It all comes down to economics. Can you reduce the failure rate? Probably. If you can halve the failure rate by doubling the cost, is that worth it? Well, no, probably not. When you’re dealing with manned vehicles, you have to deal with the thorny question of what value to put on human life, but these aren’t manned vehicles: They’re just carrying easily-replaceable supplies. If a rocket fails, then just load up another one and launch it.
Pshhh… suuure, you’ve worked with Soviets and Ukrainians… but have you ever worked with Kerbalians?
Stranger did ask for a cite.
Habeed, you really should consider that suggestion to pit Stranger. Show him good.
I love how you first trot out a bunch of tired old stereotypes about Russians and then berate others for doing the same. :smack: That shows some remarkable agility of mind. Still, at least you’re not basing your assertions on a fucking computer game.
Agreed. Get it off your chest. School Stranger once and for all.
I’m assuming these are things that were actually said to him by Russians. Would you still think it a stereotype gaffe if so?
Fuck yeah. They’ve had jeans in Russia for some time now, and FWIW Americans work much longer hours than Russians, always have. Besides, I enjoy listening to Bruce Springsteen, his raw lyrics and entrancing riffs are of universal appeal. The failed attempt at representing a Russian accent (necessitated, of course, by the fact that American engineers only speak American so that the Russian engineers have to switch to a language other than their own, only to have **Stranger **mock them for it) makes the whole thing even worse.
D’alllright, then.
I’m still reeling from Kerbal Space Program, myself.
The specific context I mentioned KSP in is regarding to a very basic idea : if you have 2 rocket stages, and 2 different ISPS for the propulsion technology, it’s always more efficient to stick the less efficient stage on the bottom.
Kerbal space program is a simplified game, but this basic mathematical relationship is maintained between efficiency and dV.
In the case of Orbital Sciences, apparently the reason they stuck the solid stage on top is because they got the booster from an ICBM. That stage doesn’t have enough thrust to take off from the ground, so they slapped a couple of junkyard Soviet engines on the bottom. Sure, they took them apart, probably inspected and replaced all the seals, but it’s still basically a surplus engine that was never meant for this purpose and is not replaceable.
This is the kind of hodge podge bodging a Kerbal would love. I’m sure Stranger will reply with a rebuttal saying that because Orbital has been around for a long time, they are clearly hypercompetent and know what they are doing. Or, alternatively, that since I am not a rocket scientist (and he might be), I can’t make even blindingly obvious observations. Bonus points if you can tell me what his 2 logical fallacies are.
Sorry about that–yeah, you’ve got it. Americans use stuff called RP-1, but it’s just refined kerosene (just as Jet A fuel is). The Saturn V used it, SpaceX uses it (though they have a long-term plan to switch to methane+LOX), and all the Russian engines that we hear so much about (the modded NK-33s in Antares, the RD-180s in Atlas V, etc.) are all kerolox. It’s extremely common for first-stage liquid fuel engines.
The OP never called Russians lazy peasants or anything but it’s pretty well accepted Soviet Communist era manufacturing and equipment was a lot of junk. Turning around and slapping stereotypes on German and American engineers does little to support your case. German robotic clockwork efficiency is as often as not used as a passive aggressive insult, and Germans aren’t particularly fond of it.
Perhaps putting down the Scotch before responding is a good idea.
I’d also like to know why Orbital Sciences got a contract to compete on equal footing as Space X if they’re using old recycled equipment that can’t be reproduced and it costs twice as much. I’m more interested in the politics of that than the science and engineering.
+1. I typically put down three or four before posting.
I don’t have the full story, but remember that the contracts were awarded in late 2008. The Falcon 9 did not fly until the summer of 2010. SpaceX’s experience in launching rockets at the time of the contract award consisted of three consecutive Falcon 1 failures and one success in September 2008.
If you were NASA, would you have put all your eggs in the SpaceX basket in December 2008, knowing that if they start blowing up Falcon 9s, it would take another two to three years for Orbital (or some other company) to be able to build a rocket to fly to the ISS?
My apologies if I gave offense in my attempt at levity. My point was that I’ve worked with Russian and Ukrainian engineers and had high regard for their skills and expertise in doing good practical engineering.
Honey, before you start throwing around claims of ineptitude and malfeasance you should do at least the minimum of research to get your facts straight. Virtually nothing you’ve stated above is correct.
Stranger
In addition to what ravenman posted, perhaps if they plan to make enough money from a NASA contract to find another source for engines and the necessary redesign.
I think the better question is why would NASA contract out to companies like SpaceX and Orbital Sciences when equally viable low-cost options are avaiable.
This was a high DPS post. Critical 29 hit points.
Well, modern high strength glass with proper reinforcement has eliminated the need to refrain from hammering your neighbor with stones, even large ones, when the need arises.
More correctly though, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t shower naked.