Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 264 posts

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#221

Post by _asciiker_ »

GrinningFool wrote: post #86
blhack wrote: post #9

I had a close friend who worked on this. Everybody in our lab stopped working this afternoon to watch it launch, and to cheer our friend on. Definitely went from "YAY!" to sad really quick. It's been said other places in this thread, but to echo it again: I really feel for all the engineers involved in this. That's got to be devastating. To everybody: failures suck, but big spectacular failure is directly correlated…

"If you're failing, you're doing something right." I didn't think people said this and meant it. If you succeed, it means you've done the critical things right. If you're failing, it means that you didn't do something right. Or several somethings. Yeah, you can learn from it and do better, and that's great - but that doesn't mean it's a success. It's a failure and - in some cases - a chance to do better the next time…

I agree, this isn't a failure when trying something new, we have done this hundreds if not thousands of times. It should have been a routine mission, failure should not be accepted.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#222

Post by narag »

TheBigSteve1 wrote: post #217

I happened upon this website as a result of a Google search re. yesterday's failed launch of the Orbital Sciences venture to resupply the ISS, and this URL appeared as the first search result. I've read your site guidelines, as well as the many comments on this news page, and as a lay person I humbly offer this question, which I hope someone will answer: Why was there no escape rocket atop the rocket's payload module…

With no human lives involved, I guess the cost of the payload is insignificant compared with the rocket, maybe even with the escape rocket.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#223

Post by justin66 »

avmich wrote: post #143
TerraHertz wrote: post #110

In the videos you can see the quality of the rocket flame changes suddenly about half a second before the obvious explosion in the engine area. The jet becomes more orange and less convergent. At 1:03 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL5eddt-iAo So, as a general comment, something bad happened with the gear that pumps fuel into the engines in the right proportion. Maybe involving a major leak of fuel into the struc…

> I wonder if the Russians would consider it a good or a bad thing for them, if the West decides to stop using those Russian-built engines? Definitely bad. Of course, that depends on whom you ask :) and which Russian we're talking about. NK-33 is used on a recently created Soyuz-2.1v rocket (one engine on first stage). There is no production of NK-33 today in Samara - but the ability to sell engines to the West would…

> As for politics and sanctions against Russia - this is quite different subject, almost completely unrelated.

Considering the funding for these missions comes from the U.S. Congress, the matters seem pretty tightly coupled.

It was sure a topic of conversation when Elon Musk and Michael Gass (ULA CEO) testified before congress:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#224

Post by marktangotango »

justin66 wrote: post #204
swatkat wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NK-33 is RP/LOX, whereas SSME is LH2/LOX. LH2/LOX cryogenic engines have higher Isp compared to other solid and liquid engines. ISRO's CE-7.5 LH2/LOX engine[1] has an Isp of 454s. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE-7.5

Was anything about cromwellian's statement inaccurate, such that it should have been downvoted? I'm pretty sure I understand everything being discussed here but I don't understand THAT.

I didn't down vote it, but the difference between RP1 and Liquid Hydrogen engine performance is WELL known. Thus his assertion that SSME's are better, although true as comparison of rocket engines in general, is false when comparing LOX/RP1 engines specifically (since the SSME are NOT LOX/RP1), which the grandparent was clearly doing.

Similarly, citing the 850 ISP of the experimental NERVA engines is equally out of context.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#225

Post by Shivetya »

rosser wrote: post #53
snarkyturtle wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or when it costs billions of dollars from NASA.

The mission was insured, and it didn't cost "billions".

are only cargoes insured or is the entire launch vehicle insured? I am curious as to how an insurance company assess risk in these launches, let alone what the starting point for any insurance would be relative to the value of the rocket and cargo.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#226

Post by termain »

justin66 wrote: post #204
swatkat wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NK-33 is RP/LOX, whereas SSME is LH2/LOX. LH2/LOX cryogenic engines have higher Isp compared to other solid and liquid engines. ISRO's CE-7.5 LH2/LOX engine[1] has an Isp of 454s. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE-7.5

Was anything about cromwellian's statement inaccurate, such that it should have been downvoted? I'm pretty sure I understand everything being discussed here but I don't understand THAT.

Yes, the RS-25/SSMEs aren't "easily the most efficient rocket engines ever built". As noted below, there's NERVA.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#227

Post by phkahler »

ericcumbee wrote: post #64
callesgg wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expected it to self desturct. Why would it not do that? Was it to close to the ground?

I'd say it was to close to the ground to self destruct. And there would have been a call from the Range Safety Officer in the event he ordered a destruct or the computer called a destruct.

While it probably wouldn't need to be destroyed, the last thing you want is for part of it to lay down on the ground still producing thrust. Better to be certain.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#228

Post by pavel_lishin »

termain wrote: post #226
justin66 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was anything about cromwellian's statement inaccurate, such that it should have been downvoted? I'm pretty sure I understand everything being discussed here but I don't understand THAT.

Yes, the RS-25/SSMEs aren't "easily the most efficient rocket engines ever built". As noted below, there's NERVA.

And yesterday's launch illustrates why people are kind of nervous about using them as a way to take off from the planet's surface.
Post reply on HN