Antares rocket explodes on liftoff

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by MrChips, Oct 28, 2014.

  1. MrChips

    Thread Starter Moderator

    Oct 2, 2009
    12,421
    3,355
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2014
  2. KJ6EAD

    Senior Member

    Apr 30, 2011
    1,425
    363
    Oops! NASA (Need A Second Antares).
     
  3. atferrari

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 6, 2004
    2,645
    759
    And provisions to the people up there, I think.
     
  4. alfacliff

    Well-Known Member

    Dec 13, 2013
    2,449
    428
    with russian engines on the first stage ( the one that blew up).
     
  5. ISB123

    Well-Known Member

    May 21, 2014
    1,239
    527
    Engines were Ukrainian.
     
  6. Papabravo

    Expert

    Feb 24, 2006
    10,136
    1,786
    We have a long history of blowing things up. 'S not like it hasn't happened before. Just glad nobody made the ultimate sacrifice.
     
  7. atferrari

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 6, 2004
    2,645
    759
    There is a country that tested a rocket very recently, much smaller than the above, that also exploded.

    Difference is that it happened when it was just 2 m. above the launchpad.

    We had a good oportunity to laugh (or is it craying?).
     
  8. joeyd999

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jun 6, 2011
    2,675
    2,717
    It's not like its's rocket science or anything.

    Oh, wait...
     
    ErnieM and atferrari like this.
  9. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,163
    I feel sorry for the kids experiments on the rocket. That pad was blown to hell. These engines (closed cycle nk-33 variants) are originally from the soviet N1 moon rocket program. They were found in a old warehouse , rebuild and tested as the AJ26 rocket engine.



    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/30/did_exsoviet_engines_cause_antares_launch_blast/
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2014
  10. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,981
    388
  11. alfacliff

    Well-Known Member

    Dec 13, 2013
    2,449
    428
    those engines were 60's era soviet (russsian) design. the area is now ukrain, but was then part of russia.
     
  12. justtrying

    Active Member

    Mar 9, 2011
    329
    341
    what were the modifications made and how were they tested prior to launch. One cannot easily combine to different systems.

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/oct/29/russian-rocket-crash-virginia

    this only gets better. My initial reaction to this was that they were using the 60s design (russia did this to germany, reverse engineered most of their military technology during WWI and II), but they were actually using the original rockets. Innovation at its best.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2014
  13. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,163
  14. justtrying

    Active Member

    Mar 9, 2011
    329
    341
    Yes, i remember that incident. Classic russian approach, if it doesnt fit, dont look for directions, cram it in. I think its genetic, i have to fight the call constantly
     
  15. Sparky49

    Active Member

    Jul 16, 2011
    834
    417
    A really very naiive view of 'Russian methods'. Hey, they work most of the time.

    Where's America's means of getting men into orbit? People are very harsh towards the Russian/Soviet space program. Barr lunar activities and reusable launch platform, NASA lagged behind the Soviets considerably.
     
    ISB123 and justtrying like this.
  16. justtrying

    Active Member

    Mar 9, 2011
    329
    341
    Thanks Sparky. Both programs had a lot of casualties, but it is evident who won the space race. I just found it strange that the company did not even bother to rebuilt the original design :)
     
  17. ISB123

    Well-Known Member

    May 21, 2014
    1,239
    527
    I think that Russians have better launcher rockets than NASA.Otherwise they wouldn't be used.
     
  18. GopherT

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 23, 2012
    5,987
    3,733
    "Better" has many definitions. A previous posted said something about Russians lagging behind on re-usable vehicles. The whole reusable concept was a huge waste of money and lives vs. the disposable rockets from the Russians. The reusable concept required the heat resistant tiles that fell off and caused damage that eventually resulted in destruction. I don't know if the seals on Challenger were an issue of reusable design but, it was just very complicated vs a Russian rocket.

    The Russians had a shuttle design at nearly the same time and shape as the American version (who stole whose design?). Russians only used it once to prove feasibility it because it was too expensive and unpredictable (risky). the Russians were likely ahead as their shuttle was really a drone - the only orbital flight it ever took was unmanned.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2014
  19. Sparky49

    Active Member

    Jul 16, 2011
    834
    417
    "but it is evident who won the space race."

    Interesting point. The BBC had a _very_ good documentary called "Cosmonauts: How Russia Won the Space Race". Of you live in the UK (or y'know, cough cough) you can watch it here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04lcxms.

    Basically presents the idea that the notation that NASA won the space race is somewhat unfair, as space exploration is far more and continued past the moon landings. Whether it was first artificial satellite, living organism, man, woman, multi crew, spacewalk, etc the Russians were far more advanced than we gave (and give) them credit for. Ironically enough, an interview in that program suggests the primary reasons the Americans overtook the Soviet programme, was because the Russian Premier diverted money towards improving Soviet agriculture, whilst the US could just throw money until things worked.

    Indeed, even past moon landing era, the Soviets were far more advanced in long term living in orbit, having what might be considered the first proper space station Mir.

    And for all the lead the US had built up, with Apollo and the Shuttle, where are they now? Using rocket motors designed and _made_ in the 60s by the Soviets. Imagine telling that to the Apollo engineers lol.

    Anyhow lol. Enjoy the documentary if you can. It is really very interesting and is not overtly political.
     
  20. shteii01

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 19, 2010
    3,380
    494
    To add to Gopher. US Airforce uses disposable rockets to launch satelites. Basically US Airforce does the same thing that the Soviets/Russians have been doing all along.

    The re-usable vehicle so far proved to be expansive waste of time, money and resources. Notice that NASA (civilian organization) used re-usable vehicle. US Airforce (military organization) did not use it.
     
Loading...