Discussion
mikey_b said:
It’s depressing that even in the science subforum, there is a number of people doing the usual scoffing and sneering thing after someone tries to do something very hard, but not quite pulling it off. I’d put good money on most if not all of them never having even tried to do anything remotely of this level of difficulty.
When you do something that doesn’t quite work, you learn from your mistakes and try again. On that basis, failures like this are still useful work.
Ah, well. We Brits do like failure. When you do something that doesn’t quite work, you learn from your mistakes and try again. On that basis, failures like this are still useful work.
As you say, a lot will be learnt and hopefully onwards and upwards from here. The telemetry streams will provide useful data for improving the next launch. The UK is the world's second-largest satellite manufacturer, and having our own launch capabilities would be beneficial.
As an aside, I wish the Government (and the previous ones have been woeful, too) would do more to support UK launch capabilities to help the UK continue to pioneer in this field. I've attended/presented space workshops between Government/Industry/Academia, and the level of support and interest from the Government is far less than in other western countries. In addition, the UK Government should never have purchased the OneWeb assets; it was a misguided attempt to replace the EU Galileo navigation constellation, as the UK would have to leave the consortium post-brexit. The £400m for OneWeb (and subsequent funding) should have gone to UK launch capabilities instead - ho hum.
redback911 said:
Boo, disappointing to see the first Western Europe launch fail. My current research focus is control technology for free space optics used on inter-space links for LEO and VLEO satellites. We've been working with some of the satellite vendors who were part of the payload - which included ESA GPS, TUATARA / ETCO imaging, IoT/M2M comms, ionosphere monitoring and some UK military hardware. Most (if not all) of the satellites will be insured but it won't cover the full development cost and it will delay various projects that build on the capabilities these new satellites nodes would have provided.
I thought it was mainly a British affair...., very British even.MitchT said:
Comments on ITV national news right now eluding to it being a "very British affair" and nothing like the American efforts 
Looking at their stock price [VORB], they've taken a big hit, as expected. Hopefully, they can recover, but if they drop below 1 USD for a prolonged period, they will not meet the NASDAQ requirements, so they will need to do a reverse split which is a big negative in this scenario and will put further pressure on their share price. The company is already operating at a big loss, so it may need additional investment, especially if the failed launch will significantly delay future launches.
ChevronB19 said:
Eric Mc said:
Rocket launch failures are not that unusual, especially when a rocket is still early in its development life. So far they have had two failures out of six launches - which is not that bad for this stage in their operations.
It looks like there was failure in the second stage. In other words, it didn't develop sufficient thrust to increase the velocioty to 17,500 mph whioch is what is required to place an object in low earth orbit.
Claims that this is somehow an "amateur" operations are crass and ignorant.
Agreed.It looks like there was failure in the second stage. In other words, it didn't develop sufficient thrust to increase the velocioty to 17,500 mph whioch is what is required to place an object in low earth orbit.
Claims that this is somehow an "amateur" operations are crass and ignorant.
Everyone involved must be gutted - both the Virgin staff, and especially the people who've put many many hours into the development of the satellites.
Even Elon Musk (quoted earlier in this thread) said that getting to orbit is a very difficult thing to achieve. I think that many seem to think that it's pretty straightforward given the now almost routine success of the Falcon launches, but they had many failures in the earlier days, and SpaceX are working with a budget many times the size of the Virgin operation.
Whilst I found the project exciting and was willing it to succeed, I have to say I found the quality of the coverage appalling. For a first mission of its kind in the UK (it was, wasn’t it?) I would have hoped one of the major broadcasters might have covered it in more detail.
It looked for all the world like a 1970s Open University broadcast (including how the presenters and interviewers/interviewees were dressed too!) and what with constant cutting without explanation, ridiculous background noise including conversations and music and general commentary on what was happening, it was very amatuerish indeed. Hopefully next time they’ll update their stock of Ring doorbells and have the latest generation sellotaped to the plane, rocket and various fence posts so we can see what’s happening more clearly.
It was fun following it on Flightradar24 though. Better luck next time, will still be following with interest.
It looked for all the world like a 1970s Open University broadcast (including how the presenters and interviewers/interviewees were dressed too!) and what with constant cutting without explanation, ridiculous background noise including conversations and music and general commentary on what was happening, it was very amatuerish indeed. Hopefully next time they’ll update their stock of Ring doorbells and have the latest generation sellotaped to the plane, rocket and various fence posts so we can see what’s happening more clearly.
It was fun following it on Flightradar24 though. Better luck next time, will still be following with interest.
DeltonaS said:
redback911 said:
Boo, disappointing to see the first Western Europe launch fail. My current research focus is control technology for free space optics used on inter-space links for LEO and VLEO satellites. We've been working with some of the satellite vendors who were part of the payload - which included ESA GPS, TUATARA / ETCO imaging, IoT/M2M comms, ionosphere monitoring and some UK military hardware. Most (if not all) of the satellites will be insured but it won't cover the full development cost and it will delay various projects that build on the capabilities these new satellites nodes would have provided.
I thought it was mainly a British affair...., very British even.MitchT said:
Comments on ITV national news right now eluding to it being a "very British affair" and nothing like the American efforts
What is the UK connection? That the Civil Aviation Authority issues launch and range licence(s) to Virgin Orbit last year, and the recent launch was the first UK launch of a rocket with commercial satellite payloads from UK airspace.
MitchT said:
Comments on ITV national news right now eluding to it being a "very British affair" and nothing like the American efforts
But But But it is an American Affair 747 Cosmic Girl designed, built and tested in America, LauncherOne Designed built and tested in America. With most of the launch staff being shipped over from California Virgin Orbit Holdings, Inc.” and its common stock will be listed on NASDAQ under the new ticker symbol “VORB”
Out of the previous 5 Launches 4 have been successful
The whole thing has been a media Circus with the press whipping up excitement in Cornwall and all a bit over the top, the Rocket being launched nowhere near Newquay the 747 could have flown out of Heathrow, Southend Cardiff etc its just a plane with a rocket under one wing
DeejRC said:
No Eric they aren’t. It IS an amateur operation they are running and on, at best, a luke warm budget. I’m sure you know best though.
Eric does not like it when people disagree with him 
It has not had the budget that Space X has had thrown at them or Boeing to that matter but then again development costs would need to be lower for budget launch 🚀 compared to a traditional Rocker (even a Space x one) redback911]Looking at their stock price [VORB said:
, they've taken a big hit, as expected. Hopefully, they can recover, but if they drop below 1 USD for a prolonged period, they will not meet the NASDAQ requirements, so they will need to do a reverse split which is a big negative in this scenario and will put further pressure on their share price. The company is already operating at a big loss, so it may need additional investment, especially if the failed launch will significantly delay future launches.
It's a gut punch, but anyone in an industry like this knows it's never 10/10 success rate on major tests and launches.They were incredibly close - the failure was in space not in the earth's atmosphere - but no cigar.
essayer said:
So did I not see anything from my back garden (SE UK) because of the failure ? Or would I not have seen it even if successful? I expected to see something low in the sky to the southwest from the publicity VO put out
It was all Hyped up by UK space Agency no one would see anything other than a Jumbo rolling down a runway, im sure it will all work next time but dont expect to see a Rocket blazing across the sky. 
Ayahuasca said:
Not great, but part of the deal. How many Space X rockets have failed?
Onwards and upwards.
I think people have quickly forgotten how many balls of fire were livestreamed as they tried over and over again to develop their technologies. Nevermind the amount of resource they have put into it. Onwards and upwards.
https://youtu.be/p9FzWPObsWA
Halmyre said:
The 747 is quite a tough old bird but how will it stand up to this new role? Or is it not doing anything too strenuous?
The 747 was designed to have the ability to carry a 'spare' engine if needed so I assume they are making use of that functionality:https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/roo-tales/that-t...
Toaster said:
DeejRC said:
No Eric they aren’t. It IS an amateur operation they are running and on, at best, a luke warm budget. I’m sure you know best though.
Eric does not like it when people disagree with him It has not had the budget that Space X has had thrown at them or Boeing to that matter but then again development costs would need to be lower for budget launch ?? compared to a traditional Rocker (even a Space x one) KTF said:
Halmyre said:
The 747 is quite a tough old bird but how will it stand up to this new role? Or is it not doing anything too strenuous?
The 747 was designed to have the ability to carry a 'spare' engine if needed so I assume they are making use of that functionality:https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/roo-tales/that-t...
It was pretty disappointing that it had a failure so late in the process, after all the hype. But as has been said above, it's not like failures aren't always a risk in these things.
I did think the YouTube stream was pretty poor though (I admit I turned off not long after the plane took off so I don't know if it got any better) no one seemed to have a clue what was going to be happening next, and it looked like they were filming the airfield operations with a 720p webcam via dial up internet.
I did think the YouTube stream was pretty poor though (I admit I turned off not long after the plane took off so I don't know if it got any better) no one seemed to have a clue what was going to be happening next, and it looked like they were filming the airfield operations with a 720p webcam via dial up internet.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff