Tuesday, October 28, 2014, 6:22pm EDT.

http://www.space.com/17933-nasa-television-webcasts-live-space-tv.html

 

Oops! NASA (Need A Second Antares).

 

And provisions to the people up there, I think.

 

with russian engines on the first stage ( the one that blew up).

 

Engines were Ukrainian.

 

We have a long history of blowing things up. 'S not like it hasn't happened before. Just glad nobody made the ultimate sacrifice.

 

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?).

 

It's not like its's rocket science or anything.

Oh, wait...

 

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/

Long before the accident, Orbital Sciences use of the 1960s-made Russian engines raised some eyebrows, with competitor Elon Musk of SpaceX mocking the Antares design for using engines that had been locked up in Siberia somewhere for decades.

In May this year, one of the two AJ26 engines set to lift an Antares rocket off failed during testing at the Stennis Space centre, exploding on the stand.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014...viet-era-rocket-technology/?intcmp=latestnews

 

Engines were Ukrainian.

those engines were 60's era soviet (russsian) design. the area is now ukrain, but was then part of russia.

 

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.

 

Russian space technology. The modern engines are really good but the quality of product still depends on workers who sometimes just don't exercise good engineering judgment.

https://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_14155966329019&key=6afc78eea2339e9c047ab6748b0d37e7&libId=0d24558e-115d-4eba-a93d-f8eeaf96d8a5&loc=https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/russias-proton-crash-cause.700895/#post-4441561&v=1&out=http://www.russianspaceweb.com/proton_glonass49.html#culprit&ref=https://www.physicsforums.com/search/68847/?q=rocket&o=relevance&c[user][0]=351035&title=Russia's Proton crash cause&txt=http://www.russianspaceweb.com/proton_glonass49.html#culprit

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

I think that Russians have better launcher rockets than NASA.Otherwise they wouldn't be used.

 

I think that Russians have better launcher rockets than NASA.Otherwise they wouldn't be used.

"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)

 

"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.

 

"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)

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.