• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Americans attempted a space launch today

Considering how the news is sold nowadays I don't understand why this isn't on the front page. Failure? Sure. And that sucks. It looks really awesome though.
 
C'mon guys. For an agency whose focus has shifted from cutting edge engineering to global warming and improving Arab self-esteem, is a six second flight really so bad?
 
Not to worry, being such brilliant rocketeers, I'm sure they got their CYA sequencing as well honed as their launch sequencing.
 
MrColin said:
not very good at it.
http://youtu.be/jHMmMgdcOSU
Click to expand...

"Rockets are tricky" Elon Musk

In all seriousness Rockets are tricky and periodic failures with any aerospace vehicle is to be expected. Orbital has a lot of experience and they will go back and review the telemetry and figure out what happened. I suspect that based on the Video that something happened with the engines which are Russian NK-33 engines.

Here is a good video with a lot of cussing of the launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecdTDG6xo8A
 
NASA still pops em off now and then, not that one though.

Most of the ones these days are Defense Department oriented type of things and not really announced a lot I believe.
 
Last edited:
Astrallite said:
Might be cheaper to just keep launching with Russian rockets.
Click to expand...

Except they just lost a biggie in July

Russian Rocket Explodes Shortly After Lift Off Resulting In Loss Of $200 Million Satellites

russian-rocket.jpg


And no I didn't turn the picture sideways ~


.
 
werepossum said:
Yep. NASA is out of the rocket building business.

Looks like they aren't too hot at the rocket hiring business either.
Click to expand...

NASA hasn't built rockets for decades since Von Braun was leading the MSFC and his team built some of the 1st stages for the Saturn-I.

NASA contracts out the building of rockets to the private sector.
 
Brovane said:
NASA hasn't built rockets for decades since Von Braun was leading the MSFC and his team built some of the 1st stages for the Saturn-I.

NASA contracts out the building of rockets to the private sector.
Click to expand...

*cough*

Kinda depends on walking a fine line there I guess, but yeah more or less.

There are still Saturn V's around.

*Edit* my bad, I was thinking of the Atlas V.

The one that blew up is a bit of a different creature.
 
Last edited:
Brovane said:
NASA hasn't built rockets for decades since Von Braun was leading the MSFC and his team built some of the 1st stages for the Saturn-I.

NASA contracts out the building of rockets to the private sector.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they used to be capable of at least designing rockets. I do not believe they possess this skill any longer. They do still retain some excellent computer-generated artist's rendering ability though.

I guess we'll find out in 2017. Oops, 2018. This could be a BIG badaboom. http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/1/60...-largest-rocket-of-all-time-for-a-2018-launch

Although that may be more a test of Boeing . . .
 
MongGrel said:
*cough*

Kinda depends on walking a fine line there I guess, but yeah more or less.

There are still Saturn V's around.

The one that blew up is a bit of a different creature.
Click to expand...

It is like the USAF doesn't build fighters but they know what they want and hire companies to build it. For rockets the technology is fairly old. Now want to develop a technology to soft land a 1-ton rover on Mars and NASA is all over that. NASA should be focusing on the ground breaking technology and not the tech that is well known, like building a rocket. They should make sure they retain enough to knowledge to provide oversight.

The Commercial Cargo contract's themselves where based on fix priced contracting for delivering cargo. Which isn't a bad idea. If you look at the Falcon 9 and Dragon development. Under normal cost-plus contracting it would have cost a estimated 3.6 Billion to develop the launch vehicle and spacecraft. NASA paid 400 Million and it cost SpaceX another 450 Million to develop the Dragon and Falcon 9. So NASA saved 3.2 Billion in development cost.

Launch vehicles fail, just like any aerospace vehicle. I am sure that Orbital will look at the telemetry and figure out what went wrong and correct it. Luckily it wasn't a expensive payload like a Mars Rover, 1-Billion dollar spy satellite etc. This is also why the USAF is so picky about picking who is allowed to launch their equipment.
 
werepossum said:
Yes, but they used to be capable of at least designing rockets. I do not believe they possess this skill any longer. They do still retain some excellent computer-generated artist's rendering ability though.

I guess we'll find out in 2017. Oops, 2018. This could be a BIG badaboom. http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/1/60...-largest-rocket-of-all-time-for-a-2018-launch

Although that may be more a test of Boeing . . .
Click to expand...

They have people that know how to design rockets and also know how to conduct oversight of a rocket design and construction. You have to remember for a contract like SLS. NASA actually has people on-sight at the companies that are building and designing the components of the rocket. However all this oversight comes at increased costs. With the Commercial cargo contracts, NASA has minimal oversight. The company is being paid a fixed cost to deliver on a contract. Orbital didn't deliver today and will suffer financial penalties for this failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top