What is not clear to me is in which way the first eight engines worked flawlessly and only now the NK-33 became untrustworthy.Is it possible that they did select the best eight engines for the earlier launches ?
What is not clear to me is in which way the first eight engines worked flawlessly and only now the NK-33 became untrustworthy.
Quote from: A12 on 11/05/2014 05:02 pmWhat is not clear to me is in which way the first eight engines worked flawlessly and only now the NK-33 became untrustworthy.Pardon me? Teststand failures of AJ-26's in 2011 and 2014. That does not sound like a reliable - let alone trustworthy - engine.
Cross-posting from the failure argument--er, I mean thread. This is probably a better place for it anyway...btw, nobody has bothered to mention the implications for ATK (ORB/ATK) in that the Castor 30XL is now a second stage without a passenger, at least for the next few years. How many have been produced (if any) and will they be certified for the "new" Antares LV after being stored for x years? (I assume they will be used in conjunction with the "new" Antares).
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 10/29/2014 08:26 amAssuming (and that is all it is so far) that the ORB-CRS-3 anomaly is ultimately due to an engine failure this gives NK-33 a failure rate of 1-in-4, as of now, including the two test stand failures. Am I correct?(Asked not to bash but because I genuinely want the information)You should take then failures/firings. That should include the flown engines test stages. And each Antares fly 2 engines. So it was a 1-in-8 failure in flight, plus at least 2-in-10 in test stand.
Assuming (and that is all it is so far) that the ORB-CRS-3 anomaly is ultimately due to an engine failure this gives NK-33 a failure rate of 1-in-4, as of now, including the two test stand failures. Am I correct?(Asked not to bash but because I genuinely want the information)
Quote from: woods170 on 11/05/2014 07:07 pmQuote from: A12 on 11/05/2014 05:02 pmWhat is not clear to me is in which way the first eight engines worked flawlessly and only now the NK-33 became untrustworthy.Pardon me? Teststand failures of AJ-26's in 2011 and 2014. That does not sound like a reliable - let alone trustworthy - engine.And so, they was just tempting fate launching again with the same not so reliable engine ?
Would this be the turbo pump in question?Seems to be quite a complex beast, definitely not a KISS design to the armchair engineer inside of me. But if you take into account that this thing was designed and built at the peak of the space race many decades ago, it really comes across as quite an accomplishment.
Seems to be quite a complex beast
Seems to be quite a complex beast, definitely not a KISS design
I don't think that there is much which could be made simpler nowadays.
Quote from: Remes on 11/05/2014 10:36 pmI don't think that there is much which could be made simpler nowadays.It was made simpler back in 70s/early 80s: RD-170 and descendants. Reduced five shafts to three shafts and omitted all gearing.
Well someone is not treating the hardware like 45 year old junk as many in the press are reporting. Looks like training in this recent video.<snip video, you can view it above>
Might this be the end of the line for the Antares in any configuration?If the interim launcher (my guess is Falcon 9) is cheaper than the re-engine Antares, not even factoring in development cost. Might OSC just farm out the launch service to SpaceX (or LM) and just be a mission integrator. That also means shutting down facilities for the procurement of the Antares . Which would boost the bottom line in a cold-blooded corporate manner.