Subjectivist wrote:Simple really. Instead of leaping to conclusions completely investigate what caused the accident. Then determine how expensive it would be to fix whatever the actual problem is. Then using logic determine the cost benefit analisys of fixing the problem compared to completely scrapping a stage that has had four successful flights before this one.
Fair enough, but, R&D is supposed to be ironed out before these contractors put the nasa payload on top.
SpaceX had a lot of failures too, until they got it right, and then they opened for business to launch customers' payloads.
We can't have nasa funding rocket crashes, they won't tolerate it Subj. A rocket isn't the space shuttle. We don't need to tolerate explosions and just keep throwing money at it to get it working, you just fire the contractor and use another rocket launch contractor instead.
Orbital is welcome to do whatever they want to do with the $2 billion nasa has promised them, BUT.. their CUSTOMER -- nasa -- is saying those launches cannot be on any more Orbital rockets, they've got to subcontract it.
There is zero tolerance for a rocket startup that has a blow up, and all these questions surrounding it, and they don't even know what went wrong -- you say screw it, I'm gonna hire another contractor that can do the job.
No making decisions due to emotional reasons. No making decisions based on political motivations. Use facts, logic and common sense to make decisions.
The issue about the Russian engines is just that there may be no access to them anymore, that's when "politics" affects the real world. It's reality Subj, you can't just call it "politics" and think you can always buy a Russian engine and you're not aware of what's actually going on with Russia / West relations.
Bottom line on it is that Orbital Sciences is not making their customer feel confident they can fix the problem.
NASA contracted out to get a job done, not to hold anyone's hand past a certain point and it was supposed to be ready for prime time.
You have to realize that one rocket explosion actually affects NASA -- the customer here -- credibility. If there is another explosion then that becomes NASA's fault. It's NASA administrators that get the call from capitol hill and have to answer for it, it's their prestige and important payloads on the line, and if they say they won't risk it on Orbital anymore then goodness why do you want them to.
They KNOW ULA can do this business. They gave the quirky startups a chance. As those startups fail, then that is it, you don't keep supporting them all, all will fail and few will remain that's how this was meant to go.
I almost wonder if this whole idea was creating a monster and a bunch of little companies griping to get a contract and everyone thinks there are no winners and losers and everyone can just get a billion dollars. I think I read Sierra Nevada wants to contest SpaceX and Orbital winning that round. So what's the point, taxpayers have to give Sierra Nevada a billion dollars too? To play with and blow up on a launchpad?
We don't need 5 different people reinventing a wheel, a rocket launch, not on the taxpayer dime anyway.
(I'm sorry it didn't work out Subj, but even I can smell a lemon a mile away and that Orbital Sciences is a lemon -- they make satellites, they need to stick to that, their launch program was a lemon though and nasa did the right -- if unnecessarily kind -- thing, to ditch them without yanking the whole contract.
So now, probably spacex rockets will launch Orbital's inferior spacecraft but whatever, everyone wins and orbital gets some taxpayer dollars for this craft we're not gonna keep using anyway.
If their cygnus blows up then no question about it, kick them to the curb, cancel that contract, it's over.
I'm just frustrated because I always had a hunch that they were a lemon and that was going to be just wasted money.)
