+Hammerclaw Posted October 29, 2014 #51 Share Posted October 29, 2014 AJ-26 rockets were used on this launch. http://www.theguardi...-crash-virginia NK33 forms the basis for those rockets. http://www.russiansp...b.com/nk33.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted October 29, 2014 #52 Share Posted October 29, 2014 They changed the turbo-pumps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Greenman Posted October 29, 2014 #53 Share Posted October 29, 2014 NASA has blown up so many shuttles, and rockets. Perhaps they should create missles instead. The did 135 shuttle missions and lost 2. I don't think that is to bad for riding on what is essentially a bomb. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Techlicious Posted October 29, 2014 #54 Share Posted October 29, 2014 They did 135 shuttle missions and lost 2. I don't think that is to bad for riding on what is essentially a bomb. Yeah, wasn't Antares launched by Orbital Sciences anyway, just funded by NASA? Also if anyone cares here's something I read "Three years ago, an AJ26 leaked kerosene fuel and ignited on the test stand at a NASA center in Mississippi. Just this past May, another of the engines exploded during a test firing there." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Greenman Posted October 30, 2014 #55 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Boom happens. Better when it happens in ground testing than with a payload. We have been underfunding NASA for years. We spend billions on these endless wars and nothing on science. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted October 30, 2014 #56 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Looking at the launch video, and with no expert knowledge, there appears to be some type of propellant leakage on the left side prior to the catastrophic event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolguy Posted October 30, 2014 #57 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I just saw a video on face book the sonic boom knocked over the people that where 2 miles away while they where watching it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crypto-ufologist Posted October 30, 2014 #58 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Apparent to who? Not apparent anyone that has ever actually watched video of a Proton launch before, in fact it's not apparent to anyone that has actually watched video of ANY rocket launch before. It's not apparent to anyone that knows that the "smoke" is actually moisture in the air forming a contrail as the rocket passes through the region of maximum dynamic pressure. It's not apparent to anyone that knows this occurs on pretty much every rocket launch that has ever happened. In short it's not apparent to anyone that isn't gullible and/or clueless when it comes to believing totally idiotic UFO based theories. You're sounding close-minded to the whole UFO debate in general. So the UFO phenomenon is a closed case in your book? It's a shame you're so 100% certain of your anti-UFO views, it affects the entire site. An unknown earth-evolved species IS a distinct possibility whether you entertain the idea or not. ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted October 30, 2014 #59 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) You're sounding close-minded to the whole UFO debate in general. So the UFO phenomenon is a closed case in your book? It's a shame you're so 100% certain of your anti-UFO views, it affects the entire site. Even if yr post wasn`t addressed to me I have to respond to. One reason therefor is the often used accusation, or better say nonsense argument, to ppl to be "close-minded". What exactly does that mean? I will tell you. These ppl who accuse others to be "close-minded", view themselves to be "open-minded" and so claiming to have access to things, or are sensitive for things, those the "close-minded" do not recognize. But it is the reality that the majority of the OMs seems to eat everything that gets served, regardless of how studid implausible it is. So, to be "open-minded" seems to be a condition were all intellectual filters like logic, the ability to judge, technical knowledge and a lot of others are just switched off or, these capabilities are not available in general. And for the by you named "anti-UFO view" here at UM I have to say that I appreciate that a high number of critical and very skilled ppl is present here and that not everything thats get served, gets eaten. If that would be the case, I would not be here. I`m sure by myself that there is life out there. I do not exclude the option that extraterrestrial civilizations may be able to travel interstellar distances. I do not exclude the option that the Earth has been visited or is visited or has been contacted somehow like by unmanned probes in the same fashion as we had send out probes like the Voyager and Pioneer probes. But I do not accept so called "evidences" like lousy and unsharp pictures of planets, stars, satellites and aircrafts supposed to be objects of extraterrestrial origin, lousy YT clips filmed by drunken morons with potatos and the whole pile of so called "witness testimonials". In addition its apparent that the majority of especially these ppl do even lack amateur knowledge levels in physics, space travel, space travel related technology, photography/analysis, video filming/analysis astronomy and the SETI research programs as well. And if you think this side is affected in a negative way because of the ppl who do have high levels of knowledge in physics, space travel, space travel related technology, photography/analysis, video filming/analysis astronomy and the SETI research programs, then its not a place where you will feel well. Edited October 30, 2014 by toast 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted October 30, 2014 #60 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) I just saw a video on face book the sonic boom knocked over the people that where 2 miles away while they where watching it There was no sonic boom as Antares rockets do reach transonic speed first after 79 seconds into the flight and this mission didn`t lasted that long. (Page 22, table 4.1.1-2 : http://www.orbital.com/LaunchSystems/Publications/Antares_UsersGuide.pdf ) Edited October 30, 2014 by toast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Techlicious Posted October 30, 2014 #61 Share Posted October 30, 2014 There was no sonic boom as Antares rockets do reach transonic speed first after 79 seconds into the flight and this mission didn`t lasted that long. (Page 22, table 4.1.1-2 : http://www.orbital.com/LaunchSystems/Publications/Antares_UsersGuide.pdf ) It could have made a sonic boom from the explosion, if objects were going faster than 767 mph right? There WAS a shock wave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted October 30, 2014 #62 Share Posted October 30, 2014 It could have made a sonic boom from the explosion, if objects were going faster than 767 mph right? There WAS a shock wave. Of course there were shock waves but a shock wave caused by an explosion isn`t a sonic boom thats generated by a body breaking the sound barrier by passing an aerially medium at high speed. Two different effects here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted October 30, 2014 #63 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) You're sounding close-minded to the whole UFO debate in general. So the UFO phenomenon is a closed case in your book? It's a shame you're so 100% certain of your anti-UFO views, it affects the entire site. An unknown earth-evolved species IS a distinct possibility whether you entertain the idea or not. ..... The UFO Phenomenon is considered fringe and populated by crackpots because people like you suggest UFO involvement in what is clearly a rocket malfunction. Practice some discipline and apply a little logic if you want to be taken seriously by anyone other than another FTB. Edited October 30, 2014 by Merc14 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crypto-ufologist Posted October 30, 2014 #64 Share Posted October 30, 2014 The UFO Phenomenon is considered fringe and populated by crackpots because people like you suggest UFO involvement in what is clearly a rocket malfunction. Practice some discipline and apply a little logic if you want to be taken seriously by anyone other than another FTB. There's moderators on this site who don't share your view or that of WD. A little more respect from the two of you towards moderators who believe that there is at least a possibility of something other than the scientific mainstream view would be appreciated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Techlicious Posted October 30, 2014 #65 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Of course there were shock waves but a shock wave caused by an explosion isn`t a sonic boom thats generated by a body breaking the sound barrier by passing an aerially medium at high speed. Two different effects here. Yeah but couldn't parts of the rocket or debris from the explosion break the sound barrier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted October 30, 2014 #66 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) There's moderators on this site who don't share your view or that of WD. A little more respect from the two of you towards moderators who believe that there is at least a possibility of something other than the scientific mainstream view would be appreciated. Don't threaten me. If you have a gripe, report me but you are not a mod so don't act like one. Show me anything on that video that suggests ET interference or state clearly that ET was not involved. If you have proof ET exists then start another thread and watch your "evidence" get torn to pieces. I have dealt with you before when you tried to convince a poster that the bird she saw flying at night was a pterodcatyl or some such ridiculousness, harrassing and pushing till you got your way. Thankfully she had the sense to reject your woo, yet you are still going to include her story in your "e-book". You give your "disciplines" a bad name in the same way Turbs and Flendy do. Edited October 30, 2014 by Merc14 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted October 30, 2014 #67 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Yeah but couldn't parts of the rocket or debris from the explosion break the sound barrier? Depends on the speed of detonation and the shape, size and movement pattern of the debris part. Even if the detonation speed is >340m/s and debris parts get accelerated up to that speed, it is unlikely that these parts produce a stabil conus shaped air stream pattern that normally results into a sonic boom as these parts move/spin uncontrolled based on their shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted October 30, 2014 #68 Share Posted October 30, 2014 There's moderators on this site who don't share your view or that of WD. A little more respect from the two of you towards moderators who believe that there is at least a possibility of something other than the scientific mainstream view would be appreciated. Nice try to deflect. No disrespect was shown by anyone but you. This thread does not need to contain Alien talk. This thread should be about the horrible explosion. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daughter of the Nine Moons Posted October 30, 2014 #69 Share Posted October 30, 2014 You're sounding close-minded to the whole UFO debate in general. So the UFO phenomenon is a closed case in your book? It's a shame you're so 100% certain of your anti-UFO views, it affects the entire site. An unknown earth-evolved species IS a distinct possibility whether you entertain the idea or not. ..... Good grief. What are you going on about? As has already been pointed out this thread has nothing to do with aliens or UFO's. And please don't disrespect Waspie because you do not understand the thread is about 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meridian O Posted October 30, 2014 #70 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I recently (days prior to the Antares rocket explosion) read somewhere about a theory regarding EMP attacks at certain U.S.A venues and my sceptical mind hummed. Now I hear that this rocket exploded due to being accidentally blown up via the self-destruct command. Hum again! Something definitely seems iffy at the mo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted October 30, 2014 #71 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) I recently (days prior to the Antares rocket explosion) read somewhere about a theory regarding EMP attacks at certain U.S.A venues and my sceptical mind hummed. Now I hear that this rocket exploded due to being accidentally blown up via the self-destruct command. Hum again! Something definitely seems iffy at the mo. Well, you heard wrong. They are reporting here that the rocket lifted off, there was what seemed to be a bright flash at the bottom, ascent stopped and the flight director sent a self destruct command. It is unknown if the rocket self-destructed or simply blew itself up. There is very little left to investigate but damage to the facility is far less than what they expected which is very good news. This was a "local" event for us so it is on the news constantly. EMP? Directed EMP? How did you come up with this and how do you think it was executed? Come on man. The day after there was rumors going around the area that they put Ebola on board to test it is space! It amazes me that people can think this stuff up and that others so willingly believe it. EDIT: Found a very well done blog with a lot of pertinent info that pretty much matches the local reporting. http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20141018-antares-rocket-explodes.html Edited October 30, 2014 by Merc14 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted October 30, 2014 #72 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Now I hear that this rocket exploded due to being accidentally blown up via the self-destruct command. No accident analysis reports have been published until today as the investiagtions about the event are not completed yet. So everything you "hear" are just noises, but not facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Supertypo Posted October 31, 2014 #73 Share Posted October 31, 2014 well crazy aliens or old Soviet engines we can only hope the aftermath would be more R&D and adoption of new modern American build engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted October 31, 2014 #74 Share Posted October 31, 2014 well crazy aliens or old Soviet engines we can only hope the aftermath would be more R&D and adoption of new modern American build engines. Its too early now to blame the Russian parts of the engine to be the cause for the failure and we cannot exlude yet if the failure was maybe caused by non-Russian peripheral equipment of the engine and/or other systems of the Antares device. And US R&D is still in process, example: http://www.space.com/27183-blue-origin-rocket-engine-ula-launches.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Supertypo Posted October 31, 2014 #75 Share Posted October 31, 2014 true it could be basically everything from engine failure to a loose screw somebody forgot to fix. 1 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