Posted on 10/29/2014 8:19:42 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
The space launch business will always have risks associated with launch accidents -- fact of life in the space biz. This accident is tragic, but they will recover from it. The Orbital Corp. Antares has already had three successful cargo deliveries to ISS.
Like when Obama told Putin to blow it out your ear when Russia warned us about the Boston bombers....more than once.
I think it's sabotage. It makes absolutely no sense for Putin to sabotage a cargo ship headed for the space station.
what a ignorant comment, do a little research on Orbital and the CRS program before commenting, just a FYI CRS was started under Bush.
Financial elites want to keep up the tax burden on the sheeple.
The financial elites thus want to keep government debt climbing.
Most importantly, they want investors who own government debt to roll over their investment in new government debt when the bonds they own mature.
If this capital is not reinvested in new government bonds, it will be invested elsewhere, undboutedly much of it in the private markets, which would provide stimulus to the private sector economy, which the elites do not want at this point. That capital would likely stay invested in the private sector for quite some time. The elites do instead want government to borrow that capital, thus keeping the capital in the public sector from where it is then spent into the private sector. Government spends money the way the elites want it spent; on the products and services of their businesses and on their economic slave voters.
Keeping private capital “invested” in the future stream of US tax payments (government bonds) keeps the investors interests aligned with what the financial elites want. The elites want middle class working sheeple burdened with crushing taxes.
Consequently, there is a mad rush for government to throw money away at anything and everything. As prior boondoggle projects and spending ends, new boondoggle spending must replace it. Otherwise government spending would decrease, which the elites just can’t have.
Exploding rockets fit the bill for crazy wasteful spending very well.
The design is based on the Soviet design. It is supposed to have some kind of staging in the combustion chamber to get a better specific impulse.
Watching the video, my first impression was a turbo pump failure, maybe on the liquid oxygen. There was still a flame, but only due to fuel running. Thus loss of thrust causing the rocket to fall back on the pad. Somewhat like some of the test failures during the late fifties (the old Atlas and Thor test flights).
Yes Sir we do still have our “ Tail Light Guarantee”!
“We have lost that zeal. If a design engineer doesn’t get a fat government handout, he/she won’t do it.”
A rocket engine is far more temperamental than nearly any machine. There’s still lots of mystery and trial/error in the design process.
It costs billions to develop a large rocket engine from scratch and the risk of losing money is huge. The first space engines were only developed by governments with the deepest pockets (USA/USSR). Orbital bought Soviet technology to skip the initial design costs.
Elon Musk took a gamble with his billions to develop new engines but most investors would not.
It features “Muslim outreach” don’t you know.
Okay. Thanks. The Washington Post did not mention their successes, only their failures. So it wasn’t as bad as I thought to use this company. I figured it was another typical crony contract that has been going on within this admin. But on further reading, I see you are right.
Should have known the Washington Post would slant it.
Bottom line.
The circumstances are the US never seriously pursued the development of throttle controlled, liquid fuel, heavy lift rocket engines. However, the Russians did, for their massive (and unsuccessful) N1 vehicle. The NK-15 design engine can be followed through the NK-33 to the RD-180, a reliable design that is licensed to be produced in the US, if we care to build the manufacturing facilities required.
None of these designs are junk and the newer RD-180 is indeed sweet, but trying to run 30 engines to lift the N1 was overcomplicated.
“A rocket engine is far more temperamental than nearly any machine. There’s still lots of mystery and trial/error in the design process.”
It is my understanding that not everything in the design can be “tested” with computer simulation.
I remember from a couple years back. A Falcon 9 rocket had just launched from Florida with the first of the CRS missions. In the video, it appeared that about 120 seconds after liftoff, an engine exploded....and the the thing kept on going. No thrust interruption, no deviation in trajectory. It successfully made it to orbit. The Dragon capsule docked at the ISS and delivered its cargo, then returned to Earth.
If I had a choice between using the Antares verses the Falcon 9...it'd be the Falcon, every time.
Here's a VIDEO of that explosion.
To be speculating that the engines are the cause of the mishap (as opposed to a fitting or joint or hose or tank defect) is grossly irresponsible, but not unexpected from the likes of the Washington Post.
At some point in the future, Falcon 9 will experience a catastrophic failure during launch -- law of averages. It will happen; the only question is when.
Weathermen and baseball hitters fit into that category.
Before blaming the engines, maybe we should wait to find out the real cause. It could be a ruptured fuel line, a blown valve gasket, who knows.
I know. I don’t have a jones for Mr. Musk, but I do think his Falcon series of launch vehicles is the best civilian vehicle out there.
They’re working on the Falcon Heavy, which is eventually supposed to be man-rated. It’ll go with the Dragon 2.0 crew launch capsule they recently unveiled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.