| Author | Message | ||
     Mr_grumpy |
NASA's Antares unmanned supply rocket for the International Space Station, sadly exploded seconds after launch. All personnel accounted for apparently. Time for private enterprise to get some grant money & do a proper job maybe? What do you reckon? | ||
| Aaron_thomas |
All personnel accounted for from an unmanned rocket... LOL.. Antares was also a private enterprise designed and built rocket. Not designed or built by NASA. It was a NASA mission, but was not even from Cape Canaveral. I reckon NASA should have designed, built the rocket to their specs, and the damn thing would have flown. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Yeah the personnel announcement tickled me too. I didn't know that it was private. It wasn't clear from what I heard & read. I was thinking more about developing the high altitude launch systems. | ||
| Fast1075 |
It may seem odd about the news that no personnel were killed or injured on an unmanned launch, but failed launches internationally over the course of history have killed many ground crew. | ||
| Aesquire |
Nasa doesn't have a launch platform ready. The last one blew up once because of bad choices in design and operation, and a second time on re-entry. Rockets blow up, ships sink, planes crash. That's why you test, test, test, and try them without crew first if possible. ( or carry lifeboats & parachutes as applicable ) The ISS needs the cancelled lifeboat. | ||
| Aesquire |
Rockets equal a pile of high explosive hopefully crafted clever enough to go up without blowing up. I hope they figure out what went wrong and fix it soon. We need working orbital launchers very badly. NASA's new job is making a certain culture feel good about it's great scientific advances in the 14th century. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
My point exactly, why are we still pissing about with a tube full of chemicals & not developing other technologies? | ||
| Sifo |
My point exactly, why are we still pissing about with a tube full of chemicals & not developing other technologies? I'm curious about what technologies you would prefer? One aspect that hasn't been mentioned is that there are very good reasons for using unmanned rockets where ever possible. Aside from being far cheaper simply because you don't need to lift all of the life support systems as well as the meat bags themselves, they are also cheaper simply because we are more willing to accept the loss of just hardware rather than life. That means less redundancy of systems and less need for many safety requirements that would be considered irresponsible for manned flight. Of course all of this means that you are going to see a higher frequency of spectacular failures like we have just seen. Even state of the art manned craft are far from what most would consider safe. Space travel is not safe. Probably never will be. Far safer to ride your motorcycle trough heavy traffic at high speed naked. Funny thing, but on the radio today they were questioning the decision by NASA to rely so much on the private sector. When things go boom, things get questioned. NASA has it's share of spectacular failures too. I'm glad no one died on this one. Funny thing, but my dad made some parts for the Apollo space program. My brother made some parts for the Space Shuttle program. Even when it's NASA, it's all a collection of parts provided by the lowest bidder.  | ||
| Pwnzor |
Unmanned also means you can use solid fuel. Much more efficient than liquid fuel. Chemicals are fun. | ||
| Sifo |
Unmanned also means you can use solid fuel. Well the Russians have put plenty of live cargo into space on top of solid fuel rockets. Of course when it all goes to spit, there's no way to shut it down. Come to think of it, the space shuttle relied on solid fuel boosters too. Looks like this rocket that just blew up was a liquid fueled first stage with a solid fuel second. I wonder which technology really has delivered best on safety. While there is no way to shut down a solid fueled rocket, they are much simpler to design and build, so should be more reliable. It's all spectacular when gone bad though. | ||
| Al_lighton |
The news said this morning that the rocket motors on the launch vehicle that blew up were "new Old Stock" russian made. I haven't verified it though. Edit: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK-33 (Message edited by al_lighton on October 29, 2014) | ||
| Fresnobuell |
No way could we send another man to the moon. Time to give major props to NASA and the Apollo missions of the 60s and 70s. I wish I was old enough to have been witness to it all. America will never return to that kind of glory. Shit we fail at even the simplest tasks these days. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
I smell a conspiracy. The Ukranians have a hand in the Antares rocket. This thread should be moved to the Ukraine in Crisis topic....lol | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
On a serious note, what in the hell is becoming of our country? Apparently, we don't have engines of our own to launch squat into orbit http://www.space.com/26551-us-military-launches-ru ssian-rocket-engines.html http://www.drewexmachina.com/2014/06/09/a-history-of-american-rocket-engine-development/ (Message edited by ferris von bueller on October 29, 2014) | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I'm curious about what technologies you would prefer? What technologies have you got? I really don't think it's a question of my preferences. How about, an enormous gauss rifle. Or a "Beanstalk". Or, or, or... I must get some more of my old sf books out | ||
| Sifo |
What technologies have you got? Right now it's pretty much a tube full of chemicals or a tube full of radioactive fuel. Given the likelihood of having this sort of accident, I would prefer the tube full of chemicals. Your statement just sounded like you had something "better" in mind. | ||
| Ocbueller |
NASA Wallops Island Launch Facility is only about 60 miles from me. Great ride destination. Have seen some good launches from my front porch. Locals have been warned not to touch any debris that might land on their property or wash up on shore. SteveH | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
OC, Is there a viewing area close to Wallops? | ||
| Two_seasons |
IIRC, Wallops used to fly the spook planes out of there years ago. You can bet they used that site for similar reasons. Food for the ISS...yeah right  | ||
| Al_lighton |
F_v_b, that history of american rocket development was a cool read, thanks! | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/surfa ceorbit.php | ||
| Ocbueller |
Wallops does have a viewing area open for the public launches. Not open for some of the more covert launches. If I recall it fills up quickly. Ocean City is starting to get with it with a designated area on the beach near the inlet for some launches. When conditions are right anywhere on the shore from Chincoteague to Ocean City in the north to Virginia Beach in the South should provide a view. | ||
| Patches |
first thing I though of.  | ||
| Griffmeister |
Ah, the Yugo, with the rear window defroster to keep your hands warm while pushing it. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/SpaceShipT wo-Richard-Branson-Mojave-Desert-Test-Flight-28109 6472.html More bad news. Spaceship 2 has crashed, 1 dead, 1 injured. Prayers for the families. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
The Yugo, The Buell Blast of cars. Neither could find any love and both destined for the crusher. | ||
| Torquehd |
Isn't one of our fellow badwebbers employed at a company working on a platform similar to the Virgin setup? That's such a cool platform, and seems like a much better way of lifting things out of orbit than conventional rocket tech. Our current method of using a billion pounds of rocket fuel to overpower gravity seems like a very "sledge hammer" approach. Except that analogy doesn't really capture the magnitude of the energy expended. I hope Virgin is able to pick up the pieces, and move forward. I'm excited to see the future of escaping earth's gravity. If all else fails, there's always the "space elevator".  On second thought, the ancient Babylonians tried something similar, and it didn't work out so well. | ||
| Aesquire |
no one will build a space elevator. Terrorist target #1. Blow up the elevator near the balance point, and an incandescent whip lays across hundreds of miles.... |
