by Sixstrings » Fri 31 Oct 2014, 18:38:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dissident', 'r')onic how the Soviets lost the race to the Moon but came out ahead in rocket engine technology.
Well thank God at least you're not one of the moon landing deniers.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')anking haters like Six$ can't even reconcile in their tiny brains the fact that Americans have had to import assembled Russian engines for over 20 years and lacked any indigenous capacity and knowhow to produce them.
We didn't "have to" import Russian engines. Dissident, it was the RESET BUTTON, it was GLOBALISM, it was outsourcing crap and supposedly Russia is our friend so we can just use their rockets and everyone can hold hands and be happy in globalism, we buy your rockets and you buy our Big Macs at McDonalds.
The intentions were good and the intentions were to be Russia's partner in space, Putin's the one that put a stop to it, but anyhow
I think it was foolish from the start and we never should have been buying Russian engines and become reliant on them to start with.And Elon Musk said it was foolish too, and that's why he designed his own engine rather than buying Russian ones.
And he was right about Orbital Sciences, too. And he was right about the Boeing Dreamliner batteries that were catching fire, too. And he was right about Boeing-Lockheed relying on Russian engines, too.
NASA doesn't like his radiation protection system or his docking port or his EVA suit ideas but you know what, I think I trust Musk at this point. He's been right about everything else.
By the way, Dissident, the Proton rocket blows up sometimes too -- I posted about the last one wasn't that just a few months ago? A Proton rocket blew up all over the place, satellite lost?
And I'm interested in Russian space stuff too, but you know what, Russia is still just standing on the shoulders of the Soviet Union and it's all old stuff. The Proton is old. The Soyuz is old. It's good, but it's all old, it's nothing new, step in a Soyuz and you're sitting in 1970.
Russia's going to ultimately fall behind in the space race because Russia is not innovating, you can't just use Soviet tech forever.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o in America some superhuman designer sits down and pops out a fully functional and super high tech engine design through sheer intellect? What a load of rubbish. Look up US weapon development, it is following the same universal methodology of testing for validation and improvement that this documentary tries to paint as some Soviet peculiarity.
In the cold war space race, both sides just had different styles. Soviet engineers were more tolerant of failures and blowups and then you refine it and launch another -- that's called iterative design. And then, US engineers like to spend more time on the drawing board first. Neither way is better, just different.
Although -- we had free speech and free media and could not hide our rocket failures, as the USSR could.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he N1 rocket itself was doomed to failure because it was a plumber's nightmare that was beyond the ability of Soviet engineers to debug via models. Perhaps if they did all 12 test launches they could have obtained a working version, but that is a bit of a stretch. If rocket engineers used modern software and computers to model the N1 design they could rectify its resonance mode issues and make a version that works. But there is no point in trying to resurrect an old design.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ill Antares' Explosion Torch Russian Rocket Engines?
Members of Congress, including Rep. C.A. “Dutch" Ruppersberger, D-Md., have challenged the use of Russian engines, arguing that the U.S. needs to be more self-reliant on space travel, for national security concerns. The House recently passed a National Defense Authorization Act with $220 million set aside to help develop U.S. alternatives to Russian space technology, including engines.http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/29/will-antares-explosion-torch-russian-rocket-engines
by Subjectivist » Sat 01 Nov 2014, 11:23:07
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ccording to its website, Aerojet Rocketdyne upgraded the engine with a gimbal block to help steer rockets in flight, new wiring harnesses and electrical circuitry, electromechanical valve actuators and instrumentation.
Orbital Sciences selected the engine for its efficiency — it produces more power for its weight than any other liquid-fueled engine ever built, save SpaceX’s Merlin 1D, which generates about half the thrust of an AJ26 engine. It also saved what some Orbital Sciences officials estimated was roughly $500 million in costs to develop a comparable engine from scratch in the United States.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2014/10/31/or ... es-rocket/So given the choice between spending $500,000,000 to develop an engine design or buying a refurbished engine for about 1% that much they chose the refurbished engine. Why would anyone be surprized by that? The engine has been through multiple successful tests and has flown on two Japanese launches, one Russian launch and four USA launches before this accident. That is pretty reliable and constantly repeating that they were first built 40 years ago is not going to change that reality.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
-
Subjectivist
- Volunteer
-
- Posts: 4705
- Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
- Location: Northwest Ohio
-
by dissident » Sat 01 Nov 2014, 23:00:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Subjectivist', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ccording to its website, Aerojet Rocketdyne upgraded the engine with a gimbal block to help steer rockets in flight, new wiring harnesses and electrical circuitry, electromechanical valve actuators and instrumentation.
Orbital Sciences selected the engine for its efficiency — it produces more power for its weight than any other liquid-fueled engine ever built, save SpaceX’s Merlin 1D, which generates about half the thrust of an AJ26 engine. It also saved what some Orbital Sciences officials estimated was roughly $500 million in costs to develop a comparable engine from scratch in the United States.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2014/10/31/or ... es-rocket/So given the choice between spending $500,000,000 to develop an engine design or buying a refurbished engine for about 1% that much they chose the refurbished engine. Why would anyone be surprized by that? The engine has been through multiple successful tests and has flown on two Japanese launches, one Russian launch and four USA launches before this accident. That is pretty reliable and constantly repeating that they were first built 40 years ago is not going to change that reality.
There is no indication whatsoever that this was a case of engine failure. This is a theme hater drone Six$ has imposed on this thread through his spam. I'll wait for the accident commission report. Six$ can keep on with his masturbation of hate.
by Sixstrings » Sat 01 Nov 2014, 23:46:25
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dissident', 'T')here is no indication whatsoever that this was a case of engine failure. This is a theme hater drone Six$ has imposed on this thread through his spam. I'll wait for the accident commission report. Six$ can keep on with his masturbation of hate.
This is a forum on the internet it's not the NTSB or United Nations.
Early speculation is that engines were 40 years old and a fuel nozzle may have come off, don't be so uptight about it. Russia makes good stuff. We just should be making our own stuff is all, and certainly not buy 40 year old engines whatever country they are coming from. It's common sense, Orbital should have known better.
Anyhow, US space program will get back on track.
SpaceX has a launch this month, I think. They're also going to do a grasshopper test launch and try to land it on a floating barge in the ocean, under rocket power.
And Orion will launch on Dec. 4.
Anybody know what kind of engines the Delta IV will be using for the Orion launch?
I was trying to read up on it but it's confusing, the wiki says the delta iv engines are not human rated:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t would reportedly require over 200 changes to the RS-68 to meet human-rating standards.[13] NASA states several changes are needed to human-rate the RS-68, including health monitoring, removal of fuel-rich environment at liftoff, and improved subsystems robustness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-68 Least it's an American engine, anyhow. All I know is I'd like to see engines made here again, and that they work.
by Tanada » Mon 03 Nov 2014, 07:20:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'I')ts a derivative of the Space Shuttle Main Engine, the RS-25. They rebuilt it to be cheap and disposable instead of being designed to be refurbished and used again. To get the most bang for the buck it has a higher thrust rating than the RS-25 and is designed so that the nozzle slowly melts from the inside out while it is running. Conventional American engines use a cooling system to keep the nozzle from getting hot enough to melt. These RS-68 designs are thicker and designed to melt slowly instead of having to be actively cooled while running.
Well that sounds different; no cooling, designed to "burn and melt" but "melt slowly," well okay. I shall assume they know what they are doing!
How many of these have flown, is it brand new or has been on previous delta IV launches?
It started flying in 2002 and has launched 27 times. One early flight was a failure because bubbles formed in the liquid fuel causing the computer to think it was out of fuel and shut the engines off early. The other 26 flights were all successful. This is the standard engine for the Delta IV, but moderate improvements are made over time so it probably isn't identical to the first one that flew in 2002 now that it is late 2014.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
by Subjectivist » Mon 03 Nov 2014, 19:11:31
Orbital Sciences has released an update on there website.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')pdate – November 3, 2014
Over the weekend, Orbital confirmed the participation of the following individuals who will serve on the Antares launch failure Accident Investigation Board (AIB), which is being led by Orbital under the oversight of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The composition of the AIB is as follows:
Chairman
David Steffy, Chief Engineer of Orbital’s Advanced Programs Group
Members
David Swanson, Senior Director of Safety and Mission Assurance for Orbital’s Technical Operations organization
Wayne Hale, Independent Consultant and Former NASA Space Shuttle Program Manager
David Cooper, Member of Orbital’s Independent Readiness Review Team for the company’s Launch Systems Group
Eric Wood, Director of Propulsion Engineering for Orbital’s Launch Systems Group
Tom Costello, Launch Vehicle Assessment Manager in the International Space Station Program at NASA’s Johnson Space Center
Matt Lacey, Senior Vehicle Systems Engineer for NASA’s Launch Services Program
FAA Oversight Team
Michael S. Kelly, Chief Engineer, FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation
Marcus Ward, Mishap Response Coordinator, FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation
Antares Data Review
The AIB is initially focused on developing a “fault tree” and a timeline of the important events during the launch sequence. Fortunately, due to the large amount of data available, the AIB is able to work with a rich source of information about the launch. One of the initial tasks for the AIB is to reconcile the data from multiple sources, a process that is now underway, to help create the launch sequence timeline.
Launch Site Status
Over the weekend, Orbital’s Wallops-based Antares personnel continued to identify, catalogue, secure and geolocate debris found at the launch site in order to preserve physical evidence and provide a record of the launch site following the mishap that will be useful for the AIB’s analysis and determination of what caused the Antares launch failure. The debris is being taken to a NASA facility on Wallops Island for secure and weather resistant storage.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
-
Subjectivist
- Volunteer
-
- Posts: 4705
- Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
- Location: Northwest Ohio
-
by Subjectivist » Wed 05 Nov 2014, 14:06:05
Orbital has made a new announcement, looks like Six and his anti-russia hysteria is carrying the day.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')rbital’s Antares launch failure Accident Investigation Board (AIB) is making good progress in determining the primary cause of last week’s failure. A preliminary review of telemetry and video data has been conducted and substantial debris from the Antares rocket and its Cygnus payload has been collected and examined. While the work of the AIB continues, preliminary evidence and analysis conducted to date points to a probable turbopump-related failure in one of the two Aerojet Rocketdyne AJ26 stage one main engines. As a result, the use of these engines for the Antares is likely to be discontinued.
So instead of actually figuring out what the exact problem is and how expensive a fix would be it seems NASA is pressuring Orbital to ditch the AJ26 in favor of using other launch craft made by other contractors. Yes the payload is compatible with other launchers, but Orbital is backed into a corner, subcontract launches or lose the NASA conteact.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
-
Subjectivist
- Volunteer
-
- Posts: 4705
- Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
- Location: Northwest Ohio
-
by Sixstrings » Thu 06 Nov 2014, 19:30:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Subjectivist', 'S')o instead of actually figuring out what the exact problem is and how expensive a fix would be it seems NASA is pressuring Orbital to ditch the AJ26 in favor of using other launch craft made by other contractors. Yes the payload is compatible with other launchers, but Orbital is backed into a corner, subcontract launches or lose the NASA conteact.
If it were up to me, they'd have gotten ditched entirely.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Subjectivist', 'l')ooks like Six and his anti-russia hysteria is carrying the day.
Can you just say "Six was right," for once?
by Subjectivist » Thu 06 Nov 2014, 21:59:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Subjectivist', 'S')o instead of actually figuring out what the exact problem is and how expensive a fix would be it seems NASA is pressuring Orbital to ditch the AJ26 in favor of using other launch craft made by other contractors. Yes the payload is compatible with other launchers, but Orbital is backed into a corner, subcontract launches or lose the NASA conteact.
If it were up to me, they'd have gotten ditched entirely.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Subjectivist', 'l')ooks like Six and his anti-russia hysteria is carrying the day.
Can you just say "Six was right," for once?
Sure, just as soon as it happens
All kidding aside we are never going to agree on the AJ26 unless you see the light and come around to my way of thinking
