4 ms·
Not sure what proper HN etiquette on this is, but I made a comment on the launch news story on this exact subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8525057
by gedmark 12y ago
Not sure what proper HN etiquette on this is, but I made a comment on the launch news story on this exact subject:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8525057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8525057
TLDR- Those engines may be 50 years old, but they're a technological marvel. Using them is a little crazy, but I'm sure Orbital saw it as the "least crazy" of three options: building a new engine from scratch, buying prohibitively expensive engines from Rocketdyne, or buying risky but cheap engines from Russia.
- rst 12y agoThe design is a technical marvel, but it won't keep the metal from corroding, and this isn't the first sign of trouble -- a few months ago, a different AJ-26 blew up on a test stand. It isn't yet clear that the engine was at fault in the Antares fire (trouble in the tankage or fuel lines could have cascaded down, among other fun possibilities) -- but if the engine does turn out to be at fault, the remaining stock will certainly get more attention.
- CmonDev 12y agoWhat makes Rocketdyne engines less risky? Maybe they are both expensive and risky.