Astra 1K Communications Satellite now Space Junk

bachelor#3 writes "Astra 1K, which was to replace 3 other satellites, didn't make it. Launch services were being provided by International Launch Services. Here's a timeline, from T-minus 30 minutes onwards."

For western Europe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps that's why Slashbots don't care.

Re:Perhaps adding this ...

[Skater]

And yet so many people complain that /. is US-centric! :)

Not good.

[carlmenezes]

The second failure in 25 launches. That's a success rate of 92%? That's also a 1 in 13 chance of failure with multi-million dollar equipment.

T+plus 6 minutes. Second stage separation should have occurred, followed by third stage ignition. However, ILS has stopped its live commentary to show a video. We'll provide any additional information on the actual flight performance as it becomes available.

Problems started here maybe?

T+plus 8 minutes. Confirmation has now been received that the second stage engines shut down, the spent stage was jettisoned and the third stage has ignited. Also, the payload fairing enclosing the Astra 1K spacecraft atop the rocket has separated.

seems ok...

T+plus 10 minutes. The third stage burn should have been completed by now, followed by separation from the Block DM upper stage. However, no word has been received from ILS.

Looks like ILS noticed trouble brewing here and were trying to redeem the situation... .. ...

FAILURE. International Launch Services has announced that the second burn of the Block DM upper stage suffered an anomaly, failing to deliver the Astra 1K spacecraft into the proper orbit tonight.

Re:Secretivity...

[Skater]

Hubble was at least fixable. What about Challenger and the whole unit conversion fiasco? Those were much worse problems--at least we could do something about Hubble and not waste the money getting it up there.

It's sad to see so much money and effort put into these satellites, only to have something go wrong and have it all for naught. It's too bad there isn't some way to recover the satellite or push it into its intended orbit. (I wonder what insurance policies are like on satellites, if they're even available.)

On the other hand, we have to remember that nothing is perfect in human endeavors. When this happens, the best we can do is learn from our mistakes and then move on. Certainly NASA is more careful about O-rings than they used to be.

--RJ

Astra 1k (I'm trashed and just dreaming...)

[inode_buddha]

Does anyone think there's a chance to recue this mission with the next several US shuttle launches in exchange for a mostly ready-made comms platform aboard the International Space Station? If yes, why? If no, why not? This could be a very valuable contribution to the ISS from the USSR, given their current difficulties otherwise, IMHO.

Re:The Endeavor to the Rescue?

[theBitBucket]

To quote "FAllen Angels" (Thanks Jerry P!) "It's all a matter of delta-v.".

Both the ISS (and currently Endeavor) are in low Earth orbit, as is the alleged satellite. Still, it ain't like you can just say "Houston, kin I borrow the keys to the shuttle tonight?". Besides, there aren't ANY gas stations up there for that baby.

I much prefer the solution that was used recently on a U.S. satellite that lost one of it's positioning motors. The engineers found that they could use an on-board electric motor to generate a magnetic field that would push against the Earth's magnetosphere....thereby turing the satellite. Bravo guys! And since it's powered by the solar cells, it'll last lot longer than the fuel supply for the original motor. Gee...we should build them ALL that way.

After all, the 1K needs only to reach a more elliptical orbit in order to start moving on out. Fire that puppy up and get it's batteries charged. Heck, considering the field strentgh needed, it would probably have to rotate and "flap" every antenna and panel it has. I can't escape the picture of that thing trying to "swim" it's way into orbit.....ah the irony...

Re:Shuttle Reliability

[MacAndrew]

You're right, at NASA 113=112 [nasa.gov], but I did take the number from a NASA source. Go figure -- it was probably dated despite the date on the page. Interesting that the # of missions and flight number are coinciding.

This claims 111: http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/factoids/orbite r.htm

Anyway, the point was the probabilities! Future, not past, as past probabilities don't exist ... they're called outcomes. So, someone break out a calculotor before I have to.