Daz Type-R Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Worth 2 minutes of your time..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29813109 Just glad it was unmanned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stash Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Ooops a bit costly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 bet the insurers are happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuckstar Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) 200 million pounds!! + repairs to launch pad. Shame it wasn't due till Wednesday, Nov 5th. The biggest shame is that there were lots of students experiments on board. I suppose it's a better excuse than the dog ate it. Edited October 29, 2014 by tuckstar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnyaardvark Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I read somewhere it included a satellite so could be many months/years work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 It had the Arkyd satellite (asteroid mining surveyor) and 26 Dove cubesats along with ISS supplies. It's a shame, but I guess suspicion will inevitably fall on the twin AJ26 engines which are - to all intents and purposes - about 50 years old. Basically refurbished from the NK-33 engines built for the Soviet N1 moon rocket which never successfully flew. About 150 of these engines were left after the N-1 was scrapped, Aerojet bought about 30, some have been used in a Soyuz variant. At least they are being put to good use, other N1 body sections were recycled as pig housing! Ironically, the second of the four N-1 launches failed at the same point as Antares did yesterday and in a very similar manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAZ Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I find it strange that all other technologies have moved forward, but we are still flinging stuff into space with what are essentially vintage rocket motors. They also use the rocket motors to keep boosting the ISS into a higher orbit, as over time this decays. I don't know where this would get critical, but looking at the graph below, it doesn't look like it could stay up without being boosted back up. http://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuckstar Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) That's the same problem they had with sky lab. The orbit decayed. The shuttle due to take it to higher orbit was delayed due to costs and politics, so no choice but to ditch it in the Indian ocean, and of course all over Australia!! Edited October 30, 2014 by tuckstar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I find it strange that all other technologies have moved forward, but we are still flinging stuff into space with what are essentially vintage rocket motors. There's a good reason for reusing the NK-33 - it has one on the highest thrust to weight ratios of any rocket engine ever developed - 65% higher than the Saturn F-1. Only one of the new SpaceX Merlin engines is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuckstar Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 List of losses. http://www.wired.com/2014/10/science-lost-antares-rocket-explosion/?mbid=synd_slate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now