I can't imagine why.
I gathered that much from common sense. I'm not being insulting here, it's a safety protocol that's been in place for a long time....the '60s I think, as a response to lack of such a protocol from Nazi Germany's rocket programs.
Although in hindsight, the technology for such a protocol might not have existed in 1944.
The rocket was destroyed by mission control because of the rocket engine stopping uncommanded, in order to keep the intact rocket from falling back to earth.
All the firmament fags use this video as proof
And they're too stupid to spell "because".
becouse it is
The Delta II rocket now is incredibly successful. It has now launched 99 straight successful times, more than any rocket ever!
+David n soyuz?
+David n Actually 98 consecutive successes. When JPSS-1 launches in early 2017, should it be successful, then it will be considered the 99th. Same goes for ICESat 2 later that year; however, that might count as the 100th straight success. ICESat 2 is scheduled to be the final Delta II while JPSS-1 is the next-to-last.
I FOUND IT! THIS WAS IN THE MARTIAN!
WAY over 10 years true. Perhaps its additional value in that GOES-G can, despite being a failure, still contribute to pop culture.
Not really over 10 years. This "stunt rocket" did its duty nearly three decades before the film's release.
Just think of it as a "stunt rocket"... over a decade afterwards!
Yes Martian failure
What basically happened was the jolt of the airlit solids igniting caused a short circuit in the computer and it shut the engines down.
86 was just not a good year for NASA. This happened just a few months after Challenger.
Yeah that is one very obvious flameout
+cottagechskitty ... KERBAL
The rocket exploding was intended, once the main engine malfunctions and the rocket veers off course in order to protect property and people that are outside the launch corridor a UHF blast from the main controls detonates charges in the cases of the solid boosters and main rocket body, detonating the fuel at altitude as opposed to when it hits the ground. Although spectacular, it's much safer.
The PR announcer generally does not have a video feed to look at (at least in 1986) so they can seem to be behind the loop. You could see a change in the plume as the engine shutdown. Amazing that the rocket remained intact even after it flipped around backwards. Until the RSO terminated flight.
American have had more rocket explosion than I can count. I wonder why so many?
Obed The USSR blew up way way more rockets than NASA. Heck, the nickname for the Proton was "Soon to be flaming wreckage" it blew up so much.
+Godismylife1 Because NASA doesn't classify failures and erase them from history like a certain USSR did. And SpaceX could launch astronauts today. It would certainly have a much higher chance of success than Gagarin's flight, which was launched a rocket that had a 1 in 4 chance of failing.
+Kyle Denny Technically NASA never "had" any rockets, few things are ever built in house, JPL and Stennis Space Center are where a lot of NASA's workers are contracted to build their tech, so technically all the rockets from there count, even the Space Shuttle was built by Boeing/Rockwell, U.S.A and Lockheed Martin. But the rockets are serviced and maintained by NASA engineers, same goes for the Atlas V and Delta series, the Delta II that exploded was under control of the USAF. But it still stands, ULA is still 100% effective, and working closer to NASA than SpaceX.
+Timmy G Since 1986 it was NASA's only rocket. I'm well aware of the Saturn.
+Kyle Denny NASA's only rocket was the Space Shuttle? Are you high or just ignorant?
"we have a main engine shutdown"
:D AFTER the explosion LOL
The PAO is really just reading off a script. They don't have a data feed. It's like how during thr Challenger accident the PAO reads off speed and location data well after the breakup. Before the long pause and the "obviously a major malfunction." statement.
Premature engine shutdown. Ooops!
phase conjugated scalar EM wave used to destroy some of the key systems of this...but shhhh never happened.
She did the last Atlas-G Centaur-D1AR launch carrying the final FLTSATCOM.
You can clearly see the rocket exploding at 2:13.
Go to my videos if you want to see an awesome rocket
Thats called smart people talk, maybe they should dumb it down for people like you
A lightning strike took out an Atlas launch in 1987.
Wasn't that one a Delta rocket from 1977?
You can see the central engine shutting down at 1:54, then, the autodestruction system was triggered to prevent the rocket crashing on populated area
americans should be banned from space exploration .. no nazis in space
No, takie są te Wasze rakiety.
a main engine can be shutdown, I think you are thinking of SRB's which cannot be shutdown.
A year ago today, I watched the launch of the Opportunity Mars Rover, also with a Delta 2. During the pre-launch chatter, we heard that NASA will not launch if there is lightning within ten miles of the pad.
my bad, delta 1
It's weird how the challenger, titan 34D, and this delta 2 all failed that year
That's all that they see at their controllers is the engine shutdoiwn, they cannot report what they don't know.
If all the solid boosters were ignited at liftoff, the vehicle (and satellite inside) would experience very high accelerations. Carrying the booster allows for a more constant static acceleration profile through the flight.
air ignited solids? doesn't seem very efficient to me to carry low specific impulse boosters strapped to the side from lift off through max Q
Disintegration at close to max Q looks spectacular.
Should have switched SCE to AUX.
You are thinking of another mission
It was "Delta 178"!!!!
1986 was definitely a bad year for NASA.
The SRBs didn't have nozzle gimbal capability if I'm correct. That's why all control was lost after the stage 1 engine shut down?
where my taxes go …
Wired.com says the electrical fault was caused by a lightning strike, but they are the only source that speaks of this, can anyone confirm thats what it was?
Heh heh... "strap ons"
@reknas78 You're absolutly right.
@reknas78 You're correct. It IS better to just be silent. Take your own advise, dimwit.
Supersonic flight over Cape Canaveral in early 1986 was not recommended....
....a little too late.
@reknas78 You do realize that it is the height of scientific heresy to do as you just suggested?
@reknas78 Uhhh.. use your eyes, you can see them shut down. It then loses stability and disintegrates.
action at 2:00
Ok, looks like the 1993 Titan IVA crash was caused by it's SRB. Didn't have that one on my list.
Neither the Ariane 5 nor the Titan IVA explosion had anything to do with their solid boosters. Both were caused by a guidance failure, a short circuit on the Titan and a software glitch on the Ariane. The last two Taurus failures were caused by the payload fairing which did not seperate. FYI, the Delta 4 uses up to 4 SRBs.
@blablubb12345 Good track record unless you are an Indian National rocket, Space Shuttle, Titan IV, or a Delta II, Orbital Taurus, or any solid rocket fueled system created after 1985. The Ariane 5 is not bad with only one major explosion. Most catastrophic solid failures are about 1/60 with 90% success. Delta rockets have scientifically scaled back the use of SRB's. Out of 4 systems only 2 use SRB's and not more than 2 on each rocket. Luckily, their heavy lift system has no SRB's.
That's not true by both accounts as solids have a rather good track record and even the Delta 4 uses them. Btw. this launch failed because the liquid fueled main engine shut down early, leaving the rocket with no steering capability.
@reknas78 or thats exactly what caused the rocket to fail.
I am glad for the sake of Delta rockets that the next generation will not be using solid rocket boosters. SRB's have killed the reputation of most modern rockets that have used them.
skip to 1:50 (: you are welcome ^^
@Knepperify1 Yeah, I know. Thanks for nothing.
@DirkDiggler1711 The information is correct. Not sure what reknas78 means.
@reknas78 I'm not sure what you mean, the vehicle did have a premature main engine shutdown. And yes, it has a main engine, the core engine on the first stage of the Delta vehicle. The first stage has nine strap-on SRBs surrounding it.
"and we have main engine shutdown" yeah, that's an understatement. xD
@soylentgreenb Ah kay it makes more sense if they're just looking at the telemetry data
@Keinlicht You fool; they're not looking at footage of the rocket, they're doing their job. If the rocket explodes there is no means of recovery, obviously, hence they're looking for anomalies they may be able to fix.
I never understand why they keep commenting without describing anything, "main engine shut down"? Really?
How about "vehicle offcourse, rocket breaking up"? that's pretty evident from the footage. If not that then just offer a "Shit!" at the beginning and be silent!
Ah...a premature engine shutdown...??? Try an explosion and there is no main engine. Look at you monitors and see the explosion. Embarrassing when you say " Premature engine shutdow" or "We have an anomaly" it's better just to be silent.
At least no one died.
Thats what happens when you let women run things, even as announcers.
Considering how reliable this rocket usually is/was/whatever, this disaster must have come as an extra huge shock...even more so coming within months of Challenger.
I believe CNN also showed the launch live, given that it was the first NASA launch since Challenger.
1986 was a bad year for NASA, that's for sure.
"We have a main engine shutdown"
Erm...what main engine?
@RJY4356 CNN also carried the launch live, given it was the first U.S. launch of any kind since Challenger.
All right, but saying that AFTER the rocket just exploded is a bit... redundant, if you catch my drift.
The rocket veered off course and finally exploded BECAUSE the main engine shut down permaturely. You can see this at 1:55.
I love the euphemisms they use when their rockets blow up: "we show a premature main engine shutdown" - yeah, I guess you can say that when your main engine has just been pulverized by an explosion :-D Or the "we have had an anomaly" in another Delta-III explosion, after which fire and debris literally rained down all around the launch pad. That was epic.
Good news is it didn't have people inside
Only the main engine is steerable on a Delta II, the boosters have fixed nozzles. With the loss of the main engine, the rocket also lost all steering capabilities.
Yes. The initial break up is aerodynamic @ 1:58. It seems that the only imbalance that caused the rotation would be caused by an uneven burn by the outboard solid boosters. I would assume the main engine would be in the center. How would shutting this down cause a spin? The only way this would be possible is if the center of gravity was behind the center of pressure.
the rocket turned! something mustve happened in one of them air start srb's
I guess "parking orbit" doesn't roll off the tongue as automatically as "parking lot".
Looks like the payload and 2nd stage were ripped off while the 1st stage was left more or less intact, though apparently ruptured judging by violent venting that quickly stopped.
You can see when the RSO detonates the remainder, but the initial breakup is aerodynamic.
I did not realize that, thanks.
Well, yes, among the firsts...I know she did an Atlas-Centaur launch (AC-63) in 1985, a year before this.
Also this was one of Lisa Malone's first launches she did in 1985-1986 before she started doing shuttle launches in 1989.
I remember watching this LIVE on The Weather Channel of all places...wheneevr there was a NOAA satellite launch they'd show it live. This was at 6:18 p.m. on a Saturday evening. I remember the weather channel guys didn't realize what happened at first and it took them a moment to replay it and realize the RSO destroyed it after they lost control form the engine shutdown.