Thread: Antares
View Single Post
  #14  
Old April 8th 13, 02:18 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Antares

In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 09:57:02 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:


FAILU Noise in guidance system led to excessive steering of
one of the booster motors and finally depletion of the motor's
hydraulic fluid. The vehicle went out of control at T+46
seconds.. Failed Stage: G.


Isn't that the one where the range safety destruct command didn't work
either? They were just lucky it didn't veer back toward Wallops.


Yes, the thrust termination systems didn't work on all the boosters, so
they literally flew out of control after the stack tore itself apart.

Anyway, I think Henry Spencer wrote that SRB-X was the worst launch
vehicle design ever. But for my money, I would pick Conestoga.


Anything with large solids is right up there, IMHO.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer