Quote from: arachnitect on 08/26/2011 05:56 amQuoteThe PCM was unloaded from the Antonov An-26I think it came over on an AN-124The Thales press release says AN 24, but I believe they meant AN-124AN-24/26 are relatively small.Kudos to NSF on being so prolific lately.Thanks very much! I'll check into the plane.
QuoteThe PCM was unloaded from the Antonov An-26I think it came over on an AN-124The Thales press release says AN 24, but I believe they meant AN-124AN-24/26 are relatively small.Kudos to NSF on being so prolific lately.
The PCM was unloaded from the Antonov An-26
Hyperbolic title anyone? It's not re-gaining US independence if the launch vehicle uses NK-33/43.
We will be making AJ-26s here; we just haven't run through the Russian stock.
Quote from: strangequark on 08/26/2011 10:01 pmWe will be making AJ-26s here; we just haven't run through the Russian stock.You mean taking NK-33s from the 1970s, refurbishing them, and giving them a US designed gimbal system then changing the nameplate to read AJ-26?As for US production of NK-33, I remain highly skeptical that a 30 year old Russian engine can have it's production line restarted in a foreign country that doesn't speak the same language and makes use of a different measurement system in a lot of things.
Quote from: RyanCrierie on 08/27/2011 02:02 amQuote from: strangequark on 08/26/2011 10:01 pmWe will be making AJ-26s here; we just haven't run through the Russian stock.You mean taking NK-33s from the 1970s, refurbishing them, and giving them a US designed gimbal system then changing the nameplate to read AJ-26?As for US production of NK-33, I remain highly skeptical that a 30 year old Russian engine can have it's production line restarted in a foreign country that doesn't speak the same language and makes use of a different measurement system in a lot of things.The process was already done for the RD-180
US independence by using Russian motors to launch Italian modules.
You mean taking NK-33s from the 1970s, refurbishing them, and giving them a US designed gimbal system then changing the nameplate to read AJ-26?As for US production of NK-33, I remain highly skeptical that a 30 year old Russian engine can have it's production line restarted in a foreign country that doesn't speak the same language and makes use of a different measurement system in a lot of things.
To try to bring this back on topic, Orbital using some foreign made components does not negate the fact this this helps restore an independent mode of US station access. Show me an aircraft or spacecraft made in Country X, and there is plenty of it made in Countries Y, Z, Q, W, etc.
Quote from: strangequark on 08/28/2011 04:50 amTo try to bring this back on topic, Orbital using some foreign made components does not negate the fact this this helps restore an independent mode of US station access. Show me an aircraft or spacecraft made in Country X, and there is plenty of it made in Countries Y, Z, Q, W, etc.Not that I disagree with you in general, but there are examples. There isn't "plenty" of F9 that is made abroad.
Quote from: Lars_J on 08/29/2011 03:17 pmQuote from: strangequark on 08/28/2011 04:50 amTo try to bring this back on topic, Orbital using some foreign made components does not negate the fact this this helps restore an independent mode of US station access. Show me an aircraft or spacecraft made in Country X, and there is plenty of it made in Countries Y, Z, Q, W, etc.Not that I disagree with you in general, but there are examples. There isn't "plenty" of F9 that is made abroad.Fair enough, and noting that SpaceX's level of vertical integration is a rare beast anywhere in industry these days. And I bet that at least one mission critical component is still made in another country.