back to article Orbital ATK launches another Cygnus without anything blowing up

Orbital ATK's Cygnus freighter launched from Wallops Island, Virginia, this morning carrying supplies, spares and science to the International Space Station. While SpaceX tends to grab the headlines with its crowd-pleasing habit of landing rockets, Orbital ATK continues to plug away with its more traditional and expendable …

  1. tip pc Silver badge

    Environmental impact of burning tons of space junk in earth's atmosphere?

    Unlike SpaceX's Dragon, Cygnus cannot return cargo to earth. Once its mission is complete, ISS 'nauts will load the freighter with garbage and send it to burn up in the Earth's atmosphere.

    Anyone have any detail on what the environmental impact of the above is?

    1. DavCrav
      Joke

      Re: Environmental impact of burning tons of space junk in earth's atmosphere?

      "Anyone have any detail on what the environmental impact of the above is?"

      No impact, since it burns up in the atmosphere.

    2. IglooDude

      Re: Environmental impact of burning tons of space junk in earth's atmosphere?

      Not specifically, but surely it's not moving the needle as lots of spacestuff burns up entering Earth's atmosphere daily anyway?

    3. }{amis}{
      Coat

      Re: Environmental impact of burning tons of space junk in earth's atmosphere?

      The environmental damage caused by the space industry is mostly down here, as for every ton of stuff that reaches space the industry will have generated a 100X more crap and emissions here on the ground.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Environmental impact of burning tons of space junk in earth's atmosphere?

      About the same as incinerating the waste on earth, but with a 20-mile tall chimney?

      1. tip pc Silver badge

        Re: Environmental impact of burning tons of space junk in earth's atmosphere?

        i was thinking more about the burning of that stuff high in the atmosphere can't be good for what is there. Any impact on Ozone could/should be more harmful when delivered right where it matters rather than from the ground where it has many miles of ascent to disperse over a greater area.

    5. Mark 85

      Re: Environmental impact of burning tons of space junk in earth's atmosphere?

      Are you thinking that space exploration and launches should be shut down do to "environmental impact"? The world would be a dimmer, darker place without us looking to the stars. It will also mean that we'll never get off this planet.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: Environmental impact of burning tons of space junk in earth's atmosphere?

        Less hot air than Trump imposing Serial Sanctions.

        Beer now.

      2. notowenwilson

        Re: Environmental impact of burning tons of space junk in earth's atmosphere?

        "Are you thinking that space exploration and launches should be shut down do to "environmental impact"?" Slow down, tiger, you can be interested in the impact without wanting to shut the whole thing down. I once looked at how many calories in a hamburger but that doesn't mean I intend to starve myself to death.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Environmental impact of burning tons of space junk in earth's atmosphere?

      The environmental impact is about the same as for SpaceX, but with much less publicity. But since these guys don't have a narcissist fronting them, this question is asked of these guys but not of the cool kids.

      1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Environmental impact of burning tons of space junk in earth's atmosphere?

        The environmental impact is about the same as for SpaceX, but with much less publicity. But since these guys don't have a narcissist fronting them, this question is asked of these guys but not of the cool kids.

        I see you've never read the comments section on an article about a SpaceX operation.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Unlike SpaceX's Dragon, Cygnus cannot return cargo to earth. Once its mission is complete, ISS 'nauts will load the freighter with garbage and send it to burn up in the Earth's atmosphere."

    What are the comparative costs of the two launch methods? Does Sustem-X now have a price advantage?

    1. rg287

      What are the comparative costs of the two launch methods? Does Sustem-X now have a price advantage?

      SpaceX has always had the price advantage.

      When NASA awarded the first block of 20 CRS (Commercial Resupply Services) missions in 2008, SpaceX were awarded $1.6Bn for 12 launches, Orbital ATK took $1.9Bn for 8 launches.

      Moreover, SpaceX is unique in providing significant down-mass/return-payload for scientific samples and experiments. Cygnus, ATV, HTV and Progress all burn up on re-entry. The only other craft that lands in one piece is Soyuz, but cargo down-mass (and volume) is limited because Soyuz only lands once every 6 months during crew-changes, so it's infrequent and most of the craft is full of astronaut.

      The combination of being significantly cheaper and providing return payloads makes them far and away the best value supplier.

      However, NASA don't want a monopoly supplier so they bung enough launches to the competition to keep them in the game.

      SpaceX did get a bigger chunk of the COTS development budget, but they won $396m to Orbital's $288m. That $108m differential has been more than clawed back in reduced launch costs on the CRS contract.

    2. Jon 37

      Regardless of which is cheaper right now, you don't want a monopoly. In the long term, having 2 or 3 profitable suppliers is much cheaper than having one cheaper-for-the-moment supplier. There are several reasons for this:

      * A monopoly supplier could raise their prices and stop innovating. (See: ULA). It's incredibly difficult, slow and expensive for a new supplier to get into the space launch business.

      * If there's only a single family of rocket being used, and they have a rocket explode so they ground their fleet, you're stuck. We know such failures happen, even Shuttle had a ~1.5% failure rate. If there are several different models from different suppliers, then common faults are much less likely.

      * If your sole supplier goes bust / has its workers strike / has its facility wiped out by a natural disaster, you're stuck. Multiple suppliers means you have less single-points-of-failure.

      That's why NASA were careful to award ISS supply contracts to two different companies (SpaceX and Orbital), while the US government also has launch contracts with a third domestic company (ULA). That gives the US government three local suppliers to compete for its missions.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Explodey...

    "...in 2014 thanks to the elderly Russian engines used in the rocket's first stage."

    I don't think that the blame for the explodeyness can be simply attributed to either the motor's age or origin.

    The modifications made by Aerojet to the NK-33 motors to produce the AJ-26 motors that powered the Antares 100 series rockets (which were the ones that were explodey) were major and, as well as adding gimballing, included performance enhancements, such as qualifying the motor to burn for twice it's original design time, and increasing the max throttle rating from 105% to 108%.

    In any case, in view of the modifications and refurbishment undertaken by Aerojet, the AJ-26 was regarded as a U.S. motor. Until they broke it, at which point it became a Russian one again.

    Funny thing is, the Atlas V is also powered by a Russian motor - the RD180, and the Antares 200 series is powered by two Russian RD-181s.

    1. Slim

      Re: Explodey...

      "In any case, in view of the modifications and refurbishment undertaken by Aerojet, the AJ-26 was regarded as a U.S. motor. Until they broke it, at which point it became a Russian one again."

      So just like Andy Murray, when he's doing well he's British otherwise he's Scottish.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Freedom isn't Free!

    Lads!

    Let's go FULL AMERICAN. Build a fracking ship that is basically a holder fro thermonukes that can BOMB ANYONE FROM SPACE INTO THE STONE AGE and let's launch it using a STREAM OF NUKES from GROUND. Best from some indian reservation that no-oone goes to anyway:

    http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php#id--Project_Orion--USAF_4000_Ton_Orion

    It's like fucking American Nucular Yamato! In Space!!!.

    Where is my star-spangled underwear.

    1. Mark 85

      Re: Freedom isn't Free!

      There was a movie about this but it was a Russian made satellite: "Space Cowboys". Pure space opera as opposed to SF.

  5. 89724102171719271992214I9405670349743096734346773478647852349863592355648544996313855148583659264921

    Let's hope nothing blows up Uranus.

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