Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby dissident » Fri 31 Oct 2014, 17:58:28

Tanada wrote:SixStrings, found a very informative video you should watch about the Russian engines on the Antares. You might rethink your opinion of Russian technology after you see it.

http://youtu.be/TMbl_ofF3AM


Ironic how the Soviets lost the race to the Moon but came out ahead in rocket engine technology. They won the useful application race. Wanking 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.

The above documentary spends a lot of time repeating tired and inane tropes. The annoying mispronunciation of Korolev's name by the narrator is the cherry on top. Seriously, how could anyone expect technology (and science) to develop without testing? So 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.

The 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.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Fri 31 Oct 2014, 18:10:14

Hilarious really.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9284
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 31 Oct 2014, 18:26:58

dissident wrote:
Tanada wrote:SixStrings, found a very informative video you should watch about the Russian engines on the Antares. You might rethink your opinion of Russian technology after you see it.

http://youtu.be/TMbl_ofF3AM


Ironic how the Soviets lost the race to the Moon but came out ahead in rocket engine technology. They won the useful application race. Wanking 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.

The above documentary spends a lot of time repeating tired and inane tropes. The annoying mispronunciation of Korolev's name by the narrator is the cherry on top. Seriously, how could anyone expect technology (and science) to develop without testing? So 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.

The 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.


Indeed, the real engineers know you stress the machine till it bends or breaks, that way you figure out what the real capabilities are instead of the paper capabilities you expect it to have. The Wright Brothers did it that way, Charles Lindburg, Howard Hughes, Northrop, Grumman, all the pioneer aircraft company builders did it that way.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We 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.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17055
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby Sixstrings » Fri 31 Oct 2014, 18:38:23

dissident wrote:ronic 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.

Wanking 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.

So 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.

The 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.


So we agree!

Orbital Sciences should have hired you to tell them to stay away from these engines they bought out of that warehouse in Siberia, it could have saved the US taxpayer $2 billion screwing around with this company using unproven experimental 1960s Soviet engines.

(to clarify I'm not putting the soviet program down but those engines were experimental and ahead of their time and they are 40 years old now and it's not worth the risk to use them. Wtf are these American companies thinking other than counting beans and cheap outsourcing, there needs to be some congressional reviews of this, that was idiotic to use those engines. They were cool in 1960 but they didn't even work back then, it's abandoned Soviet tech, if you want to study it and duplicate it then fine but don't put old Soviet engines on American rockets, Jesus H. Christ.)
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby Sixstrings » Fri 31 Oct 2014, 18:55:59

Doomed Antares Rocket Powered by Refurbished Soviet Engines
http://www.space.com/27598-antares-rocket-explosion-soviet-engines.html




Orbital Sciences Corp Shares Plummet On Antares Explosion
http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/10/orbital-sciences-shares-plummet-antares-explosion/


Will 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


Hm, well, $220 million will buy pencils and drafting paper but it won't develop a rocket engine.

Christ, we really are living in Atlas Shrugged. Nobody can make rocket engines here anymore, apparently, other than Elon Musk.

Even ULA's crew launch bid they won -- getting paid twice what SpaceX is -- is just using old stuff, the old Orion capsule that got canceled, and if I recall they will be launching on RUSSIAN rocket engines. Whereas Elon Musk is the only one able to make his own engines, and the Dragon will be launched with AMERICAN engines.

Engines that work, unlike Virgin Galactic. And the gubmint didn't need to give Musk $2 billion just to make the engines, either. He started his company right, he started with the engines and went from there.

What a bunch of crap. Boeing-Lockheed is so far behind the times and we'll have to wind up paying them billions and wait five years to get engines. We need to get it together, SpaceX Merlin engines WORK -- is there nothing we can do, give the billions to them? Ramp up production, start churning out those merlin engines?
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 31 Oct 2014, 20:14:12

To answer your question Six, Russia has developed all new launchers since the collapse of the USSR. Check this one out, it was test launched almost a year ago and is ready to go into production to replace some of the older designs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz-2-1v
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We 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.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17055
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sat 01 Nov 2014, 11:23:07

According 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
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4701
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby dissident » Sat 01 Nov 2014, 23:00:18

Subjectivist wrote:
According 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.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sat 01 Nov 2014, 23:46:25

dissident wrote: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.


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:

It 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.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 02 Nov 2014, 14:54:55

Its 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.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We 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.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17055
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 03 Nov 2014, 05:58:38

Tanada wrote:Its 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! 8O

How many of these have flown, is it brand new or has been on previous delta IV launches?
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 03 Nov 2014, 07:20:10

Sixstrings wrote:
Tanada wrote:Its 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! 8O

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.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We 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.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17055
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 03 Nov 2014, 08:02:57

BTW a brief history of Space Shuttle rocket engines. The first design, the RS-25 was developed in the early 1970's the same time the Russian NK-33 was being built. It evolved into the RS-25A, RS-25B, RS-25C and RS-25D all of which flew on the Space Shuttle. 16 of these engines are sitting in the NASA storage facility waiting for future use. The RS-25D is designed to be taken apart and rebuilt after every 8 minute launch to orbit length burn up too 200 times in theory, which adds a great deal of expense and complexity. None of the engines ever got close to that because each of the five versions in the upgrade process basically reset the clock on how many times it has flown. A simplified version designed to be flown once has also been designed, the RS-25E, for use on expendable launch vehicles. The current plan is for the remaining 16 RS-25D engines will be used for the test flights and early missions of the new expendable launch core stage, then switch over to using new RS-25E engines. Getting one last use out of the spare 16 Space Shuttle rated engines is expected to save about $48,000,000.00 for the new launch system they are reserved for. Three alternative plans for the 16 spare engines were proposed, scrapping, gifting to museums, or sale on the open market. Personally I would rather they fly again even if it is for only one flight. YMMV.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We 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.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17055
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby Subjectivist » Mon 03 Nov 2014, 19:11:31

Orbital Sciences has released an update on there website.
Update – 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
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4701
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby 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.
Orbital’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
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4701
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby Sixstrings » Thu 06 Nov 2014, 19:30:38

Subjectivist wrote: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.


If it were up to me, they'd have gotten ditched entirely.

Subjectivist wrote:looks like Six and his anti-russia hysteria is carrying the day.


Can you just say "Six was right," for once?
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby Subjectivist » Thu 06 Nov 2014, 21:59:49

Sixstrings wrote:
Subjectivist wrote: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.


If it were up to me, they'd have gotten ditched entirely.

Subjectivist wrote:looks 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 :razz:

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 8O :-D
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
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4701
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby Sixstrings » Thu 06 Nov 2014, 22:32:56

Subjectivist wrote: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 8O :-D


I'm lost Subj, what's your way of thinking, these companies should keep taking our tax dollars to employ Russians to make rocket engines for our air force and and nasa launches?

Meanwhile, for all we know, the Russian rocket engine employees' kids are at home on the computer hacking our credit cards like they did last Christmas.

Can we just get some pride around here, is it asking too much? To make our own rocket engines in this country?

There's one company out there that had the foresight to not use Russian engines, and made their own engines.

Why is it pulling teeth to get Boeing-Lockheed to make an engine. Who is ULA looking out for, its profit margins or our national security? The former, of course, and it's up to those in Congress to actually think about US national security -- and resist the money ULA's lobbyists will be dangling before their eyes.

I'm sorry for US business that the reset buttons and globalism ain't working out with Russia but that was all Putin's choice, sometimes changing circumstances get in the way of how you planned to do business, and ULA and Orbital Sciences needs to adjust to that as SpaceX did and stop fighting it.

Orbital's Russian engine blew up, for goodness sake, and they still won't give it up. (and don't get mad at me Russia posters, not saying Russian engines are bad, just that these 40 year old engines apparently have some nozzles loose and that's not anybody's fault nobody should go to the Goodwill for a rocket engine to start with)
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: US Supply Rocket Explodes Seconds After Liftoff!!!

Unread postby Sixstrings » Thu 06 Nov 2014, 23:13:28

Look, this is a SpaceX Merlin engine. 100 made so far, 80 of them launched already, successfully:

Image

The guys in that picture are American workers that have a good paying high tech manufacturing job, because SpaceX makes all of its stuff in America.

That alone is worth supporting SpaceX.

If you ask me, Congress should pass a law requiring all federal government to buy American when buying American is as good quality, and reasonable price.

Things have gotten so bad you know, that even our American flags are made in China did you know that? And those American flag lapel pins politicians wear, made in China.

Finally back in February the military decided to only buy American flags made in America:

American flags made in China now banned in U.S. military
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/american-flags-made-in-china-now-banned-in-us-military/


And you know what, I'm actually okay with globalism when it's with friends or when it's with frenemies that aren't too far over on the enemy side, but Putin has been crossing that lately, you can't deny it and a rocket engine is extremely important -- Air Force depends on rocket launches to launch a lot of things, those engines should be made in the USA.

ULA and Orbital should be embarrassed, stop hiring lobbyists to try to hang on to Russian engines -- get your boots on, hire some Americans, and start making engines again. And don't charge we the taxpayers two billion dollars to do it either, because Congress is sittin' there looking at this other company that already made engines and they seem to work just fine and ULA's only advantage is that they PAY BRIBES -- according to Musk -- and they have lobbyists and can put a lot of money into congressional campaign funds and PACs.

Rubber hits the road on national security though, they won't win this one, US can't keep buying Russian engines anymore and if you want someone to blame then that is the president of Russia.
Last edited by Sixstrings on Thu 06 Nov 2014, 23:38:45, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests