Slashdot Mirror
Antares Rocket Explodes On Launch
sneakyimp writes: The Antares rocket operated by Orbital Sciences Corporation exploded on launch due to a "catastrophic anomaly" after a flawless countdown. No injuries are reported and all personnel are accounted for. According to the audio stream hosted by local news affiliate WTVR's website, the Cygnus spacecraft contained classified crypto technology and efforts are being made to cordon off the wreckage area. Additionally, interviews of personnel and witness reports are to be limited to appropriate government agencies so that an accident report can be generated. This accident is likely to have a detrimental effect on the stock price of Orbital Sciences Corp, traded on the NYSE. The Antares rocket's engines are based on old soviet designs from the '60s. While this is sure to be a blow to NASA due to the cost, it may well boost the fortunes of SpaceX, a chief competitor of Orbital Sciences. Both companies were recently awarded resupply contracts by NASA.
Ya think? They're charging 1.9B for 8 launches, versus SpaceX's 1.6B for 12. Loss of vehicle on a production launch is going to rain hell on someone.
And it's not the first time they've blown up rockets rather than shooting them into space.
To be fair, the mechanics of the two things can be very similar.
sic transit gloria mundi
The summery isn't quite correct. The engines aren't based on an engine from the 60s. These -are- the engines built by the soviets in the 1970s. These things are 40 years old.
The RD-180s used by the Atlas-V are built new, despite their relationship to the abandoned Energia/Buran. The NK-33s that are used by the Antares sat for decades in a Russian warehouse.
Contrary to popular bullshit propaganda, the popular U.S. rocket launches are all done by businesses, not NASA. NASA provides program management, mission design for their own payloads, and so on, but they were never in rocket-making business, ever. Both Apollo and Space Shuttle were managed by NASA, but designed and built by subcontractors. Launched too. NASA has more input into design of their science payloads, but even then it's design only, not manufacturing. That's done by subcontractors still.
The only difference between the "commercial" launches and those prior to that is the amount of NASA management involvement. From the business standpoint, nothing much has changed between the "noncommercial" and "commercial" launches.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
In the news conference they said that the rocket lost upward momentum at 12 seconds and the Range Safety Officer pressed the destruct button at 20 seconds
We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
You know, it's that same old regurgitated bullshit. And it smells like it.
Do you know WHY they use 40+ year old Russian engines? Because they are better than anything West has to offer.
Let me underscore that part for you
_anything_ that West has to offer.
They have closed circuit rocket engine technology. By definition, that is going to be at least about 15% more efficient than any open circuit that is the only technology west has in orbital lifting rocket engines. Thanks for private corporation known as Lockheed Martin, that didn't believe that closed circuit was possible to do until Russians literally put a working engine in their lab and test fired it for them in 2000s. Because it was too inefficient to research the technology in more detail. Russians had to blow up something like 30 rockets to get it right. Tolerance limits on closed circuit are apparently far more tight, and that's not just the engine but all the relevant systems.
Private sector is really good at developing off existing base level development to practical development, but it's utterly terrible at actual base level development that is needed for practical development, but doesn't result in practical applications on its own. That's why much if not most if that kind of development is done in universities and government labs. And rocket engines are in desperate need of base research right now because of long term lack of funding. This has nothing to do with "inefficiency, bureaucratic bloat, corrupt contractors" or anything of a sorts. It has everything to do with the fact that they were given no funding to develop baseline research for better rocket engine technology.
Private corporations will have to blow up their share of rockets to get it right. They're banking on better simulation software in existence, but that can't simulate everything due to sheer amount of unknowns or uncertainties when it comes to rocket science. That's why rocket science is HARD, even by modern standards.