#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Antares
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Antares
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Antares
Yes, well, those do not sound like sound designs. What sort of design is it
that does not even destroy itself properly! Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ "Brian Thorn" wrote in message ... 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 | |
|
|
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 |