First satellite launch from UK. Sort of!
 

I always find it fascinating how launches are timed and oriented so as not to come close to any other celestial object, or debris during the launch or orbiting phases.I realise there's a lot of space around the earth, but there's also a staggeringly large amount of orbiting devices.Let's hope that it goes to plan and successfully.

Schedule (All Times GMT)
 

Cosmic Girl - Take Off 21:39

LauncherOne - Release 22:49

Cosmic Girl - RTB 23:35

Satellite Separation - 00:20

Live feed here in case anyone fancies a gander.

https://australianaviation.com.au/20...ocket-from-uk/


”…it works because the 747 has a little known capacity to attach a fifth engine, enabling it to carry a rocket…”

Ooops, not in space? https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-from-cornwall

Failed.
Still hasn’t been an orbital launch from the UK. Shame.

All satellites lost.
I hope they were insured.
Won’t have done their future business much good either.

Bugger
 

First thing i thought of when i woke up saw the bad news, atleast its insured. isn't like 10-15% costs of development insurance, In this game.
Name of the game.
learn from the telemetry,

Quite frankly, the live broadcast was embarrassing. This is the point where things started to go wrong - - and yet no one commented on it other than saying telemetry would get lost from time to time as they switch tracking stations. At this point, the speed goes to 0 mph, which probably means the sensor is not working but the altitude keeps dropping in a quite consistent manner (there are a couple of nonsense readings, but the trend is clear). At that moment, I hoped it was some weird live broadcast issue, but the consistent drop in altitude pointed to a failure IMO. The commentators declined to even mention this at the time. It was only later when the Virgin team announced there was an "anomaly" that we knew for certain it had failed, but the evidence had been there for quite a while.

In the meantime, much of the stream seemed to consist of listening to an open microphone. It was a very disappointing performance.

PS. I put a time stamp in the YouTube video but it's not working for me when I click it, it starts the video at the start of the live stream. Go to about 1:59:00 to avoid the less relevant stuff.

I have to agree. The whole broadcast was amateurish and very poorly presented.

Hopefully, a new rocket will be built, new satellites will be built and they'll try again soon.

What is the risk to the 747 if the drop goes wrong and can the satellite be recovered and reused?

Rockets crash. They'll find out why, fix it and have another go.

However, the PR and live feed was way past embarrassing, it was painful to watch and unfortunately, just as bad as the proceeding ones when they launched in the US. Someone in that organisation is allowing amateurish and cringeworthy 'broadcasts' to be made. I know we knock journalists but if ever an organisation was crying out for at least one to anchor the coverage, this is it. Grant Schapps was introduced by some marketing kid who basically said, 'So minister, what would you like to tell us this evening?' An invitation he enthusiastically accepted. The coverage was hopeless, full of open mic errors and just simply incorrect. It was bizarre to watch BBC and Sky journalists parroting the bloke on the live feed about cold and hot passes before launch when he didn't know what was going on either. In solemn tones he told us, 'The launch will come at the end of the next pass....and there is a camera view of the rocket (white glare on screen)...and we are now climbing to altitude..' Eh...what about the hot pass? What about the countdown? By the time the poor feller realised the launch had taken place, the aircraft was halfway back to Cornwall. Then, as we watch the telemetry showing the rocket hurtling off into space...for twenty seconds or so before rapidly going to 990,000 feet then dropping to 500,000ft and then going into a sulk at 200,000 with no speed data, our hero continues to prattle on about burns and BBQ rolls (?) coasting and so on. Then it goes quiet for 30 minutes before an announcement of an 'Anomaly'. No s**t, Sherlock...

My understanding of the mission is that the 747 drops the rocket from the left wing and turns away before the rocket ignites. This seems to have happened and I don't think there's a big risk involved. Actual pilots might chime in, for example, if the rocket didn't release, is the plane safe to land? I don't know.

No, the rocket was not reusable, nor were any of the satellites on it, and quite frankly, they fell into the middle of the Atlantic, so good luck finding them.

The 747 is indeed able to return and land with the attached launcher, if necessary.

How much has it cost so far, at a quick look, no figure of loss have been mentioned.

I think clareprop nailed it, and we seem to agree on a number of issues. Rockets crash, especially at the beginning of a project when people are learning how to get things into orbit. On the other hand, the completely amateurish live broadcast made it look as though the project was designed and understood by a bunch of Homer Simpson clones. While the rocket was crashing you heard some government minister saying how wonderful this event was for the UK on an open mic. This was Graham Taylor-type stupidity and made me hold my head in my hands. I'm proud of the UK but this was just horrible to watch.

Branson’s usually 1st in front of the cameras when there’s a chance of further publicity for anything related to Virgin.
I noted his absence when they tried this risky venture.
After the loss of the ‘Orbiter’ , perhaps he’s learned to keep away until things are established & working.

And , in reply to my now closed thread re ‘Blast off’ : ‘Splash down !!’...

Virgin rocket launch failure
 

Lauch by Virgin Atlantic suffered a failue, it seems.. Where did the debris come down ??

"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").

Being good technical people here, any initial indication of the failure mode ?

- Insufficient fuel ?
- Premature shutdown ?
- Trajectory not as calculated ?
- Comms failure ?

The Atlantic Ocean?

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 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.

I assume close to Ireland and down within a few minutes.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63895835

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

Scott Manley on you tube has a couple of good theories, oxygen rich engine burnout on the second stage or an oxygen leak and premature shutdown.

Reliably informed that the Virgin could not get it up.

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.

While some costs would be unique to this launch, the majority of it was spent on the infrastructure, which of course can be reused again. Newquay is now home to a satellite integration facility, incorporating a clean room and enough hangar space to store a LauncherOne rocket comfortably. There's more bits to come, like a more permanent mission control facility. Downlink capability to the site was provided using a unit built and operated by Goonhilly Earth Station, which is just a bit further down the road. Virgin Orbit are a major partner in the Spaceport Cornwall project but there are plans in place for other providers to utilise the facilities, most notably Sierra Nevada who've signed up for Spaceport Cornwall to be one of the designated landing sites for their Dream Chaser space plane.

Brilliant euphemism for an in-flight break-up :)

I concur - the yellow dot in the blue circle depicting the thrust vector did a merry little dance indicating some instability. Any full scale thrust deflection also likely to put severe aero forces on the launch possibly beyond design limits.

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 believe that Elon Musk or one of his people originated the phrase, so I cannot take the credit :)

Found the problem …


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....616ad6b11.jpeg

satellite launch
 

May be they should have asked Orbital Science for a few tips !!

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.