<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> From the article it does not appear that it is known whether the cause of the failure was the guidance system or a hardware problem with the thrust vector control system or something else. It think it is too early to make that call.I don't see anything particularly fickle about solid rocket propulsion.I would not call this vehicle "off the shelf" either. There was a lot of money put into the developlent work. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p> How long does it take to identify what problem(s) lead to the failure? I defiantly jumped the gun supposing that it was a guidance system failure. I was kinda assuming that their hardware, thrust vector control systems, and other systems that might have been tested well enough with their ground tests. I figured the guidance system you really couldn't test unless you actually launched it; but thats not to say that it didn't undergoe some for of simulation thats probably just as good. </p><p> I realise that any serious rocket system is a costly matter involving engineering and design time with rigorous testing. I was just going on about one of ATKs statement that they are using "off the shelf" parts to provide better cost effectiveness. I really don't know what "off the shelf" means in the world of space bound propulsion, but thats what they said. I don't suppose theirs a nifty catalog they get with all the PLCs a company needs to control a rocket is their? heh </p><p>I'm reading Steve Squyres "Roving Mars", in it he sort of expresses a dislike of solid rocket propulsion, so, thats rubbing off on me hah. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>