• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Ang Moh Space projects FAILURES vs Chinese SUCCESS

virus

Alfrescian
Loyal
if US is so technologically advanced why cant they even prevent a simple explosion when its already the 21st century?this is not a minor failure,this is a critical error.how are they going to perfect space travel if they cant stop the damn thing from exploding every other time they launch something.


NPR's Geoff Brumfiel reports that as investigators examine what went wrong with the launch of an unmanned Antares rocket on Tuesday, they'll likely take a hard look at powerful engines originally destined to send cosmonauts to the moon, a project that was scrapped by the USSR more than four decades ago.

Geoff says that although the investigation is just starting, the NK-33 rocket engine is already a focus. It was produced for the N1 moon rocket — the Soviet Union's answer to the U.S. Saturn V. But the N1 became mired in development problems, and the Soviet moon project, hopelessly behind the Americans, was quietly scuttled circa 1974.

Fast-forward to 2010: The NK-33s were refurbished and re-designated by Aerojet Rocketdyne as the AJ26 and sold to Dulles-based Orbital Sciences for use in Antares. Although four previous flights of Antares have gone off without a hitch, one of the engines failed during testing earlier this year, Geoff says.

"They were in fact built in Russia about 40 years ago and stored in plastic bags after their moon program was canceled," Jonathan McDowell, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, tells NPR.

As we reported on Tuesday, the Antares, which had been meant to rendezvous with the International Space Station ferrying 5,000 pounds of supplies and experiments, failed catastrophically seconds after liftoff from the Wallops Island, Va., facility.

Shortly after the failed launch, Orbital Sciences Executive Vice President Frank Culbertson appeared to be trying to head off any criticism for choosing the powerful engines for Antares' critical first stage, which uses two of the modified NK-33s.

"When you look at it, there are not many other options around the world in terms of using power plants of this size," Culbertson was quoted by The Guardian as saying. "Certainly not in this country, unfortunately."

Russianspaceweb.com says of the NK-33: "After the ill-fated lunar effort was aborted in 1974, dozens of already manufactured NK-33s ended up in storage. For decades, engine developers searched for a new job for the capable power plant. Finally, at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, NK-33 had a real chance to fly, this time powering both American and Russian rockets. By 2010, the Russian government reportedly came close to making a decision to jump-start mass production of the NK-33 engine."

In a press release put out by Orbital Sciences four years ago, the private space-launch company said: "Since its original development, more than 200 NK-33 engines were built and 575 engine tests conducted, totaling more than 100,000 seconds of test time."

Coincidentally, the NK-33 was on a sanctions list put out by Russia earlier this year in retaliation for U.S. sanctions in the wake of Moscow's annexation of Crimea. However, Russia specifically exempted sale of the NK-33s (as well as another engine, the RD-180) for nonmilitary use.

During its second launch attempt in 1969, the N1 suffered a catastrophic failure seconds after liftoff, causing one of the largest-ever artificial nonnuclear explosions. Although widely known in Western intelligence circles, the N1 moon program was an official state secret until it was revealed in 1989.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ould-be-focus-of-antares-launch-failure-probe
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
The space shuttle has survived its intended service time. It is cheaper to outsource the low orbital flights to the ISS, which nobody gives a fuck about now. NASA is developing the Orion spacecraft for deep space journeys. In the long run, space missions will have to be a joint human effort for anywhere as far as Mars and beyond. The peoples of our planet need to overcome self-interest and place one-upmanship behind them to move forward. Space exploration, beginning with rocket-science is no easy feat, costly, and dangerous.

Cheers!

NASA fucked away all their spaceshuttles now can not afford to replace nor rebuild any.
 

frenchbriefs

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
oh right thats smart.....who told them to use those 40 year old engines?how the hell did they even find spare parts?from a russian aeronautical meuseum circa 1970s?

NPR's Geoff Brumfiel reports that as investigators examine what went wrong with the launch of an unmanned Antares rocket on Tuesday, they'll likely take a hard look at powerful engines originally destined to send cosmonauts to the moon, a project that was scrapped by the USSR more than four decades ago.

Geoff says that although the investigation is just starting, the NK-33 rocket engine is already a focus. It was produced for the N1 moon rocket — the Soviet Union's answer to the U.S. Saturn V. But the N1 became mired in development problems, and the Soviet moon project, hopelessly behind the Americans, was quietly scuttled circa 1974.

Fast-forward to 2010: The NK-33s were refurbished and re-designated by Aerojet Rocketdyne as the AJ26 and sold to Dulles-based Orbital Sciences for use in Antares. Although four previous flights of Antares have gone off without a hitch, one of the engines failed during testing earlier this year, Geoff says.

"They were in fact built in Russia about 40 years ago and stored in plastic bags after their moon program was canceled," Jonathan McDowell, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, tells NPR.

As we reported on Tuesday, the Antares, which had been meant to rendezvous with the International Space Station ferrying 5,000 pounds of supplies and experiments, failed catastrophically seconds after liftoff from the Wallops Island, Va., facility.

Shortly after the failed launch, Orbital Sciences Executive Vice President Frank Culbertson appeared to be trying to head off any criticism for choosing the powerful engines for Antares' critical first stage, which uses two of the modified NK-33s.

"When you look at it, there are not many other options around the world in terms of using power plants of this size," Culbertson was quoted by The Guardian as saying. "Certainly not in this country, unfortunately."

Russianspaceweb.com says of the NK-33: "After the ill-fated lunar effort was aborted in 1974, dozens of already manufactured NK-33s ended up in storage. For decades, engine developers searched for a new job for the capable power plant. Finally, at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, NK-33 had a real chance to fly, this time powering both American and Russian rockets. By 2010, the Russian government reportedly came close to making a decision to jump-start mass production of the NK-33 engine."

In a press release put out by Orbital Sciences four years ago, the private space-launch company said: "Since its original development, more than 200 NK-33 engines were built and 575 engine tests conducted, totaling more than 100,000 seconds of test time."

Coincidentally, the NK-33 was on a sanctions list put out by Russia earlier this year in retaliation for U.S. sanctions in the wake of Moscow's annexation of Crimea. However, Russia specifically exempted sale of the NK-33s (as well as another engine, the RD-180) for nonmilitary use.

During its second launch attempt in 1969, the N1 suffered a catastrophic failure seconds after liftoff, causing one of the largest-ever artificial nonnuclear explosions. Although widely known in Western intelligence circles, the N1 moon program was an official state secret until it was revealed in 1989.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ould-be-focus-of-antares-launch-failure-probe
 

SeeFartLoong

Alfrescian
Loyal
the space shuttle programme is not just a billion $$ venture. it is a legacy... built on selected the combined knowledges of selected scientists who has since retired, handed IC and a vacumm of knowledge with no succession. there is nothing to decry. the consequtive death of subsequence shuttles left a serious question mark on the ability for anyone left to understand how it worked and how to keep it going.

the base rocket design is the simplest form for most engineers to rebuild, construct and sustain. note the difference between scientists and engineers. national projects like future space programme are likely to be recipient of private enterprise. the very base NASA is now trying to develop a headstart.

this re-entry vehicle programme however does not disrupt other space programme and key develop where robotics will take the lead in mining, etc.


It is history. Bye bye liao.
 

Sinkie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
If the USA can colonize Moon, why fly all the way to Mars?

This shows clearly the Moon landings are fake.
 

mee_siam_hum

Alfrescian
Loyal
It is history. Bye bye liao.

I show you whats bye bye:

Challenger bye bye:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fSTrmJtHLFU
<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/fSTrmJtHLFU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Challenger_explosion.jpg



Columbia bye bye:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1oBTzbKx0jo
<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1oBTzbKx0jo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


2785714-3x2-940x627.jpg

ColumbiaDebris4x3_NASA.jpg



PIANG! BANG! BANG!


bye bye farewell state funerals

presidents need to attend funerals

Five_presidents.jpg



bye bye billions of tax dollars
 
Last edited:

Think_PAP

Alfrescian
Loyal
Pssst! Angmos already landed on the moon during the late 60s!!

But Ladies and Gentlemen and Bapoks & Butch, lets not forget who are the world very FIRST ORIGINAL INVENTOR of rockets === Chinese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rockets

History of rockets
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Timeline of rocket and missile technology

The history of rocket vehicles goes back to the 13th century in China. From there developments occurred in Mongolia, India, Britain, America and Russia among many others.

Contents

1 In antiquity
2 Spread of rocket technology
3 The Mysore Rocket
4 Accuracy of early rockets
5 Early manned rocketry
6 Theories of interplanetary rocketry
7 Modern rocketry
7.1 Pre–World War II
7.2 World War II
7.3 Post World War II
7.4 Missiles
7.5 Current day
8 See also
9 References

In antiquity
A depiction of the "long serpent" rocket launcher from the 11th century book Wujing Zongyao. The holes in the frame are designed to keep the fire arrows separate.

The availability of black powder (gunpowder) to propel projectiles was a precursor to the development of the first solid rocket. Ninth century Chinese Taoist alchemists invented black powder while searching for the Elixir of life; this invention led to experiments in the form of weapons such as bombs, cannon, incendiary fire arrows and rocket-propelled fire arrows.

Exactly when the first flights of rockets occurred around 1865. Some say that the first recorded use of a rocket in battle was by the Chinese in 1232 against the Mongol hordes. There were reports of fire arrows and 'iron pots' that could be heard for 5 leagues (25 km, or 15 miles) when they exploded upon impact, causing devastation for a radius of 600 meters (2,000 feet), apparently due to shrapnel.[1] The lowering of the iron pots may have been a way for a besieged army to blow up invaders. The fire arrows were either arrows with explosives attached, or arrows propelled by gunpowder, such as the Korean Hwacha.[2]

Less controversially, one of the earliest devices recorded that used internal-combustion rocket propulsion was the 'ground-rat,' a type of firework, recorded in 1264 as having frightened the Empress-Mother Kung Sheng at a feast held in her honor by her son the Emperor Lizong.[3]

Subsequently, one of the earliest texts to mention the use of rockets was the Huolongjing, written by the Chinese artillery officer Jiao Yu in the mid-14th century. This text also mentioned the use of the first known multistage rocket, the 'fire-dragon issuing from the water' (huo long chu shui), used mostly by the Chinese navy.[4] Frank H. Winter proposed in The Proceedings of the Twentieth and Twenty-First History Symposia of the International Academy of Astronautics[5] that southern China and the Laotian community rocket festivals might have been key in the subsequent spread of rocketry in the Orient.
 

lky_hearse

Alfrescian
Loyal
When is the next funeral scheduled?

My hearse is ready:wink:

I show you whats bye bye:

Challenger bye bye:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fSTrmJtHLFU
<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/fSTrmJtHLFU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Challenger_explosion.jpg



Columbia bye bye:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1oBTzbKx0jo
<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1oBTzbKx0jo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


2785714-3x2-940x627.jpg

ColumbiaDebris4x3_NASA.jpg



PIANG! BANG! BANG!


bye bye farewell state funerals

presidents need to attend funerals

Five_presidents.jpg



bye bye billions of tax dollars
 
Top