On Oct. 28, NASA attempted to launch Antares, a rocket with the Cygnus spacecraft headed to resupply the International Space Station. Unfortunately, shortly into the launch sequence, NASA operators decided that the rocket was not going to follow the path that it was intended for and that there wasn’t anything they could do but terminate the launch. The rocket therefore exploded close to but not on the launch pad, causing alarm among the media. But the most important facts about this event are being overshadowed by the occasional criticism that NASA is receiving about how something like this could happen.
Have you ever heard the saying “this isn’t rocket science” by people attempting to explain how difficult something is? Well, anything that has to do with space exploration and the launch of rockets into orbit and their final destinations is literally rocket science. It is some of the most difficult and challenging work being done today.
Similarly, this isn’t the first time that there has been an incident concerning rockets. However, it is the first time since 2011 that a mission to the International Space Station has failed, the last failure being a Russian attempt. This was a choice that NASA operators and specialists consciously made when, in their expert opinions, they saw that this wasn’t going as planned. When dealing with enormous rockets like these, it’s very clear that exploding with no injuries or casualties and within NASA grounds is much better than the possible outcome of operators allowing the launch sequence to go through, the rocket ending up off course and it possibly crashing into a public area with civilians.
Additionally, NASA shouldn’t be scrutinized because Antares was technically not even their rocket. Whereas NASA used to design and build many of their own rockets and space shuttles, they now privately contract many projects. Cuts in funding have led to outsourcing instead of doing all of the work internally.
Technically, Antares is a system of Orbital Sciences and has successfully completed missions, with the Cygnus spacecraft, to the ISS. This incident was contained and, as answered in NASA’s news conference, “The contract is set up so that we have compensation in the case that we don’t make it all the way to orbit. ... We’ll work with Orbital to get the hardware that didn’t make it to this flight onto ISS,” Mike Suffredini, NASA’s ISS Program Manager said. So in short, everything will be OK.
In fact, even the science experiments included in the payload are not completely lost. The press conference included answering the fact that the scientific materials headed to ISS can be replaced and eventually will be.
Besides the loss of about $200 million in parts and more in surrounding damage, no one was injured. Since contractually, Orbital is to make eight missions to ISS to deliver goods, eventually another attempt will happen again.
Financially, it is a huge loss, but in reality, it’s just a reminder about how intricate these processes are and how important it is that NASA and the companies it contracts with have the support to continue their work.
Plus, we are reminded of how much less significant this incident is when it is compared to those like Virgin Galactic’s space craft test flight, which led to the death of the captain and injury of the co-captain on Oct. 31. Clearly, space hasn’t had a great go of it lately, but that doesn’t mean that each and every mission should be an indication of the total quality of NASA itself.
After having to retire its shuttle program and dealing with other funding cuts, NASA has no choice but to look to private companies for services, like transporting goods through Orbital, or for shuttle services to send astronauts to ISS or into space. So let’s give NASA some room for error. With less support, it's still trying to find ways to continue improving and working on space exploration.
Reach the columnist at kayla.chan@asu.edu or follow her on Twitter @kaylarc214.
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
