Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

The resupply mission to the ISS just blew up above the pad!

profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9215 - Karma: 5,398
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html#.VFAY54ekWun
livestream right there. i was going to able to see it about 150sec after launch but...
Oct 28 2014 6:30PM
27 10
profile picture
DIX~
Posts: 4695 - Karma: 6,502
Oh fuck! Did you get to see what went down?
Oct 28 2014 6:37PM
0 0
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9215 - Karma: 5,398
it looked like it was going up a little and then if you're a frequent observer of space launches you could tell something was wrong. they say it blew up about 6 seconds in.
Oct 28 2014 6:41PM
0 0
profile picture
DIX~
Posts: 4695 - Karma: 6,502
a_pla5tic_bagit looked like it was going up a little and then if you're a frequent observer of space launches you could tell something was wrong. they say it blew up about 6 seconds in.


Oh fuck. So they did attempt the launch and something fucked up? Crazy. Gotta wonder how much this is gonna cost
Oct 28 2014 6:46PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61604 - Karma: 123,113
Cant embed video but BBC put this up, the whole launch.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29813109
Oct 29 2014 12:16AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Such bad news... How do you even mess that up in 2014?
Oct 29 2014 12:19AM
2 6
profile picture
toastyteenagers
Posts: 1834 - Karma: 6,793
Thats sad, orbital sciences must be bummed.
Orbial aciences is the second comany to send cargo to the ISS
Oct 29 2014 12:23AM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,248
The referenced post has been removed.

#themoreyouknow
Oct 29 2014 12:30AM
2 0
profile picture
profa_212
Posts: 8912 - Karma: 36,007
DingoSeanSuch bad news... How do you even mess that up in 2014?


Yeah! Not like it's rocket science or anything.
Oct 29 2014 12:37AM
4 0
profile picture
toastyteenagers
Posts: 1834 - Karma: 6,793
DingoSeanSuch bad news... How do you even mess that up in 2014?


fine, you do better.
Oct 29 2014 12:45AM
1 1
profile picture
ZeMagnificentKev
Posts: 618 - Karma: 1,325
I heard it was supposed to launch yesterday too, but some douche in a sail boat was just chilling in the launch area and they had to cancel it
Oct 29 2014 12:46AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
The referenced post has been removed.


This is true, but the NK-33 and it's variants are some of the most beast engines ever... They have a very solid track record so far, and have been retooled since coming into American hands after their discovery

The engines on use of the Antares rocket are retooled versions of the same engines that the Soviets had built for the Lunar Moon Rocket Booster - The N1. They are MASSIVELY advanced, and when the Americans came to see that these things existed, they realized how damn behind they were the Soviets when it came to rocket engine efficiency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLg1QUq5GQM
Oct 29 2014 12:48AM
1 1
profile picture
El_Barto.
Posts: 11661 - Karma: 24,353
DingoSeanSuch bad news... How do you even mess that up in 2014?


Because they are shooting a massive fucking rocket it outer motherfuckin space. You think that shit is simple?
Oct 29 2014 1:42AM
2 0
profile picture
Chubz.
Posts: 13918 - Karma: 25,661
The referenced post has been removed.


Seriously read the title wrong and thats what i thought it said lol...
Oct 29 2014 1:46AM
1 0
profile picture
Laurent.
Posts: 10056 - Karma: 25,313
El_Barto.Because they are shooting a massive fucking rocket it outer motherfuckin space. You think that shit is simple?


Meet the Russian Soyuz family of rockets. Rugged basic Russian engineering from the 60's, and by far the the most reliable launch vehicle with over 1700 times launches and very very little failures. Hell, the current FG is going on for 23/23.

Oct 29 2014 1:53AM
1 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Yeah, the R7 above is reliable, but it also wouldn't have been adequate for the payload involved on this trip, as it was bringing 3 tons of supplies into LEO and the R7 can't hit that. They'd have required the Proton to have that amount of throw weight if Russia was contracted. Otherwise, it's either the relatively affordable Antares, or the Atlas family, which is far more costly.

Also... that is not from the 60's... that's from the FIFTIES... That same rocket carried Sputnik up and that same rocket was the first ICBM.

**This post was edited on Oct 29th 2014 at 2:19:35am
Oct 29 2014 2:16AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
El_Barto.Because they are shooting a massive fucking rocket it outer motherfuckin space. You think that shit is simple?


Seeing as by the late 60's early 70's there were so few miscues with rockets, it's fair to ask the question of, with everything we've learned, how does this goof up?

...In defense though, I guess the Antares has only been launched on like 4 occasions - but the rocket engine involved has more/less been used in the Atlas family since the late 90's.
Oct 29 2014 2:22AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
The referenced post has been removed.


Would have been so ridiculous. It was made to be able to drop the Tsar Bomba, basically... Pretty much created for the sole purpose of throwing a 100 megaton supernuke over the arctic sea to remove an entire landmass from existence. It also used highly toxic fuel... but I guess in the case of mutual assured destruction that's the least of anyone's worry.

Either way, the R36 is more than capable as an ICBM... fucker, like the Trident 2, can drop like 12 MIRV's or something and take out 80% of the population of either the eastern seaboard of the USA, or the general population of western russia, alone.
Oct 29 2014 2:39AM
0 0
profile picture
FreedGucci
Posts: 454 - Karma: 3,192
macinnisI heard it was supposed to launch yesterday too, but some douche in a sail boat was just chilling in the launch area and they had to cancel it


Yep, drove 4 hours each way to go watch it and had to turn right back around. Words cannot express how much I want whoever it was dead
Oct 29 2014 8:52AM
1 1
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9215 - Karma: 5,398
I'm seeing some reports that the self destruct was triggered. Orbitals site doesn't say anything like that though.

I'm wondering if it would have blown up if it was able to go on the first day.
Oct 29 2014 10:12AM
0 0
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
Black.Yep, drove 4 hours each way to go watch it and had to turn right back around. Words cannot express how much I want whoever it was dead


I've missed 3 space shuttle launches by less than a day as a result of slightly off planning, delays, or random reasons. Always disappointing that I was so close but never saw one.


and I say bring back the rocketdyne f1. The engine so powerful that it took years to perfect simply because they had to create new materials capable of withstanding it's power
Oct 29 2014 10:12AM
0 0
profile picture
toastyteenagers
Posts: 1834 - Karma: 6,793
DingoSeanWould have been so ridiculous. It was made to be able to drop the Tsar Bomba, basically... Pretty much created for the sole purpose of throwing a 100 megaton supernuke over the arctic sea to remove an entire landmass from existence. It also used highly toxic fuel... but I guess in the case of mutual assured destruction that's the least of anyone's worry.

Either way, the R36 is more than capable as an ICBM... fucker, like the Trident 2, can drop like 12 MIRV's or something and take out 80% of the population of either the eastern seaboard of the USA, or the general population of western russia, alone.


don even try and act like your a head of a space agency
Oct 29 2014 10:37AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
fujaromeand I say bring back the rocketdyne f1. The engine so powerful that it took years to perfect simply because they had to create new materials capable of withstanding it's power


The RD 180 is capable of 20% more thrust. I doubt with that kind of tech, the F1 will ever be brought back due to it's own inefficiencies.
Oct 29 2014 3:20PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
toastyteenagersdon even try and act like your a head of a space agency


I mean, this information is public domain, so...

...not to mention a space agency wouldn't be in charge of military ICBMs.
Oct 29 2014 3:22PM
0 0
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9215 - Karma: 5,398
They should use a giant linear aerospike. NASA was/is testing one. I'm sure they'll never get enough money to put it on a rocket. Poor NASA, taking flak for this even though it really their rocket. Not to mention the killing they took from Obama, thanks Obama.

I take it Russia's craft made it up there?
Oct 29 2014 8:39PM
0 0
profile picture
Laurent.
Posts: 10056 - Karma: 25,313
a_pla5tic_bagI take it Russia's craft made it up there?


Without a hitch.

http://youtu.be/SZixaHZS1RE


And it has docked safely to the ISS.
Oct 30 2014 8:16AM
1 0
profile picture
daOyster
Posts: 329 - Karma: 298
I though that SpaceX and their Dragon won the contract for exclusive cargo delivery to the US side of the ISS?
Oct 30 2014 10:33AM
0 0
profile picture
daOyster
Posts: 329 - Karma: 298
Never mind, upon second reading it appears they won the contract for flying Astronauts to the ISS.
Oct 30 2014 10:35AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)