
Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch - hornokplease
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/12/us-space-spacex-idUSBRE89B18M20121012
======
confluence
> _Among the Dragon's cargo was a freezer that will be used to store
> scientific samples. For the ride up, SpaceX stashed chocolate-vanilla swirl
> ice cream inside._

Just awesome.

The mission was a success. The satellite maker's loss was covered with
insurance money, the ISS stays up in the sky, engine-out capability proven,
subsequent launch contracts remain in place from both NASA/the satellite maker
- and the ISS astronauts get home-made chocolate ice cream! Win-win-win.

The only entity that got screwed was the insurance company, but that was a
risk they were willing to take and were duly paid for doing so.

~~~
danielweber
The primary mission was a success. The secondary mission was a failure. $10
million probably covers Orbcomm's launch costs.

SpaceX is awesome, but this isn't an unqualified win. There are groups out for
SpaceX's head and they will try (unsuccessfully, I hope) to use this "engine
incident" against them. SpaceX did not want this to happen at all.

~~~
archgoon
What groups? I haven't heard of any opposition to SpaceX. Heck, NASA contracts
with them.

~~~
danielweber
[http://news.yahoo.com/spacexs-elon-musk-bemoans-
opposition-c...](http://news.yahoo.com/spacexs-elon-musk-bemoans-opposition-
commercial-space-220100731.html) talks a bit about it some.

SpaceX is dramatically lowering the cost of space launch. They are eating the
lunch of dinosaur space companies who are only too happy to apply FUD that
SpaceX is being "too cheap." There's a _lot_ of money on the table being
consumed by people who just have to keep on doing what they are doing and
don't like competition.

------
martinkallstrom
It is perfectly clear that this is a story of safety margines adhered to in an
admirably strict fashion; not allowing short term thinking rule over long
term; and certainly not allowing marketing rule over engineering. This is how
you move mountains.

~~~
Dylan16807
On the other hand it doesn't explain why they didn't look at another orbit
that they did have enough fuel for. Was this a decision that had to be made
immediately?

~~~
sp332
A group of communications satellites have to be deployed in a synchronized
way, to continuously cover the area they target. Changing the orbit of this
satellite would mean changing the orbits of the other 16 satellites as well.
Also I'm pretty sure you have to license a particular orbit ahead of time
instead of just picking whatever is convenient at the moment.

~~~
Dylan16807
Were they putting this into the exact same orbit as the others? I thought it
was mostly a test sat.

Who do you license orbits from?

~~~
gus_massa
I googled a little, and apparently the radiocommunication satellites are
regulated by ITU: <http://www.itu.int/en/about/Pages/whatwedo.aspx> .

------
alanh
Wow, I hope everyone reads the article before commenting. It’s still amazingly
successful. There was a 95% chance the satellite would have made it if they
tried, but they were obligated not to try if there were less than a 99% chance
of success. (The reduced chance was due to the loss of one of the 9 engines.)
And, of course, the primary mission to the space station was fully successful
(the engine glitch notwithstanding).

~~~
vl
It's unclear to me what is the risk to ISS. Secondary payload was on the much
lower orbit, and even if it was on the same orbital plane, they could just
slightly change orbit plane, and try to raise the obit with any chance of
success entirely safe for ISS.

~~~
tsotha
It's probably mostly a theoretical risk. On the other hand, I recall a flight
to Mir that ended up slamming into the station. And NASA doesn't have any
reason to accept a risk that doesn't benefit its operations.

~~~
meepmorp
> And NASA doesn't have any reason to accept a risk that doesn't benefit its
> operations.

Goodwill in the space community and helping to defray costs of future launches
by making commercial launches more successful (and thus less expensive, if
only for insurance purposes) seem like things that benefit their operations.
Perhaps this is a naive opinion, though.

~~~
ramidarigaz
I agree, and I think NASA does too. They're just _really_ conservative about
the safety of the ISS (understandably so).

~~~
ktizo
In risk terms, the satellite that was ditched is worth absolutely nothing
compared to the ISS. The ISS is the single most important thing humans have in
space at the moment.

Purely on the basis that the new trajectory can't be gone over with a pin,
even if all the maths comes out saying that everything is lovely, you do not
refire an ISS delivery rocket that is not where you expected it to be,
especially one that has already sustained damage, just to test a new robot.

------
jamesmcn
Assuming that the insurance company actually pays out, this seems like a win
for both SpaceX and OrbComm. SpaceX got a paying commercial customer, and had
an opportunity to test out yet another part of the Falcon stack. OrbComm got a
bit of testing time on their new communication platform at less than the cost
of a full launch. If the insurance company is structured properly, _this_ is a
loss for them, but will average out over time.

Compare with the age of sail, where a mission was considered successful if one
the ships actually returned. Even with 75% of the crew dead and 25% toothless
and malnourished from scurvy and other ailments.

~~~
jameshart
Well yes - it's frankly impressive enough that it's _possible_ to get
insurance to cover putting your satellite on one of SpaceX's rockets. Speaks
well to the future of private space travel that there are institutions willing
to take that bet, at a price commercial customers of SpaceX are evidently
willing to pay.

~~~
pilom
Last I looked, insurance premiums on spaceflight were on the order of 20-25%
of insured value of the payload. So if it were a $10 million payout Orbcomm
probably paid out 2 million in insurance pre launch.

------
natep
To be sure, this is not a good outcome, but improper orbit insertion is a
serious risk on every rocket launch, whether or not it's SpaceX and whether or
not you're the primary payload. I'm glad to see that all parties involved
realized this and Orbcomm planned accordingly. It would make little sense to
accept the increased risk that a secondary payload status entails and to not
be prepared for the consequences.

And SpaceX behaved just as any other launch vehicle provider would in that
situation. They gave their best effort to the secondary payload, but in the
end, sacrificed it in order to achieve their primary mission.

------
robomartin
Failure is a part of every human activity worth pursuing. What we do when we
fail is what defines us. Looking at the big picture, this mission was nothing
but a success. Unless I am wrong, this is the first privately built rocket to
deliver cargo to the Space Station. Right? And they achieved this while
loosing one engine. High five!

It sounds like everyone involved with the Satellite portion of the mission
knew full-well what the risks were and that they had no priority over the main
mission. Insurance covered it. Done deal. All is well.

SpaceX can only get better from here. Kudos.

------
sehugg
Apparently SpaceX weren't the only ones with engine problems this week. The
Delta 4 launch had some anomalies as well. Hard engineering is hard.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/11/satellite-
investig...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/11/satellite-
investigation-idUSL1E8LBKPQ20121011?type=marketsNews)

------
checoivan
Title should be: SpaceX Falcon9 manages to reach its destination despite the
engine failure, delivers a pack of home made ice cream.

~~~
keypusher
Agreed. The text of this article does not match the headline at all.

------
jamesmcn
After some further digging, it appears that insurance was at a low back in
March. The article discusses the danger of a major failure, such as an Ariane
5 which could be covered at $750 million or a Proton which can carry $400
million worth of cargo. This $10 million loss shouldn't be too big of a deal
for the space insurance world.

[http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/120302-falling-
sa...](http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/120302-falling-sat-
insurance-premiums-market-risk.html)

------
ramidarigaz
Shame. It doesn't sound like Orbcomm is too disappointed though. They were
aware of the risks, and they did get to test some of the systems.

~~~
joez
Actually, sounds like Orbcomm got a heck of a deal. They get insurance money
and in addition to getting a few tests off on the prototype.

~~~
ramidarigaz
Hah. Good point. A couple days of free testing in space isn't a bad deal at
all.

------
United857
Did the satellite self-destruct or something? The article seems to imply the
rocket and payload reached its first goal orbit of 202 miles (to deliver
another separate payload to the ISS).

At that altitude, while short of the 466 miles desired, it still should have
taken months or years for the orbit to decay and re-enter the atmosphere!

~~~
reitzensteinm
Altitude alone isn't enough for orbit - it also needs sufficient velocity in
the right direction, which presumably it didn't have.

A stationary object placed 466 miles above the earth would just fall down.

------
jordanthoms
Is there an explanation somewhere (preferably with a diagram) of how this
launch was supposed to work? I'm not sure where the satellite was attached,
and how the upper stage was supposed to boost it - was it going to drop the
dragon off at one orbit and then continue higher and release the satellite?

------
beefman
Unusually clear and detailed article from Reuters. Kudos to Ms. Klotz.

------
ProCynic
That's what space launch insurance is for I guess.

------
revelation
Can someone clarify this for me? Why does the contract with NASA forbid them
to restart the engine unless they have a 99% chance of completing a second
burn?

Is the problem here that if you start a second burn and have to end it
prematurely, you could end up in an orbit intersecting the ISS?

~~~
saraid216
As I understand it, that's exactly what it is.

------
NDizzle
Note to self: Don't start a space mission insurance company.

~~~
pjscott
If you don't have enough capital to take a few hits, don't start any kind of
insurance company. If you do have the money, though, it should be the same
basic principle as any other insurance company: calculate the risk as best you
can, and charge accordingly so that the expected value of your profit is as
positive as the market will bear.

------
nkurz
_Due to the engine shutdown, the Falcon 9 used slightly more fuel and oxygen
to reach Dragon's intended 202 mile- (325-km) high orbit._

 _For the ride up, SpaceX stashed chocolate-vanilla swirl ice cream inside._

 _the amount of liquid oxygen "was only enough to achieve a roughly 95 percent
likelihood of completing the second burn..."_

 _882 pounds (400 kg) of cargo aboard the Dragon capsule_

The cynic in my wonders: would they have calculated a 99% likelihood if they
hadn't sent the ice cream and had about .1% less cargo?

~~~
zachalexander
Falcon 9: 333,450 kg

Dragon: 4,200 kg

Cargo: 905 kg

Ice cream: <5 kg, I'm guessing

Skipping the ice cream would've reduced their total mass by <0.001% or so, at
least at launchtime.

~~~
nkurz
Appreciate the response, and think you're probably right. I'd be interested in
better numbers, though. It's not the mass of the ice cream that't the problem,
but the fuel necessary to get that mass to orbit. I think that's about 10x.
And it's the percentage of weight at altitude that matters, since that's where
the maneuvering was being done, which brings the weight down by about 90%.
That's why I was guessing it was a .1% increase, but don't know for sure.

------
caycep
so the ice cream bit at the end makes it all ok?

------
cryptoz


------
EGreg
ice cream!

------
asalazar
In the words of the great philosopher, Homer-- "Doh!",

------
tocomment
I never understood why this company couldn't make do with the orbit spacex
left it in?

~~~
mikeash
No, orbit isn't orbit. Among many other considerations, the key problem here
was that the initial orbit was low enough for atmospheric drag to be a factor,
thus why it fell back to Earth after just a few days.

~~~
mturmon
And specifically, being underpowered, the orbit was probably highly
elliptical.

------
tarice
So, essentially, a company sends a satellite into space, tests it a lot, and
then charges an insurance company $10 million because they expected it to fall
into the atmosphere?

What insurance company lets a company take out a plan with that kind of risk?

Seems like NASA should've been getting insurance plans for the shuttle's
External Tank all these years.

~~~
ramidarigaz
They didn't expect it to fall. They were aware that their satellite was a
secondary payload and would be abandoned if need be. I don't think anyone
expected the Falcon 9 to lose an engine.

~~~
tarice
From the article:

 _> "Orbcomm understood from the beginning that the orbit-raising maneuver was
tentative," Nelson wrote. "They accepted that there was a high risk of their
satellite remaining at the Dragon insertion orbit. SpaceX would not have
agreed to fly their satellite otherwise, since this was not part of the core
mission and there was a known, material risk of no altitude raise."_

High risk, to me, says that there was a pretty good chance it was gonna fall.

~~~
sirclueless
That's pretty clearly a little doublespeak going on. Of course it's shitty
that the secondary mission didn't happen, but neither Orbcomm nor SpaceX wants
this to go down in the press as a failure, so the party line is "Well, it was
a big risk, and we accepted it." There's not much else Orbcomm _could_ say
unless they wanted to lambaste SpaceX as a scapegoat, which they don't want to
do because of an ongoing relationship.

~~~
mturmon
Indeed. From a SpaceNews article: "Orbcomm is relying on Hawthorne,
Calif.-based SpaceX to launch all its second-generation satellites. Eight
Orbcomm satellites are scheduled for launch aboard a Falcon 9 in mid-2013,
with another 10 satellites scheduled for a 2014 Falcon 9 launch."

Besides polluting the relationship with SpaceX, raising a fuss would put their
own plans into doubt. Orbcomm's stock price already fell 15% in the past week,
I don't think they need more trouble:

[http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ORBC+Interactive#symbol=o...](http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ORBC+Interactive#symbol=orbc;range=5d;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined);

