Unmanned NASA-contracted rocket explodes; damage is 'significant'

[CountDeMoney]

The truly pathetic part of your stalking is that you think your drivel makes sense.

You're just the biggest target, because you're the biggest bullshitter.  Now go make $6 on your Ameritrade account, shitbird.

[The Minsky Moment]

quote=Alan Shepard]It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one's safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government contract.

Hmm ... the safety factor was presumably set by NASA engineers; the contractor is the lowest bidder to hit that factor . . .

[Admiral Yi]

You're just the biggest target, because you're the biggest bullshitter.  Now go make $6 on your Ameritrade account, shitbird.

Keep singing your retarded Holy Mother Church of Ralph Nader hymns, retardo.

[Berkut]

A rocket exploded. They do that from time to time - launching shit into space is an inherently risky business no matter who is doing it.

*This* failure is no more evidence of the systemic failure of using private enterprise than the Challenger disaster was a clear indication that the government should get out of the space business.


Seedy's attempt to make the point is, however, another fine reason to note that crazy political radicals are fucking useless in normal conversations.


"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

[dps]

That decision was just... bizarre.  The importer has a license to manufacture them.

Why is that bizarre?  Reduce costs to maximize profits.  Buy old Soviet shit and refurbish it in 11Bravo's garage so you don't have to have spend the money in manufacturing and labor. 
It's straight out of the bullshit privatization playbook, as if Yi started his own space program.

What you fail to understand is that in a free market, when your product blows up in your customers' faces, you tend to lose market share.

[CountDeMoney]

What you fail to understand is that in a free market, when your product blows up in your customers' faces, you tend to lose market share.

Yeah, they're cratering, alright.

Orbital Sciences Corporation
NYSE: ORB - Oct 30 2:02 PM ET
25.310.04 (0.16%)

[Barrister]

What you fail to understand is that in a free market, when your product blows up in your customers' faces, you tend to lose market share.

Yeah, they're cratering, alright.

Orbital Sciences Corporation
NYSE: ORB - Oct 30 2:02 PM ET
25.310.04 (0.16%)

Comrade Money, that's just today's quote.

Try looking at what happened to the stock when trading opened yesterday.  I'll give you a hint - it wasn't good.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/orb

[grumbler]

I'm not sure why everyone is so fixated on the fact that the liquid-fuel engines are modifications of a forty-year-old Russian engine.  It isn't like these excellent engines have been sitting outside rusting for forty years.  I guess that spleens need venting, and ignorance allows the spleens to be vented on these rocket engines.

[Barrister]

I'm not sure why everyone is so fixated on the fact that the liquid-fuel engines are modifications of a forty-year-old Russian engine.  It isn't like these excellent engines have been sitting outside rusting for forty years.  I guess that spleens need venting, and ignorance allows the spleens to be vented on these rocket engines.

Well Elon Musk is the one who made a big deal about that (googling - apparently in an interview to Wired in 2012).  He's certainly knowledgable in the field, albeit he has his own reasons why he might be critical of a competitor.

[grumbler]

What you fail to understand is that in a free market, when your product blows up in your customers' faces, you tend to lose market share.

Yeah, they're cratering, alright.

Orbital Sciences Corporation
NYSE: ORB - Oct 30 2:02 PM ET
25.310.04 (0.16%)

Wow.    Did you just confess that you have no clue as to what "market share" means?  Hint:  the market involved isn't the stock market.

[derspiess]

Let's not get in the way of some good ol' fashioned NASA bashing. 

We should bring back NASSA as a low cost competitor.

You bitch about mail service, you really want to play around with the satellites that deliver your telecoms?

Whoosh.

[grumbler]

Well Elon Musk is the one who made a big deal about that (googling - apparently in an interview to Wired in 2012).  He's certainly knowledgable in the field, albeit he has his own reasons why he might be critical of a competitor.

I know why Elon Musk would criticize the engine:  for his own profit.  I don't know what degree CdM has in engineering that would make him qualified to judge the suitability of the engine, and don't know why BvS is bagging on what was clearly the smart decision.  Those engines were like-new, had a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than any liquid-fuel rocket motor before or since (in fact, until earlier this year), were inexpensive, and could be used almost immediately.  Those engines weren't the long-term solution to OSC's engine requirements, but they were perfect for what it needed at startup. 

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

[I know why Elon Musk would criticize the engine:  for his own profit.  I don't know what degree CdM has in engineering that would make him qualified to judge the suitability of the engine, and don't know why BvS is bagging on what was clearly the smart decision.  Those engines were like-new, had a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than any liquid-fuel rocket motor before or since (in fact, until earlier this year), were inexpensive, and could be used almost immediately.  Those engines weren't the long-term solution to OSC's engine requirements, but they were perfect for what it needed at startup.

I'm bagging on it because refurbishing a 50-year-old part is a greater risk than building new examples when you have a license to produce new engines.  Continuing to stick with refurbs after one blows up on a test stand five months before you launch makes said risk even worse.  There is also evidence from the NASA chatter during the launch that they were running these engines beyond their original designed power, so Aerojet Rocketdyne's work was intended to be an upgrade rather than a mere refurb.

"Bizarre" was too strong a word, and I retract that.

[The Brain]

"Bizarre" was too strong a word, and I retract that.

More women should be like you.

[grumbler]

I'm bagging on it because refurbishing a 50-year-old part is a greater risk than building new examples when you have a license to produce new engines.  Continuing to stick with refurbs after one blows up on a test stand five months before you launch makes said risk even worse.  There is also evidence from the NASA chatter during the launch that they were running these engines beyond their original designed power, so Aerojet Rocketdyne's work was intended to be an upgrade rather than a mere refurb.

I don't think you understand what refurb means, or else you think that these engines had previously been used.  They were never used.  They were in excellent like-new shape.  Building new engines is expensive, and all the mods to meet USG standards conducted on the existing engines would have had to be added to new engines, as well.  Now, if the engines were being run beyond their designed power, that's a separate issue.  And, yes, engines do sometimes "blow up" when you test them.  SpaceOne's engines sometimes do that as well; that's why you test them.