back to article Japan's first private satellite launch imitates SpaceX's giant explosions

On another bad day for Japan's space industry, the nation's first private satellite launch failed within seconds of launch. The first flight of the KAIROS – a rocket developed by private entity SPACE ONE – barely got off the pad before it was detonated by mission control. Kairos has a single solid propellant motor, a liquid- …

  1. hfo1

    Was Roman Roy involved?

  2. Andy The Hat Silver badge

    This is very unfortunate but demonstrates exactly why everybody (including "joyriders") should remember space flight is both difficult and dangerous.

  3. werdsmith Silver badge

    It looked like it started to pitch over too soon. The controllers didn't wait for it to be over the sea to abort, they did it quickly so the whole thing came down to start a fire on the pad. Maybe the abort was automated, but a few more seconds would have had the whole thing over water.

  4. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    I can't get the video to work

    In Firefox it didn't want to go. Said "can't find MIME format" or somesuch.

    Tried in Brave, no cigar. Seamonkey didn't like it either.

    So I copied the URL to my work PC and tried with Chrome. Still no go.

    What format are you people using for even Chrome to not agree ?

    P.S. : all my browsers are up to date and have no trouble viewing videos on YouTube or elsewhere, like this one.

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: I can't get the video to work

      Oddly enough, if you right-click & ask Firefox to open the video in a new tab it plays (from YouTube) just fine.

    2. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: I can't get the video to work

      It didn't play for me either, so I hopped over and watched it on BBC.

    3. renniks

      Re: I can't get the video to work

      Real Player?

      1. FIA Silver badge

        Re: I can't get the video to work

        I've said it before... I'll say it again... This site needs more trigger warnings.

    4. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      We screwed up, oops

      Yeah, we screwed up and broke the embed. It's now fixed. Don't forget to email corrections@theregister.com please if you spot anything wrong so we can fix it right away rather than realize too late.

      C.

  5. Andy The Hat Silver badge

    I thought that but it appeared that the trajectory of the vehicle (what was left of it) took it a good distance from the pad, yet the pad infrastructure was well alight. My guess is that the significant "anomaly" occurred almost at launch rather than after liftoff, probably with the 2nd stage liquid fuel system. Perhaps a few tons of fuel dumped on the pad and a major imbalance of the vehicle would be less than optimal ...

    1. Spherical Cow Silver badge

      Immediately after the explosion there is a significant burning chunk heading back the way it came, I think that's what caused the pad fire.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Please...

    ... just stop with the persistent SpaceX snark.

    I know it's become the Register thing to do (especially from Simon) but it's getting really tiresome.

    This stuff is hard, all the companies have suffered explosions. Here, look, here's a good one, you'll like this: https://youtu.be/aL5eddt-iAo?t=63

    (The Orbital Sciences Antares launch failure)

    It's actually more relevant to this article because it happened at around the same time in flight - although it's still not really worthy of mentioning (any more so than dragging SpaceX in) because all the relevant bits of technology involved are completely different.

    1. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: Please...

      And only the "on pad" failure of an F9 comes close in terms of pad damage due to rocket failure.

      Yes, IFT1 did "some" damage to the launch infrastructure, but not through failure of the rocket.

    2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Snark is in the eye of the beholder

      I interpreted imitating SpaceX explosions as hardware rich development: prototypes optimised for rapid contruction at low cost. That would mean Space One would be ready with an improved rocket ready to launch in months.

      I do not know if that was Mr Sharwood's intent or if Space One really are going hardware rich but I assumed it was a compliment. Far better than the more popular alternative: optimising for long delays and great expense to maximise cost plus billing.

    3. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      You might be over-thinking it

      Hi -- I think this says more about you than about us and your perception of criticism against Elon.

      We're just pointing out that this launch went through the same sort of thing (RUD) SpaceX had to overcome. And Musk's lot figured it out, so good luck to Japan.

      If Microsoft had a massive hole in its Windows login system and then Linux had a similar issue a week or year later, we'd probably reference that Microsoft bug in the Linux coverage. Pattern recognition; it's what humans do.

      C.

  7. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Classic RUD

    Better luck next time. Rocket science is indeed hard

    Note: RUD = Rapid Unplanned Disassembly

    (although I assume most Register Regulars know this)

  8. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
    Mushroom

    KA-BOOOM!

    Commentator <dead-pan> A launch anomaly.

    LOL

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like