It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian rocket engines suspected in launch blast

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   


It was the first failure after an unbroken string of successful commercial cargo flights to the space station since 2012—three by Orbital and five by SpaceX, the other U.S. company hired by the space agency to deliver supplies.

Although the cause of the blast is still unknown, several outside experts cast suspicion on the 1960s-era Russian-built engines used in the rocket's first stage. Orbital Sciences chairman David Thompson himself said that the Russian engines had presented "some serious technical and supply challenges in the past."

He said he expects the investigation to zero in on the cause within a week or so. The launch pad appeared to have been spared major damage.

Read more at source

Russian rocket engines suspected in launch blast

I am trying to "zero-in" on why the article appears to hint at a common failure in almost every effort either funded or subsidized by the government, and carried out by "contracted agencies." The finger-pointing has already begun; and it does seem ironic that this much-hyped "commercialization of space" fell to the moronic "economy of good enough."

Had they not been cowering behind a spreadsheet with precious few zeros in it; they may have made the connection between a sincere effort to accomplish and effect the apparent destiny of man to roam beyond the earth; and the "economy of good enough" which mandates lowest bid, least expense, AND highest "return: according to the spreadsheet.

I would very much like to think that the notion of cost-cutting can not be driven by a profit mentality. One seeks risk... which eventually ends up risking people; the other wants to wallow in wealth; because they can.

Please do not misunderstand me, the article itself is very informative. I just get irate when I think of the risks some people died for; as opposed to those who engineered and orchestrated the risk the "cheap and quick" way.

Back to the topic at hand, and apologies for the very tenuous connection to the topic itself... it just comes out that way!




The 140-foot (42.6-meter) Antares rocket, operated by Orbital Sciences Corp., blew up 15 seconds after liftoff Tuesday, lighting up the night sky and raining flaming debris on the launch site. No one was injured, but the $200 million-plus mission was a total loss.

The blast not only incinerated the cargo—2½ tons of space station food, clothes, equipment and science experiments dreamed up by schoolchildren—but dealt a setback to the commercial spaceflight effort championed by NASA and the White House even before the shuttle was retired.

It was the first failure after an unbroken string of successful commercial cargo flights to the space station since 2012—three by Orbital and five by SpaceX, the other U.S. company hired by the space agency to deliver supplies.


Well it was their first "failure" (whatever that means) and I'm sure the folks had both the launch, the vehicle, and the cargo well-insured...

Anybody ever see the old movie "Remo Williams"?




posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I agree, finger pointing is the way of life here in America. There could be a lot of problems, some involving installing the engines. Occasionally there will be a malfunction. If the risk is one in a hundred, then one in a hundred will have problems.

It could have been a flaw in a multitude of things and also a combination of two or more things. At least nobody got killed. I suppose the insurance will have to pay, maybe the insurance is the American taxpayer, it used to be when the government was building them and it still could be.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
does that mean it'll be the Russians or Europeans to travel there from now on and not us ?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Russia launched a rocket literally 8 hours after the one in US exploded and delivered to ISS food and other goodies.

And yet people will point at Russia and blame them for everything engines including.

Blaming Russia is so popular today, next time I get a headache I am screaming ........PPUUUUUTTTTIIIINNNNNNNNN lol



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Then they should privatise NASA. Maybe run it as a representative committee from aerotech companies.

NASA wasn't suppoed to be another government agency.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ExSmokerYes
Russia launched a rocket literally 8 hours after the one in US exploded and delivered to ISS food and other goodies.

And yet people will point at Russia and blame them for everything engines including.

Blaming Russia is so popular today, next time I get a headache I am screaming ........PPUUUUUTTTTIIIINNNNNNNNN lol


You mean like below.




posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Them damn Ruskies.

Their own record is dismal, why we using their crap rocket tech?



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Maxmars
Wonder how may new rocket engines we could have designed and built for the 1.9 billion (with a B) loss this old cheap Russian rocket engine failure just cost us.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I know,it is truly pathetic.No one FORCED the US/Nasa to use Russian-made rockets.They US has propably The most advanced array of war-tech-and that's only what we know about.But they can't build their own rocket engines? Feeble.

In fact,seeing this was an unmanned launch,I won't be surprised if they sabotaged it themselves.Who amongst the average civilians know what was in the payload? Could've been just catlitter,for all Joe Public knows.Anything to make Russia look bad.I've got a tip for Nasa-build your own #-you've apparently put some guys on the moon before-it should'nt be that difficult then,should it now??

a reply to: ExSmokerYes



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Raxoxane
They are designing their own. NASA SLS
When the SLS is complete there will be nothing else like it or even close to it's capabilities on or near this planet. Except maybe Space_X's BFR =)
We do have other rockets as well. They use the Russian ones cause they are cheap. Get what you pay for I say.


edit on 30-10-2014 by Xeven because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 02:54 AM
link   
It could just be that launching stuff into space isn't that easy and occasionally it'll go wrong.

Of course, when it does go wrong it's very spectacular because of the sheer amount of rocket fuel involved!



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Maxmars

it was an Ukrainian rocket technology, not Russian, but yes you can blame Russians for everything they don't really care



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Oh I see,thanks for the info.Well seems they'd better make haste with it,then.At least when that fabulous new tech is in use,they'd only have themselves to blame If something had to go wrong.From my point of view,they only have themselves to blame right now,as it is.Penny wise and pound foolish,by the sounds of it.a reply to: Xeven



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Who would have thought back in the days that the mighty USA space agency would end up using Soviet 60s engines for space. Sounds like a bad Hollywood action movie.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   
I have to say,to me as an almost 50yo South African,it just seems Weird.Idk it seems a very imprudent and nonsensical move,to use antiques like these rockets,when the US are so tech savvy-your government certainly does'nt seem to mind spending godknows how many billions/trillions on war-tech and in fact,technological advancement in general-yet for this mission to the ISS they use antiquated-tech rockets from a nation they don't trust..bit odd,well to me anyway.Yeah the world has changed a Lot since I was a kid,sometimes it seems surreal,indeed:-))a reply to: Laxus



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Maxmars

I am quite sure Putin must be at fault here to...



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Did you read or not? Ukrainian Rockets were used.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ExSmokerYes

Some of those whom are blaming are fearing that America's influence is dwindling down so what they do best is to blame Russia for everything.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: donhuangenaro

Actually, it was a mix. The first stage had elements of Ukrainian tech (from the Soviet era I might add) as well as a derivative of the Russian made NK-33 Rocket engine, which were originally designed back in the 60's. I might also add that this engine (and the rest of the rocket) also had elements of American design in it, from the electronics, to fuel systems to guidance.

Whilst the Russians don't have a fantastic record in their launches, especially of late (they have a great deal of trouble getting their new sub-launched nuke missiles to fly), it does seem a bit early to be singling out anything for blame. It only happened yesterday!

Sometimes when you're sat on a huge pile of explosive material it, well, explodes. Accidents happen - and it's worthwhile to point out that while people may see this article as "pointing the finger" on the flipside, finding out what went wrong helps prevent it from happening again.

What you prefer? No one to investigate and to carry on as if nothing had happened?
edit on 30/10/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 03:50 AM
link   
In the link it says that Orbital Sciences chairman David Thompson refers to Russian rockets? Well if he's inaccurate in his statement,he should clear that up,and imo an apology is in order to the Russian government.In a court of law such inaccurate statements would be considered libel/slander.a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join