6 ms·

Well the CEO of a rocket company should have a better response than "I wish there were better engines to use." Maybe with that multi billion dollar contract yo

Well the CEO of a rocket company should have a better response than "I wish there were better engines to use." Maybe with that multi billion dollar contract you can, oh I don't know, build one?

SEJeff 12y ago
SpaceX certainly built their own and they seem to be working quite well thusfar.
- wdewind 12y ago
  To be fair SpaceX's last launch (Aug 22) exploded too. It was a test, not a real mission, but to quote Elon: "Rockets are tricky."
  - ddrmaxgt37 12y ago
    Yup. IIRC it was auto triggered by some onboard system because of one of those 'anomalies'.
  - will_hughes 12y ago
    For starters, that wasn't an actual launch to orbit, that's just the low altitude testing frames for landing/reusability. It was deliberately destroyed as a safety measure because the rocket was moving out of the testing zone and the onboard system wasn't able to compensate fast enough. Apparently Elon and a few others were a little annoyed that more (appropriate) risk wasn't being taken in those test flights, because they'd been 100% successful. Secondly, their launches of the production Falcon 9's have been 100% successful (with one launch not achieving a secondary objective). Additionally, after the first three Falcon 1's, they were also 100% successful. And finally, they launched two Falcon 9's since August 22nd: September 7th: Asiasat 6 launch (Geosync), and September 21st - Dragon CRS-4 (ISS).
    - avmich 12y ago
      Agree. And those Merlin-1D seem to be very efficient from economical point of view. Technically they are also good - record setting for open cycle engines. However, NK-33 are closed cycle and have better Isp. Economically they also made a lot of sense for Orbital, since they were bought as already made for another project. It can be justified.
  - SEJeff 12y ago
    Sure but I don't consider a test launch the same as "production" launch carrying payloads for ISS or other companies to hurl into orbit. Slightly different in that it is more acceptable for a test rocket trying out new functionality with no payload might fail.
  - rst 12y ago
    Nu? SpaceX has had two successful launches since Aug. 22 -- AsiaSat 6 on September 7, and the CRS-4 ISS supply mission on September 21. The test article that blew up on the 22nd was not launch capable, and was reportedly missing some safety systems that are present on production vehicles.
fastball 12y ago
Minor nitpick: Frank Culbertson is an executive vice president at Orbital, not the CEO. The CEO mentioned in the article (Elon Musk) said "there is better technology to use".
ijk 12y ago
Building a new engine is, quite literally, rocket science. On the plus side, we know the problems can be solved, because we've done it before. On the minus side, a lot of that knowledge has been lost and needs to be recreated or redesigned. We can't easily rebuild the Saturn V, for example, even though its design would work well for many of today's launches. [1] New rockets are being designed, but its a major undertaking. [2] NASA's SLS is in the $18 billion range. [3] [1] http://amyshirateitel.com/2011/04/03/the-lost-art-of-the-saturn-v/ http://amyshirateitel.com/2011/04/03/the-lost-art-of-the-sat... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Proposed_successors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Proposed_successors [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Program_costs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Program_cos...
avmich 12y ago
That's a pretty hard problem. F-1 took unimaginable efforts to make right - event though the only unusual, untested parameter for this engine is its size. RD-170 took all the genius of Glushko - including his previous somewhat successful experience with RD-270, which deserves a whole story for itself - to get working properly. With all hindsight, only the forth Merlin of SpaceX is actually pushing technical limits - and that's in XXI century. Then, there is the issue of time - to build an engine from scratch is easy to delay a rocket for a year - if you're lucky and do that right from the first attempt. So Orbital words can be taken seriously and for the face value. NK-33 is a pretty good engine.

Well the CEO of a rocket company should have a better response than "I wish there were better engines to use." Maybe with that multi billion dollar contract you can, oh I don't know, build one?

SEJeff 12y ago

SpaceX certainly built their own and they seem to be working quite well thusfar.

wdewind 12y ago
To be fair SpaceX's last launch (Aug 22) exploded too. It was a test, not a real mission, but to quote Elon: "Rockets are tricky."
- ddrmaxgt37 12y ago
  Yup. IIRC it was auto triggered by some onboard system because of one of those 'anomalies'.
- will_hughes 12y ago
  For starters, that wasn't an actual launch to orbit, that's just the low altitude testing frames for landing/reusability. It was deliberately destroyed as a safety measure because the rocket was moving out of the testing zone and the onboard system wasn't able to compensate fast enough. Apparently Elon and a few others were a little annoyed that more (appropriate) risk wasn't being taken in those test flights, because they'd been 100% successful. Secondly, their launches of the production Falcon 9's have been 100% successful (with one launch not achieving a secondary objective). Additionally, after the first three Falcon 1's, they were also 100% successful. And finally, they launched two Falcon 9's since August 22nd: September 7th: Asiasat 6 launch (Geosync), and September 21st - Dragon CRS-4 (ISS).
  - avmich 12y ago
    Agree. And those Merlin-1D seem to be very efficient from economical point of view. Technically they are also good - record setting for open cycle engines. However, NK-33 are closed cycle and have better Isp. Economically they also made a lot of sense for Orbital, since they were bought as already made for another project. It can be justified.
- SEJeff 12y ago
  Sure but I don't consider a test launch the same as "production" launch carrying payloads for ISS or other companies to hurl into orbit. Slightly different in that it is more acceptable for a test rocket trying out new functionality with no payload might fail.
- rst 12y ago
  Nu? SpaceX has had two successful launches since Aug. 22 -- AsiaSat 6 on September 7, and the CRS-4 ISS supply mission on September 21. The test article that blew up on the 22nd was not launch capable, and was reportedly missing some safety systems that are present on production vehicles.

fastball 12y ago

Minor nitpick: Frank Culbertson is an executive vice president at Orbital, not the CEO. The CEO mentioned in the article (Elon Musk) said "there is better technology to use".

ijk 12y ago

Building a new engine is, quite literally, rocket science. On the plus side, we know the problems can be solved, because we've done it before. On the minus side, a lot of that knowledge has been lost and needs to be recreated or redesigned. We can't easily rebuild the Saturn V, for example, even though its design would work well for many of today's launches. [1] New rockets are being designed, but its a major undertaking. [2] NASA's SLS is in the $18 billion range. [3] [1] http://amyshirateitel.com/2011/04/03/the-lost-art-of-the-saturn-v/ http://amyshirateitel.com/2011/04/03/the-lost-art-of-the-sat... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Proposed_successors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Proposed_successors [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Program_costs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Program_cos...

avmich 12y ago

That's a pretty hard problem. F-1 took unimaginable efforts to make right - event though the only unusual, untested parameter for this engine is its size. RD-170 took all the genius of Glushko - including his previous somewhat successful experience with RD-270, which deserves a whole story for itself - to get working properly. With all hindsight, only the forth Merlin of SpaceX is actually pushing technical limits - and that's in XXI century. Then, there is the issue of time - to build an engine from scratch is easy to delay a rocket for a year - if you're lucky and do that right from the first attempt. So Orbital words can be taken seriously and for the face value. NK-33 is a pretty good engine.