Time to delete this useless agency from the budget?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/us/nasa-rocket-explodes/index.html
QuoteAn unmanned NASA-contracted rocket exploded early Tuesday evening along the eastern Virginia coast, causing a huge fireball but no apparent deaths.
According to NASA, the Orbital Sciences Corp.'s Antares rocket and Cygnus cargo spacecraft were set to launch at 6:22 p.m. ET from the Wallops Flight Facility along the Atlantic Ocean. It was set to carry some 5,000 pounds of supplies and experiments to the International Space Station.
"There was failure on launch," NASA spokesman Jay Bolden said. "There was no indicated loss of life."
Bolden added, "There was significant property and vehicle damage. Mission control is trying to assess what went wrong."
Video shows the rocket rising into the air for a few seconds before an explosion. It then plummets back to Earth, causing more flames as it hits the ground. NASA tweeted that the failure occurred six seconds after launch.
Ed Encina was among those who watched it happen from about three miles away in the remote resort area.
"You immediately thought that everything was fine, because you see the big launch, and it brightened up the sky," said Encina, a Baltimore Sun reporter. "And then all of a sudden, you see a big fireball."
Encina also recalled a loud boom that caused "your feet (to) shake a little bit," as well as flames enveloping a roughly 100-yard area around the launch pad in a marshy area with brush.
Mark Kelly, a former NASA astronaut, explained that the colossal fire was to be expected.
"It takes a lot of propellant to take a spacecraft of that size moving 25 times the speed of sound," Kelly told CNN, explaining how fast the rocket should have gone on its way to the space station. "So when it fails, it's usually pretty catastrophic."
Afterward, the launch director said on NASA's feed that all personnel were accounted for and that no injuries were reported.
He added that the spacecraft contained "classified ... equipment," and that there was a need to maintain the area around the debris field for investigative and potential security reasons given what was on board.
The launch had been scheduled for Monday, but that was scrubbed "because of a boat down range in the trajectory Antares would have flown had it lifted off," according to NASA.
Just before Tuesday's liftoff, the space agency reported "100% favorable" weather and "no technical concerns with the rocket or spacecraft being worked."
About one-third of the spacecraft's cargo consisted of material for scientific investigations, including a Houston school's experiment on pea growth and a study on blood flow in space.
There was about the same amount of cargo for supplies for the space station's crew, including more than 1,300 pounds of food.
It wasn't immediately clear what affect this failure will have on the space station crew or whether another mission will have to be added quickly to make sure they have everything they need.
If so, NASA itself won't do it directly. Since the end of its space shuttle program, it has relied on private companies -- specifically Orbital Sciences and SpaceX -- to bring materials to the space station, albeit using NASA facilities for launch.
Orbital's first such commercial supply mission, in fact, was in January out of the Wallops Flight Facility. The Virginia-based company has a $1.9 billion contract with NASA to make eight flights to the space station under the space agency's commercial supply program.
Orbital becomes second private firm to send cargo to ISS
Tuesday's launch was supposed to be the fourth flight for Orbital until it ended, as the company acknowledged in a statement, in "catastrophic failure."
"We will conduct a thorough investigation immediately to determine the cause of this failure and what steps can be taken to avoid a repeat of this incident," said Frank Culbertson, the general manager of Orbital's Advanced Programs Group. "As soon as we understand the cause, we will begin the necessary work to return to flight to support our customers and the nation's space program."
Serious statement, or just trolling me?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 28, 2014, 07:40:51 PM
Serious statement, or just trolling me?
Neither, just ideological blinkers.
We used to drive down to Wallops Island as a kid and watch the launches in the summertime. Great, great stuff when you're a kid. :)
I just watched a launch today over lunch.
FL: 1
VA: 0
Von Braun's blooper reel
Quote from: Savonarola on October 29, 2014, 12:49:33 PM
I just watched a launch today over lunch.
FL: 1
VA: 0
When I was a kid in Florida, I was at a minor league baseball game. We could see the space shuttle going up way way off in the distance, and the game stopped as everyone watched. A decent "USA USA" chant got going. America. :)
Apparently the rocket engines this private company used were refurbished 40 year old Russian models. :bleeding:
But hey, giving NASA money is bad; let's give it to the private sector instead!
Quote from: alfred russel on October 29, 2014, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on October 29, 2014, 12:49:33 PM
I just watched a launch today over lunch.
FL: 1
VA: 0
When I was a kid in Florida, I was at a minor league baseball game. We could see the space shuttle going up way way off in the distance, and the game stopped as everyone watched. A decent "USA USA" chant got going. America. :)
By coincidence I'm about to play a rush album, the final track of which is called 'Countdown' and it's a celebration of the first shuttle flight iirc they were invited to attend by NASA.
I was at college (junior high equiv. 16-18 year olds) at the time of the first launch and they stopped classes so we could see it live. :cool:
Space exploration was still regarded as important back then.
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2014, 07:36:59 PM
Time to delete this useless agency from the budget?
:bleeding:
Quote from: 11B4V on October 29, 2014, 06:50:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2014, 07:36:59 PM
Time to delete this useless agency from the budget?
:bleeding:
Oh is this in the spectrum like the NWS that day in and day out fails to accurately predict the weather but is nice to have around?
They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken an incredibly small percentage of everything we have, not just from us, from our fathers and from our fathers' fathers. And what has NASA ever done for us?
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 06:54:25 PM
They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken an incredibly small percentage of everything we have, not just from us, from our fathers and from our fathers' fathers. And what has NASA ever done for us?
There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of NASA once and for all.
Quote from: mongers on October 29, 2014, 06:47:45 PM
I was at college (junior high equiv. 16-18 year olds) at the time of the first launch and they stopped classes so we could see it live. :cool:
I thought you were a lot younger than that.
Quote from: dps on October 29, 2014, 07:33:47 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 29, 2014, 06:47:45 PM
I was at college (junior high equiv. 16-18 year olds) at the time of the first launch and they stopped classes so we could see it live. :cool:
I thought you were a lot younger than that.
No, I just come across as that immature. :P
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2014, 07:15:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 06:54:25 PM
They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken an incredibly small percentage of everything we have, not just from us, from our fathers and from our fathers' fathers. And what has NASA ever done for us?
There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of NASA once and for all.
Stop that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 29, 2014, 06:43:28 PM
Apparently the rocket engines this private company used were refurbished 40 year old Russian models. :bleeding:
But hey, giving NASA money is bad; let's give it to the private sector instead!
Quote[Elon] Musk: (http://www.wired.com/2012/10/ff-elon-musk-qa/all/) The results are pretty crazy. One of our competitors, Orbital Sciences, has a contract to resupply the International Space Station, and their rocket honestly sounds like the punch line to a joke. It uses Russian rocket engines that were made in the '60s. I don't mean their design is from the '60s—I mean they start with engines that were literally made in the '60s and, like, packed away in Siberia somewhere.
Government bad, privatization good, etc.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 29, 2014, 10:44:09 PM
Government bad, privatization good, etc.
Yeah, lord knows government rockets never blow up!
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2014, 11:14:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 29, 2014, 10:44:09 PM
Government bad, privatization good, etc.
Yeah, lord knows government rockets never blow up!
Clearly private industry needs to learn this lesson and not have their customers rely on 40 year old government rockets.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 29, 2014, 11:10:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 29, 2014, 11:06:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 29, 2014, 10:44:09 PM
Government bad, privatization good, etc.
Musk good.
Go fuck yourself with a 40 year old Russian rocket engine.
Look jackass, I'm sure even you can understand that just as there are good and bad governments, there are good and bad companies.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 11:17:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2014, 11:14:02 PM
Yeah, lord knows government rockets never blow up!
Clearly private industry needs to learn this lesson and not have their customers rely on 40 year old government rockets.
Quote from: Alan ShepardIt'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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2014, 11:14:02 PM
Yeah, lord knows government rockets never blow up!
Technically true. Challenger and Columbia were due to rocket damage, but not actually destroyed because of a rocket explosion. Apollo 1 just caught fire, and all but one of the rest were crashes (the other one being the Soyuz 11 decompression).
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 29, 2014, 11:52:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2014, 11:14:02 PM
Yeah, lord knows government rockets never blow up!
Technically true. Challenger and Columbia were due to rocket damage, but not actually destroyed because of a rocket explosion. Apollo 1 just caught fire, and all but one of the rest were crashes (the other one being the Soyuz 11 decompression).
Let's not get in the way of some good ol' fashioned NASA bashing.
Oh, excuse me. ONE government rocket did actually explode: the Ariane 5 in 1996. Self-destructed due to a floating-point error, which sounds EXACTLY like what's been described happened here. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 12:11:04 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 29, 2014, 11:52:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2014, 11:14:02 PM
Yeah, lord knows government rockets never blow up!
Technically true. Challenger and Columbia were due to rocket damage, but not actually destroyed because of a rocket explosion. Apollo 1 just caught fire, and all but one of the rest were crashes (the other one being the Soyuz 11 decompression).
Let's not get in the way of some good ol' fashioned NASA bashing.
Yeah, way to focus on the actual point, rather than complete and utter bullshit.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 30, 2014, 12:16:45 AM
Oh, excuse me. ONE government rocket did actually explode: the Ariane 5 in 1996. Self-destructed due to a floating-point error, which sounds EXACTLY like what's been described happened here. :lol:
You are excused for being a pedantic douchebag.
The space program of exploding rockets has failed. It is time to make them work again!
Quote from: frunk on October 30, 2014, 04:33:18 AM
The space program of exploding rockets has failed. It is time to make them work again!
That's not the Kerbal way!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv436%2FRiesstiuIV%2Fkerbalspaceodyssey.jpg&hash=a3347c1234a161cc0fe52197e1a12f7dd26a012d)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 30, 2014, 12:16:45 AM
Oh, excuse me. ONE government rocket did actually explode: the Ariane 5 in 1996. Self-destructed due to a floating-point error, which sounds EXACTLY like what's been described happened here. :lol:
Many government rockets have exploded. Explosions are one of the risks of rocket launches.
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2014, 12:34:24 AM
You are excused for being a pedantic douchebag.
I do have an image to maintain. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 12:11:04 AM
Let's not get in the way of some good ol' fashioned NASA bashing.
We should bring back NASSA as a low cost competitor.
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2014, 06:38:33 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 30, 2014, 12:16:45 AM
Oh, excuse me. ONE government rocket did actually explode: the Ariane 5 in 1996. Self-destructed due to a floating-point error, which sounds EXACTLY like what's been described happened here. :lol:
Many government rockets have exploded. Explosions are one of the risks of rocket launches.
Actually, this was a government rocket. It was just that it was the Soviet government's, not ours.
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 09:28:39 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 12:11:04 AM
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?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 09:28:39 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 12:11:04 AM
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?
60% of worldwide commercial satellite launches are currently being or to be performed by a French (quasi-)private company.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 30, 2014, 10:45:16 AM
60% of worldwide commercial satellite launches are currently being or to be performed by a French (quasi-)private company.
I'd take a French quasi over Spaceholder Value, Inc., any day of the week.
"Gee, we've got this massive government contract. What can we do to reduce costs in order to maximize profits since we can't lay off everybody just yet? I know: FORTY FUCKING YEAR OLD SOVIET ENGINES ON EBAY!!!! PROFFET!"
That decision was just... bizarre. The importer has a license to manufacture them.
That said, right now I would take SpaceX over anyone else who has rockets. Their only flaw at the moment is that they are lagging in lift capacity.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 30, 2014, 12:14:31 PM
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.
The truly pathetic part of your stalking is that you think your drivel makes sense.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 12:21:11 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 30, 2014, 12:14:31 PM
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.
Your assumption that the solution for your employment troubles is more state control over everything is cute.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 12:27:41 PM
The truly pathetic part of your stalking is that you think your drivel makes sense.
I never thought that my drivel makes sense. :mad:
Quote from: Tamas on October 30, 2014, 12:33:38 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 12:21:11 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 30, 2014, 12:14:31 PM
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.
Your assumption that the solution for your employment troubles is more state control over everything is cute.
Putting NASA back to where it once was, as opposed to the broken version of what it is now, has nothing to do with me, Beetlejuice. NASA had plenty of private contractors working for it before, but they were contractors, not vendors. This model's broken.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 12:27:41 PM
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana link=topic=12094.msg798750#msg798750quote=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 . . .
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 12:42:29 PM
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.
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."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 12:21:11 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 30, 2014, 12:14:31 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on October 30, 2014, 01:04:45 PM
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%)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 01:11:25 PM
Quote from: dps on October 30, 2014, 01:04:45 PM
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
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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2014, 01:38:51 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 01:11:25 PM
Quote from: dps on October 30, 2014, 01:04:45 PM
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. :huh: Did you just confess that you have
no clue as to what "market share" means? Hint: the market involved isn't the stock market.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 09:28:39 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 12:11:04 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 01:44:49 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2014, 02:05:27 PM
[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.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 30, 2014, 03:05:44 PM
"Bizarre" was too strong a word, and I retract that.
More women should be like you. :hug:
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 30, 2014, 03:05:44 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2014, 03:13:21 PM
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.
I know what refurb means. You can't take an item with age-controlled parts and slap it into a system. All those parts need to be replaced, and the rest of the parts inspected to verify their condition. It may well be that this process creates a product that is equivalent to a newly-manufactured engine; I don't know enough about the design to say.
QuoteAnd, yes, engines do sometimes "blow up" when you test them. SpaceOne's engines sometimes do that as well; that's why you test them.
I understand that, but test failures require failure analysis to determine why the failure occurred. Five months is an awful short time to complete a failure analysis on something as catastrophic as what happened at Stennis five months ago.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 30, 2014, 03:41:42 PM
I know what refurb means. You can't take an item with age-controlled parts and slap it into a system. All those parts need to be replaced, and the rest of the parts inspected to verify their condition. It may well be that this process creates a product that is equivalent to a newly-manufactured engine; I don't know enough about the design to say.
What "age-controlled parts" were installed on these engines at manufacture, and why? It would make no sense to install such parts in an engine that is going to go into indefinite storage.
QuoteI understand that, but test failures require failure analysis to determine why the failure occurred. Five months is an awful short time to complete a failure analysis on something as catastrophic as what happened at Stennis five months ago.
You only need to do the failure analysis when you are doing developmental testing. Acceptance testing will have failures. That's why you do them.
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2014, 04:41:25 PM
What "age-controlled parts" were installed on these engines at manufacture, and why? It would make no sense to install such parts in an engine that is going to go into indefinite storage.
Seals, gaskets, hoses, and parts such as that. Also chemicals like Loctite that are used for holding parts in place, making thermal bonds, or insulating electrical connections.
Furthermore, these engines were not designed for long-term storage. They were designed for the cancelled Soviet moon rocket program, so they would have been used within 15 - 20 years of manufacture. They were stuffed in a warehouse after the program was cancelled because the Soviets never threw out anything.
QuoteYou only need to do the failure analysis when you are doing developmental testing. Acceptance testing will have failures. That's why you do them.
Failure analysis is done any time there is a failure. It might be as simple as finding a loose washer in the unit and giving assemblers remedial training on Foreign Object Debris so they don't do it again again. It might be as complex as trying to find the right combination of environmental conditions to make a capacitor bank burn up.
Maybe Aerojet's problem was in the former category and they found and fixed the issue quickly or determined that it was a failure in the test setup. My experience, though, is that problems like they had at Stennis are not usually easy ones to find.
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2014, 01:51:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 01:11:25 PM
Quote from: dps on October 30, 2014, 01:04:45 PM
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. :huh: Did you just confess that you have no clue as to what "market share" means? Hint: the market involved isn't the stock market.
Who gives a royal rat fuck about their share of the market? What share of NASA's market are they going to lose with a 2 billion, 10 year contract?
The only thing that matters is their stock price. So fuck you and your Beef Wellington.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 05:51:59 PM
Who gives a royal rat fuck about their share of the market? What share of NASA's market are they going to lose with a 2 billion, 10 year contract?
The only thing that matters is their stock price. So fuck you and your Beef Wellington.
Then respond to Beeb's point about you ignoring the 15% drop the day before.
Also, the failed lift had a lot more than just a NASA resupply pod on board. It was also carrying Planetary Resources' first satellite, for instance.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 30, 2014, 05:08:07 PM
Seals, gaskets, hoses, and parts such as that. Also chemicals like Loctite that are used for holding parts in place, making thermal bonds, or insulating electrical connections.
Furthermore, these engines were not designed for long-term storage. They were designed for the cancelled Soviet moon rocket program, so they would have been used within 15 - 20 years of manufacture. They were stuffed in a warehouse after the program was cancelled because the Soviets never threw out anything.
The engines were produced, in essence, for storage, after the moon rocket was cancelled. The NK-33s could be produced cheaply at that point, since they were modifications of the NK-15 that was actually used on the moon project - they were not, in fact, produced for any particular rocket at all. The idea was that the Soviet Space program would find a use for them sometime, because they were such outstanding engines. They wouldn't have installed seals, gaskets, hoses, and parts like that, as they didn't know when they would actually be used.
QuoteFailure analysis is done any time there is a failure. It might be as simple as finding a loose washer in the unit and giving assemblers remedial training on Foreign Object Debris so they don't do it again again. It might be as complex as trying to find the right combination of environmental conditions to make a capacitor bank burn up.
The engines had been in use for three successful missions before the May 2014 failure, and one since. It isn't an experimental design. Sure, you are going to investigate to make sure there isn't a major problem, and then again to try to find out if there were any manufacturing defects, but use of the engines that have already been tested and accepted only wait for the preliminary investigation to be completed. It's like the army doesn't stop using all 5.56 ammo if a batch of 5.56 fails batch testing during acceptance tests.
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2014, 01:00:50 PM
Seedy's attempt to make the point is, however, another fine reason to note that crazy political radicals are fucking useless in normal conversations.
It doesn't take crazy political radicalism to recognize that using 40 year old Soviet hardware is just trying to do things on the cheap. You fucking asshole.
Call me a name now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 05:51:59 PM
Who gives a royal rat fuck about their share of the market?
Apparently you do, because you responded to a comment about market share. :P
QuoteWhat share of NASA's market are they going to lose with a 2 billion, 10 year contract?
All of it, if they can't fulfill the contract specs. And they can't make any money (and have solid share prices) if they fail like this enough to make their insurance unaffordable. They care very much about being successful at space launches; far more, in all probability, than any NASA administrator.
Hey look, we were gonna get rid of them anyway!
QuoteOrbital's Soviet Rocket Engines Had Already Been Slated for Retirement
By Justin Bachman October 29, 2014
Bloomberg Businessweek
Even before the launch destruction of an Orbital Sciences (ORB) Antares rocket, the commercial space company was planning to retire the half-century-old Russian engines suspected as a potential cause of the failure.
The Soviet-era AJ-26 engine was designed in the 1960s as part of Russia's space race with the U.S., originally envisioned as a way to propel cosmonauts to the moon. The engines are "refurbished and Americanized," Frank Culbertson, the Orbital Sciences executive in charge of the NASA program, said Tuesday night in a news conference, defending the AJ-26 as "very robust and rugged" and with a successful track record.
At least one person in the industry disagrees. Elon Musk, the founder of rival launch company SpaceX, ridiculed the Antares AJ-26 engine in an interview with Wired magazine two years ago. Musk said most commercial space companies seek "to optimize their ass-covering" by avoiding risk and employing antiquated but proven technologies. SpaceX builds an "octaweb" of nine of its own Merlin engines for its Falcon 9 rocket. Here is Musk's riff on the AJ-26:
"One of our competitors, Orbital Sciences, has a contract to resupply the International Space Station, and their rocket honestly sounds like the punch line to a joke. It uses Russian rocket engines that were made in the '60s. I don't mean their design is from the '60s—I mean they start with engines that were literally made in the '60s and, like, packed away in Siberia somewhere."
Orbital Sciences had planned to replace the AJ-26 with a new engine system in about two years for its future work shuttling NASA equipment to the International Space Station. "The AJ-26s have presented us with some serious technical and supply challenges in the past," Chief Executive Officer Dave Thompson said Wednesday on a conference call with analysts.
A review of alternatives began last year, and a replacement was recently chosen—work that may be accelerated if the engine is found to be a culprit in the failure. Due to competitive reasons, Orbital is not disclosing which propulsion system it selected, a spokeswoman for the company said in an e-mail.
Orbital Sciences has a $1.9 billion contract to complete eight ISS resupply missions for NASA and plans to bid for more. The Antares mishap could affect the company's next scheduled flight for NASA, in April, and may delay launches for a year or longer. Thompson said the failure will not affect the company's 2014 financial results.
The Antares destruction won't deliver a major financial hit, given that most of the revenue for the launch had been paid and insurance should cover any funds NASA declines to pay, according to a research note by Raymond James analyst Chris Quilty. The bigger troubles could be for the company's reputation among commercial clients. Quilty also predicted that a "protracted accident investigation" would prompt NASA to shift more supply work to SpaceX.
Video: Should NASA Rethink Reliance on Corporate Rockets?
Orbital says it has a 96 percent success rate on 106 launches since 2004, and a 95 percent rate for 284 launches in the last 30 years. The company, based in Dulles, Va., is also planning to merge with the aerospace and defense units of Alliant Techsystems (ATK), a deal that was announced six months ago. In a statement, Alliant said it planned a "thorough evaluation of any potential implications resulting from this incident" including the merger. Orbital shareholders are scheduled to vote Dec. 9 on the $5 billion "merger of equals."
Orbital's stock plummeted more than 15 percent Wednesday. Alliant shares declined 5.5 percent, nearly erasing the gain for the year.
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2014, 06:03:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 05:51:59 PM
Who gives a royal rat fuck about their share of the market?
Apparently you do, because you responded to a comment about market share. :P
Don't be Languish Assburger. Don't be that guy, g.
QuoteQuoteWhat share of NASA's market are they going to lose with a 2 billion, 10 year contract?
All of it, if they can't fulfill the contract specs. And they can't make any money (and have solid share prices) if they fail like this enough to make their insurance unaffordable. They care very much about being successful at space launches; far more, in all probability, than any NASA administrator.
You've seen the Federal government. It's easier to impeach the President than it is to client-side cancel a contract.
Oh, and
Quote
The Antares destruction won't deliver a major financial hit, given that most of the revenue for the launch had been paid and insurance should cover any funds NASA declines to pay, according to a research note by Raymond James analyst Chris Quilty
No biggie.
LOL, "Quilty"
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 30, 2014, 05:55:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 05:51:59 PM
Who gives a royal rat fuck about their share of the market? What share of NASA's market are they going to lose with a 2 billion, 10 year contract?
The only thing that matters is their stock price. So fuck you and your Beef Wellington.
Then respond to Beeb's point about you ignoring the 15% drop the day before.
15% is peanuts. It wasn't nearly enough. Should've distintegrated like its shitty ass product.
QuoteAlso, the failed lift had a lot more than just a NASA resupply pod on board. It was also carrying Planetary Resources' first satellite, for instance.
Planetary Resources can rest comfortable in the knowledge that Orbital's shareholders will be OK after all this.
QuoteEARLIER FAILURES: Satellites launches on Orbital Sciences' Taurus XL rocket failed in 2009 and 2011.
In 2009, a NASA mission to monitor global warming from space ended when the satellite plunged into the ocean near Antarctica minutes after launch.
In 2011, a similar global warming satellite powered by the Taurus XL went into the ocean near California.
Now a true crazy political radical would think that Orbital Sciences (and its associated PAC, Orbital Sciences Political Action Committee, ORBPAC) that contributes heavily to the GOP (according to opensecrets.org) would have a vested interest in seeing "global warming" initiatives fail, especially since launches are already paid for and insurance already taken care of. :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:
Wait so Grumbler is also an expert on ballistic rockets to the point he can mock Engineers about them? Is there anything he does not claim to be the world's #1 expert on? :lol:
The big question now should be: was it properly insured?
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 30, 2014, 08:33:15 PM
The big question now should be: was it properly insured?
I wonder what the premiums are on 40 year old rockets.
Depends. Do you find the time to dance on them?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 06:37:11 PM
Now a true crazy political radical would think that Orbital Sciences (and its associated PAC, Orbital Sciences Political Action Committee, ORBPAC) that contributes heavily to the GOP (according to opensecrets.org) would have a vested interest in seeing "global warming" initiatives fail, especially since launches are already paid for and insurance already taken care of. :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:
Don't be Languish Assburger. Don't be that guy, c.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 07:05:45 PM
Wait so Grumbler is also an expert on ballistic rockets to the point he can mock Engineers about them? Is there anything he does not claim to be the world's #1 expert on? :lol:
:huh: Waddafuk you talkin' 'bout, Willis? You have made many times more claims to be an expert on ballistic rockets than I have. Is there any red herring you will not resort to?
And "engineers" isn't capitalized, except by especially egotistical engineer-wannabes, or as part of a title.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 08:33:57 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 30, 2014, 08:33:15 PM
The big question now should be: was it properly insured?
I wonder what the premiums are on 40 year old rockets.
Well, 40 years represents a lot of inflation. You can look up the conversion tables, but they might not have had the same standards for liability.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 07:05:45 PM
Wait so Grumbler is also an expert on ballistic rockets to the point he can mock Engineers about them? Is there anything he does not claim to be the world's #1 expert on? :lol:
What better expert do we have on all things old and obsolete?
I thought I'd leave reporting of the sad news about the Virgin space plane to Tim. :(
Given what's happened with Virgin Galactic today I hope this isn't going to turn into a classic "trouble comes in threes" period. :(
I shall keep my fingers crossed; fighting a superstition with a superstition has to work, doesn't it? :huh:
Virgin Galactic space plane crashes, killing one and seriously wounding the other. :(
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29861259
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 06:10:29 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 30, 2014, 05:55:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 05:51:59 PM
Who gives a royal rat fuck about their share of the market? What share of NASA's market are they going to lose with a 2 billion, 10 year contract?
The only thing that matters is their stock price. So fuck you and your Beef Wellington.
Then respond to Beeb's point about you ignoring the 15% drop the day before.
15% is peanuts. It wasn't nearly enough. Should've distintegrated like its shitty ass product.
QuoteAlso, the failed lift had a lot more than just a NASA resupply pod on board. It was also carrying Planetary Resources' first satellite, for instance.
Planetary Resources can rest comfortable in the knowledge that Orbital's shareholders will be OK after all this.
Meh, if you really believed that this was a good thing for the company and its shareholders, you'd be buying up all of their stock you can.
Seedy has convinced me. We should go back to buying our rockets from Grumman and Boeing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2014, 05:48:28 PM
Seedy has convinced me. We should go back to buying our rockets from Grumman and Boeing.
Liar. But hey, maybe there's still some old V2 shit lying around they could use to save a few bucks. Kraut built is the best built, you know.
whoosh?