NASAs ISS rocket just blew up on launch. Live stream.

I don't think that was supposed to happen.

http://m.ustream.tv/nasahdtv

Action starts at 2:50

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh5oYmTURhc&sns=em

Expensive firework

I definitely saw that happen. Crazy shit.

Was out with the kids to watch this go over and heard the explosion and didn't see shit. It was supposed to go last night but didn't. Don't think anyone was hurt. More tax dollars up in smoke!

If that's the resupply rocket for the ISS I'm guessing they will need plan B pretty quick. Glad to hear no one was hurt. Thanks for the video link Rob.

Too much boost

Too much boost

 

You mean, too much turbo?

Amateurs...

 

Signed,

Elon Musk

 

I worked out there for quite a few years and there was nothing better than seeing a night launch. The team will be up all night answering questions and trying to find out what happened.

So the details are that this rocket was supplied by a subcontractor called Orbital Sciences that has a $1.9B contact to send supplies to the ISS

This is a comment from Elon Musk two years ago:

So the details are that this rocket was supplied by a subcontractor called Orbital Sciences that has a $1.9B contact to send supplies to the ISS

This is a comment from Elon Musk two years ago:

 

I think Musk might be over-doing it a little there. Mark Kelly (astronaut husband of Gabby Giffords fame) was talking on CNN and he said that this particular engine is very reliable and has been used thousands of times and that Lockheed-Martin also uses it. Space-X's designs are brand-new and have not been launched thousands of times. While new stuff on paper can seem better, until it is proven, older proven technology is often what is safer to use.

 

EDIT: Nevermind, mis-understood something there. I agree, why would they use rockets literally built in the '60s!? (unless such rockets are generally fine to use?).

 

And that said, WTF are we using Russian rocket engines for period? A main point of privatization of space is for us to be able to give up reliance on Russia for space launches. If Russia decides to stop selling us that rocket engine, it will create problems. We sent men to the Moon, we should be able to have a rocket that can launch things to the ISS even if it can't carry people.

Why are they using it? The NK-33 is amazing by todays standards, now think about 1960s standards.

Maybe we should start buying rockets from India. $74 mil a pop

 

http://www.space.com/23467-raw-video-india...et-to-mars.html

Why are they using it? The NK-33 is amazing by todays standards, now think about 1960s standards.

 

We sent men to the Moon, I am sure we could build our own rocket and thus be independent of the Russians. I could understand not doing this if the engine was saying Canadian or British designed, but Russian is IMO a bad idea, because they are not an ally.

Because it is the fcuking international fcuking space station wheels. Clue is in the name.

I know people that work for Orbital around DC. It's unfortunate but these things do happen. The age of the hardware is usually not so much an issue (I.e. shelf life on military rockets is usually only because of batteries if they use them, propellant, or warhead fill), so using an older rocket motor isn't that surprising especially when the reliability has been proven well. It looked like the blast initiated further up the body. Will be interesting to see the fault findings though. As far as why we still use Russian parts....even if you had a US company making the new engines, they would still be sourcing components or expertise from foreign countries.

We use Russian parts to send our people into space. If thats not a big deal then I wouldnt think this would be a big deal. Arent we paying them 70 or 90 million per person for that too? Makes India's solution look pretty inviting.

Because it is the fcuking international fcuking space station wheels. Clue is in the name.

 

Cappy, that has nothing to do with the U.S.'s launch capabilities. International or not, U.S.-launched items should be sent up on American rockets. There is also a national security and national pride aspect too IMO.

As far as why we still use Russian parts....even if you had a US company making the new engines, they would still be sourcing components or expertise from foreign countries.

 

That will happen in a global economy, but foreign doesn't have to mean components or expertise from a country like Russia IMO. There is a reason for example why much national defense-related manufacturing is kept domestic. The U.S. is able to produce a lot of its own sophisticated military and industrial components. If the Russians can manufacture their own rockets, so can we.

Very little of national defense is domestic entirely. At least half the projects I support have foreign involvement in some capacity. If you mean the main contractor is domestic then yes. But almost every single on of them has a foreign sub contractor or supplier for something.

 

And it's not that we don't have the expertise or can't develop them. But often the cost to develop them and test and certify them becomes a major cost issue or otherwise becomes a major schedule issue.

Very little of national defense is domestic entirely. At least half the projects I support have foreign involvement in some capacity. If you mean the main contractor is domestic then yes. But almost every single on of them has a foreign sub contractor or supplier for something.

 

I mean much of the main manufacturing is domestic. Foreign sub-contractors are fine I think as long as they are from allies such as the UK, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, etc...I know the Abrams battle tank uses British-designed armor, and I think the main gun is German. The fire-control software I think is Canadian. These are friendly countries and also have an incentive regarding supplying the U.S. But a country like Russia, that is a different ballgame.

 

And it's not that we don't have the expertise or can't develop them. But often the cost to develop them and test and certify them becomes a major cost issue or otherwise becomes a major schedule issue.

 

Maybe so, but IMO better to put up with a higher cost and schedule for the near-term so as to be independent of the Russians. Of course if Congress was serious about that, they could up NASA's budget to make up for that. NASA is one of the few government agencies that to a degree manages to pay for itself.

I definitely get where you're coming from wheels but with all the budget cuts, it's not an easy sell to taxpayers. I do agree we should try to strictly limit to faithful allies.

One of the programs I work on, we use Rockets and Warheads from the late 70's and 80's. Like Chip mentioned, Solid Rockets are viable for quite a long time unless there is a battery associated with it.

 

One of our main businesses is building Rocket Motors and like someone had mentioned also but we use older ones that are available because, why build new when you can re-use something for far less that has a proven reliability. It is quite unfortunate but these kinds of things do happen. There is an around the clock investigation going on and in my opinion this likely had nothing to do with the fact that the rocket was sourced from Russia.

Wheels if you are impatient fast forward to 0:49