#12
|
|||
|
|||
Antares
On 8.4.2013 11:35, Brian Gaff wrote:
Maybe like me you were expecting it to all go wrong then. do people bet on launch vehicles crashing I wonder. That ESA/Russian one back some years where all the first stage engines stopped at about 2000 feet has to be one of the classics in badly designed control software! Brian You must be thinking of Foton-1 which was a failure of Soyuz rocket. It is standard Russian operating procedure to just shut down all engines in case of a failure. No self destruct system. That also applies to the ones launched from Kourou, according to some sources. The posivitive is that the impact point will always be known and it will be well contained. -- Mika Takala |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Antares
Oh so they managed to kill a soldier and injure many with flying debris
then, seems a bit risky when you are launching from a land based site with no ociean to let the debris fall into. If I recall some foreign objuct got int a fuel line to one engine. I'd have thought that if the other engines had been kept going the damage on the ground would not have occured as it would be further away with less fuel left. Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "Mika Takala" wrote in message ... On 8.4.2013 11:35, Brian Gaff wrote: Maybe like me you were expecting it to all go wrong then. do people bet on launch vehicles crashing I wonder. That ESA/Russian one back some years where all the first stage engines stopped at about 2000 feet has to be one of the classics in badly designed control software! Brian You must be thinking of Foton-1 which was a failure of Soyuz rocket. It is standard Russian operating procedure to just shut down all engines in case of a failure. No self destruct system. That also applies to the ones launched from Kourou, according to some sources. The posivitive is that the impact point will always be known and it will be well contained. -- Mika Takala |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Antares
On 8.4.2013 13:16, Brian Gaff wrote:
Oh so they managed to kill a soldier and injure many with flying debris then, seems a bit risky when you are launching from a land based site with no ociean to let the debris fall into. Thats only to do with too relaxed ground safety perimeters. If I recall some foreign objuct got int a fuel line to one engine. I'd have thought that if the other engines had been kept going the damage on the ground would not have occured as it would be further away with less fuel left. ... but it would have flown perhaps uncontrolled and the impact location would have been different. There is a complete difference in design philosophy. The Russians really try to contain the damage instead of spreading debris into huge area (rocket blown into pieces) or unexpected places (by continuing flight in uncontrolled way). -- Mika Takala |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Antares
"Mika Takala" wrote in message ...
On 8.4.2013 13:16, Brian Gaff wrote: Oh so they managed to kill a soldier and injure many with flying debris then, seems a bit risky when you are launching from a land based site with no ociean to let the debris fall into. Thats only to do with too relaxed ground safety perimeters. If I recall some foreign objuct got int a fuel line to one engine. I'd have thought that if the other engines had been kept going the damage on the ground would not have occured as it would be further away with less fuel left. .. but it would have flown perhaps uncontrolled and the impact location would have been different. There is a complete difference in design philosophy. The Russians really try to contain the damage instead of spreading debris into huge area (rocket blown into pieces) or unexpected places (by continuing flight in uncontrolled way). Except the rocket isn't "blown to pieces". Generally the fuel tank is opened up (which may result in an explosion) but the net result is similar. Assured termination of thrust so that crash point can be somewhat controlled. Note, that the range safety is independent of the thrust. i.e. if something fails in the engine controller (which might prevent a shutdown) the range safety should still work. The other benefit of doing this at altitude is that hopefully you're not landing 1000s of lbs of propellant in one spot. Gut level I'd rather go with range safety rather than simple thrust termination. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Antares
On Apr 4, 3:39*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... "Brian Gaff" *wrote in ... So though I wish Orbital well, their track record for trouble free first launches is not great. Lets hope this one is an exception! Incidentally what was that *launch vehicle called in the 90s that launched from the same site but *blew up leaving a couple of *out of control solids racing upward? I believe it was cancelled shortly after that failure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conestoga_(rocket) Is this the one you're thinking of? Clusters of solids with low payload to orbit. *Not my idea of low cost, especially once the "surplus" Minuteman stages are all gone. It used new GEM motors and had nothing to do with Minuteman |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Antares
Two days to go then...
Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "Me" wrote in message ... On Apr 4, 3:39 pm, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... "Brian Gaff" wrote in ... So though I wish Orbital well, their track record for trouble free first launches is not great. Lets hope this one is an exception! Incidentally what was that launch vehicle called in the 90s that launched from the same site but blew up leaving a couple of out of control solids racing upward? I believe it was cancelled shortly after that failure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conestoga_(rocket) Is this the one you're thinking of? Clusters of solids with low payload to orbit. Not my idea of low cost, especially once the "surplus" Minuteman stages are all gone. It used new GEM motors and had nothing to do with Minuteman |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Antares
Did it go, not heard anything here.
Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... Two days to go then... Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "Me" wrote in message ... On Apr 4, 3:39 pm, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... "Brian Gaff" wrote in ... So though I wish Orbital well, their track record for trouble free first launches is not great. Lets hope this one is an exception! Incidentally what was that launch vehicle called in the 90s that launched from the same site but blew up leaving a couple of out of control solids racing upward? I believe it was cancelled shortly after that failure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conestoga_(rocket) Is this the one you're thinking of? Clusters of solids with low payload to orbit. Not my idea of low cost, especially once the "surplus" Minuteman stages are all gone. It used new GEM motors and had nothing to do with Minuteman |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Antares
I see, so a connector was the issue then. Kind of makes you wonder what cna
go wrong thith such a device, consiering the number of launches there have been one would have thought a foolproof design might have been available off the shelf. Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "JF Mezei" wrote in message eb.com... An update: Orbital has confirmed the next opportunity to test launch its Antares rocket from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia will be no earlier than 5 p.m. EDT on Saturday, April 20. NASA TV coverage of the launch will begin at 4:30 p.m. By the time coverage starts, the launch window will likely have been reduced to 10-15 minutes. An attempt Friday was called off after review of the weather forecast. Saturday?s forecast indicates an 85 percent chance of favorable conditions. If needed, a back-up launch opportunity is available on Sunday. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Project Antares | Jim Oberg | Space Station | 2 | January 24th 06 05:23 PM |
5x antares barlow | Max | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | November 19th 05 06:47 PM |
Antares, again | Richard | Amateur Astronomy | 21 | September 4th 04 02:09 PM |
Antares | Volker Kasten | Amateur Astronomy | 13 | August 31st 04 01:53 PM |
Splitting Antares with apo? | Rank Amateur | Amateur Astronomy | 10 | July 29th 04 12:24 AM |