Rocket bound for Space Station explodes seconds after lift off.

Drakares

Scannal wrote: »

We know enough about it as it is. Let the aliens live in peace.

Okay...

Scannal

Just don't take things so seriously, it will be better for your health.

Karl Stein

Scannal wrote: »

We know enough about it as it is. Let the aliens live in peace.

It's a bit like when Europeans crossed the oceans - a lot of native peoples suffered. If there were primitive creatures living on the Moon, or deep under the surface, humans living there could have a devastating impact.

Skylinehead

nokia69 wrote: »

they were using first stage engines built by the USSR FFS

not really state of the art modern tech

You think? The Soyuz is one of the best, if not the best, rockets in the world. There's a reason why the Americans don't have any launch vessels, and why they're using Russian ones.

Karl Stein

Skylinehead wrote: »

You think? The Soyuz is one of the best, if not the best, rockets in the world. There's a reason why the Americans don't have any launch vessels, and why they're using Russian ones.

The Europeans use them over in French Guiana too.

--LOS--

nokia69 wrote: »

they were using first stage engines built by the USSR FFS

not really state of the art modern tech

This always turns into The Americans versus The Russians. They are modified russian engines, modified by americans, the russian space community is criticising the refurbishment job, meanwhile the english/american media feels the need to point out the Russian relation, they know full well they don't need to spell it out because everyone will fill in the blanks. The space industry is hugely collaborative, the media would have you think otherwise.

nokia69

Skylinehead wrote: »

You think? The Soyuz is one of the best, if not the best, rockets in the world. There's a reason why the Americans don't have any launch vessels, and why they're using Russian ones.

yeah I think

rockets can be judged in all kinds of ways, saying the Soyuz is the best is just a matter of opinion

right now the americans are working on at least 4 new maned launch systems, anyone of them could end up being better than the Soyuz

Joe Doe

They should of asked this fella for tips on propulsion techniques etc

Taajsgpm

You re an idiot we all got hurt it s millions and millions of dollars and a huge set back for scientific research

darkpagandeath

nokia69 wrote: »

they are not the lowest cost launcher in the US

But the launcher was an actual 60 year old moth balled launch vehicle. So price was a major factor. Note not 60 year old tech that would be fine, An actual 60 year old machine.

namloc1980

darkpagandeath wrote: »

But the launcher was an actual 60 year old moth balled launch vehicle. So price was a major factor. Note not 60 year old tech that would be fine, An actual 60 year old machine.

No the launcher was not a sixty year old machine. The engines were built in the 70's but fully refurbished for Orbital Sciences. The rocket itself is newly developed.

Capt'n Midnight

namloc1980 wrote: »

No the launcher was not a sixty year old machine. The engines were built in the 70's but fully refurbished for Orbital Sciences. The rocket itself is newly developed.

LOL "newly developed" it's a re-designed 1980's Russian Zenit that uses different Russian engines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antares_%28rocket%29

The first stage uses RP-1 (kerosene) and liquid oxygen (LOX) as propellants, powering two Aerojet AJ-26 engines, which are modified Soviet-built NK-33 engines.
...
some of the Antares first stage work was contracted to the Ukrainian Yuzhnoye SDO, designers of the Zenit series.[11] The core provided by Yuzhnoye includes propellant tanks, pressurization tanks, valves, sensors, feed lines, tubing, wiring and other associated hardware
...
Like Zenit, the Antares vehicle has a diameter of 3.9 m (150 in) with a matching 3.9 m payload fairing..

but apart from that the rest of the first stage is American :rolleyes:

BTW the Second stage is a based on a 1980's ICBM the MX-Missile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_%28rocket_stage%29
and it uses solid fuel

Skylinehead

nokia69 wrote: »

yeah I think

rockets can be judged in all kinds of ways, saying the Soyuz is the best is just a matter of opinion

right now the americans are working on at least 4 new maned launch systems, anyone of them could end up being better than the Soyuz

And none of them exist, so it's a bit pointless bringing that up.

https://medium.com/this-is-rocket-science/the-worlds-most-reliable-rocket-dates-back-from-1966-e3219b0bf35f

Have a read of that. A better staging system, and to date 1800 of the things have gone into space. What American rockets have done that? If they were so good, why don't they have any?

Capt'n Midnight

nokia69 wrote: »

yeah I think

rockets can be judged in all kinds of ways, saying the Soyuz is the best is just a matter of opinion

right now the americans are working on at least 4 new maned launch systems, anyone of them could end up being better than the Soyuz

Even if one of those matches the proven reliability of a launch system that's been around since 1957 it would still have to match the economy of scale gained over nearly 2,000 launches.

The Americans are spending billions trying to emulate a launcher that costs about $48m. They've retired Atlas, Titan II, Saturn I, Saturn V and the Shuttle.

Even if SpaceX ( the others have a snowball's chance based on past overruns ) can produce a reusable launcher that undercuts Soyuz it will still take a lot of launches to offset the development costs.
As an extreme example the $33,167m spent developing the Shuttle would have paid for 700 Soyuz U launches, and that's before you take into account the launch costs of the heavier shuttle and higher wages in the US )

dxhound2005

Since this one was lost last October another Russian one blew up in April. And now today another American one blew up. They are saying that there are supplies aboard the ISS to last until this October, but if I was up there I would be getting worried now.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/examviral/science-world/international-space-station-resupply-ship-lost-and-will-fall-back-to-earth-327739.html

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/28/nasa-spacex-launch-international-space-station-wrong