Live data from Hacker News

Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

nasa.gov

121–130 of 264 posts

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#121
post #9

I had a close friend who worked on this. Everybody in our lab stopped working this afternoon to watch it launch, and to cheer our friend on. Definitely went from "YAY!" to sad really quick. It's been said other places in this thread, but to echo it again: I really feel for all the engineers involved in this. That's got to be devastating. To everybody: failures suck, but big spectacular failure is directly correlated…

Makes me think of the Michael Jordan quote:

"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#123
post #9

I had a close friend who worked on this. Everybody in our lab stopped working this afternoon to watch it launch, and to cheer our friend on. Definitely went from "YAY!" to sad really quick. It's been said other places in this thread, but to echo it again: I really feel for all the engineers involved in this. That's got to be devastating. To everybody: failures suck, but big spectacular failure is directly correlated…

"If you're failing, you're doing something right." I didn't think people said this and meant it. If you succeed, it means you've done the critical things right. If you're failing, it means that you didn't do something right. Or several somethings. Yeah, you can learn from it and do better, and that's great - but that doesn't mean it's a success. It's a failure and - in some cases - a chance to do better the next time…

As I've understood it, it means that the scale of your ambitions is right.

Consider a continuum of things that you can do, divided up by difficulty. For some part of it, you allways succeed, for some part of it, it's a mix of sucess and failure, and for some even more difficult part, you always fail.

Now in order to succeed at something consistently, you need to master it, which also means that the things you always succeed at are fully mastered. Any knowledge or skills to be gained in those areas are at best minuscule improvements.

Then there's the part where you succeed sometimes and fail sometimes. But each time you fail, you gain more data on how you failed, and you think about how you can fix those points. You're learning, and you're improving.

Now there are also tasks at which you'll consistently fail. Passing the BAR exam as a programmer with no preparation would be a good example. Since you have no sucesses to compare to in that area, you wouldn't learn a lot trying to retake the BAR exam, no matter how often you did it. You're lacking in knowledge and skills required, and trying to perform at that level doesn't do you any good.

Now the ratio of failures and sucesses is more of a rule of thumb, and not an ironclad model. If you do turn it into an ironclad model, tell me, because I'd love exact metrics to shoot for. The reason that the common adage is "If you're failing, you're doing something right", at least so I believe, is that "If you're failing some and succeeding some, you're closer to your optimum failure/success ratio for growth than if you are at either end of the extreme" simply doesn't roll off the tongue quite as nicely. You can't put that on the cover of a self-help book. And since almost everyone is inclined to default to the "sucess" side of the continuum (coloquially known as your comfort zone) instead of the "failure" side (excluding select masochists), it makes a lot more sense to tell someone to fail more often. It's not a curse, it's a call for more ambitious projects. In this specific case, it's a comforting call to the fact that they're trying hard enough to fail at something. And I think that is commendable.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't fret the failures. Except when it kills people (though this accident didn't).

Or when it costs billions of dollars from NASA.

I think it's important to realize that this is a NASA contractor, not NASA itself. Furthermore, Congress & the President have forced NASA into purchasing these transport contracts by killing off the Space Shuttle.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#125
post #106

Truly unfortunate that it failed. Here's Elon Musk's comment about the Antares rock two years ago: Musk: The results are pretty crazy. One of our competitors, Orbital Sciences, has a contract to resupply the International Space Station, and their rocket honestly sounds like the punch line to a joke. It uses Russian rocket engines that were made in the ’60s. I don’t mean their design is from the ’60s—I mean they start…

And he was wrong. They had 4 successful launches since then. Plus it seems unprofessional to be bad mouthing a competitor like that in public.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#127

You will not go to space today.

This is a reference to an xkcd-post by Randall Munroe, a former NASA employee and space proponent. http://xkcd.com/1133/ [text at the bottom]

Wow, I've somehow lived through 40 years of math/science/space-geekdom without learning that the pointy thing on top of the Saturn V is a part of an escape system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_escape_system

But don't worry, future-people-I-will-argue-with-on-the-Internet, I'm sure that's the final gap in my knowledge base.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#128
post #106

Truly unfortunate that it failed. Here's Elon Musk's comment about the Antares rock two years ago: Musk: The results are pretty crazy. One of our competitors, Orbital Sciences, has a contract to resupply the International Space Station, and their rocket honestly sounds like the punch line to a joke. It uses Russian rocket engines that were made in the ’60s. I don’t mean their design is from the ’60s—I mean they start…

And he was wrong. They had 4 successful launches since then. Plus it seems unprofessional to be bad mouthing a competitor like that in public.

What exactly was he wrong about?

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#129
post #106

Truly unfortunate that it failed. Here's Elon Musk's comment about the Antares rock two years ago: Musk: The results are pretty crazy. One of our competitors, Orbital Sciences, has a contract to resupply the International Space Station, and their rocket honestly sounds like the punch line to a joke. It uses Russian rocket engines that were made in the ’60s. I don’t mean their design is from the ’60s—I mean they start…

And he was wrong. They had 4 successful launches since then. Plus it seems unprofessional to be bad mouthing a competitor like that in public.

Which is now good for an 80% success rate. And from the video it certainly seems like an engine failure is the most likely scenario. I think if anything Musk is looking pretty vindicated now.

No comment on the unprofessionalism bit. I don't disagree, but then it's hardly uncommon in high tech either.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#130
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Antares can command itself to destruct. The destruct has to be commanded by the range. There isn't any point to issuing the destruct command unless the impact point is dangerously far from the flight path, and that wasn't the case here.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Antares can command itself to destruct given that other rockets have that ability, and have so destructed. Ariane 5 (the infamous flight 501) self-destructed. http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/Ariane5accidentreport.html "The launcher started to disintegrate at about H0 + 39 seconds because of high aerodynamic loads due to an angle of attack of more than 20 degrees that led to se…

For what it's worth, this mission had a manual destruct command sent at T+20s.

EDIT: According to the press conference.

Post reply on HN