going to argue with that, but we should acknowledge that we have no way to know if the ordinance itself was the problem here or not.

From the SpaceX Falcon 9 User Guide...

------------------------------

SpaceX has also minimized the number of stages (2) to minimize separation events. The separation system between the first and second stages does not incorporate electroexplosive devices, instead relying upon a pneumatic release and separation system that allows for acceptance testing of the actual flight hardware. This is not possible with a traditional explosive‐based separation system.

http://www.spacex.com/Falcon9UsersGuide_2009.pdf

-----------------------
Perhaps a redesign of the fairing separation mechanism is in order for both Orbital and SpaceX.

My first post!

Doug

Golf on Mars! (Beach balls and baseball bats? )

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22325
  • Liked: 603
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #234 on: 02/24/2009 09:49 PM »
This is the type of thing that you solve inductively.  You eliminate branches (fault tree) and bones (fishbone) and end up with certain ones that you don't have the evidence to eliminate.  This will be the path unless there's a smoking gun in telemetry, which is typically known pretty quickly.

The spaceflight ordnance world has been a bogeyman for a few years now.  Too much consolidation, too much turnover, not enough business to keep the good guys around.

I'm not going to argue with that, but we should acknowledge that we have no way to know if the ordinance itself was the problem here or not.

From the SpaceX Falcon 9 User Guide...

------------------------------

SpaceX has also minimized the number of stages (2) to minimize separation events. The separation system between the first and second stages does not incorporate electroexplosive devices, instead relying upon a pneumatic release and separation system that allows for acceptance testing of the actual flight hardware. This is not possible with a traditional explosive‐based separation system.

http://www.spacex.com/Falcon9UsersGuide_2009.pdf

-----------------------
Perhaps a redesign of the fairing separation mechanism is in order for both Orbital and SpaceX.

My first post!

Doug



That is for interstage, not fairing.
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline SF Doug

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Dreamer
  • Fremont, California
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #235 on: 02/24/2009 10:23 PM »
That is for interstage, not fairing.

Got it.  Just suggesting the design philosphy that allows for acceptance testing of flight hardware and doesn't need "to keep the good guys around."

Even the good guys must move on.  I don't write FORTRAN anymore.
Golf on Mars! (Beach balls and baseball bats? )

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3020
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 208
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #236 on: 02/24/2009 10:26 PM »
Even the good guys must move on.  I don't write FORTRAN anymore.

I didn't know anyone wrote FORTRAN anymore!  (We still learned FORTRAN 77 when I was in college, though!)

Offline jcm

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2802
  • Jonathan McDowell
  • Somerville, Massachusetts, USA
    • Jonathan's Space Report
  • Liked: 338
  • Likes Given: 293
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #237 on: 02/25/2009 12:39 AM »
Even the good guys must move on.  I don't write FORTRAN anymore.

I didn't know anyone wrote FORTRAN anymore!  (We still learned FORTRAN 77 when I was in college, though!)

I still write Fortran sometimes... it has its place in the mix of languages, especially in big science codes.

Antonio, commiserations, and bravo on your undaunted attitude. At some point if it's allowed, for the record, could you post an approximate actual orbit (sub-orbit, e.g. apogee and vel at apogee) achieved? I'd like to  quantify the miss.

Orbital's had a fine record lately, it's clear they will bounce back fairly quickly from this.

 - Jonathan
-----------------------------

Jonathan McDowell
http://planet4589.org

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17773
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 441
  • Likes Given: 3334
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #238 on: 02/25/2009 12:42 AM »
Hi folks. Sorry I disappeared in the final minutes of the count this morning. Things got really hectic, and then things got really...interesting.

I'm afraid I'll have to recuse myself from discussion of the failure.

I'm sure we all understand...and glad you were there to offer what you could. I appreciated the play-by-play from everyone, regardless the outcome.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4227
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 217
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL - OCO - Feb 23/24, 09.
« Reply #239 on: 02/25/2009 12:45 AM »
Did Orbital have any cameras on OCO's LV?
A video may go a long way in helping find out exactly what happened.

Tags: