Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Major Chinese Satellite Suffers Complete Failure 80

Posted by Hemos from the ground-control-to-major-tom dept.
cyclone96 writes "China's most advanced satellite, the direct broadcast Sinosat 2, apparently suffered a major failure on orbit following launch on October 29. None of the solar arrays or antennas deployed on the spacecraft, and the Chinese are now mulling whether to destroy the spacecraft in the atmosphere. The article provides the following analysis: "The catastrophic breakdown of China's new Sinosat 2 direct broadcast satellite is the worst spacecraft failure in the history of the Chinese space program and a major setback to China's development of a new generation of larger, more powerful civilian and military satellites.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Major Chinese Satellite Suffers Complete Failure More

Major Chinese Satellite Suffers Complete Failure

Comments Filter:

  • Bad headlines, worse summaries (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Howzer ( 580315 ) * <{grabshot} {at} {hotmail.com}> on Monday December 04, 2006 @07:38AM (#17097804) Homepage Journal
    From TFA: "A failure of such magnitude could have been caused by a major electrical or computer fault, or even a collision of the booster nose faring with the satellite during launch on its Long March 3B booster. Command errors have also been the cause of major U.S. European satcom losses in the past." (Emphasis mine)

    Upshot? Lots of people have lost lots of sats. This ain't the first, won't be the last. So let's quit with the "made in China" fnarr fnarrs before they begin, eh?

    From TFA: "...the worst spacecraft failure in the history of the Chinese space program"

    Upshot? Yeah, but you can say that about every new launch which incorporates tech that's never been flown before. And you can say that about every failure in every "all-up" development program. Cheaper, faster --- gotta be a problem here somewhere...

    From TFA: "Although it is a painful way to initiate reform, such a major loss has prompted Chinese aerospace to rise to higher standards in the past. Chinese quality control measures were tightened across the Long March booster program after fatal launch accidents at Xichang in the early 1990s. [...] The loss of such a critical spacecraft could spark similar reforms in the satellite industry"

    Upshot? A big loss, but probably a bigger opportunity.

    And that's about all you need to know.
    • Excuse me, but, what the hell are fnarr fnarrs?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Maxwell ( 13985 )
      FTA
      It is not uncommon for spacecraft to have individual hinges and latches on single solar arrays or antennas hang up. Such a mechanism failure is, for example, suspected in the apparent loss of the NASA Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft (AW&ST Nov. 27, p. 53). But to have all major solar array and antenna deployments halted by a broader failure is almost unheard of in modern satellite operations.

      Emphasis mine. It's all in the scale. The thing is space junk. No functions. Dead. Three years to replace.

      J

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mhollis ( 727905 )

      That got me wondering about their metrics (how they measure this).

      From TFA: "...the worst spacecraft failure in the history of the Chinese space program" Is this the worst in dollar (Yuan) amounts lost by shareholders? It this the worst in terms of totality and completeness of loss of function (there are functions left on the spacecraft, as the Chinese believe they can force it to re-enter the atmosphere and prevent it from becoming "really expensive space junk") or is this the worst in terms of the amount

  • wikipedia (Score:4, Interesting)

    by arun_s ( 877518 ) on Monday December 04, 2006 @07:40AM (#17097822) Homepage Journal
    Slightly offtopic: I was searching for 'Sinosat' in Wikipedia, and came across this page [wikipedia.org]. The outcome is already updated as 'Failure', with a reason given.
    As a comparison, the article linked here at /. is dated 3rd December, and the wiki change was in the 2nd. I'm seriously impressed.

  • worst spacecraft failure involved loss of life (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04, 2006 @07:53AM (#17097902)
    I'd have thought that the worst spacecraft failure would be one that directly resulted in loss of life, like that rocket that veered off course and flew into a town a few years ago. I realize that the loss of a satellite might indirectly result in lost lives (or the lost opportunity to save lives), but I don't see how that can be compared with the direct death of many by a malfunctioning rocket.

    • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by ThosLives ( 686517 )

      I know this is not on-topic, but I just had an interesting question come to mind, and I realize it is one to which I don't have a satisfactory answer because of all the possible scenarios: Is the loss of life bad?

      There are so many nuances to that question I don't even know where to begin, other to know that it is an important and probably overlooked philosophical question. I know the first response of most people is "Of course the loss of life is bad!" but then you have to ask - "What life?" Because there

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Ginger Unicorn ( 952287 )
        The problem here is the use of the word "worst". Worse and better are adjectives. You need a subject for them to be adjectives of. Perhaps it was the worst loss of financial investment. Perhaps it was the worst setback in terms of infrastructure to improve standards of living. It seems it wasn't the worst in terms of direct loss of life.

        There is no meaningful "worst" in overall terms because there are so many independent apples and oranges metrics of which it could be the "worst".

    • Re:worst spacecraft failure involved loss of life (Score:5, Funny)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Monday December 04, 2006 @08:23AM (#17098118)
      I'd have thought that the worst spacecraft failure would be one that directly resulted in loss of life, like that rocket that veered off course

      I don't know, this is China we're talking about. Loss of life can be a result of just having your blog veer off course.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cyclone96 ( 129449 )
      I'd have thought that the worst spacecraft failure would be one that directly resulted in loss of life, like that rocket that veered off course and flew into a town a few years ago.

      A few other folks have pointed out that the Long March failure was (obviously) a lot worse. I think the author of the piece was making a distinction between a launch vehicle failure (what you have when a rocket flies into a village) and a spacecraft failure (the satellite is put into orbit by the launcher, but it doesn't work).

  • Sad... (Score:2)

    by AB3A ( 192265 )
    This is a genuine attempt by a people to better themselves. It appears to have failed. That's sad. I hope that the agencies in China will do their best to learn from this experience (as all other countries have done) and rebuild.

    A little more competition in the race for space is a good thing in my opinion.

  • WTF !! (Score:5, Informative)

    by minus_273 ( 174041 ) <aaaaa@NOspam.SPAM.yahoo.com> on Monday December 04, 2006 @08:27AM (#17098148) Journal
    The author of the article is an idiot and one who has never heard of the long march. [youtube.com] That is a video everyone should see. That is seriously worse that a satellite loss. The long march launches in the 90s were basically ballistic missiles launched at villages. The death toll from one is about 500.

  • If none of the antannae deployed then how can they destroy it?

    On the other hand, it could make great target...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cyclone96 ( 129449 )
      If none of the antannae deployed then how can they destroy it?

      The antennas that didn't deploy are part of the payload (direct broadcast television). Most satellites use a different, low bandwidth omnidirectional antenna for commanding and engineering data. So the satellite is basically alive, but without the payload antennas deployed (or the solar arrays, which doesn't leave enough power to run the payload) it's not usable for anything (except maybe for some engineering tests since it's now essentially dis

  • Worst ever? No way... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04, 2006 @09:37AM (#17098720)
    "the worst spacecraft failure in the history of the Chinese space program"

    In my humble opinion, this description is a load of garbage. The loss of control of a satellite in orbit is minor compared to the of a Long March launch vehicle to the point that it exploded moments after launch and flaming debris crashed into the ground killing (officially) 6 people in 1998 [washingtonpost.com]. The real number of deaths was probably much higher (some estimates place it at about 200). Given the cover-up of that event, I suppose the present example might still be the most serious recent failure the Chinese government has allowed their news media to talk about in any detail. Given the actual record to date, this event seems more like business as usual, but this time effecting a Chinese satellite, rather than a customer from somewhere else that the Chinese space agency could try to blame as the source of the problem (see the linked article for previous examples).
  • In soviet China .*

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close