Author Topic: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)  (Read 3578 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« on: August 24, 2011, 11:16:26 AM »
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2011, 11:28:48 AM »

Glad it isn't necessary for our people to ride in those rockets.   ::rockets::



Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2011, 11:32:25 AM »
I got good news and bad news...

The good news is you're going into space,

the bad news, you're going into space on a Russian rocket.

(Be sure that will is up to date!)

 ::speechless::
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2011, 11:45:36 AM »

...[6] astronauts aboard the International Space Station, which orbits 220 miles above the Earth. They are Russians Andrei Borisenko, Alexander Samokuyayev and Sergei Volkov, Americans Michael Fossum and Ronald Garan and Satoshi Furukawa of Japan.

Bring our guys home and keep them here till we establish our own reliable transportation.



Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2011, 11:47:49 AM »
Being stuck up there with no supplies/food or no ride home...that would really suck!

 ::speechless::
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline rickl

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1493
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2011, 12:30:01 PM »
This was the first launch failure for Progress in 44 flights, which isn't too bad.  The problem is that the Progress cargo ship and the manned Soyuz both use the same launch vehicle, so both will be grounded until they figure out what happened.

See also here.
We are so far past and beyond the “long train of abuses and usurpations” that the Colonists and Founders experienced and which necessitated the Revolutionary War that they aren’t even visible in the rear-view mirror.
~ Ann Barnhardt

Offline Alphabet Soup

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5610
  • Hier standt ich. Ich kann nicht anders
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2011, 01:01:43 PM »
Not to worry - in the event of an emergency we can go down to Costco, hook up the jumper cables to one of the mothballed shuttles and we're good.  ::laserkill::

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2011, 01:04:12 PM »

Notice that oxygen was also part of the cargo.


Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2011, 02:07:06 PM »
Work slower and breath less...

 ::confused::
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline rickl

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1493
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2011, 05:41:56 PM »
There are a number of good comments at the Transterrestrial Musings post I linked earlier.  Check them out.  There are at least two commenters, and probably more, who actually work or have worked in the space field.  I've said before that I think it's very cool that a layman and space buff like me can read blog posts and comments from people who actually work with rockets and spacecraft.

Quote
As for the Soyuz booster family, it’s arguably the most successful set of rockets ever made. It not only has flown more than any other rocket, it’s possible that it has flown more than all other rockets put together. Yes, it has had some failures. Come back to me when any other booster has flown over 1500 times and we can compare the success rate.

We are so far past and beyond the “long train of abuses and usurpations” that the Colonists and Founders experienced and which necessitated the Revolutionary War that they aren’t even visible in the rear-view mirror.
~ Ann Barnhardt

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2011, 08:20:47 PM »
Indeed, good comments.  I think the vacuum left by NASA still leaves us wanting.  To go from spacefaring status to hitching rides is a downer.  More of a reflection of our lack of vision and will more than anything.  Sure does leave the door wide open for a domestic commercial enterprise to ride to the rescue, doesn't it?
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline rickl

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1493
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2011, 08:35:39 PM »
SpaceX is planning to launch its second Dragon test flight on November 30.  If all goes well, it will dock with the ISS and it will be carrying cargo.  Strictly speaking, it's just a test flight, but it may turn out to be the first cargo flight.  If it works out, then regular cargo flights will commence next year.  And of course, Dragon was designed from the start to be a manned vehicle, and they're still working on that and hope to fly humans in about three years.
We are so far past and beyond the “long train of abuses and usurpations” that the Colonists and Founders experienced and which necessitated the Revolutionary War that they aren’t even visible in the rear-view mirror.
~ Ann Barnhardt

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2011, 08:49:44 PM »
Our shining knight!

 ::thumbsup::
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline rickl

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1493
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2011, 08:58:41 PM »
I like SpaceX's step-by-step planning.  By the time they start flying a human crew, both the Falcon rocket and Dragon spacecraft will have been proven with unmanned cargo flights, and hopefully most of the bugs will have been worked out.

And they're still talking about launching Falcon Heavy from Vandenberg in 2013.  It will be the most powerful rocket in the world, and capable of orbiting a payload weight second only to the Saturn V.

Like I say, the Space Age is just starting to get interesting.   ::cool::
« Last Edit: August 24, 2011, 09:04:48 PM by rickl »
We are so far past and beyond the “long train of abuses and usurpations” that the Colonists and Founders experienced and which necessitated the Revolutionary War that they aren’t even visible in the rear-view mirror.
~ Ann Barnhardt

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2011, 09:26:22 PM »
Falcon Heavy sounds awesome.  I'm not getting any younger, heck I might have to plan a vacation around a launch just to see that bad boy go up!
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2011, 09:52:59 PM »

Quote

making it -- we're told -- the most powerful US rocket since Saturn V hurtled the Apollo spacecraft towards the moon.  Cool.



Falcon Heavy




Offline trapeze

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 6367
  • Hippies smell bad. Go away, hippie.
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2011, 11:45:05 PM »
There are a number of good comments at the Transterrestrial Musings post I linked earlier.  Check them out.  There are at least two commenters, and probably more, who actually work or have worked in the space field.  I've said before that I think it's very cool that a layman and space buff like me can read blog posts and comments from people who actually work with rockets and spacecraft.

Quote
As for the Soyuz booster family, it’s arguably the most successful set of rockets ever made. It not only has flown more than any other rocket, it’s possible that it has flown more than all other rockets put together. Yes, it has had some failures. Come back to me when any other booster has flown over 1500 times and we can compare the success rate.



Yeah, I would say that we (NASA) don't exactly have too much room to criticize after blowing up two fifths of the shuttle fleet in 135 missions.

My personal opinion is that sitting on top of several tons of highly explosive rocket fuel is a pretty crappy way to reach orbit. I'm holding out for a linear accelerator.
In a doomsday scenario, hippies will be among the first casualties. So not everything about doomsday will be bad.

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2011, 01:02:06 AM »



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2034239/Phase-worlds-commercial-spaceport-90-cent-completed--time-flights-2013.html

[Virgin] spaceport is now 90% completed [on schedule] - in time for first flights in 2013


Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2011, 06:36:04 AM »
New Mexico might have to change their license plate designs!
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: Failure to launch (the Rooskie version)
« Reply #19 on: September 07, 2011, 09:30:12 AM »
New Mexico might have to change their license plate designs!

 ::rolllaughing::