Intelsat 27 -Failed Launch

[mike123abc]

It is scary that so many launch failures still occur.

 

[bhawley]

What? No BIG fireball and burning debris?

Here you go: http://www.cracked.com/article_19727_6-tiny-mistakes-that-caused-apocalyptic-explosions.html

 

[Bob Haller]

There have been a fair amount of launch failures over the yeares because as the old saying ("it aint rocket science, ya know") infers that launching large rockets is an extremely difficult thing to do WITHOUT a failure, even here in the 21st Century. It is so difficult, there really should be MORE failures. Essentially the rocket engines are great big BOMBS and we ignite them, and we have to prevent the huge bomb from blowing up the payload. That aint easy. In fact, it is beyond the most difficult thing to do. There are other factors that make rocket launches very dicey, such as winds aloft, and more. That's why so many Shuttle launches were delayed or "scrubbed" not to mention several such delays to launch of communications satellites because conditions have to be JUST SO nearly perfect for a successful launch. This is why NASA and the private sector believe rocket technology just can't do the job of getting people into space for the future, both because of cost and how utterly a roll of the dice a rocket launch is. The problem is that it is still "rocket science" and not "a walk in the park," which has it own dangers .

Please supply a link stating nasa has plans for a non rocket way to space.

Even strato launcher begins with a BIG airliner, but uses a rocket after release altitude around 40,000 feet.

 

[FaT Air]

Intelsat 27 spacecraft lost
-Intended as a replacement for Intelsat 805-
Forty seconds after lifting off
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/02/sea-launch-zenit-3sl-launch-intelsat-27/

From Motley Fool:

Friday's incident was only the fourth such failure in 14 years of operation, but it was enough to push the company below a 90% success rate.

What was planned: http://www.intelsat.com/_files/resources/satellites/IS-27-factsheet.pdf

 

[nelson61]

Now, if you want to see what the Russians can do with rocket motors, watch the 5 part video on the rocket motors the Kremlin ordered destroyed after they abandoned their moon program (but the rocket boss hide them in a warehouse). The American manufacturers got wind of them 10-15 years later (1995), tested them and found they are 4 times more powerful than anything we make today. Punch line in part 5 is great. Martin rocket man says; "How do you explain to the government that we spent all those years and money developing motors with 25 percent of the thrust of something the Russians had setting in a warehouse 10-15 years ago? Part 1

 

[olliec420]

I bet their insurance company is not happy.

 

[FaT Air]

I wonder how much longer I-805 will operate. Been there going on 17 years.
I'm sure the ins rates will rise.

 

[Mr Tony]

merged 3 threads together that were in various spots on the board

 

[navychop]

Now, if you want to see what the Russians can do with rocket motors, watch the 5 part video on the rocket motors the Kremlin ordered destroyed after they abandoned their moon program (but the rocket boss hide them in a warehouse). The American manufacturers got wind of them 10-15 years later (1995), tested them and found they are 4 times more powerful than anything we make today. Punch line in part 5 is great. Martin rocket man says; "How do you explain to the government that we spent all those years and money developing motors with 25 percent of the thrust of something the Russians had setting in a warehouse 10-15 years ago? Part 1

Seriously? Rocket motor that went on a rocket with a 100% failure rate? And anybody with a brain is thinking the Russians had it all over us?