Who wants some political/corporate intrigue with their rocket science? An antares rocket exploded just after leaving the pad last night. It was unmanned and was doing a supply run for the space station, so we can skip the speeches about brave heroes and go straight to the technical analysis. First reports say the problem appeared to start in the first stage of the rocket, but that the range officer may have hit the self-destruct because of another problem. But, Im a bit of a rocket science fan (six summers at Space Camp will do that to you), and started look at the Antares design. First thing that struck me was that the first stage was a kerosine/LOX liquid booster. And that is just...odd. Sold rocket boosters are usually better suited for early stages because they can carry more fuel (and thus more thrust) for the same volume a liquid booster would take up. Plus, a solid booster cant really break - you light it, and it burns until it runs out of fuel. A liquid booster has tanks and valves and pipes, and any malfunction can mean an explosion. Big downside to solid boosters is that you cant shut them off or change the burn rate, but for a first stage thats just fine. And then it got strange. Antares is made by Orbital Sciences - same company that built the solid rocket boosters for the shuttle (those 2 big white tubes you see during a shuttle launch). Those, are solid fuel rockets. Apparently, the first stage is actually manufactured by another company, the design itself is Ukranian, and engines in the first stage are actually 40 year old Russian engines that are Americanized by a sub-contractor. So, its kinda crap (but cheap and quick to bring online). But, the Commercial Resupply Service contract between NASA and Orbital is expiring and NASA is currently accepting proposals for a new resupply contract from multiple competitors. Think the total loss of a launch vehicle would affect the review of Orbitals proposal? Whats security around an Antares launch look like these days... Or, how about the planned merger between Oribital and ATK (defense contractor), in which ATK would bring the ability to design and deploy a new solid rocket fuel propulsion system for use in the Antares rocket. If Oribtal was suddenly backing away from the merger, a very public failure of their own propulsion system would almost force them to work with ATK to have a viable alternative system. Or, what about the US/Russian angle. Remember Ukraine. Remember the sanctions? One guess what they dont currently cover. Rocket engines. Orbital has been getting some political flack for continuing to use Russian parts despite worsening relations. If they can blame the explosion on the Russian made parts - then this would discredit Russian space tech and increase the pressure for Orbital to find a US supplier. Or the janitor tripped over a cable, cutting power to the range safety officers desk, causing him to detonate the rocket.
Posted on: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:43:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015