Antares launch/failure discussion.

[StrandedonEarth]

Does Orbital do a pre-launch static fire like SpaceX does? I wonder if that could have prevented this

[Javster]

Crash bang WALLOPS???

Yes.

I'm leaving now.

[Javster]

The ISS program is very conservative about the chances of a failed supply mission; they generally keep enough consumables on board the station for 4-6 months to ensure that a failed supply mission will not be critical. The current stockpile (with both a Dragon and a Progress having just left the station in the past week) is at the high end, and even if the new Progress had failed and the December Dragon launch was scrubbed, the crew could stay aboard into March or April without any further resupplies. The biggest effect this will have on ISS operations is a reduction in the experimental work that the crew will do for a few months, pending the next Dragon flight.

Of course, this sort of thing WOULD have to happen on the very day I "cut the cable" on my TV...

Supplies-wise, it really isn't a big deal. They can return to Earth in 6 hours, so if there was a global ban on rocket launches, they'd probably do science until they ran out of experiments or food then return.

[Kryten]

Does Orbital do a pre-launch static fire like SpaceX does? I wonder if that could have prevented this

I don't think so for the full stage, but the engines have test burns.

[Nibb31]

Does Orbital do a pre-launch static fire like SpaceX does? I wonder if that could have prevented this

Yes, they do static firings on a test stand. They have even blown up some AJ-27s doing it, which was already rather worrisome.

Even then, individual engine tests don't protect from assembly errors or mismatch between parts.

This kinds of reminds me of Ariane V36 in 1990. An Ariane 4 exploded 100 seconds into the flight because a water pipe was blocked by a piece of cloth that somebody forgot during assembly. Since that event, every cloth is numbered and tracked, and endoscopy checks are performed on the assembled engines. There is a reason why space is expensive.

[Cosmos3110]

Every time I watch an Antares launch the only thing going through my head is "I really hope the AJ- 26's don't show their N1 heritage". Alas...

[MaverickSawyer]

Huh. Looks like a catastrophic failure of the turbopump(s) on the port-side engine.

What I find most fascinating about this was how little the rocket tilted after the engine failed. It stayed pretty much straight as it fell back onto the pad.

Also, something odd... Those engines are packed in there pretty tight, and I know that there's no armor between them. So if the turbopump let go, as I suspect it did, why didn't the other engine get wrecked as well?

We may never know what really happened. It was all so fast and there's really not much left to study. Hopefully they got some good telemetry in those last few seconds to help figure out what failed on the engine.

[Geneborg]

Even european news outlets made a fuss about this today...that also shows how space flight, its risks, its statistical successes/failures is not present in the mind of the ppl/media.

An unmanned rocket blows up and "oh god the sky is falling, didn't we know how to do this and how will ppl on mars get resupplied now....oh wait, we arn't on mars yet? How come...."

But hey, nice fireball

[Motokid600]

Orbital Science stock falls 17%.

Ouch... Damn. That sucks I hope OS can bounce back. I watch the launches from Wallops in my backyard and I love it. My family loves it, my friends both new and old.. we all get together to watch these rockets go up. So it kinda saddens me to see this. Last night was pandemonium.. there must've been 15 of us watching the launch on my big screen. I knew we weren't going to see the launch anyway because of clouds so we stayed in.. had the speakers on blast.. as I said.. pandemonium.

O well... Atleast Apo didn't flinch.

Dogs got nerves of steel.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Motokid600

[Starwhip]

The Delta II / GPS-2R failure is the one I use to capture students' attention when we talk about launch failures. Incredibly dramatic--almost magical (WC3 Starfall, anyone?). Technically, though, I suppose it was an Air Force launch, so your statement stands.

Dayum, that's a biiiig explosion.

[Javster]

http://imgur.com/gallery/kSCTuQX

Carry on

[Frozen_Heart]

http://imgur.com/gallery/kSCTuQX

Carry on

Saw that one earlier while browsing Imgur

[cantab]

Isn't that pic wrong anyway? Revert to launch should be about 20-30 seconds, but revert to VAB should be a day or so, after the boat affair.

[RichieD76]

This is why I find it unthinkable for dreamchaser to be defunded (canned) by NASA. I know its ONLY cargo but lets face it, the cargo and the craft would have survived to be used another day...same with dragon2...

Dreamchacer was the only one NOT to use highly toxic mono propellants reducing risk to crews on the ground/public/wildlife/environment

I know they are human taxis but why not used them for cargo to limit losses.. the rockets the cheap bit...its the part on top that costs the $$$. launch escape for cargo?

I'm a big lover of ATV but even it doesn't have a place in this world right now. Dragon2 and Dreamchaser....I mean effectively what were saying with cargo rockets is, "nah if it blows up its ok".... why not protect all this expensive equipment like we do humans?

Solid propellant upper stage??? We all in 12th century china? Tubes of black powder were not in fashion back in the 60's when we landed on the moon, they sure as heck arent high-tech now...

I propose this.....the cost of this 'mishap' alone has cost more than the development of a liquid upper stage for Antares would have been.

Anyway, I'm an engineer and part-time firefighter with a reasonable knowledge of turbo pumps/jets/rockets, my guess is the turbine blades (first cast in maybe 1972ish) broke loose and destroyed the pump shutting down the engine. lost thrust, hit the deck where the tanks ruptured and hey presto you have a fuel air bomb sat on the pad.

There is a part with some serious rotational energy that makes a run for freedom in the top right hand side of the footage which can be assumed is a turbine shaft, maybe a small tumbling solid ejection motor, I don't know. not sure this vehicle uses them...anyway

The plume turns more orange and less violent in nature right before the engine dies and the rocket loosed altitude (akin to adjusting the vent on a Bunsen burner)..It was running fuel rich!!. RP1??? So lack of liquid oxygen

Makes sense if its the oxidiser pump.. cast hot. ground cold, tested cold, sat for 30yrs, (30 Russian summers and harsh winters) change of climate, machined again, tested cold, then ambient for another few months and then put under chill down and duty cycles for hotfire test...etc..... so many times! and with the scrub yesterday.... its PURE METAL FATIGUE. there are only so many times a part can be frozen down to −297.33 °F, −182.96 before is just cracks.

As much as that sailboat scrubbed the launch first time out, it could possibly be the reason for the 'mishap' that destroyed Antares...one chill down to many!

Edited October 29, 2014 by RichieD76

[Kryten]

Dreamchaser would require a considerably more expensive rocket, and the cargo isn't very valuable. Most of it's basic supplies and packaging material.

[RichieD76]

Dreamchaser would require a considerably more expensive rocket, and the cargo isn't very valuable. Most of it's basic supplies and packaging material.

expensive like falcon9R? "its only expensive because your using its wrong" Chris Kraft.

We are all still thinking about today and tomorrow and not in 5-10-20yrs time. Mars base, crew member has heart attack, survives but will eventually need a pacemaker to be fitted by the crew surgeon...earth develops a intrinsically safe, radiation proof, magnetically inert pacemaker at the cost of $50billion.... are you going to put it on the cargo craft where if it goes pop 6 seconds from the pad you can recover it OR are you going to take your chances risking the crew members life on mars AND...ALOT of tax payers money?

I know what your saying about cargo though... but science experiments cost mega money. some have been worked on for years with large teams only for the equipment to be destroyed.

Cygnus itself...$50mil or more? Dragon2 can be reused and ensure cargo safety.. just as dreamchaser could/will. struggling to see why a Dragon hasn't been reused yet... I'm sure its capable

[Guest]

Pacemaker is bad example. You cannot just launch an unplanned cargo to other planet. First, you mast wait for launch window, then, about 6-12 months travel time. The patient will be either dead, or they will build pacemaker on site.

[Kulebron]

Solid propellant upper stage??? We all in 12th century china? Tubes of black powder were not in fashion back in the 60's when we landed on the moon, they sure as heck arent high-tech now...

The reason to use solid fuel is exactly to fix what you speak about in paragraphs below, the complexity of manufacturing and running a turbopumped engine. Aluminum solid fuel does not need to be pumped in at the pad, needs no cryogenic equipment. The engine has reasonable specific impulse (300s) and a very good TWR of 2, which allowed this Hochmann transfer-like ascent.

It makes a suboptimal vehicle (about same payload fraction as Soyuz), but the entire lifecycle becomes quite cheap.

I read about Antares rocket and am impressed how they made things simple. Basically, they took Korolyov's philosophy and pushed it to the limit: a suboptimal vehicle, but leaner overall lifecycle. OS has built a very simple launch pad, assembles the vehicle horizontally (needs smaller and lighter hangar, just 10 m high rather than 60..70 that French built for Soyuz in Guiana), quick horizontal transportation and deployment, short pad dwelling. I guess the rocket is rugged enough to fly in stormy weather. (Soyuz has launched TMA-22 manned spacecraft in snow storm when airports usually close.)

Here's a remarkable innovation: on Soyuz, the transportation clamp helps to erect the rocket and then is removed. On Antares it works as service mast as well. Another innovation: just another interstage instead of special clamps in the bottom. Also look at rollout videos, they used commercial cooling and generating systems (small size allowed that too) and just attached them to the main carriage. That makes sense: need another ground APU, or maintenance? Just call a dealer.

I wonder when they start launching commercial satellites.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Looking at the launchpad, I think I'd make another step: a disposable steel pad column with integrated pipes (or 3d-printed concrete one?). If something falls on the pad, just take the other one and replace it

Edited October 29, 2014 by Kulebron

[Cannon]

What the hell happened, why did it crash and will it affect nasa and their budget?

[Kulebron]

Makes sense if its the oxidiser pump.. cast hot. ground cold, tested cold, sat for 30yrs, (30 Russian summers and harsh winters) change of climate, machined again, tested cold, then ambient for another few months and then put under chill down and duty cycles for hotfire test...etc..... so many times! and with the scrub yesterday.... its PURE METAL FATIGUE. there are only so many times a part can be frozen down to −297.33 °F, −182.96 before is just cracks.

Can the -30°C..+30°C winter/summer cycle create fatigue in alloys that withstand huge temperature gradients and quick heating up to like 1000°C?

[kenbobo]

EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT

NASA OFFICIAL REPORT UP

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-s-wallops-flight-facility-completes-initial-assessment-after-orbital-launch/#.VFF5KvnF9z8

[Dkmdlb]

I mean effectively what were saying with cargo rockets is, "nah if it blows up its ok".... why not protect all this expensive equipment like we do humans

The people involved with building, flying, and insuring rockets spend lots of time thinking about the balance between payload value, launch cost, and risk. I'm not saying they have it right, I'm just saying they are more likely to have it right than a guy on an internet forum for a computer game. To me, it seems like the reason why expensive equipment isn't protected like humans is that insurance can bring back exact copies of your expensive equipment if it gets blown up.

[Kulebron]

EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT

NASA OFFICIAL REPORT UP

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-s-wallops-flight-facility-completes-initial-assessment-after-orbital-launch/#.VFF5KvnF9z8

Just as I said earlier in this thread: launch pad just slightly damaged. 2 lightning protection masts are destroyed, the service mast/transporter frame is charred, and probably some piping is torn. Although, concrete structures may have suffered heat damages. But the rocket did not destroy neither the pad, nor the exhaust box.

I guess, this pad was designed with this kind of thinking: if a pad crash occurs, structures may be damaged, and they'll take the most cost & time to restore. So why build big structures to protect props that will not be needed untill the next launch, or if you can just keep dangerous stuff off site? I wonder if any of those tanks contained anything. APU trucks were on site at the moment of crash, probably because they're insured, and if lost, a the next flight will take much longer than getting a new APU delivered.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Kulebron

[Kryten]

expensive like falcon9R? "its only expensive because your using its wrong" Chris Kraft.

So long as we're ignoring actual throw weight to orbit, why not put just put it on Minotaur? It'd be even cheaper.

In the real world, even expendable falcon 9 would require recertificating the whole thing, and probably since weight savings-neither of these are cheap.

struggling to see why a Dragon hasn't been reused yet... I'm sure its capable

SpaceX could've done NASA certification to refly dragon on supply missions, but decided to not bother and use them for dragonlab free-flyer missions instead. Nobody has ordered any dragonlab missions, so they're sat in a warehouse.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Kryten

[Kerbart]

I caught this screenshot.

It was obvious something was wrong. [...]

Without wanting to jump to conclusions, based on the screenshot, I agree.