First satellite launch from UK. Sort of!
"Rockets crash, especially at the beginning of a project"
Agreed.
The very first Ariane V blew up shortly after launch and took a bunch of satellites with it ("Cluster").
Agreed.
The very first Ariane V blew up shortly after launch and took a bunch of satellites with it ("Cluster").
Being good technical people here, any initial indication of the failure mode ?
- Insufficient fuel ?
- Premature shutdown ?
- Trajectory not as calculated ?
- Comms failure ?
- Insufficient fuel ?
- Premature shutdown ?
- Trajectory not as calculated ?
- Comms failure ?
Apparently the UK government ( or anyone in Blighty ) contributed a mere £11 million to the attempt.
I’m not sure if that was for this launch only & don’t know if there’s been previous funding to turn Newquay airport into a ‘Spaceport’ ( snigger ) but it’s far less than I expected.
As regards the TV interviews after the failure , the young Canadian lady running the show seemed to think it was all about her : ‘ I’m ok...’
I’m not sure if that was for this launch only & don’t know if there’s been previous funding to turn Newquay airport into a ‘Spaceport’ ( snigger ) but it’s far less than I expected.
As regards the TV interviews after the failure , the young Canadian lady running the show seemed to think it was all about her : ‘ I’m ok...’
I was watching the telemetry ( on the Virgin YouTube feed). When the first stage separated there was 2% fuel and O2 left in the tanks. During the second stage first burn the O2 was dropping a lot quicker than the fuel. I remember thinking that was a bit odd.
The drop point was south of the Irish coast but from there the trajectory went south south west and given we know that the vehicle got at least as far as staging the best guess is debris ended up a heck of long long way from Ireland.
Something was seen/imaged from the Canary Isles at about the right time which may well have been associated with the launch..
https://www.space.com/virgin-orbit-r...-reentry-video
Something was seen/imaged from the Canary Isles at about the right time which may well have been associated with the launch..
https://www.space.com/virgin-orbit-r...-reentry-video
Thread Starter
Before it went wacko the telemetry clearly showed the engine gimballing out of limits and then a very rapid drop in altitude so I'm guessing that the thing tumbled and then underwent an unscheduled disassembly.
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Cornwall, UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently the UK government ( or anyone in Blighty ) contributed a mere £11 million to the attempt.
I’m not sure if that was for this launch only & don’t know if there’s been previous funding to turn Newquay airport into a ‘Spaceport’ ( snigger ) but it’s far less than I expected.
I’m not sure if that was for this launch only & don’t know if there’s been previous funding to turn Newquay airport into a ‘Spaceport’ ( snigger ) but it’s far less than I expected.
From a few posts back where Ariane V is mentioned, that is what happened on the first launch I believe. Same guidance computer as Ariane IV but with greater acceleration the spacecraft exceeded the expected acceleration limits (reduced testing was the ultimate cause for not finding this prior to launch), computer assumes an "anomaly" so restarts. Part of the restart procedure is exercise full nozzle deflection, which didn't turn out too well at the speed it was going so launch control destroyed the vehicle. I am sure someone will correct me if this isn't what happened precisely.
I watched the whole thing live (to my regret) and when things started to go wrong I thought the gimbal signal and speed indicator were just not reading out, or the data weren't being received. The one consistent thing was the loss of altitude. Apart from a couple of obvious spurious readings, the loss of height was very consistent yet ignored by the narrators/commentators on the live stream. And even when the altitude bottomed out at around 240,000 ft, they kept on going on about what was going to happen next.
I was 99% certain the next event was the thing breaking up on re-entry and whatever remained and didn't burn up could be found at the bottom of the Atlantic. And I'm not a rocket scientist.
I was 99% certain the next event was the thing breaking up on re-entry and whatever remained and didn't burn up could be found at the bottom of the Atlantic. And I'm not a rocket scientist.
Later in the mission, at an altitude of approximately 180km (111 miles), the upper stage experienced an anomaly which "prematurely ended" the first burn.
The company said this event ended the mission, with the rocket components and payload falling back to Earth within the approved safety corridor without ever achieving orbit.
Virgin Orbit said it had launched a formal investigation into the source of the second stage failure.
The company said it hoped to return to Spaceport Cornwall for additional launches as early as later this year.
The company said this event ended the mission, with the rocket components and payload falling back to Earth within the approved safety corridor without ever achieving orbit.
Virgin Orbit said it had launched a formal investigation into the source of the second stage failure.
The company said it hoped to return to Spaceport Cornwall for additional launches as early as later this year.
Going slightly off topic, I have just been reading about how NASA "Man rated" rockets at the start of the space age, that is made them safe enough to carry humans. ICBM launchers such as Atlas had a terrible record. We know about the Challenger disaster but I cannot think of a fatal accident to a Western austronaut from a launch from a conventional rocket (admittedly there have not been many, although Soyuz has been used quite a bit for the ISS). My questions are:
How expensive is getting this level of reliability?
Given the cost of satellites, would it be worthwhile "man rating" launchers? Presumambly someone such as an insurance underwriter, has done the sums and concluded that it isn't.
Obviously the rocket is still in development and you wouldn't expect it to be as reliable as Saturn or Soyuz became (and they certainly had problems - look at Apollo 6). Musk & Bezos have had their accidents. I wouldn't want to put a satellite on an untested rocket but perhaps they got a special rate.
How expensive is getting this level of reliability?
Given the cost of satellites, would it be worthwhile "man rating" launchers? Presumambly someone such as an insurance underwriter, has done the sums and concluded that it isn't.
Obviously the rocket is still in development and you wouldn't expect it to be as reliable as Saturn or Soyuz became (and they certainly had problems - look at Apollo 6). Musk & Bezos have had their accidents. I wouldn't want to put a satellite on an untested rocket but perhaps they got a special rate.
Peter47
I vaguely recall hearing (from somebody close to the project) that the Cluster team may have got a special rate (freebie?) for their satellites on the first Ariane V launch.....
Edit to add that for once my memory wasn't playing tricks:
https://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/...7/cavall87.htm
" 'A free demonstration flight on Ariane-5 should therefore be considered ..........................................."
and much further down the page:
"Conclusion
All in all then, there was nothing so extra-ordinary about the ESA decision to fly the Cluster mission on Ariane-501, especially given the great emphasis on cost savings to which the mission was subjected throughout its development. Of course, with the luxury of twenty-twenty hindsight, we all might have taken different decisions along the way."
I wouldn't want to put a satellite on an untested rocket but perhaps they got a special rate.
Edit to add that for once my memory wasn't playing tricks:
https://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/...7/cavall87.htm
" 'A free demonstration flight on Ariane-5 should therefore be considered ..........................................."
and much further down the page:
"Conclusion
All in all then, there was nothing so extra-ordinary about the ESA decision to fly the Cluster mission on Ariane-501, especially given the great emphasis on cost savings to which the mission was subjected throughout its development. Of course, with the luxury of twenty-twenty hindsight, we all might have taken different decisions along the way."
Last edited by wiggy; 16th Jan 2023 at 20:12.