> <i>Among the Dragon's cargo was a freezer that will be used to store scientific samples. For the ride up, SpaceX stashed chocolate-vanilla swirl ice cream inside.</i><p>Just awesome.<p>The mission was a success. The satellite maker's loss was covered with insurance money, the ISS stays up in the sky, engine-out capability proven, subsequent launch contracts remain in place from both NASA/the satellite maker - and the ISS astronauts get home-made chocolate ice cream! Win-win-win.<p>The only entity that got screwed was the insurance company, but that was a risk they were willing to take and were duly paid for doing so.
It is perfectly clear that this is a story of safety margines adhered to in an admirably strict fashion; not allowing short term thinking rule over long term; and certainly not allowing marketing rule over engineering. This is how you move mountains.
Wow, I hope everyone reads the article before commenting. It’s still amazingly successful. There was a 95% chance the satellite would have made it if they tried, but they were obligated not to try if there were less than a 99% chance of success. (The reduced chance was due to the loss of one of the 9 engines.) And, of course, the primary mission to the space station was fully successful (the engine glitch notwithstanding).
Assuming that the insurance company actually pays out, this seems like a win for both SpaceX and OrbComm. SpaceX got a paying commercial customer, and had an opportunity to test out yet another part of the Falcon stack. OrbComm got a bit of testing time on their new communication platform at less than the cost of a full launch. If the insurance company is structured properly, <i>this</i> is a loss for them, but will average out over time.<p>Compare with the age of sail, where a mission was considered successful if one the ships actually returned. Even with 75% of the crew dead and 25% toothless and malnourished from scurvy and other ailments.
To be sure, this is not a good outcome, but improper orbit insertion is a serious risk on every rocket launch, whether or not it's SpaceX and whether or not you're the primary payload. I'm glad to see that all parties involved realized this and Orbcomm planned accordingly. It would make little sense to accept the increased risk that a secondary payload status entails and to not be prepared for the consequences.<p>And SpaceX behaved just as any other launch vehicle provider would in that situation. They gave their best effort to the secondary payload, but in the end, sacrificed it in order to achieve their primary mission.
Failure is a part of every human activity worth pursuing. What we do when we fail is what defines us. Looking at the big picture, this mission was nothing but a success. Unless I am wrong, this is the first privately built rocket to deliver cargo to the Space Station. Right? And they achieved this while loosing one engine. High five!<p>It sounds like everyone involved with the Satellite portion of the mission knew full-well what the risks were and that they had no priority over the main mission. Insurance covered it. Done deal. All is well.<p>SpaceX can only get better from here. Kudos.
Apparently SpaceX weren't the only ones with engine problems this week. The Delta 4 launch had some anomalies as well. Hard engineering is hard.<p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/11/satellite-investigation-idUSL1E8LBKPQ20121011?type=marketsNews" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/11/satellite-investig...</a>
After some further digging, it appears that insurance was at a low back in March. The article discusses the danger of a major failure, such as an Ariane 5 which could be covered at $750 million or a Proton which can carry $400 million worth of cargo. This $10 million loss shouldn't be too big of a deal for the space insurance world.<p><a href="http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/120302-falling-sat-insurance-premiums-market-risk.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/120302-falling-sa...</a>
Did the satellite self-destruct or something? The article seems to imply the rocket and payload reached its first goal orbit of 202 miles (to deliver another separate payload to the ISS).<p>At that altitude, while short of the 466 miles desired, it still should have taken months or years for the orbit to decay and re-enter the atmosphere!
Is there an explanation somewhere (preferably with a diagram) of how this launch was supposed to work? I'm not sure where the satellite was attached, and how the upper stage was supposed to boost it - was it going to drop the dragon off at one orbit and then continue higher and release the satellite?
Can someone clarify this for me? Why does the contract with NASA forbid them to restart the engine unless they have a 99% chance of completing a second burn?<p>Is the problem here that if you start a second burn and have to end it prematurely, you could end up in an orbit intersecting the ISS?
<i>Due to the engine shutdown, the Falcon 9 used slightly more fuel and oxygen to reach Dragon's intended 202 mile- (325-km) high orbit.</i><p><i>For the ride up, SpaceX stashed chocolate-vanilla swirl ice cream inside.</i><p><i>the amount of liquid oxygen "was only enough to achieve a roughly 95 percent likelihood of completing the second burn..."</i><p><i>882 pounds (400 kg) of cargo aboard the Dragon capsule</i><p>The cynic in my wonders: would they have calculated a 99% likelihood if they hadn't sent the ice cream and had about .1% less cargo?
So, essentially, a company sends a satellite into space, tests it a lot, and then charges an insurance company $10 million because they expected it to fall into the atmosphere?<p>What insurance company lets a company take out a plan with that kind of risk?<p>Seems like NASA should've been getting insurance plans for the shuttle's External Tank all these years.