Reply to post: Re: Re:The simple fact is

Ex-Soviet engines fingered after Antares ROCKET launch BLAST

ElReg!comments!Pierre

Re: Re:The simple fact is

The engines, albeit 50+ years old, are solid. They have good engineering, a reasonable pedigree and just as important, there is an available supply."

Apparently not, though. Otherwise, no story.

Apparently not what? Not 50+ years old? Think again. Not solid? (for a few different meaning of the term, including "dense", which is a term I trust you are familiar with) Think again. Twice. Available supply? Think again.

I'ḿ sure you know someone who knows someone who died in a car crash. Do cars strike you as the most dangerous way to move around? (and yet to some regards they are, which kinda ruins my analogy but I don't afraid of anything, as they say, so there you go).

A rocket's job is to burn. One in a while one will burn in a slightly odd fashion for some reason (perhaps the range cleaner's wife left her handkerchief in the wrong place last time they had a "friendly meeting" with her hubby's boss, we may never know). It will then be detonated remotely by the range safety people, lest the Ruskies Japs Chinese Iranians think it's an ICBM or something.

It happens, rather rarely, but that's part of the job. It just happened. Why do you think it is required that the supplies on the ISS are sufficient to last for 2 sequential failure of resupply launches?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon