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

141–150 of 264 posts

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#141

Post by avmich »

shepard wrote: post #95
Crito wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "there was NO accidents during manned-space take-off in Russian/Soviet flights." Soyuz T-10-1 burned on the launch pad, although the launch escape system saved the lives of the cosmonauts on board. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L

Thanks - I stand corrected, I didn't know about that accident. Still, it wouldn't be a "failure" under GP's original definition: "failure" as in "it explodes and everybody dies" :)

It should also be noted that Komarov died in first manned Soyuz spacecraft launched - not the first Soyuz. In other words, Komarov's Soyuz-1 - and naming system isn't obvious in Russian space school - wasn't analogous to Columbia first flight as the very first flight of any STS.

And in Soyuz they also had other pretty close calls. Diving into athmosphere hatch-forward because engine module didn't separate in Shatalov-Volynov-Eliseev-Khrunov group flight... Near premature separation of said engine module in the Intercosmos flight with Afghani cosmonaut... Several ballistic landings - with accelerations up to about 20 g's...

Still nobody died. Perhaps in no small part because of overbuilding the ship and also changing the ship design along its long history, learning on mistakes. Soyuz spacecraft is the real workhorse.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#142

Post by avmich »

gedmark wrote: post #137

Using 50 year old Russian engines was a risky move on Orbital's part, but in fairness the NK-33's are a pretty amazing piece of technology. The US has still yet to build anything matching its performance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK-33 297 seconds of Isp is huge. The Saturn V's F1 engine only had 263 seconds. And the closest we've come since to that level of performance in a Lox/RP-1 engine is the Merlin 1D which…

Closed cycle has another advantage over open cycle for kerosene - namely, the vibrations in the chamber are more manageable. Which paradoxically can make the engine more reliable.

A suspicion is that the engines didn't quite survive the long storage... indeed they weren't quite designed for that. But we'll wait for results of analysis of the explosion.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#143

Post by avmich »

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 oh so much improve economic situation for Samara's industrial space cluster. Among other things, NK-33 is a matter of pride in Samara. It's the only engine maker for first stages in Russia (if you don't count Voronezh'es LH2 engines, used on the second stage of Energiya) other than Energomash, its arch-rival. Since recently works are underway to restart the production of NK-33... and Orbital going away from using them, for whatever reason, is sad news.

Still NK-33 is a great piece of technology, in some aspects still unsurpassed. It's too early to consider it's over for NK-33.

As for politics and sanctions against Russia - this is quite different subject, almost completely unrelated. Leaders come and go... and people stop wars at some point, yet the aspiration of going to the stars remains.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#144

Post by avmich »

joelrunyon wrote: post #134
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And he was wrong. They had 4 successful launches since then. Plus it seems unprofessional to be bad mouthing a competitor like that in public.

Here's his statement on twitter from today: "Sorry to hear about the @OrbitalSciences launch. Hope they recover soon" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/527247155954610176 Was he speaking facts? Because if they were using rockets made in the 60s - he's not really badmouthing them as much as he is making public facts.

I think technically engines were manufactured in early '70s - like, in 1974? Definitely weren't stored in Siberia - Russia has quite sizable European part, no need to go to Siberia if you want to hide about 70 engines from nemesis Glushko's eye...

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#145

Post by avmich »

Lambdanaut wrote: post #136
joelrunyon wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's his statement on twitter from today: "Sorry to hear about the @OrbitalSciences launch. Hope they recover soon" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/527247155954610176 Was he speaking facts? Because if they were using rockets made in the 60s - he's not really badmouthing them as much as he is making public facts.

Comparing their rockets to "the punchline of a joke" is definitely bad mouthing, just factual badmouthing. Despite that, I don't blame him. Being factual is what's important.

And of course it's ridiculous that engines like NK-33 are considered bad just because they sit in a hangar for some 40+ years :) . It's not milk, they aren't that easily spoiled. Elon just used this time reference to make the decision look good - for somebody who doesn't know better.

So factually he's right - but also misses the point. Here I should admit that Elon says more than he does - but he does quite a bit too, so kudos to his successes - Merlin-1D is a great engine.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#146

Post by rbanffy »

eitally wrote: post #119
blhack wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to get up from my chair and go to the water cooler to fill up my water bottle. I bet I will succeed at it. How is this different to you than launching rockets? It's different to me because launching rockets is much more difficult. There are many more things that can cause you to fail catastrophically. To me , failure is to be expected when you're doing something that is difficult. That is the definition of…

But in this case, as well as several others (like surgery, for example), that's not at all true. We make jokes about how nearly nothing is "rocket science" or "brain surgery" for a reason: those are fields in which mistakes are not acceptable and the cost of producing as well as the cost of insuring are incredible. There is really nothing comparable between a code jockey who weaves js frameworks and SaaS services tog…

> We make jokes about how nearly nothing is "rocket science" or "brain surgery"

Fun note: a very long time ago I dated a woman who happened to be a brain surgeon. She used to joke her work was actually easy because nobody realy expecting her patients to survive.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#148

Post by ams6110 »

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…

For me the essence of the idea that failure is part of (and maybe even required for) eventual success is expressed in Theodore Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena"

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#149

Post by smegel »

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.

That seems to be a little bit of a stretch.

I prefer Steve Jobs take - if you're failing, at least someone is making decisions!

Re: Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff

#150

Post by readerrrr »

avmich wrote: post #144
joelrunyon wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's his statement on twitter from today: "Sorry to hear about the @OrbitalSciences launch. Hope they recover soon" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/527247155954610176 Was he speaking facts? Because if they were using rockets made in the 60s - he's not really badmouthing them as much as he is making public facts.

I think technically engines were manufactured in early '70s - like, in 1974? Definitely weren't stored in Siberia - Russia has quite sizable European part, no need to go to Siberia if you want to hide about 70 engines from nemesis Glushko's eye...

They were stored in Samara, Russia. Maps say that is in Siberia.
Post reply on HN