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

In article ,
says...

So though I wish Orbital well, their track record for trouble free first
launches is not great. Lets hope this one is an exception!

Even the established players have had failed launches of "new" launch
vehicles, which is why Orbital is performing this test flight.

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.

I don't know that answer off the top of my head and am currently too
busy with "real work" to look it up.

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

"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

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

"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

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

In article ,
says...

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!

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.

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

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

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

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