https://www.space.com/astra-launches-first-orbital-mission.html

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1304627336470384640

 

In the early days of Cape Canaveral, some of our local shrimp trawlers would go down there to trawl. NASA always had someone at the docks to buy the detritus they would collect in their trawl nets. They said they made about as much money from NASA as the did from shrimp for bringing back all the broken hardware from failed launches.

 

In the early days of Cape Canaveral, some of our local shrimp trawlers would go down there to trawl. NASA always had someone at the docks to buy the detritus they would collect in their trawl nets. They said they made about as much money from NASA as the did from shrimp for bringing back all the broken hardware from failed launches.

Floating hardware, Sam?

 

Floating hardware, Sam?

Nope, otter trawl nets for shrimp drag the bottom. The large wooden "doors" are are rigged as planers that spread open the net and have a large angle iron skid along the front a bottom edge (called a "shoe") that rides on the bottom holding the net open. There is a "tickler chain" connecting the doors that limits the opening width of the net and the upper edge of the net has floats to keep it open. The tickler is attached to the bottom of the doors and drags across the bottom "tickling" anything on the bottom to rise and be caught. Anything on the bottom gets collected in the net. Large objects and snags can rip and damage the nets so the NASA debris would often foul the nets causing sometimes serious damage that the shrimpers held NASA responsible for. NASA gladly paid for the returned debris and net damages. This would have been back in the 50s & 60s. Shrimpers know the bottom where they trawl and even before GPS knew where the sunken ship snags were and avoided dragging in those areas to escape serious net damage. Not so with new NASA debris raining down from the sky.

 

https://www.space.com/astra-launches-first-orbital-mission.html

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1304627336470384640

No FTS? Would have thought would have been a requirement for a launch license.

 

No FTS? Would have thought would have been a requirement for a launch license.

https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/09/12/kodiak-rocket-launch-ends-in-fiery-explosion/

“We’re excited to have our first orbital attempt under our belt,” they wrote. “Tonight, we saw a beautiful launch! Preliminary data review indicates the rocket performed very well. Early in the flight, our guidance system appears to have introduced some slight oscillation into the flight, causing the vehicle to drift from its planned trajectory.”

The blog said this led to a “commanded shutdown of the engines by the flight safety system.”

The FTS shutdown the engine when guidance was lost. FTS doesn't need to blow the rocket up, the ground impact is perfectly capable of doing that.

 

I thought they 'blow it up' as high as possible to minimize damage on impact. e.g. Get all the fuel burned in the air and not on the ground.

 

I thought they 'blow it up' as high as possible to minimize damage on impact. e.g. Get all the fuel burned in the air and not on the ground.

Near population centers with lots of hazardous propellants I suspect that's the case. Here it's a remote launch site with kerosene-fueled engines. A flash fire, small debris field and not much else.

 

Still not very good for the ecosystem. (Isn't that a forest in the background?!) Not to mention extremely dangerous for ground crew.

It would have been much better just to blast the thing to smithereens while it was up in the air...

 

It would have been much better just to blast the thing to smithereens while it was up in the air...

True but @ Millions of Dollars per payload that would be some very expensive explosives. Also why @ the Cape Canaveral space center they used the Atlantic Ocean as their safety zone. Not sure if they ever issued any Notice to Mariners to watch out for crashing rockets on launch dates.

 

True but @ Millions of Dollars per payload that would be some very expensive explosives. Also why @ the Cape Canaveral space center they used the Atlantic Ocean as their safety zone. Not sure if they ever issued any Notice to Mariners to watch out for crashing rockets on launch dates.

Coming from an agency responsible for the deaths of more than a dozen astronauts, I'm not entirely surprised. Their motto might as well be "cross your fingers and hope for the best".

 

True but @ Millions of Dollars per payload that would be some very expensive explosives. Also why @ the Cape Canaveral space center they used the Atlantic Ocean as their safety zone. Not sure if they ever issued any Notice to Mariners to watch out for crashing rockets on launch dates.

Not sure about mariners, but I've believe I've seen launch day NOTAMs (Notice to Airmen)

https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_0_1037.html

 

Coming from an agency responsible for the deaths of more than a dozen astronauts, I'm not entirely surprised. Their motto might as well be "cross your fingers and hope for the best".

This is the most ignorant comment of the year. By far.

Space exploration, specially during the 50s and 60s, was and still is extremely difficult and hazardous.

Every single astronaut launched into space has been cognizant of the risks involved. In every interview I have seen, they acknowledge the fear and anxiety, but nevertheless the thought to quit never crossed their minds.

Nasa has made its share of very serious mistakes, most notably the Challenger, but its missions have never treated human life as disposable.

 

Still not very good for the ecosystem. (Isn't that a forest in the background?!) Not to mention extremely dangerous for ground crew.

It would have been much better just to blast the thing to smithereens while it was up in the air...

Thrust termination is perfectly acceptable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety

Unlike the US program, Russian rockets do not employ a true RSO destruct system. If a launch vehicle loses control, either ground controllers may issue a manual shutdown command or the onboard computer can perform it automatically. In this case, the rocket is simply allowed to impact the ground intact. Since Russia's launch sites are in remote areas far from significant populations, it has never been seen as necessary to include an RSO destruct system. During the Soviet era, expended rocket stages or debris from failed launches were thoroughly cleaned up, but since the collapse of the USSR, this practice has lapse

We have three states with the worst air in the world from forest fires. I can't get too worked up about a little blaze in some remote woods that was contained quickly.
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/202...f-oregon-is-just-as-bad-due-to-wildfires.html

The breathability of Portland’s air significantly worsened overnight and into Sunday, reaching 516 on the air quality index in the hardest hit parts of the city, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
That measurement is off the charts, which top out at 300 to 500 and categorize those numbers as “hazardous.”


The international air quality monitoring website IQAir.com was registering a lower number of 229 for Portland overall. That number is deemed “very unhealthy” for everyone. And it was still high enough to place Portland in the No. 1 position for worst air quality among major cities in the world. Measurements fluctuated by the hour and at times Sunday morning Portland was tying with Vancouver, B.C.

Visibility is so poor in many areas that the Oregon Department of Transportation was urging people not to drive and to stay home if at all possible. The department advised those who are out on the roads to give plenty of space between themselves and other drivers, to use headlights or fog lights and to pull over at a safe spot if it becomes too difficult to see.

 

This is the most ignorant comment of the year. By far.

Space exploration, specially during the 50s and 60s, was and still is extremely difficult and hazardous.

Every single astronaut launched into space has been cognizant of the risks involved. In every interview I have seen, they acknowledge the fear and anxiety, but nevertheless the thought to quit never crossed their minds.

Nasa has made its share of very serious mistakes, most notably the Challenger, but its missions have never treated human life as disposable.

Yes, flying through space at 25,000 miles per hour is inherently dangerous. That's a given.

What I'm talking about are systematic organizational problems.

Apollo 1
Challenger
Columbia

In each of the above cases, the overall consensus has been that NASA dropped the ball on safety.

On August 26, 2003, the CAIB issued its report on the accident. The report confirmed the immediate cause of the accident was a breach in the leading edge of the left wing, caused by insulating foam shed during launch. The report also delved deeply into the underlying organizational and cultural issues that led to the accident. The report was highly critical of NASA's decision-making and risk-assessment processes. It concluded the organizational structure and processes were sufficiently flawed that a compromise of safety was expected, no matter who was in the key decision-making positions. An example was the position of Shuttle Program Manager, where one individual was responsible for achieving safe, timely launches and acceptable costs, which are often conflicting goals.

 

Thrust termination is perfectly acceptable.

Sure it is, just ask the Chinese.

 

https://www.space.com/astra-launches-first-orbital-mission.html

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1304627336470384640

Quite the gentleman, Mr Musk...