[Tanada]

Six I think you would be well served by taking a deep breath and looking for corroboration of your beliefs about scary Russians and deficient engines before posting about them. The N-1 program was cancelled for two reasons, America had already landed on the moon and the chief designer had died several years earlier so there was no confidence in the Kremlin that it was better than the Proton that replaced it. The Soviet space program got the best of everything while they were trying to win the moon race. Engines are engines designed with the same physics no matter who the engineering staff works for and these things were intended to prove Communism was better so they were built with the greatest care imaginable. Sitting on a shelf/rack in a warehouse doesn't do them any harm, and they are rebuilt before use so any underlying defects are discovered and dealt with.

Why all the hate for Orbital anyhow? To me the more the merrier, and having NASA down to just two contractors for the next round almost assures the death or Orbital within five years, unless they can get private contracts for launches for other stuff not NASA related. I wish them a speedy resolution to the cause and solution so they can go on competing for payloads. SpaceX needs competition to keep them on their toes too.

[Poordogabone]

At this point no one knows which part of the rocket failed so let's not jumped to conclusions. Since the end of the shuttle flights we have been relying on russian rockets to put stuff into orbit, they can't be that bad. Shit happens.

[dissident]

The Six$ drone just had to post something about the N1. You see, in his little mind if you have a deficient design in anything, then you have deficient designs in everything.

In the real world, which is infinitely larger and more complex than the binary random stream generator in the head of Six$, you have the Atlas V using RD-180 engines. Has it been blowing up all the time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V

Not a single failure pertaining to the RD-180 engines.

Naturally we have hate and vitriol aimed at Russia and none at Ukraine. Things have been slipping in Ukraine for a long time and the most likely failure point is the Ukrainian first stage. The N1 rocket engines are what they are. I am quite sure that they have been subjected to testing with X-rays and ultrasound for fractures and other defects. There are quite a few potential failure points in the first stage.

http://en.ria.ru/science/20130226/17970 ... ilure.html

[Sixstrings]

Why all the hate for Orbital anyhow?.

Because it's giving SpaceX a bad name too, just by association.

Right at this moment right now CNN is going on about "$2 billion nasa contract up in flames? Is this work too dangerous for private companies that are watching a bottom line?"

See Tanada, it's Orbital science that was cutting costs, not SpaceX.

And CNN is reporting about how Orbital uses refurbished 40 year old Soviet engines, even though the same engines failed in tests last spring.

I'm just saying -- there are United Launch Alliance (boeing-lockheed) powers that be that will try to paint the whole new startup commercial sector as bad, and you know Congress could kill it just like that.

The problem is the cost cutting, focus on profit not quality, when Musk is right and the quality needs to come first and the profit will follow.

And using Russian engines.

SpaceX makes very good engines that are brand new, made in the USA, and they are engine clusters so one or two engines could go out and it can still get to orbit. Musk has designed a *better* product.

"America" didn't have a rocket launch failure here, this company that's cutting corners using Russian engines had a failure.

We should be using the American made engines. They are better:



See, that's a brand new engine and when spacex launches they have the engineers that built the engine right there monitoring it. Their engines were not made in the USSR half a century ago, the engineers that made them either in Russia or passed away. Is anyone else even using these N1 engines??? Weren't they just for that lunar rocket in the 70s and they've just sat in a warehouse all that time? Why are we using leftover parts from the USSR?

It's not necessary, SpaceX makes engines.

P.S. I did some reading about Orbital, they've actually been around a long time since the 80s and 90s. One has to wonder how they haven't done much though with all that time and are still using spare Soviet parts.

I think I read they made 150 satellites. So apparently they are good at that, that's what they should stick to. It doesn't make sense for NASA to try to fund a bunch of rocket companies. It's better to have a little space race and pick the winner, and that's spacex.

People should start listening to Musk. He knows what he's talking about. Boeing dreamliner betteries were catching fire, but his batteries were not and he explained boeing's flaw.

And he warned about using Russian engines, too.

Right now CNN has moved on to talking about Russian air force incursions into euro air space and danger to western commercial flights.

CNN also reporting that Russian gov has hacked the white house computers.

Hackers breach some White House computers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hackers-breach-some-white-house-computers/2014/10/28/2ddf2fa0-5ef7-11e4-91f7-5d89b5e8c251_story.html

But whatever, I guess I should turn off CNN, I guess Wolf Blitzer is a paranoid Russophobe too.

[Sixstrings]

As for "more the merrier," I actually agree with you there Tanada.

This could have a happy ending. I think probably NASA won't give up on orbital but the danger is that if they keep having failures THEN CONGRESS WILL KILL IT ALL and that's spacex too. Which would still survive, they're so profitable they've got other nations and private clients lined up for years.

But anyhow -- NASA will move in and figure out what's going on with Orbital Sciences, and they'll help them, and probably get them on track.

I still think we need to stop using Russian engines, period. But NASA will probably get them cleaned up and sorted out and it could wind up being another useful player in the industry.

At some point though, we cannot just have NASA supporting fail companies. That's just socialism. That's as bad as paying out the nose for boeing-lockheed to make rockets. Musk has proven a better way, beating everyone in the whole world on cost but having the best quality too.

[Strummer]

As already mentioned, the most probable point of failure is in fact not the russian engine, but the ukrainian Zenit first stage...

[Sixstrings]

Really, this could have been a bigger disaster. That thing exploded all over the place. Someone could have gotten killed.

It was preventable, that's my complaint, they should not have been using half century old USSR engines they bought on the cheap out of a Russian warehouse.

Musk already went to Russia years ago, he talked to them, he saw their engines and their ICBMs and he could have bought them but he concluded he could make a better engine and the supply would be more stable.

And he turned out right. We may not even be able to get more Russian engines now, so all these companies using Russian engines are working off inventory. They can't make new engines.

Musk turns out right over and over again, right about the batteries, now right about these Russian engines.

Last thing I'll say on this: I first saw that rocket blowing up on the news and I thought maybe it was spacex and I was pretty sad about that and surprised, and then they said orbital sciences and right away I thought "oh that figures I had a feeling that was going to happen with them"

[Sixstrings]

Anyhow, Orbital Sciences is out of the game for a while.

It's jsut SpaceX now, and the Russian Protons -- however long that lasts and Russians keep launching for us. Kind of an oxymoron there, launching our space stuff and at the same time doing bomber incursions and hacking the white house computers.

NASA down to one commercial supplier to ISS

The Antares rocket's failure leaves SpaceX as the only U.S. company able to fly cargo to the orbiting laboratory for the near future, raising the stakes of SpaceX's next launch from Cape Canaveral, Fla., which is planned no earlier than Dec. 9.

...

Speculation immediately focused on the Antares rocket's two AJ26 main engines, which were built in the 1970s for a Soviet-era moon program and refurbished in the United States by Aerojet Rocketdyne.

The decades-old AJ26 engines have experienced problems during tests, with one catching fire in 2011 and another lost completely on a test stand earlier this year.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/10/28/nasa-down-to-one-commercial-provider/18093545/

So what will Orbital do if these old 1970s soviet engines are no good and we gotta stop using them?

Orbital can't make its own engines. So what, will the taxpayer have to give them a couple billion dollars to see if they can make an engine.

Same goes for boeing-lockheed (United Launch Alliance, their joint venture). They are using Russian engines too! From what I've read it would be $2 billion and take about five years to get them to make their own engines for a crewed launch vehicle.

So that leaves SpaceX, it's the only one, the only American organization that can make a complete product without Russian parts -- steel coming in one door, engines and rockets and capsules out the other.

[Withnail]

As already mentioned, the most probable point of failure is in fact not the russian engine, but the ukrainian Zenit first stage...

The troll isn't listening, he just wants to rant and rave.

But whatever, I guess I should turn off CNN, I guess Wolf Blitzer is a paranoid Russophobe too.

Turning off CNN is the first good idea I've heard you express.

[Sixstrings]

Well I'm a supporter of Ukraine but we shouldn't be using their stages either.

That's old Soviet tech. Someone could make it work out but that would be old Soviet engineers and knowhow in Ukraine and Russia, not Orbital Sciences corp blasting 40 year old Soviet stuff off in Virginia.

But okay withnail, you can have your rocket thread without me in it and you guys can talk about rockets and I'll shut up.

I WAS RIGHT ABOUT USING THE OUTSOURCED SOVIET TECH.

I've posted about this before, these Russian engines, and I was right.

[Withnail]

But okay withnail, you can have your rocket thread without me in it and you guys can talk about rockets and I'll shut up.

If that's what you want. Nobody asked you to shut up. Just not rant.

[Sixstrings]

If that's what you want. Nobody asked you to shut up.

I'm going to impose a new rule for myself. Never post more than one sentence. We live in a twitter world now anyhow and everyone talks in single sentences.

This thread will be my last rant, so I don't get on your nerves withnail. Nobody around here likes my style, but you know what, I'm pretty good with trends and I'm actually always right.

I have warned about these Russian engines over, and over and over.

I never had a good feeling about it.

Now it's blown up. I was not surprised at all.

I didn't even know Elon Musk said this years ago about Orbital, I just saw it on CNN, but turns out Musk was right about all this. He warned about it too:

Why Elon Musk Called Orbital Sciences' Rocket Design a 'Joke' in 2012

"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."
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/elon-musk-called-orbital-sciences-rocket-design-joke/story?id=26540137

I checked his twitter, and he's being gracious about it:

Sorry to hear about the @OrbitalSciences launch. Hope they recover soon.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FBusiness%2Felon-musk-called-orbital-sciences-rocket-design-joke%2Fstory%3Fid%3D26540137&tw_i=527247155954610176&tw_p=tweetembed

Behind the scenes though -- his company should make sure congress and the public knows the difference with spacex, and the engines they make themselves, and how if one of their engines -- brand new and not 40 years old in the first place -- did fail, then they have other engines in the cluster that can complete the mission and it doesn't have to be blown up with pieces flying all over Virginia beach.

[Sixstrings]

Here's something I wonder -- why is this even getting so much coverage, that's unusual, there have been rocket failures before. I think it's because the pics are so spectacular, and "classified encryption" something somewhere in the water or on the beach, and, that this was in Virginia and so many came out to watch it and then you've got this huge Soviet-lookin fireball. (the soviets sure had their share of massive infernos on the launch pad, now we have the same thing, using their old N1 engines they gave up on)

But really, as long as there is a 95-97% success rate then that's the best anyone has ever done anyhow. Although the Apollo program never have a rocket failure, just that capsule test fire on the ground.

The shuttle had what, two lost vehicles, challenger and columbia.

And then I remember NASA was put back for a long time after challenger and then they had a rocket blow up. That didn't get so much coverage as this.

What's important here is that congress doesn't give up on private space corps, but if Orbital is a loser and big fail then yeah we can't be socialist and keep funding FAIL and throw billions at failure hoping to build their company up.

THEY HAVE A HORRIBLE BUSINESS MODEL, using old Ukrainian stages and Soviet rocket engines, for crying out loud. Musk was right. He went out and built a better engine. He figured out how to be the cheapest and the best, he showed it's possible, you can make the engines here and make everything right here in the US and it be the best and the cheapest.

[dinopello]

Yes, many SpaceX rockets have blown up as well. It is rocket science. ULA may have had some failures but may have the best record overall.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014 ... /18118913/

[Sixstrings]

Yes, many SpaceX rockets have blown up as well. It is rocket science. ULA may have had some failures but may have the best record overall.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014 ... /18118913/

Spacex has never lost a paid payload.

There's a big difference between that, and losing test rockets in development.

Spacex has had enough successful launches that they're now about to be certified to launch for the air force.

Overall - you want to shoot for 97% reliablity. That's as good as any system has ever been. Orbital sciences has one more chance, if that.

[Tanada]

Here's something I wonder -- why is this even getting so much coverage, that's unusual, there have been rocket failures before. I think it's because the pics are so spectacular, and "classified encryption" something somewhere in the water or on the beach, and, that this was in Virginia and so many came out to watch it and then you've got this huge Soviet-lookin fireball. (the soviets sure had their share of massive infernos on the launch pad, now we have the same thing, using their old N1 engines they gave up on)

Politics. CNN has long been a Democrat leaning news organization and they are desperate for any news they can use to avoid talking about next Tuesday. Strangely enough they are almost the only news service which has spent any time on this story. The others had breaking news and video when it first happened but by the time twelve hours had passed it was already yesterdays news.

You should scan multiple news sources, CNN had its heyday back around 1996 and has become just one of very many at this point in time.

[dinopello]

Spacex has never lost a paid payload.

Falconsat-2 (SpaceX Falcon 1) and others have blown up and Orbcom (SpaceX Falcon 9) and maybe other have been incorrecty placed in orbit so they has little to no useful service life.

It's an unforgiving business but SpaceX is trying hard to compete - and they've had a number of successes too.

[Cid_Yama]

Oh, please. CNN has been Fox-lite since Ted Turner sold it years ago.

Our most hilarious/humiliating failure, just months before the Russians put the first man in space, was Mercury-Redstone 1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O4V7JfeTSU

[Poordogabone]

Has anyone re-watched the video of the launch? At about 4 seconds after lift off on the left side some puff of smoke followed by what appears to be fuel leaking out are clearly visible. It does not look like an engine problem to me. More reminiscent to the Challenger accident, maybe a joint seal failure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYm9PaBOiKw

[Sixstrings]

CNN has long been a Democrat leaning news organization and they are desperate for any news they can use to avoid talking about next Tuesday. Strangely enough they are almost the only news service which has spent any time on this story.

They're talking about it right now, lol. Every news host they have does their own segment on the rocket engine.

You're right, other than Challenger no other rocket failure has gotten so much coverage. I know CNN got good ratings out of that missing airliner coverage so maybe they think rockets and plane crash news is where it's at. (and ebola, of course!)

I'm glad to see it though, maybe people are more interested in space now so that's a good thing, and IT'S A BUNCH OF CRAP about these Russian rocket engines and I'm happy CNN is talking about it and doing some good journalism exposing this using-40-year-old-engines yet still charging the taxpayer almost twice what spacex charges.