@AmishJohn: Not unless it were carrying a payload of hamdingers.

dingus

People seem to forget that when NASA first started building rockets they had a large string of spectacular failures. These guys may have some expertise from NASA and the like, but it's still rocket science we're talking about, which ain't easy.

IphtashuFitz

@Charbax2:
This qualifies for a successful launch?

s017jrs

You can't expect them to launch rockets into space on their first attempt. Saying this is bad news for private space aficionados is really being totally clueless. Engadget writes "SpaceX conducts successful static launch of Falcon 9 rocket". A successful static launch is not bad news.

NASA and the Pentagon weren't really expecting this rocket to arrive at destination. SpaceX rockets are designed to cost several times less then conventional rockets. The Pentagon and NASA are investing in SpaceX cause it would save them billions of dollars if Elon Musk succeeds within the next few years to reduce the cost of lifting stuff into space.

Charbax2

@dingus: Would it share orbits with the Satellite of Love?

AmishJohn

"No No No, exploding bolts! BOLTS!"

s017jrs

I know which company I'm not booking a flight with.

Also, I wish the satellite were named "Trailblazer for the Operationally Responsive Geosynchronous Office". It would be the first satellite with knees.

dingus

@wery67564: Stupid self-sealing stem bolts.

strider_mt2k

the webcast sucked!

the counter wasn't readable when it was impotant... and we could see the controls of the presenters laptop... bummer...

smokeonit

@strider_mt2k: I don't know if it is the same, but about a year ago (don't remember the date...) popular science had an issue with the space hotel that was made by an ex-NASA engineering team and it seemed to me that NASA's turnover rate is higher than I expected, and hiring disgruntled rocket designers doesn't take placing that many newspaper ads.

So yeah, probly the same tech, just slightly modified, you know, since it doesn't have all those neat little "top secret" gizmos that I am sure NASA has readily available.

wery67564

You have to wonder what they are doing, or if they are trying to advance some new or different techniques.

Not that space stuff is a snap-together commodity even at this point in history, but there are some established methods.

Sorry it didn't go.

strider_mt2k

I can't believe the gov't handed them yet another satellite after the first 2 ended with a picture of a cat with cheese on it's head.

s017jrs

@Charbax2: pretty sure it was the 3rd attempt... but yah, it is rocket science, although I can't imagine nasa or the pentagon saying "here, take our satellites, we don't care if these don't get into orbit, they're less important satellites"

djdare

Sir Richard *Branson*

mcbazza

Are you sure that wasn't an Estes rocket?

T-man

All your satellites are belong to us!! Your rocket is splode!

Oroka

It's being sabotaged. The Controllers will not allow us off this prison planet. Any attempt not strictly controlled by THEM will fail.

Spilt_Milk

"eople seem to forget that when NASA first started building rockets they had a large string of spectacular failures."

Well, true. But so much more was unknown then, and they were trying to solve it with slide rules....

meropealcyone

Who is the idiot in the government who gave them viable satellites????? She/he should do the honourable thing and ride the next launch.

Ednonymous

@Jrsy: Oh, build another one. You know how much they cost? You better have a ATM in your chest.

Git Em SteveDave is a poor substitute for LindsayJoy

@strider_mt2k: Wait, you mean you didn't trade them? NOG!

Git Em SteveDave is a poor substitute for LindsayJoy

"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon..??"

Jrsy

I'm still trying to do some advance booking for my mother-in-law.

liquidsoapdispenser

They might not be good at getting items into orbit, but it sounds like a fantastic recycling program. Can we hand the remaining Space Shuttles to SpaceX when they run out of rockets?

Monty

I don't really care about SpaceX but it makes me sad that this launch was unsuccessfull. I really wish space travel would have been privitized long ago, and while this isn't really that much of a set back, it certainly isn't a step forward no matter how you look at it. Rocket go boom is bad.

Franknbeans

Slow down there with your cat gyro, they're still working on getting the cheese off it's head.

s017jrs

I think it'll be another couple of decades before I fly their friendly skies.

They should seriously look into the latest in gyroscopic technology... strapping buttered toast to the back of a cat.

IndustrialJones

BTW, Yes this was a successful launch, despite the stages not separating correctly. This lets them know where problems are in their system so that they can fix them. Though I honestly agree they should just be launching SUVs with the dang thing right now not thousand dollar satellites. They have 2 more built up and will make adjustments to them odds are one of the next two will make it into the correct orbit, I'm honestly betting it will be the next one. After that point they should have a very low failure rate.

Technogen

Lol at Richard Brandon

Wegmans

@Technogen: i'm pretty sure satelights cost millions of dollars, not thousands.

question, was anyone else hoping that it would blow up? not that i was crossing my fingers about it or anything, but here and there i was thinking about how there have been so many unsuccessful launches of rocket ships, that it just seemed like something of a small possibility that something like this could happen

oh, final question...is it common for rockets to be delayed like this one was? what was it, 3 hours off from when it was origianlly set to be launched?

jrghoull

Why did they try to launch with a payload when their previous attempts to reach orbit had failed ? Seems like you would want to get that part right first before you move to the next step.

leaknoil

What happened to the ashes of the 240 people who payed for having them sent into space?
James Doohan ashes were among them.

gizGianca

Yes normal satellites cost in the millions, however these were low cost projects. While I dont have an exact cost Trailblazer was a Tech Demo package only. The others were the same, and pretty much programs that had been cancled from before due to cost of launch. Only one that wasnt so was the NanoSail-D, with which I have no idea on cost, but from the offical website it says "fast-paced low cost" [www.nasa.gov]

And with any given launch of something with that much contained explosives you're bound to have something not go well. That is the main reason why they were launching low cost stuff as they had a feeling that it wouldn't work.

3rd, yes very common though not as long as this one was as the launch window tends to be tight due to rocket power/weight ratio but the Falcon has an excess in that and can reach anywhere it wants much easier then other rockets.

Technogen

that is "news carriers"

smayton

It is interesting that, at this point in time, none of the major new carriers have even mentioned this.

smayton

This is the most elaborate means of blowing up your little green army men that I've ever seen.

wild homes isn't anything!

After Sputnik, the USA threw heavy resources ($$$) into science education. Trouble is, we're still making do with the lab gear in our class rooms that was purchased in 1958. Teachers are not respected, relatively low paid, and despised by the Republicans for their unions and their pensions. Students refuse to take on anything challenging; they just want to play video games. The brilliant scientists and engineers who 40 years ago designed the country's incredible rocket systems are long retired, and not all of their knowledge has been passed down. Without development contracts covering each generation, it is easy to lose the knowledge base. NASA is a shell of its former self, more bean-counters than scientists. SpaceX is only as good as its people, but in general, the USA is in steep decline with regard to science and technology.

whootowl

Elon Musk writing in his diary: Note to self. Find new way to attach Stage 1 to Stage 2. Welding them together seems to cause...um, difficulties with the stage seperation process.

@IphtashuFitz:
I'd say more impressive failures. Spectacular failure is a term that should be reserved for stuff like the Russian rocket that blew up, fully fueled, on the launch pad and killed 90 people via combination of fireball and poisonous gasses.

@IndustrialJones:
You realize that doesn't actually work, don't you? If the cat lands feet first, the buttered toast effect is negated by the fact that it technically never lands. On the other hand, if the toast lands first, the cat will impact immediately thereafter. Clearly, the laws of physics will only allow one outcome.

Purple Dave

@whootowl:
I'm all for education, but I have to give you a big thumbs down for trying to troll this thread into a political argument.

Matt B

@IphtashuFitz: Maybe so but this wasn't a test flight, it was suppose to be an opperational flight. Included with the dead cremented remains of astronaunt Gordon Cooper and the actor James Doohan. Everyone is saying how NASA & the Pentagon expected things to fail. Well what about the company that put James Doohan's and Gordon Coopers remains in the rocket? Or their reletives, I'm sure they expected it to succeed otherwise they wouldn't of spent all that money to put them up there.

bbfreak

im pretty sure NASA already launched trailblazer 2 by itself... trail blazer 1 was basically launched because it was already paid for

tenio

It was starting to have separation anxiety

Con Seannery

where's the link to the space.com article. it just crashes firefox

heroineworshipper

@Charbax2:

No totally clueless would be insisting that it was the first attempt.

First attempt, rocket caught fire pretty much seconds after launch.

Second attempt, corkscrewed out of control after first stage burn malfunction.

Third attempt...see the first two..same result.

Successful launch? On what planet? Because here on Earth we don't call it a "success" if the Sh*t you know BLOWS UP!

max11221

Is there video of the failure anywhere? A view from the ground especially.

ryanoscerous

If you want something sent into space and you want it to get there, go see the russians. No frills it just works!

ShadowX

Notes in history:
Blue Streak swas built by the UK in the sixties, first stage worked excellently, latter stages not so. French took it over and it became Ariane.

Putting a payload on a 'maiden' flight is entirely justified - if it works, you've got yourself a free flight, as no-one pays for maiden flights. Of course the risks are significant and most insurance companies won't cover unproven technology.

Anyone remember Ariane 5 maiden flight in 1997? I worked on the four satellites (Cluster) designed to investigate the magnetosphere. Darned thing blew up 37 seconds after take off. BUT the flight was free for ESA to use. And ESA went and built a replacement and everyone's happy.

funny thing about space technology is how assumptions get in the way of logic - altitude devices measuring distance with the wrong SI units, divide-by-zero data in downlinks - it's all happened. As our knowledge has increased, so has the complexity of the technology, hence this latest failure.

Geeky photo's of Ariane's that worked...
([www.bubbleshare.com])

spidercorp

Why does that have a US Air Force logo on it?

LeeWren

@ShadowX: Eh? Why the Russians? A lot of countries have dependable rockets after many many explosions. That being said, its not like Russian rockets don't have mishaps every now and then. One in 2002, one in 2005, one in 2006, one in 2007, one in 2008. O.o Those are just the recent failures too, space is a tough business and nobody is immune to eventual disaster.

bbfreak

@strider_mt2k: serve's 'em right for buying 'em from a ferenghi.

damn low-bids.

doofusgumby

I would hate to be the insurer for this venture. This would've been a total disaster.

I wonder if they will have to pay NASA back for those sats.

CmdrHunt

@max11221: It would seem to me that they've gotten farther each time. No?

Maybe "incrementally less bad than last time" is more apt. Either way, they're not going backwards.

Success depends on your definition of failure.

m4ximusprim3

Though it saddens me that the ashes were lost, this newest failure is indeed a step in a new direction for the private space sector: Try, Try Again?

@ShadowX: In Soviet Russia, Rocket flies YOU!

Jaredu

Space-Based Microwave Energy and Near Light Speed Propulsion.

[www.p2pnet.net]

holoman