Low-cost Astra Rocket Suffers Upper Stage Failure. Two NASA Satellites Lost (cbsnews.com) 64
"All appeared to be going smoothly," reports CBS News, "when, about a minute before the second stage engine was expected to shut down, an onboard 'rocketcam' showed a flash in the engine's exhaust plume.
"The camera view them showed what appeared to be a tumble before video from the rocket cut off...." California-based Astra on Sunday launched two shoebox-size NASA satellites from Cape Canaveral in a modest mission to improve hurricane forecasts, but the second stage of the company's low-cost booster malfunctioned before reaching orbit and the payloads were lost.
"The upper stage shut down early and we did not deliver the payloads to orbit," Astra tweeted. "We have shared our regrets with @NASA and the payload team. More information will be provided after we complete a full data analysis."
It was the seventh launch of Astra's small "Venture-class" rocket and the company's fifth failure. Sunday's launch was the first of three planned for NASA to launch six small CubeSats, two at a time, into three orbital planes. Given the somewhat risky nature of relying on tiny shoebox-size CubeSats and a rocket with a very short track record, the $40 million project requires just four satellites and two successful launches to meet mission objectives. The NASA contract calls for the final two flights by the end of July. Whether Astra can meet that schedule given Sunday's failure is not yet known.
"Although today's launch with @Astra did not go as planned, the mission offered a great opportunity for new science and launch capabilities," tweeted NASA science chief Thomas Zurbuchen.... After Sunday's failure, he tweeted: "Even though we are disappointed right now, we know: There is value in taking risks in our overall NASA Science portfolio because innovation is required for us to lead."
"The camera view them showed what appeared to be a tumble before video from the rocket cut off...." California-based Astra on Sunday launched two shoebox-size NASA satellites from Cape Canaveral in a modest mission to improve hurricane forecasts, but the second stage of the company's low-cost booster malfunctioned before reaching orbit and the payloads were lost.
"The upper stage shut down early and we did not deliver the payloads to orbit," Astra tweeted. "We have shared our regrets with @NASA and the payload team. More information will be provided after we complete a full data analysis."
It was the seventh launch of Astra's small "Venture-class" rocket and the company's fifth failure. Sunday's launch was the first of three planned for NASA to launch six small CubeSats, two at a time, into three orbital planes. Given the somewhat risky nature of relying on tiny shoebox-size CubeSats and a rocket with a very short track record, the $40 million project requires just four satellites and two successful launches to meet mission objectives. The NASA contract calls for the final two flights by the end of July. Whether Astra can meet that schedule given Sunday's failure is not yet known.
"Although today's launch with @Astra did not go as planned, the mission offered a great opportunity for new science and launch capabilities," tweeted NASA science chief Thomas Zurbuchen.... After Sunday's failure, he tweeted: "Even though we are disappointed right now, we know: There is value in taking risks in our overall NASA Science portfolio because innovation is required for us to lead."
7 missions, 5 failures (Score:1)
Youâ(TM)d think you want to iron out the problems before putting up a payload.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Their previous launch was a success. This sort of thing is common in rocketry. People make arrangements for possible failure to launch their payloads.
Re: (Score:2)
Some things cannot be pronounced
Re: 7 missions, 5 failures (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not spread launches across vendors? (Score:1)
Given the somewhat risky nature of relying on tiny shoebox-size CubeSats and a rocket with a very short track record, the $40 million project requires just four satellites and two successful launches to meet mission objectives.
I totally understand wanting to spread launches around to help build up other rocket service vendors.
But why put all of the launches for this project on one vendor? Why isn't SpaceX at least one of the vendors, or some other rocket with a better record of service? It sure lookalike
Re:Why not spread launches across vendors? (Score:5, Interesting)
Astra got the launch because NASA *is* spreading out across vendors.
Where Astra gains payloads over SpaceX is when the customer needs a different orbit. The SpaceX rideshares are probably cheaper, but they are limited in orbital trajectories.
What NASA really needs is a "new school" alternative to SpaceX for their second manned option. The old cost plus contracts that prop up the "old school" companies like Boeing need to die.
It's not much spread if it's a whole mission per V (Score:1)
Astra got the launch because NASA *is* spreading out across vendors.
BUT what I am saying is they are doing so atomically (all launches on Astra for an entire mission), why are they doing that when it greatly increase the chance of total mission failure?
NASA was really smart in that they spread the mission across two launches so that only one of them needed to work. But then they went super dumb by putting all launches on Astra greatly increasing the odds of total failure, wasting the effort they made in du
Re: (Score:3)
I think you missed the point where SpaceX can NOT put these satellites in orbit, at all, where they are supposed to go?
Re: (Score:1)
think you missed the point where SpaceX can NOT put these satellites in orbit,
Fine, maybe not SpaceX (though I wonder if they are truly as incapable as you think) but why not ANY other vendor? Are you saying no other third party can possibly put these into orbit? Literally only Astra can put these where you need to go?
Re: (Score:3)
Price. To get the same price as an Astra launch, you'd have to be on a rideshare SpaceX Falcon 9 flight, which may not hit the orbit you want.
All of the 'old school' space options are going to be outrageously expensive--all of the Boeing/ULA stuff, Arianne, etc.
The only other option in this price/class is Electron, but it could be they couldn't hit the orbit needed either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think you missed the point where SpaceX can NOT put these satellites in orbit, at all, where they are supposed to go?
The TROPICS Pathfinder (launched June 30, 2021) made it to orbit on SpaceX's Transporter-2 rideshare mission.
5 seconds of Googling didn't find the differences in orbital parameters (inclination, for one) between the pathfinder and the constellation, though. If you know lots about this stuff, please share. (I work somewhere that's involved, but my workgroup isn't involved.)
Re: (Score:3)
You put the thumb on the sore spot. "Rideshare mission".
The problem is (I don't have current pricing models, as a disclaimer), that rideshare missions only work if there are multiple things that need to go to the same place.
That's often not as much of an issue with larger satellite packages, but with micro cubes you're going to have to wait for one of the other ones to go there.
It's highly unlikely you're going to get enough micro cubes to go to the same orbital target that it's worth it to buy space for al
Re: (Score:1)
You put the thumb on the sore spot. "Rideshare mission".
The problem is (I don't have current pricing models, as a disclaimer), that rideshare missions only work if there are multiple things that need to go to the same place.
Well, not same place, but okay, same inclination (barring spending money on delta-v in orbital transfer vehicles to change it), same altitude (presuming only a single second-stage burn, which is not at all a safe thing to presume nowadays), and so on. Fair point.
But you do raise a fair point -- unless a whole bunch of other things wanted to go in a 30-degree-inclined orbit very similar to that of TROPICS, SpaceX would charge considerably more to put just two TROPICS satellites into orbit than Astra charged
Re: (Score:2)
To make 6 (or however many) satellites all made to integrate for one launch platform will be far cheaper than trying to mix them up between 2+ different platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Where Astra gains payloads over SpaceX is when the customer needs a different orbit.
*looks at Cubesat parts scattered on the ground*
I truly have no words for this new No Orbit Left Behind program...
Re: (Score:2)
Then the government needs to change the way it does everything. There's generally no value to contracting with the federal government without cost plus because they refuse to accept off the shelf solutions. This project appears to be something of a change, but it's also peanuts compared to big projects where they really want control
Re:Why not spread launches across vendors? (Score:5, Funny)
Why isn't SpaceX at least one of the vendors, or some other rocket with a better record of service?
Maybe SpaceX could, at least, carry Astra's entire rocket up to an altitude where it might then have a chance of reaching orbit, before failing... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
"SpaceX - We are everyones First Stage".
Re:Why not spread launches across vendors? (Score:5, Informative)
The TROPICS mission has a total cost of about $40million for 6 satellites, their launches and a year of mission. Which is basically nothing.
How much of that budget do you want taken up from dealing with multiple launch platform integrations?
Re: (Score:1)
total cost of about $40million for 6 satellites, their launches and a year of mission. Which is basically nothing.
Oh yeah I forgot it's the government, so totally OK to throw an entire $40 mission in the trash when you could have spent a few million more to give it much better odds of success. After all they ALREADY spent the money to break hardware across two launches, why do you think it would have been terribly expensive to have the two launches split across two vendors?
Personally if I had worked on mis
Re:Why not spread launches across vendors? (Score:5, Informative)
While it is "government" and "government" does have lots of money to throw at things, I think you are under the misapprehension that any government body can thus throw any amount of money at any project - departments have an allowance, not a credit card.
It goes something like this...
The project undergoes a proposal by some scientists, it gets signed off and a funding proposal is created by a review board.
Then the funding proposal is signed off, and added to the departments budget.
Then the departments budget is signed off, and added to the agencies budget.
Then Congress gets to slash projects as they see fit.
If the project is approved and funded, then the team get to go do it - but if they overshoot the budget, they have to ask for more and undergo hearings to get their funding, or they have to steal from other projects.
So for big, flashy projects like the SLS, this is easy.
For small projects that aren't very flashy, this is hard. So they take their risks where they need to, in order to meet their budget and project requirements - in this case, it meant that it was cheaper to budget for a 50% increase in capability over baseline (ie just build and launch 6 instead of 4) and use a non-proven launcher with the hope that at least 66% of their launches work, than it was to spread those launches over multiple vendors.
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand if this was a commercial satellite, cos I think commercial sats are insured. So if there is a screw up, presumably you can claim enough to build and launch another satellite.
I don't think government sats are insured. They are "self insured".
Or in this case, "self screwed".
Re: (Score:2)
total cost of about $40million for 6 satellites, their launches and a year of mission. Which is basically nothing.
Oh yeah I forgot it's the government, so totally OK to throw an entire $40 mission in the trash
Wait. The mission was designed to be tolerant of one launch failure. Nobody is "throwing the entire $40 M mission in the trash." The mission was designed to be risk tolerant. Guess what, when you take risks, one of the risks is the risk of failure.
...After all they ALREADY spent the money to break hardware across two launches, why do you think it would have been terribly expensive to have the two launches split across two vendors?
Yes, it would be. You are clearly unaware of this, but yes, there's a cost associated with selecting a vendor, integrating into that vendor's ICD.. On a mission where the total cost of three launches is under $8 million, this can be significant.
You wanted a chea
Re: (Score:1)
The TROPICS mission has a total cost of about $40million for 6 satellites, their launches and a year of mission. Which is basically nothing.
How much of that budget do you want taken up from dealing with multiple launch platform integrations?
Does that $40 million include the pathfinder satellite for the constellation, which launched last year on a SpaceX rideshare?
My problem is not the failures (Score:2)
It's that our taxes are funding a non-reusable launch platform. Why is NASA doing this? Even a billionaire would never buy a single use car, yet poor taxpayers have to fund disposable luxury rockets. We must require that any rockets be purchased from companies that at least have an active and reasonable pathway to fully usable rockets. $4 million flushed down the toilet each launch. By my estimate less than $75,000 of that $4 million is fuel and oxidizer costs.
Re: (Score:2)
what nonsense, making small rockets reusable is pointless. How would that even work?
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.popsci.com/technol... [popsci.com]
Re: My problem is not the failures (Score:3)
Doesn't Electron try to catch their small rockets with a helicopter?
Re: (Score:3)
It did work.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, I'm pretty sure you know you're wrong that's why you are posting as anonymous coward. They caught they rocket, and carried it some distance ... they only dropped it in the sea (where it was recovered, btw) because it behaved different than the dummy load and didn't want to take a risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, one hilarious happening does not an industry make. Small rockets are cheap anyway, there is no point is wasting the effort and money for recovery. $40 million is nothing to a company that needs a satellite in space.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. but you (Anonymous Coward) also said that it *would* work, and then expounded in typical armchair fashion about how you did the same thing out of your basement five years ago.
You've said that the Elon is a lizard man, but also Jesus walking on water. You've said that Orange Man Bad, but also that he had the election stolen from him. By taking both sides so frequently, Anonymous Coward, you have made it impossible to verify your
Re: (Score:2)
Probably cos you have to learn to walk before you can run?
And they don't want to be dependant only on SpaceX and traditional slow moving expensive providers.
Or in this case, they want to fund a bunch of launch providers, so hopefully some of them survive long enough to make reusable rockets.
$40 million to (not) put two shoeboxes into space. (Score:1)
Cool, awesome, great job.
Even if the mission had succeeded itâ(TM)d have been a huge waste of money.
Re: (Score:2)
The launches are $8 million for all three. $40 million is the entire program cost. Which you'd know, if you read the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Which you'd know, if you read the article.
You must be new here.. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
The launches are $8 million for all three. $40 million is the entire program cost. Which you'd know, if you read the article.
$40 million was the entire program cost.
Took little more than a title to hint at that fact.
Re: (Score:1)
i read the article.
5 of the 7 missions failed. My assessment was OPTIMISTIC. Also, you're a pedantic dipshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, no, the pathfinder mission succeeded and the first launch of the main series (of three) failed. Perhaps you mean Astra's launches?
Also, lol, you don't deal with criticism very well hey? You might want to read articles a little more carefully before speaking in that case.
Is this new tech being tested? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting question. Obviously there was some particular technical error responsible for today's failure, but there's also an organizational culture/structure that allowed the technical error to exist.
We should get a report on the technical side after the investigation is complete, I'd guess two weeks or so from now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is Astra trying something different with technology? Many rocket designs have been flying since the 60's with excellent track records.
Yes, but none at such a low price. Rocket 3 is quoting 600 kg to LEO for $2.5 million. If you're looking for a comparable older design, that's roughly the same capability as Minotaur-1, with an advertised cost of $28 million.
I would think that if NASA is working with this company that NASA could help them with design,
Yep. One could argue that this was the key to SpaceX's success: they had a 0 percent success record until they started working with NASA. But that's not the way this particular program was structured; this one was buying a super low cost launch and accepting the risk.
... if the company simply wants to launch the traditional route why are they having such a hard time?
Because it's hard
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
of course, it's monday morning... (Score:1)
the point of Astra is rapid launched of small payloads by small rockets. rockets that can launch from anywhere with a concrete pad and a road for a tractor trailer truck.
you learn more from shit blowing up than you do from success.... AFAIC i can dollar cost average my stock to a lower break even point.... AD ASTRA!
A Perfect Score (Score:1)
Blue Origin might not be the worst space launch company anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
5/7 Failures... really... Blue Origin might not be the worst space launch company anymore.
Blue Origin has been slow and cautious. As a result of being cautious, they haven't had a launch failure since one of their very early flights, 2011 (although they also had a landing failure four years later).
It seems a little contradictory to criticize one company for taking risks, and another for being cautious and not taking risks.
Re: (Score:1)
There's no reason to be cautious about unmanned experimental flights. SpaceX proved exactly how to succeed and what acceptable losses were.
Bezos is just a terrible manager, who is clueless about space travel and any business other than selling Chinese crap to lazy Americans.