Antares Launch (Success!)

[TMS]

Needed more struts IMO.

[czokletmuss]

Meh, MechJeb can achieve more circular orbit

Seriously though, that's a great day for COTS and Orbital Sciences of course. I wonder if there will be a mod with Cygnus for KSP

[swiftgates24]

Every failed launch is huge setback for Spaceflight in general. It wouldn't be very funny.

Did I say it would be funny? What's that? No? Then why did you put words in my mouth?

[Giggleplex777]

Reincarnation of the N1 engine (the first stage)!

[Boex]

So why when in ksp if you launch like this with your engine firing the whole time you get a really big orbit?

Because this rocket has really low thrust-to-weight ratio compared to those in KSP - it accelerates slower. Essentially, with this, your burning so that your apoapsis is always a few seconds ahead of you, but in KSP, it quickly becomes 2 minutes ahead of you if you're throttled way up.

[Canopus]

Did I say it would be funny? What's that? No? Then why did you put words in my mouth?

Why else would you want it to fail?

[Giggleplex777]

Why else would you want it to fail?

He probably wanted to see some expensive fireworks.

[Nimaci]

Launch nominal

Also, there seems to be a pad fire on monitor three...

[BoxerLvr]

Wow, KSP really needs stock payload fairings, they're awesome.

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/0-18-2-kerbx-a-spacex-analogue-falcon-1-released/

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/novapunch-remix-pack/

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/0-18-1-kw-rocketry-overhauled/

[Giggleplex777]

Launch nominal

Also, there seems to be a pad fire on monitor three...

That would explain all that smoke.

[NASAFanboy]

It launched! Huzzah!

[Canopus]

When they showed the camera at the foot of the rocket during takeoff it almost looked like it was on fire. My heart stopped for a second:0.0:

[rryy]

Seems I missed it.

[Giggleplex777]

Seems I missed it.

Launch relays coming soon.

Anyone want to try to replicate this launch?

Edited April 21, 2013 by Giggleplex777

[CardBoardBoxProcessor]

Antares Launch from 1.8 miles away

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10200539420862342.1073741825.1062953631&type=1

[AmpsterMan]

Jeeze, that guy going on about "Nominal this, and Nominal that" was kinda anoying. Still, the rocket looks awesome! I love how Orbital's and SpaceX's launch vehicles look. They are so clean and futuristic looking.

[CalculusWarrior]

I agree, that was a very nominal launch! It was fun watching the telemetry from the rocket; I knew what everything meant! They did a pretty good job with circularizing the orbit, especially how they had a solid second stage. That just seems odd; what was the reasoning behind it?

My favourite part of the launch was when the rocket was tilting over; I said to myself: "I do this! This is familiar! You've got to follow the prograde vector... yes, yes... that's it, SHUT UP I KNOW THAT THE ENGINE IS RUNNING NOMINALLY! there we go... acceleration's slowly increasing, yes, yes, ohh, that's how high Earth orbit actually is... hmm, Yay! Payload deployed! Success!"

Congrats Orbital!

[Canopus]

Solid stages might be cheaper.

[Kerbface]

Glad it was a success but needs more nominality.

I've got to ask, why bother sending up a purposeless mass simulator payload when you can just launch some sort of payload that would actually be useful if the launch was a success? I mean, yes, it would of course cost more than the simulator payload, but is it that much compared to the cost of the rocket itself? If the test fails you've wasted the payload, if it succeeds you've kind of wasted the rocket (except that it gives you info on what to do next time, but you get that regardless of the payload). I don't know, just my thoughts.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Kerbface

[NetStranger]

Glad it was a success but needs more nominality.

I've got to ask, why bother sending up a purposeless mass simulator payload when you can just launch some sort of payload that would actually be useful if the launch was a success? I mean, yes, it would of course cost more than the simulator payload, but is it that much compared to the cost of the rocket itself? If the test fails you've wasted the payload, if it succeeds you've kind of wasted the rocket (except that it gives you info on what to do next time, but you get that regardless of the payload). I don't know, just my thoughts.

Not sure that it is how they see it, but seems to me that it's a good idea to test one thing at a time. The payload itself can cause trouble, and if you use a real thing for the rocket test and something goes wrong, it's harder to find out what exactly caused this. Now they know that the rocket is at least capable of doing its job under certain circumstances.

[Nibb31]

Glad it was a success but needs more nominality.

I've got to ask, why bother sending up a purposeless mass simulator payload when you can just launch some sort of payload that would actually be useful if the launch was a success? I mean, yes, it would of course cost more than the simulator payload, but is it that much compared to the cost of the rocket itself? If the test fails you've wasted the payload, if it succeeds you've kind of wasted the rocket (except that it gives you info on what to do next time, but you get that regardless of the payload). I don't know, just my thoughts.

You would need to find someone willing to pay for a payload that might not make it, on a specific schedule, and an insurance company willing to cover the payload and any damage caused by the failed launch. These things are expensive and take time to develop, and you don't want to set back your experimental flight because the payload isn't ready.

Chances are that the mas simulator payload had some kind of diagnosis and telemetry equipment too.

[Nibb31]

The whole time I was screaming "BLOW UP ALREADY!" I wanted it to fail

What a stupid thing to say.

[jwenting]

Solid stages might be cheaper.

The rocket (originally the Cygnus) was originally designed to make use of spare Minuteman ICBM parts, which are solid fuel rockets all the way.

Thus the solid fuel design (and the launch site). Also makes for very rapid erection and launch, as there's no fueling needed.

Of course you're transporting those big and heavy roman candles from the factory to your facility to your launch pad which I'm sure will make some people a bit anxious, and you can't shut down the engine and let the whole thing drift down to a more or less controlled crash in case of mishaps.

[jwenting]

You would need to find someone willing to pay for a payload that might not make it, on a specific schedule, and an insurance company willing to cover the payload and any damage caused by the failed launch. These things are expensive and take time to develop, and you don't want to set back your experimental flight because the payload isn't ready.

Chances are that the mas simulator payload had some kind of diagnosis and telemetry equipment too.

It had 4 microsats loaded to deploy on reaching orbit. Those things are typically science projects for colleges and universities, tough luck if they blow up but not much money lost. And indeed, no doubt a ton of telemetry stuff as well.

[eurybaric]

Way to go Orbital!! Slick rocket too! I really like where we are headed with all the privatization of spaceflight! Do you think they tested in KSP first though?