Cygnus launch

File: i4mmtyq9aoznbrhpzotd.jpg (178KB, 800x720px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 800x720px

Virginia here, going outside to see it now. Fingers Crossed for a successful launch.

Solid launch. Hope it links up with ISS no problem.

>>8419745
Hope it crashes into the ISS and blows it up

>>8419749
after the arrival of the new crew or before

Muskinator is not involved so no one actually gives a shit

>>8420530
No one gives a shit because it was a boring rocket flying a boring payload. It's not even amusingly using old engines someone found in a barn anymore. Now they're just using a minor variation on the Atlas V engine.

>>8420639
>>8420530
Every rocket launch is special

Stop being an edgy teen

>>8420530
I'm a big fan of SpaceX and I can say flat out that there need to be 100 companies developing rockets

>>8420651
>Every rocket launch is special
Not everybody is a trainspotter.

>>8420639
> boring rocket flying a boring payload
Most payloads are boring, but ultimately, this is what muskinator fans say about anything that isn't spacex

>>8420651
Even the ones that blow up on the pad?

>>8420670
Chemical rocketry is a deadend. We'll never explore the galaxy, let alone the solar system with such primitive apelike technology. Unless we build something with a mass not 90% of which fuel, it's a largely wasteful endeavor. Resources are better spent elsewhere.

>>8421787
Most SpaceX fans I know are enthusiastic about Blue Origin and like to see any rocket fly with new tech.

Because they're not arbitrarily fans of SpaceX in particular, but fans of practical progress in spaceflight.

The barn-engine rocket was more of a comedy routine. Sticking Atlas V engines on it removes the only fun bit.

The sad thing is, Orbital ATK is probably sitting on tech that could radically lower launch costs without reusability, but they're not allowed to go ahead because it's a national security secret. While liquid rocket tech is an esoteric orbital thing, solid rocket tech is used very routinely on Earth. They know how to crank out large numbers at low cost. However, the last thing the US military wants is to come out and show the world how cheap and easy practical ICBMs can be.

>>8421876
solid rockets will never be cheaper than liquid
spacex has already demonstrated how cheap it can be with their mostly 3d printed engines that are good for numerous firings

>>8421965
>solid rockets will never be cheaper than liquid
Solid rockets have a very high impulse density, which means they can use cheap steel casings or whatever. There are no complicated high-performance pumps or combustion chambers that have to stand up to extreme temperature and pressure. The propellant is basically a load of powdered fertilizer and aluminum in resin (and the aluminum could be done away with if you really want it to be cheap).

Solid rockets haven't been engineered primarily for low cost. They're engineered to prove weapon technology, for high-value payloads, where long-term storability and compactness are major criteria.

I think now that the guidance systems are cheap, there's no reason a solid rocket can't be on the order of the cost of a load of clean propellant for a liquid rocket.

>spacex has already demonstrated how cheap it can be with their mostly 3d printed engines that are good for numerous firings
3d printing isn't cheap.

>>8423092
Then you have toxic exhaust, a constant explosive risk, and something that can never be made reusable.

>>8423104
>toxic exhaust
Optional. Like I said, these things are designed primarily for weapon systems, so environmental friendliness isn't a priority.

Less toxic stuff is easier to handle, with less regulations, and therefore good for keeping costs down.

>a constant explosive risk
Do you pay attention to liquid rocket launches at all?

Anyway, if you use a quick-set mixture, you can fill on the pad, just like a liquid rocket. And there are plenty of solid-rocket tricks for launching from minimal facilities (like a low-impulse stage just to pop it up high enough to light off the main engine).

>something that can never be made reusable
The solid boosters were the most reusable part of the space shuttle (yeah, reusable boosters were a thing before SpaceX). Solid rockets are routinely recovered and reused by high-power rocketry hobbyists.

Solid-fuel rockets are inherently robust, because the entire body is the combustion chamber, and they don't have much in the way of complex mechanical workings. Therefore, they survive rough landings fairly easily.

If you're using a cheap steel case, you could just scrap it rather than reuse it, and pull off the few moderately-expensive bits like sensors and actuators to test and reuse.

The beauty of cheap expendables is that you can fail a lot early on, and just learn from it and carry on. As I said, though, this stuff's so obviously usable as ammunition that no regulator is going to allow it to be developed. The ATK guys must be gnawing their fingers off in frustration.

>>8423243
I'm not >>8423104 btw, just been observing

I do like your arguments but I do have a coupe of questions

>The solid boosters were the most reusable part of the space shuttle

Wasn't the orbiter the most reusable part? Also the boosters weren't that reusable. They did hit the water at 60km/s and while they are more robust than liquid boosters, it still did some damage and the whole thing would flood with corrosive salt water. Many parts had to be refitted and replaced before they were ready to be used again

Also another problem with solid rockets is that they can't be shut off once they start. They're not good for fine control, they can't be shut off and restarted at will. Which means it's impossible to land them softly, and it's impossible to get to any orbit outside of low earth

>>8423243
>Do you pay attention to liquid rocket launches at all?
Liquid rockets are not explosive until they are fueled, that is a safety thing.

>The solid boosters were the most reusable part of the space shuttle
It was political to reuse them, cost the same to fish em out of the ocean and refill them as to buy a new one.
Which is a large difference between spending maybe 1 million bucks to refill a liquid booster.