A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Antares



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 4th 13, 08:47 AM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Antares

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.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active


  #3  
Old April 4th 13, 06:26 PM posted to sci.space.station
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Antares

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ...

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?

Brian


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

  #4  
Old April 4th 13, 08:39 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Antares

In article ,
says...

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ...

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.

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
  #5  
Old April 5th 13, 03:14 AM posted to sci.space.station
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Antares

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ...

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.


Yeah, notice how successful they were. :-)


Jeff


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

  #6  
Old April 5th 13, 09:13 AM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Antares

Ah yes I thought that was the one. Well talking of old icbm bits kind of
makes you wonder if these had to be called on to launch a strike how many
would have actually worked correctly!

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
m...
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ...

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.


Yeah, notice how successful they were. :-)


Jeff


--
Greg D. Moore
http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net



  #8  
Old April 5th 13, 02:57 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Antares

In article ,
says...

The rather spectacular looking Antares launch failure seems to have been
a systems integration problem, not a problem with the individual stages.
Some unidentified vibration caused the control system to compensate for
an error that wasn't there. This caused the fluid (used for gimbal
control) to be exhausted too early, causing the stack to lose control.

Yet another downside for solids. They need a system for gimbaling
independent of the solid propellant/thrust chamber.

A LOX/kerosene engine, on the other hand, can use kerosene bled from the
high pressure turbo-pump exit for hydraulic control, so there is no
chance of "running out" of fluid for gimbal control as long as the
engine keeps running.


I typed "Antares launch failure" when I should have typed "Conestoga
1620 launch failure".

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/cona1620.htm

From above:

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.

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
  #9  
Old April 6th 13, 04:43 PM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Antares

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.

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

Brian
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Project Antares Jim Oberg Space Station 2 January 24th 06 06:23 PM
5x antares barlow Max Amateur Astronomy 3 November 19th 05 07:47 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.