explain something to me. what is the difference between commercial and NASA space flights? they all launch from the same installations, at least in commercial and military aviation they do sometimes use entirely separate bases....so how do you define it?
SpaceX runs its own show pretty much from start to finish. It R&Ds and builds its own hardware. It launches its own hardware (from government facilities as you mention, but I know SpaceX is looking to build its own launch complex). It runs its missions from its own mission control. And it has its own recovery assets for when its hardware deorbits (or for when its rockets become reusable in the future).
SpaceX has its own floating launch pad, doesn't it? They only need Kennedy as a landing place for their reusable first-stages. Which haven't yet been tested there, as far as I know.
SandWyrm, SpaceX launches from one of the AF's pads at Cape Canaveral. I believe their reusable stuff will be landing in water. I've read they're building their own facility near Brownsville, TX.
(checks Wikipedia) Ah, looks like they've got 4 different launch facilities now, and have abandoned the island they did their initial testing on.
Anyway...
The reusable stuff has been tested in water so far, but that damages the engine, requiring a refurb step. Their goal is a controlled landing on dry land, with the ability to fuel up and launch again the same day.
Wallops is a NASA facility. It provides launch services for itself and commercial operators. BTW, the rocket did lift off a couple hundred feet from the pad, but caught fire and fell back to the pad and exploded. The engines and fuel system are of Soviet origin, current manufactured by a Ukrainian company. I smell Putin...
SpaceX has had plenty of rocket explosions getting to where it is now. OS just hasn't been at it as long.
From NASA's perspective, it's quite smart to go with 2 competing vendors for this stuff. I was afraid at first that this was NASA's new rocket made from re-used shuttle parts. THAT thing is a disaster waiting to happen.
Once great agency is such a joke? Really? This wasn't even a NASA rocket -- it belonged to Orbital Sciences Corp. But, at what point exactly does vessel failure make them "once great." Failure during the Apollo missions? During the shuttle era? During today's subcontractor era? Or once your general distaste for the government hits critical mass and they can't help but fall victim to it?
The funny part is they were using engines from the Soviet moon program. What could go wrong!
From DefenseTech:
Antares is Orbital’s newest and biggest rocket, and it relies employs Soviet-era engines. The two-stage booster, initially developed for the defense market, for its first stage uses two liquid-fuel AJ26 engines, made by Aerojet, part of California-based GenCorp Inc. They’re modified versions of the NK-33s built in Russia more than four decades ago for its moon program, which was later canceled.
Aerojet bought about 40 NK-33 engines in the mid-1990s and, under a contract with Orbital, modified them specifically for Antares, according to Aerojet.
If you expect better than this, you don't know much about the rocket business.
http://youtu.be/CEFNjL86y9c
Fast Forward to 1:28 for a relatively recent Air Force rocket failure that makes this one look like no big deal. Flaming debris falling from thousands of feet up, toxic gas clouds, burned out parking lots full of cars, etc.
mmm, yes - I would expect better. this was not a practice launch - it was a full mission launch, not test fire. I would not know why I/we /others could NOT expect better? Yes rockets fail, they are catastrophic when they do. Granted Antares Rockets are a newer design (and have a 1:5 failure ratio prior to 28th Oct 14, now 1:3...your point here SandWyrm, and so questions this rocked being used - my point to come*), but I would not have expected a failure on this mission 10 sec in (nor 20, 120 sec either).
"If you expect better than this, you don't know much about the rocket business." well I am not in the rocket business, no. Do you suggest I should just say 'well its a rocket - it will more than likely blow up on take off? apologies - good effort chaps, didn't quite get there this time. Better luck next time.... :)
I expect better - year sure, I do. i don't want a stat on how rockets blow up on take off and how many other experiments have done so. I just gave some state on this one however - apologies. Also it not the size of the explosion(s), *its the integrity of the system, project and competency of the agency running and implementing it (i.e NASA, Orbital Industries etc.) to ensure success. There is he question which may lead to the answer of why this project/rocket failed. This applies to all highly complex project (and some simple ones).
I will stand by my statement of I expect(ed) better, definitely not less or the result in this instance.
it's rare to see malfunction occured so quickly, practically few seconds after the rocket barely cleared the tower... i mean these footage of failed launchusualy came from the 50s and 60s, not today
The Antares rocket is a US-Ukraine product. "As Orbital has little experience with large liquid stages and LOX propellant, some of the Antares first stage work was contracted to the Ukrainian Yuzhnoye SDO, designers of the Zenit series."
Thankfully, it was Orbital Sciences and not SpaceX. Still, a set back for commercial spaceflight.
ReplyDeleteexplain something to me. what is the difference between commercial and NASA space flights? they all launch from the same installations, at least in commercial and military aviation they do sometimes use entirely separate bases....so how do you define it?
DeleteThis wasn't Kennedy Space Center Sol, it was an OrbSci launch facility in Virginia. SpaceX has their own production and launch facilities too.
DeleteNASA is the customer, not the designer or operator of these rockets.
SpaceX runs its own show pretty much from start to finish. It R&Ds and builds its own hardware. It launches its own hardware (from government facilities as you mention, but I know SpaceX is looking to build its own launch complex). It runs its missions from its own mission control. And it has its own recovery assets for when its hardware deorbits (or for when its rockets become reusable in the future).
DeleteSpaceX has its own floating launch pad, doesn't it? They only need Kennedy as a landing place for their reusable first-stages. Which haven't yet been tested there, as far as I know.
DeleteSandWyrm, SpaceX launches from one of the AF's pads at Cape Canaveral. I believe their reusable stuff will be landing in water. I've read they're building their own facility near Brownsville, TX.
Delete(checks Wikipedia) Ah, looks like they've got 4 different launch facilities now, and have abandoned the island they did their initial testing on.
DeleteAnyway...
The reusable stuff has been tested in water so far, but that damages the engine, requiring a refurb step. Their goal is a controlled landing on dry land, with the ability to fuel up and launch again the same day.
Wallops is a NASA facility. It provides launch services for itself and commercial operators. BTW, the rocket did lift off a couple hundred feet from the pad, but caught fire and fell back to the pad and exploded. The engines and fuel system are of Soviet origin, current manufactured by a Ukrainian company. I smell Putin...
DeleteYes, Putin had totally used his arcane abilities, which make anything Ukraine-related fall apart, to make your rocket blow up.
DeleteIt was absolutely not related to the fact that these were old Soviet engines built in the 70s, left in Ukraine, and purchased from them on the cheap.
SpaceX has had plenty of rocket explosions getting to where it is now. OS just hasn't been at it as long.
ReplyDeleteFrom NASA's perspective, it's quite smart to go with 2 competing vendors for this stuff. I was afraid at first that this was NASA's new rocket made from re-used shuttle parts. THAT thing is a disaster waiting to happen.
Once great agency is such a joke? Really? This wasn't even a NASA rocket -- it belonged to Orbital Sciences Corp. But, at what point exactly does vessel failure make them "once great." Failure during the Apollo missions? During the shuttle era? During today's subcontractor era? Or once your general distaste for the government hits critical mass and they can't help but fall victim to it?
ReplyDeleteprobably when it hits critical mass. your point?
DeleteThat's a fair answer.
DeleteRockets blow up all the time. Didn't the Russians lose one earlier this year? Their systems are widely regarded as the most reliable out there.
DeleteFailure in the rocket business is giving up, not in having something go wrong.
Yup, rockets blow up all the time, or fail, or loose attitude. Has happened in recent years with Russian, ESA Ariane, etc.
DeleteThe funny part is they were using engines from the Soviet moon program. What could go wrong!
ReplyDeleteFrom DefenseTech:
Antares is Orbital’s newest and biggest rocket, and it relies employs Soviet-era engines. The two-stage booster, initially developed for the defense market, for its first stage uses two liquid-fuel AJ26 engines, made by Aerojet, part of California-based GenCorp Inc. They’re modified versions of the NK-33s built in Russia more than four decades ago for its moon program, which was later canceled.
Aerojet bought about 40 NK-33 engines in the mid-1990s and, under a contract with Orbital, modified them specifically for Antares, according to Aerojet.
Gotta hand it to SpaceX for manning up and designing new engines. :)
DeleteGood points - but here is the main one - "we would expect better than this"....right?
ReplyDeleteIf this was manned - I wonder if the build, checks and engineering protocols would have been more rigorous and thus earned a better result.
If you expect better than this, you don't know much about the rocket business.
Deletehttp://youtu.be/CEFNjL86y9c
Fast Forward to 1:28 for a relatively recent Air Force rocket failure that makes this one look like no big deal. Flaming debris falling from thousands of feet up, toxic gas clouds, burned out parking lots full of cars, etc.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletemmm, yes - I would expect better. this was not a practice launch - it was a full mission launch, not test fire. I would not know why I/we /others could NOT expect better? Yes rockets fail, they are catastrophic when they do. Granted Antares Rockets are a newer design (and have a 1:5 failure ratio prior to 28th Oct 14, now 1:3...your point here SandWyrm, and so questions this rocked being used - my point to come*), but I would not have expected a failure on this mission 10 sec in (nor 20, 120 sec either).
Delete"If you expect better than this, you don't know much about the rocket business." well I am not in the rocket business, no. Do you suggest I should just say 'well its a rocket - it will more than likely blow up on take off? apologies - good effort chaps, didn't quite get there this time. Better luck next time.... :)
I expect better - year sure, I do. i don't want a stat on how rockets blow up on take off and how many other experiments have done so. I just gave some state on this one however - apologies. Also it not the size of the explosion(s), *its the integrity of the system, project and competency of the agency running and implementing it (i.e NASA, Orbital Industries etc.) to ensure success. There is he question which may lead to the answer of why this project/rocket failed. This applies to all highly complex project (and some simple ones).
I will stand by my statement of I expect(ed) better, definitely not less or the result in this instance.
SandWyrm, this is not an attack on you/your comment - just my justification of why I expect better.
DeleteNothing wrong with expecting better, but that has to be tempered with a realistic appreciation of what 'normal' in that business is.
Deleteit's rare to see malfunction occured so quickly, practically few seconds after the rocket barely cleared the tower... i mean these footage of failed launchusualy came from the 50s and 60s, not today
ReplyDeleteThe Antares rocket is a US-Ukraine product. "As Orbital has little experience with large liquid stages and LOX propellant, some of the Antares first stage work was contracted to the Ukrainian Yuzhnoye SDO, designers of the Zenit series."
ReplyDeleteand likely less experience in the future - Orbital will be lucky to survive this as commercial business
DeleteNew sport on CNN today. Live rocket launches.
ReplyDeleteCNN is tuning into the live launch this morning of an Atlas 5 (GPS satellite) at the Cape.