> "you know it's all broken up and it burst into flames right there. crazy right?"
I just cannot understand how they choose these anchors. If I wanted to listen to my 13yo cousin's inane commentary on videos, then .. well I have no idea actually, because I would never want to. And I never want to listen to this idiot. Who hires them? Why!?
This is serious news, a hundred million dollar crash, and the best he can do is "crazy right?". I just don't know what to say.
Imagine if this dipshit was commenting on 9/11. "and those there planes just up and flown into them buildings right there! Crazy right?" Yeah bro! Totes crazy LOL! ROFL
You have to understand that people are tuning into CNN all day because they want entertainment and company. People sitting at home during the day with nothing else to do but watch cable news aren't looking for hard-hitting analysis and dry reporting of facts. They want to feel like a friend is talking to them. They want to be entertained and occupied. That's what emotional reporting, tragedy porn, focus on human stories (i.e. on Snowden's escape rather than the NSA leaks), and sensationalist criminal trials is all about. Sorry to say it, but the people who actually appreciate quality journalism aren't sitting at home during a weekday afternoon watching CNN. They have other things to do, and they get their news online.
It's a business and the average viewer just wants to be entertained at home. They are on 24/7. You can't compare CNN to BBC or Al-Jazeera because both are subsidized. If they lived or died by their Nielsen score, it'd be another story.
Edit: I'm not condoning CNN's execution as of late. They've taken a decided turn for the worst since former NBC head Jeff Zucker took over. He ruined NBC and somehow got the CNN gig and he's rapidly destroyed what little quality remained at CNN. I really wonder how the corporate world works sometimes.
Thanks for probably the most insightful comment here, including mine.
> I really wonder how the corporate world works sometimes.
Well I do. What the corporate world wants is growth. Growth at the expense of anything and everything else. And if that 3% boost is going to come at the expense of turning the entire network into light entertainment and celebrities, then well - bonus time!
I am not a communist. But I have recently begun to perceive large swathes of the free market as being a mere race to best pander to the worst aspects of the human condition; fast food and celebrity news. And you might say, the market is giving people what they want - I say, not what I want, and not what they need.
Ask a child what they want for dinner and it might be milkshakes. Milkshakes for breakfast lunch and dinner. That is our news and that is what the free market delivers us. Tell me that adults are different and I invite you to examine the diabetes rates. Tell me that at least an elite intellectual class clings on somehow and I will tell you their votes count the same as someone who cannot even spell democracy and they outnumber us 10 to 1 if not more.
I don't know what the solution is but I think we have come too far. And I think governments should provide news channels. Television is 50% education.
don't mean to quote from the book of Jobs, but he had a fitting answer:
"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth."
The problem is not the system per se, but the participants. We have a market system where most people are driven by the market, instead of driving the market. Meaning, most people/companies look to the market to see what 'works' and just do that, instead of contributing something new to the marketplace and creating real progress.
It's very embarrassing that this is the kind of news reporting that accumulates wide viewership in America. Rather than learning anything, we'd prefer to just be wowed with an explosion.
I'm really hoping that Al Jazeera's US campaign is at least a moderate success, but I'm not holding my breath. It'll give some much needed variation in reporting, or so I hope. Likely it will be viewed about as widely as BBC America, or less.
Make what you will also, but BBC Turkish has been one of the very few neutral and dependable news sources in the entire Turkish Gezi events. They did their job so well they earned insults from Prime Minister Erdogan and Mayor of Ankara, both calling the reporter on ground, Selin Girit, "a whore committing treason". Which gave BBC Turkish a spotlight they ran with—they deserve it.
google for CNN ratings and the first link I found is a press release from exactly one week ago "proudly" reporting that CNN's "New Day" program from 6 to 9 am (presumably EDT?) had a whopping 302,000 viewers.
google "united states population" claims 313.9 million, but thats not counting illegals so we'll call it a cool third of a billion.
WAY over 99% of the population is doing something other than watching CNN.
You're getting pretty far down in the weeds, getting comparable to if you asked a random person on the street, the odds of them having the same birthday as you, or they watched CNN this morning, are vaguely similar to more than a sig fig.
By comparison, the mighty GOOG combined with some basic arithmetic gives the result that "about" 125 times more people watched the superbowl than watched CNN this morning. Still only about 1/3 of the population, but getting closer to broadcasting and "wide viewership".
Its a great example of extreme narrowcasting, not broadcasting and certainly not "wide viewership". Nobody watches that stuff, they just don't culturally matter anymore. Only rare and unusual oddballs (nothing personal intended) watch TV news networks.
Not true at all. Look up the actual viewing figures. Less than 1% of the population watches CNN's morning news show. They most intentionally do NOT broadcast to the 'mainstream audience'. Careers are made and broken by appealing to perhaps 1% of the population (or 0.5%...) rather than the current 0.9% or so.
Its a mix of HN elitism combined with gross over estimation of cultural impact WRT a cultural icon that doesn't matter anymore.
They do not broadcast to the mainstream, they try to steal away fractions of a percent of weirdo daytime news network junkies from other networks, not boost viewership from the 99% of "normal" people who don't watch that kind of thing.
Its like top40 music or hollywood movies in that way.
You seem to confuse sample size with sampling error. Sure, only 1% (or whatever) of the population watches CNN. That doesn't mean the 1% watching the channel is not an average, mainstream viewer.
It can actually be that the average CNN viewer is exactly like the average person in United States. I don't think that's true, but I don't think the typical viewer is that far from the average.
I find that incredibly unlikely. I agree that the very small number of people who watch "sy fy" channel could be a perfect cross section of humanity, but that's not likely.
The appeal level is extremely low (99% of the population would rather do anything else) and the barrier to entry is extremely low (its marginal cost is "free" if you have cable and a tv, and how hard is it to turn on a TV?) and the marketing is extensive (who in the USA has never heard of CNN before?) The content is highly formulaic and repetitive, typical characteristics of things that only appeal to a small minority.
There are numerous business scenarios I can think of where a perfectly mainstream biz model fails because of problems with at least one of the above, but CNN and daytime news networks in general have no such excuse, they're just not mainstream anymore than sy fy channel or tennis channel is mainstream.
I'd argue that the "smart" portion of the population is even less than you figure. It depends on what you interpret to be smart. With my own personal judgment, intelligence, true intelligence, is derived from skepticism, curiosity, and a thirst for knowledge, not by success financially.
If we use those criteria, I'd say that most people in that list would be about 1/8th down on the bell curve. People just don't care, I've seen it with my own family.
I would guess that half their viewership is in the smarter half. Remember that many people don't watch the news at all. I'll just leave you with that depressing reminder and go back to trying to have hope for the world.
I've found that watching almost any form of news -- in the United States -- is a complete waste of time, and even a hinderince to my own personal happiness.
What is it you think an anchor is exactly? Mostly they are just a pretty face with a good voice who is sufficiently trained to read off a screen and not screw up. As a rule they tend not to be well-rounded intellectuals.
Yeah I thought that was just disrespectful. Thousands of hours were put into those satellites by scientists and the only thing they can say is that there's a neat explosion...
Had to mute the video to manage to finish watching it. Where do they find this kind of "talent" these days? Sounds like they're breaking into Entertainment Tonight.
Proton isn't the most reliable rocket. About 10% of all its launches are unsuccessful. However, it's one of the cheapest ways to deliver cargo to the space. It's even cheaper than current SpaceX offers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch...) of course if a satellite isn't too expensive.
Maybe I'm reading that table wrong, but it lists the cost of a Proton-M launch at $86m while for a Falcon-9 it's $56m, though Falcon-9 v1.1 is only slightly better on cost/kg to LEO. Still, the the numbers for Falcon heavy blow Proton away. Am I missing something?
Yes, Falcon 9 v1.1 and Falcon Heavy have not yer launched. We will know their costs when they are reliably working and have been operating at market price for some years, all first launches have already been booked at special prices for early adopters.
Fair enough, but SpaceX has already booking launches guaranteed at their quoted prices, so there's nothing hypothetical about them. Whether they can deliver reliably without going bust is perhaps more of an open question, which is fair enough, but they've certainly put their balance sheet and reputation where their mouth is.
You are correct that, slightly re-stated, there's nothing hypothetical about the amount of money you have to give SpaceX to put your payload on a Falcon that you reserve today. But you missed his point.
We don't know what the failure rate of the Falcon will be, whereas we do know what the failure rate of a Proton is (~10%). Satellites are expensive and delivery is not guaranteed, so every launch provider always gives a discount to early customers who put their payload on one of the first few launches of a new system.
Pvarangot's point was that the price for booking a launch today is almost certainly less than, say, booking a launch after Falcon has had ten successful launches on its first ten attempts. If Falcon has Delta's failure rate, then SpaceX can charge a premium. If Falcon's failure rate is closer to Proton, they will have to underbid the Russians to get customers. We won't know until Falcon has a few launches under its belt. Saying they are booking launches at guaranteed prices today is true, but only gives a hint to what it will cost customers five years from now.
If that's well known then I wonder if they've actually done an "expected value" of cargo lifted into space by these rockets. For example, 0.9valueofcargolifted - 0.1costofcargoandfallout
That's interesting, I thought SpaceX was cheaper than even the Russian launch vehicles. By the way, are insurance costs taken into consideration? (Although the proper insurance rate might be difficult to estimate for SpaceX since they don't have that many launches behind them).
The cost of a SpaceX launch reflects not only manufacturing costs but also the cost of development. The cost of a Proton launch (and similarly for other low cost ICBM based Russian launchers) doesn't reflect the developmment cost because it was designed a long time ago and borne by the russian government. The true cost of a Proton launch is much higher than what a user would pay to International Launch Services.
The true cost is adequate because there was a very large number of total launches (around 400). What is the reason for launching a rocket if it leads to a loss.
Maybe thats a typo getting in somewhere. The Proton-M is reported at $85m per launch, vs a Falcon 9 v1.1 at $54m (75% payload of a Proton-M).
Soyuz is almost certainly more expensive per seat than a F9/Dragon Crewed version. 2 "passengers"(+ 1 pilot/commander) vs 5-7 passengers (+ "pilot"/commander).
The Proton is fueled with Nitrogen Tetroxide and a variant of Hydrazine (UDMH). Both are incredible toxic and hazardous to humans, causing death with disturbingly small doses. UDMH is also a potent carcinogen.
Hopefully these folks were on the road and miles away before those fumes drifted their way.
Reminds us once again that launching rockets is hard and when something goes wrong, there aren't a lot of 'recovery' scenarios. Insurance covers the losses, root cause analysis will find the reason this particular launch failed, and perhaps prevent it from recurring.
One of the interesting questions for the Falcon9 system is whether or not the return to pad recovery system could work in an abort scenario (unlikely but you never know). I once asked a NASA engineer why they didn't put a spare parachute in to recover the payload in case of failure like this and their response was that it was cheaper to insure it than build such a system (in crewed systems the opposite is true since replacing the crew is so much more expensive). Weird to think about it that way but at least for me it made sense.
Even in this video you can see the inherent safety of liquid fuel rockets over solid fuel. (although this is a hypergolic rocket, not like the cryogenic fuel rockets that we typically use for people.) The launch vehicle started breaking up and became engulfed in flames, but it didn't blow up per-se until it hit the ground. Solid fuel rockets do not tend to be so considerate; see the Challenger or Delta II 7925. Lots of things can go wrong on a liquid fuel rocket (engine shutoffs, fires, vehicle breakup, etc) but on solid fuel rockets you basically only have one failure mode: "pop".
With a proper launch escape system, most failure scenarios of a liquid fuel rocket should be quite survivable. You can build working launch escape systems for solid fuel rockets too, but that is a worse situation.
I don't see how your point follows. A similar deviation with a solid fuel rocket would have resulted in basically the same event (an impact with the ground of a fueled, burning rocket at T+25s), no?
There are indeed safety reasons to prefer liquid fuel, but I don't see that this events provides any new evidence.
I don't think the rocket would have made it to the ground burning had it been solid fuel, it probably would have blown when it started to break up above the ground. That liquid fuel, although hypergolic, isn't going to massively explode unless mixed (hitting the ground did a good job of that). With solid fuel rockets your oxidizer and fuel are already packed and mixed together in an ideal ratio; it is an inherently shittier situation.
In either case, in this situation, the crew would be long gone. The real problem comes when the failure of the launch vehicle comes with less notice. When you start designing solid fuel manned rockets you end up making mistakes like this: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-07-18/news/new_1_na...
I think that you're mistaken. Almost always when you see a rocket explode in mid air that is due to the range safety officer detonating its onboard explosives.
Lets face it, any large structural breakup that breeches the tanks of a hypergolic fuel is going to cause a huge explosion regardless.
It seems intuitive enough to me. Solid fuel is basically "pre-mixed". That's why this Proton rocket didn't blow up until it slammed into the ground, even though it was rapidly falling apart and completely consumed in fire. The speed at which it burns is basically the extent to which that fuel and oxidizer is mixed.
Consider a bucket of kerosene. Gasoline doesn't have it's own oxidizer, it uses the air for that. If you light the bucket on fire then it will burn slowly for quite a while, but if you then grab the bucket and fling it into the air then the fuel and oxidizer will mix and you'll have a rather decent fireball on your hands.
If you mix the fuel with an oxidizer first (say, ammonium nitrate....^), then you are going to have a bad situation the moment it catches; no need to shake it up.
The other major sort of engine, a hybrid engine, is even safer than either solid or liquid rockets. This is because the fuel and the oxidizer are separated and unmixed like in liquid fuel rockets but additionally the fuel is not going to be able to rapidly mix with the oxidizer if it hits the ground or something (since it is a giant chunk of basically rubber or paraffin or whatever.)
Yeah, pretty much. The rocket was already engulfed in flames and disintegrating before it hit the ground; were it a solid fuel rocket it would have blown way sooner.
It's awesome how simulation games like KSP teach people about rocketry and orbital mechanics - I bet KSP will contribute to the coming resurgence of interest in spaceflight.
>Russian launchers do not carry a Flight Termination System that could be used to remotely trigger the destruction of the rocket in a scenario like this.<
Crashing in uninhabited desert isn't a feasible failure mode for the American program due to its location. The Roscosmos-owned depopulated area around Baikonur, however, is vastly larger than the parkland around Cape Canaveral launchpads.
There's a thousand miles of empty desert to the next settlement, never mind city. Kazakhstan is big (and unlike the US, its southernmost parts are not the nicest ones).
Due to the rotation of the Earth it's advantageous to have your rocket launch facility as close to the Equator as possible. For the US that means the southern end of Florida, and while there are plenty of big empty deserts in the US, the southern end of Florida is not one of them. OTOH there's convenient big empty desert at the southern end of Kazakhstan (which was the southern end of the USSR when they were picking a launch site).
(FWIW Baikonur is still quite a way north of the Equator. AIUI a joint ESA-Russia Soyuz launch pad is now being built at the ESA launch site in French Guiana, which should save them a chunk of fuel).
You can launch from the middle of the big empty desert, while you must launch from the edge of the ocean.
In other words, launches from Canaveral need systems to ensure that a wild rocket doesn't land in downtown Orlando, while presumably launches from Baikonur don't have this problem on the same level.
I know the PSLVs have a reputation of being very reliable. Do you happen to know how much it costs, compared to the Protons or SpaceX's new design?
Also, it's very cool that India:s launching its own GPS alternatives. The article mentions that it uses the same L5 and S bands as GPS and Galileo: isn't there any potential of interference, and will existing receivers work as-is?
Believe it or not, Proton (UR-500) was originally developed as a large ICBM. Hypergolic fuels are a much more attractive choice for ICBMs than kerolox because it's possible to leave the rocket fueled for extended periods of time (potentially years).
Same logic for the US Titan 2 (which also lead to a long-lived family of space launchers -- the last Titan IV flew in 2005), and many other smaller missiles, although recent missile designed have now mostly switched to solid propulsion.
Refrigerated fuels like LOX are a pain in the ass. You need pressurized fuel tanks and need to fuel on the launch pad which means your launch pad needs to be more complex and that a lot more steps need to be done as part of the launch countdown. Plus you can't just put your fuel in a rail car and ship it halfway across Russia.
It's not "easier to ignite", it's hypergolic. The two components spontaneously ignite when they come into contact - so you don't need to worry about an ignition system that can reignite the flame in mid-flight, making the whole system safer by eliminating components. All you need is a pair of pumps and two valves: Open valve - burn, close valve - burn stop. (grossly simplified version)
"It's simply easier to ignite - that seems like a really bad reason to use it."
LOL that's what makes injector design and combustion instability less of a problem than for kero/LOX. Its not a bug, its a huge feature. Aside from hard starts being chemically impossible, screaming combustion modes are less likely. This means a more reliable and cheaper rocket because the ignition system that doesn't exist, can't fail, and the cooling system doesn't have to worry about screaming modes melting thru, and the injectors don't have to have weird performance robbing (heavy) acoustic baffles.
Well, these are all relative. You can still screw up the cooling system of a hypergolic nozzle or make it scream (think about it, a rocket engine is just a giant gigawatt class whistle, after all). Its just harder to screw up than nonhypergolic.
Finally from a chemical standpoint they're not environmentally stable toxins. Organomercury compounds, or tetraethyl lead, now those would be bad ideas to spray all over the environment. But UDMH and Nit Tet are "shelf stable" but not "environmentally stable". Oh they suck all right but they're going to "poison the land" for about a day, not a millenia or basically permanently. Both break down into completely harmless stuff. Of course before they breakdown, or if they end up breaking down in your liver, then not so good.
It was pretty effective at convincing me to go into chemistry for my first year at university. I understand this experience is not all that unusual. Max Gergel's memoirs are also a pretty hair raising recruitment tool.
I got out when I figured out that anecdotes about leading an o-chem org in the 40s/50s make leading an o-chem org in the 40s/50s sound like The Best Place To Be, then I figured out I'm not likely to be a o-chem org leader and the 40s/50s are not likely coming back around again anytime soon. Kind of like reading a dotcom story about the late 90s and deciding to become a web designer in 2013, you're in for a bit of a surprise...
"Now it is clear that anyone working with rocket fuels is outstandingly mad. I don't mean garden-variety crazy or a merely raving lunatic. I mean a record-shattering exponent of far-out insanity".
I'm thinking about working with rocket fuels. I think it should be possible to build a kerosene-drop-in hydrocarbon fuel with about twice the energy density - along the lines of syntin or JP-10, that is biologically derived...
I think this is "relatively safe" compared to hypergolics =)
Thank you for this Ignition pdf link. Looks interesting. The frontipiece image identifies `Mach diamonds'. I said to myself its time to find out just what are those beats anyways, having just now viewed the Proton catastrophe video.
It should be noted that "expensive" probably isn't important, as fuel is a minor cost of launching a rocket into space, on the order of 1% of the total. As for "toxic", I'm betting the Soviets didn't much care about that.
>As for "toxic", I'm betting the Soviets didn't much care about that.
i've known people from areas downrange from Plesetsk. People there drink only water that is delivered from outside and still have some details in their appearance that prompts the question in the first place.
From the writeup provided as a link in another comment, Russian launchers don't have such mechanism. Instead the engines are shut down after at least 42 seconds to allow the launcher to be further than the launch area. But here the launcher hit the ground after about 30 seconds.
It looks like the payload almost escaped. It pops off and a parachute comes out, but then it drifts into the flame path of the upside down rocket and burns up.
Why would there be a parachute if the payload contained only non-returning satellites? I couldn't see anything I would call a parachute on the videos I watched.
It's worth noting that the combination of Proton-M rocket and the DM-03 booster has previously failed in 2012. This is a relatively new technology compared to the mature Soyuz rocket for example.
I'm surprised they don't have a kill switch on that thing, it should never have been left to do a full 180 and fly straight down at goodness-knows-who.
You mean alongside the whole vehicle ? From the link provided in another comment, it seems that the forces on the whole launcher (that made it loose its payload) put the fuel and oxidizer in contact and they ignited.
If you meant at the exhaust, it is the oxidizer which is red-brown.
The USSR in 70-ies launched ~120 Protons per year successfully. Modern Russia cannot do 30 launches. The reason - old workers and engineers physically perish because of age and no one is coming to replace them. This is sad, but true.
Any evidence you have? I have the following - 3.88% of failures for Proton-K, 10.81% for Proton-M. Proton-M is a modern RUssian build, Proton-K is the old Soviet one. Proton-K had 311 launches, 34 failed. http://habrahabr.ru/post/185664/
It was carrying three GLONASS (Russian GPS, sometimes combined with traditional GPS for improved accuracy, fix time etc - e.g. iPhone 4S/5) satellites. The loss of another three in 2010 was estimated to cost up to $160 million[1]. Expensive, but presumably nothing crippling in the scheme of things ($4.6 billion spent on the program from 2001-2011 [1])
Stereotypically satellite launch insurance is a comsat thing.
That doesn't mean there's no insurance involved in the whole process. Somebody will pay out third party liability claims, for example, either .gov or some insurance co or more likely a mixture of them. But specifically launch loss insurance is something "mostly" found with commercial comsats. Note its just stereotypical. Maybe this is the first navsat I've ever heard of with launch insurance.
I just cannot understand how they choose these anchors. If I wanted to listen to my 13yo cousin's inane commentary on videos, then .. well I have no idea actually, because I would never want to. And I never want to listen to this idiot. Who hires them? Why!?
This is serious news, a hundred million dollar crash, and the best he can do is "crazy right?". I just don't know what to say.
Imagine if this dipshit was commenting on 9/11. "and those there planes just up and flown into them buildings right there! Crazy right?" Yeah bro! Totes crazy LOL! ROFL