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.
Hey, at least they got the hard part right.
I have friends that worked on this rocket. Some were there for the launch. Orbital is going to have serious problems because of this.
I'm on a chair.
The ISS crew will get their pizza for free now.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
no indications of terrorism linked to the destruction of the rocket.
Is it just me or is Orbital Sciences' track record extremely poor? Something like half their rockets fail and they give nothing but excuses. Their Taurus rocket had a 33% failure rate http://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-...
It may be time to look into how they manage their company.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Yep. There's no such thing as a free launch.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
What I want to know is if there's any truth to the rumors that Musk was seen leaving the area with an empty Stinger launch on one shoulder and a shit-eating grin on his face...
Dear Slashdot,
I fail to see how the 13-year-old story about game design, "A 'Vow of Chastity' For Game Designers", is a related story, as indicated in the panel below the story between the "previous story" and "next story" links. Seriously, WTF? Less than worthless.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Video of the Orbital Sciences Explosion at Wallops from a Cessna flying at 3000ft. Note that the video is pretty noisy so you'll want to turn your sound down.
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.
Payload, plus collateral damage, plus market capitalization loss, plus reputation damage, plus value of future lost contracts, etc. $1B might actually be on the low side.
And I think the launch pad area might need a fresh coat of paint or something...
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
You're going to love this:
https://twitter.com/hormiga/st...
Another great victory for the private sector. Rocket science is hard. It's not like we've been launching rockets for half a century or anything.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Elon Musk called it two years ago in this interview.
Musk: The results are pretty crazy. One of our competitors, Orbital Sciences, has a contract to resupply the International Space Station, and their rocket honestly sounds like the punch line to a joke. It uses Russian rocket engines that were made in the ’60s. I don’t mean their design is from the ’60s—I mean they start with engines that were literally made in the ’60s and, like, packed away in Siberia somewhere.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
No, it doesn't sound strange - it sounds like what it is, which is complete and utter bullshit. They have a few things ahead of everyone else, they have a few things on par with everyone else, and they have a lot of things that are in fact engineering time capsules from the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's.
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.