|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Today's Antares launch just failed
Today's Antares launch just failed. From watching the replay on CNN, my guess is that one of the first stage (Russian) engines failed. The vehicle came down with what appeared to be at least one of the engines still firing. Of course when it hit the ground there was a big fireball. This is a sad day for Orbital. Wolf Blitzer had to remind the American public that the vehicle, which was to travel to the International Space Station, was unmanned. Well, duh! No manned US spacecraft is even remotely ready to fly astronauts into orbit, let alone to ISS. :-( 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Today's Antares launch just failed
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
... Today's Antares launch just failed. From watching the replay on CNN, my guess is that one of the first stage (Russian) engines failed. The vehicle came down with what appeared to be at least one of the engines still firing. Of course when it hit the ground there was a big fireball. This is a sad day for Orbital. Wolf Blitzer had to remind the American public that the vehicle, which was to travel to the International Space Station, was unmanned. Well, duh! No manned US spacecraft is even remotely ready to fly astronauts into orbit, let alone to ISS. :-( Jeff Yeah, woke up from a nap to this. (not nearly as bad as when my wife woke me up from a nap to tell me about Columbia thankfully!) Very sad. This IS rocket science folks. Unfortunately. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Today's Antares launch just failed
JF Mezei wrote on 10/28/2014 :
And if we look at the video where the rocket stayed in upwards orientation, what would have happened if, instead of range safety, they triggered stage separation and got stage2 to fire away ? It wouldn't have had the "umph!" to get to orbit, and likelly spashed down in ocean, but at least would have reduce impact at the launch site and preserved the rest of rocket for investigation. Thoughts ? The flight path would be too unpredictable to be able to do that without dramatically increasing the risk of serious consequences. /dps -- There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Today's Antares launch just failed
This is all down to we don't do it that way here' again I think.
With no proven model of what might happen, they prefer it to just go boom where it is it seems. Russia on the other hand seem to do it the, well if it fails it just crashes way, but then, there are no huge cities near where they launch from, and one wonders what they would do if a launch did go the wrong way and end up over somewhere populated. Being contracted to Nasa and in the US they probably have to do it the accepted way. I'd not chance a second stage sep at almost on the ground to do much else than comlicate the issues. Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "JF Mezei" wrote in message eb.com... On 14-10-28 18:38, Jeff Findley wrote: Today's Antares launch just failed. From watching the replay on CNN, my guess is that one of the first stage (Russian) engines failed. The vehicle came down with what appeared to be at least one of the engines still firing. Of course when it hit the ground there was a big fireball. video of launch. there are others but this was posted minutes after event. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHMmMgdcOSU nasa press conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=y5HaD5zZjeE Range safety was triggered just before Antares hit ground. Are the engines built in Russia or built in USA with a license from Russia ? I know they are tested at Stennis. Anyone know how much horizontal travel the rocket would have done in the roughly 6-10 seconds after launch ? Once the kerosene has been pre-heated into gas, is the rest of the engines fairly similar to a shuttle engine with a high pressure turbine pushing/mixing the gases into the combustion chamber ? When they execute range safety, what happens to a second stage made of solid fuel ? Does it ignite it ? And if we look at the video where the rocket stayed in upwards orientation, what would have happened if, instead of range safety, they triggered stage separation and got stage2 to fire away ? It wouldn't have had the "umph!" to get to orbit, and likelly spashed down in ocean, but at least would have reduce impact at the launch site and preserved the rest of rocket for investigation. Thoughts ? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Today's Antares launch just failed
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Today's Antares launch just failed
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Today's Antares launch just failed
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Today's Antares launch just failed
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
... In article , says... Yeah, woke up from a nap to this. (not nearly as bad as when my wife woke me up from a nap to tell me about Columbia thankfully!) Very sad. This IS rocket science folks. Unfortunately. This is the "rocket science" of expendables. When a launch fails this close to the launch pad, it's clearly some sort of "infant mortality" problem. Because of this, I'd argue that if the stage was reusable, this could have been caught on a test flight without a customer's payload on top. Expendables may "maximize your payload for the size of the vehicle", but that doesn't matter one bit if your payload goes up in a fireball near the launch pad. If SpaceX can pull off a re-flight of one of its Falcon 9R first stages next year, this will be game changing for the industry. Yeah. This is one of the lessons I think we CAN take from the shuttle program. Reusability at the very least lets you gain experience with the same engines and equipment. While it may not have been economic to refly the SRBs (the SSMEs probably were economic to refly) we did gain a pretty good database of real flight data. More so from than say the F-1s at the bottom of the Atlantic. Jeff -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Today's Antares launch just failed
As soon as its evident there is a major problem as far as I am aware. they
need to make sure all data is preserved etc. As for the surviving parts, I imagine some evidence of destruction or otherwise will be seen in various views of the explosions. It did state that debris was around the pad area, so one would imagine the heavier and less destructable the debris, the closer to the pad or the explosion it will be found. Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "JF Mezei" wrote in message eb.com... NASA released a simgle image, aereal view of the launch pad. http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/octob.../#.VFF_5ee6BoU There appears to be very little debris. Is this because NASA deliberatly chose to release an image that has the real debris out of camera angle ? Or because the self-destruct really results in little to no debris ? Is it possible stage 2 and or 3 fell in water and not visible ? Is payload also destroyed or just separated from rocket when range safety is activated ? Is it fair to state that there will be little to no information gathered from the debris, and the investigation will focus on the videos and telemetry as well as all the actions between the last engine test and failure ? (I ask in a context where aircraft engines generally survive a crash and provide valuable information). Also, during an "event" like last night's, must the flight controller wait until no telemetry is reveived from the ship before declaring the "lock down" to secure all computers etc ? Say the Cygnus had fallen onto water, floating and still sending out telemetry while there is the "towering inferno" at the pad from the failed rocket, at what point does the flight controller declare the lockdown ? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What if the first 2 shuttle flights would of failed during launch? | [email protected] | History | 0 | July 20th 09 01:54 PM |
what would skylab look like if the micrometeorite shield hadn't failed during launch | bradhst | History | 9 | April 20th 09 05:44 PM |
SpaceX Launch Today | Craig Fink | Space Station | 0 | August 2nd 08 11:05 PM |
SpaceX Launch Today | Craig Fink | Policy | 0 | August 2nd 08 11:05 PM |