And if Richard Pryor was still with us he'd say, "Yeah, deep, too."
We are, of course, talking about the satellite graveyard just off the coast near McMurdo Base Antarctica. This morning another spacecraft was interred there. A simple fairing failed to separate and weighed down the payload, keeping it from escaping the surly bonds.
Rocket Science is still hard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Rocket Science is still hard.
And for some reason it seems to be extra hard when the powers that be aren't interested in the results.
For those who are proponents of turning the whole thing over to commercial interests, how's that Orbital launch vehicle working out for you?
It was certainly cold on the program today. Turns out that somebody doesn't like being taken to task over their defective requirements. So much so that money was lost.
The response, banish the one that spoke the truth! Yep! That's right, send them far away so that we won't have to hear about the problems that we have already caused.
Those that have the gold make the rules.
Those that tell the truth...
Rocket Science IS NOT hard! Just ask Elon!
In science fiction space flight is easy, in the real space program it’s anything but.
Why does anyone assume there's anything fundamentally "safe" about strapping any sort of valuable payload to a vehicle made up of 95% high-explosive, standing back and then lighting it off?
Its purely a testament to the hard work and dedication of the thousands of people involved that as many of these things work as successfully as they do.
"For those who are proponents of turning the whole thing over to commercial interests, how's that Orbital launch vehicle working out for you?"
Vaporware is vaporware, be it Arizonan/Ukrainian, Utahn, or Californian. Figure out the 1 or 2 lowest risk, take those. Not all of the risk is technical.
"Rocket Science IS NOT hard! Just ask Elon!"
Um... Hello? Elon Musk and Space-X would be the FIRST to say that Rocket Science is hard. So far, they have had only one flight that they are happy to call a success (although, IIRC, they have had one marginal success too).
I'm wondering if Orbital's idea of reusing decommissioned ICBMs is now coming back to bite them on the butt. After all, the Taurus (Minuteman) and Minotaur (Peacekeeper) were never intended to work as satellite launchers. One must wonder how far out to the edge of the envelope in terms of accoustics and acceleration they are.
Why does anyone assume there's anything fundamentally "safe" about strapping any sort of valuable payload to a vehicle made up of 95% high-explosive, standing back and then lighting it off?
May I introduce you to liquid fuels?
Welcome to the 21st Century as well.
OSC has had a lot of trouble with SEP
systems.
The TOZS almost wrecked the Shuttle
Yes, yes.
Commerical is the way to go! How many months have they been waiting on their ride? LRO(5), How about SDO (9), OTV(12+) Woohoo! Let's bet the lives of the station crew on that. Sorry buddy, you'll have to wait, making much more profit from this commercial customer. Go to the end of the line.
How many months have they been waiting on their ride?
Let see, if the ISS is decommissioned in 2016, and Ares I is ready in 2017?
Real clear thinking. Heckava job.
Do you think Americans can get any more stupid than they already are?
Let's see :
http://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av020/080730delay.html
Nope. Stupid is as stupid does.
Post a Comment