Author Topic: On-Pad Explosions  (Read 8314 times)

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12032
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2754
  • Likes Given: 483
On-Pad Explosions
« on: 09/02/2016 07:34 PM »
In light of recent events, here are some previous relatively big on-pad explosions in the U.S. to compare.  Keep in mind that Falcon 9-29/AMOS-6 dwarfs them all.

The first was Atlas 9C with an Able upper stage, which caught fire, collapsed, and exploded during an attempted flight readiness firing at Launch Complex 12 on September 25, 1959.  The pad was out of service for eight months.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/03/2016 04:19 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30209
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 8504
  • Likes Given: 271
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #1 on: 09/02/2016 07:38 PM »
The Titan I were the FTS went off?

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12032
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2754
  • Likes Given: 483
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #2 on: 09/02/2016 07:41 PM »
Next was Atlas 51D at LC 13 on March 11, 1960.  It only went seven feet, after the B2 engine suffered combustion instability, before falling back on its pad.  LC 13 would be out of action for seven months.

 - Ed Kyle

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12032
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2754
  • Likes Given: 483
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #3 on: 09/02/2016 07:46 PM »
The Titan I were the FTS went off?
First came Titan 1 Missile No. B-5, which was released prematurely from LC 19 on August 14, 1959, causing an unplanned umbilical release that killed the engines after 2.87 seconds.  B-5 fell back onto the launch stand and disappeared in a fireball.  The pad was offline for 6 months.       

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/02/2016 07:55 PM by edkyle99 »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12032
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2754
  • Likes Given: 483
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #4 on: 09/02/2016 07:52 PM »
The next on-pad explosion was the destruct system issue.  Titan 1 C-3 exploded at LC 16 on December 12, 1959 during a launch attempt.  4.2 seconds after the engines ignited, a launch destruct system relay "chattered" due to vibration, setting off the destruct charges.  Somehow the pad escaped substantial damage so that it hosted a launch only two months later.  Perhaps the destruct system saved the pad from the worst of it.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/03/2016 01:35 AM by edkyle99 »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12032
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2754
  • Likes Given: 483
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #5 on: 09/02/2016 08:06 PM »
Atlas 48D suffered a failure very similar to Atlas 51D.  It flew just a few feet from LC 11 on April 8, 1960 before falling back on its pad after a booster engine suffered combustion instability.  This failure did less damage to the launch pad this time.  LC 11 hosted its next launch only three months later.

Art LeBrun supplied a post-fire photo.

More to come ...

 - Ed Kyle 

« Last Edit: 09/02/2016 09:53 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1091
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #6 on: 09/02/2016 08:57 PM »
Atlas Agena D, May 1963.
No bang, but collapse on pad, due to structural failure, as the 2nd stage tanks were emptied.


Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12032
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2754
  • Likes Given: 483
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #7 on: 09/02/2016 09:52 PM »
Combustion instability struck again when Atlas 27E failed at liftoff from Vandenberg AFB 576-F on June 7, 1961.  This was the first Atlas E operational type launch attempt from a coffin launcher.  The result was a nasty failure.  The launch attempt failed immediately when the B-1 chamber lost thrust.  The site suffered heavy damage and was out of service for nine months.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/02/2016 09:54 PM by edkyle99 »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12032
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2754
  • Likes Given: 483
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #8 on: 09/02/2016 10:01 PM »
Atlas 11F blew up upon launched from Cape Canaveral LC 11 on April 9, 1962.  Atlas ignited its engines and began to rise, but suddenly, only a few feet above the launch stand, its sustainer engine turbopump exploded.  11F disappeared in a giant fireball, leaving only scattered remains around a smoking launch pad.  LC 11 would be out of action for four months.  I don't have any photos, but a video of the dramatic failure can be found at Critical Past.
http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675023307_Atlas-missile11F_Atlantic-Missile-Range_large-explosion_fire-and-smoke

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/02/2016 10:03 PM by edkyle99 »

Online Graham

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • New York
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #9 on: 09/02/2016 10:07 PM »
I was planning on creating a thread asking about this very thing. Thanks Ed, and of course the late Mr. LeBrun for the pictures and info.
I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night
- Sarah Williams

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12032
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2754
  • Likes Given: 483
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #10 on: 09/02/2016 10:13 PM »
The Titan Operational Suitability Test Facility at Vandenberg AFB, was built as a prototype for future operational Strategic Air Command Titan ICBM launch complexes.  It consisted of a 160 foot deep silo complex equipped with a hydraulically driven elevator designed to lift a fully fueled Titan, its launch stand, and its launch umbilical mast to the surface for launch.  Titan 1 missile V-2 was installed in the silo to test the design.  On December 3, 1960, a full wet dress rehearsal was performed using Titan V-2.  The missile was in its silo for the 15 minute LOX loading, then was raised to the surface for final countdown.  After the countdown test was completed the missile tanks were vented and the missile began to be lowered back into the silo where propellant offloading would be performed.  During the lowering process, the elevator failed.  The missile plummeted to the bottom of the silo causing a series of explosions that ejected the 160 ton, multi-story elevator "crib" structure straight up out of the silo.  The two massive silo caps were also tossed aside.  One five-ton piece of the site landed 1,200 feet away.

This launch site damage was permanent.  OSTF was never rebuilt.  It remains to this day a giant hole in the ground.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/02/2016 10:14 PM by edkyle99 »

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10409
  • Liked: 2063
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #11 on: 09/03/2016 12:24 AM »

This launch site damage was permanent.  OSTF was never rebuilt.  It remains to this day a giant hole in the ground.



I took these a couple of years ago at the site.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12032
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2754
  • Likes Given: 483
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #12 on: 09/03/2016 01:33 AM »
Atlas 45F faltered when its B-1 main fuel valve failed to open at liftoff from VAFB 576G on October 4, 1963.  With only one of the two boosters firing, the missile toppled right over on its side and exploded.  The elevator silo pad was damaged, but not as severely as it would have been in the case of a direct fall back.  Another launch took place about 10 weeks later from this site.

SDASM images.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/03/2016 01:44 AM by edkyle99 »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12032
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2754
  • Likes Given: 483
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #13 on: 09/03/2016 01:42 AM »
Atlas 3F repeated the 45F failure, from the very same launch pad, on April 3, 1964.  Again the B-1 main fuel valve failed to open.  Again the rocket toppled and exploded.  This time six months would pass before another launch from 576G.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/03/2016 01:42 AM by edkyle99 »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12032
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2754
  • Likes Given: 483
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #14 on: 09/03/2016 01:57 AM »
Atlas Centaur 5 suffered a sudden main fuel valve closure at T+0.88 seconds during its launch from Cape Canaveral LC 36A on March 2, 1965.  The rocket fell straight back down into the launcher and exploded, creating a mushroom cloud.  It was the largest on-pad explosion at the Cape for more than five decades, until Falcon 9-29/AMOS-6 on September 1, 2016.  LC 36A didn't host another launch for 16 months.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/03/2016 01:57 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 367
  • Likes Given: 164
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #15 on: 09/03/2016 03:36 AM »
In 1980 a Titan II ICBM in Arkansas was struck by a dropped socket wrench socket. The rocket started leaking fuel and several hours later the hypergolic fuel exploded killing an airman as well as destroying the rocket and silo.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3262
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 533
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #16 on: 09/03/2016 04:07 AM »
In 1980 a Titan II ICBM in Arkansas was struck by a dropped socket wrench socket. The rocket started leaking fuel and several hours later the hypergolic fuel exploded killing an airman as well as destroying the rocket and silo.
Actually the Silo (LC374-7) survived with some damage on the order of $225,322,670 in 1980 Dollars. The silo was stripped and sealed during decommissioning after USAF decided that the cost to restore to Titan II Service was to great and the scheduled  conversion of all 373 and 374 silos in Arkansas to the Minuteman series was a short time later cancelled by the Regan Administration.
Quote
The Titan II Missile Launch Complex 374-7 Site was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on February 18, 2000.
Titan II Missile Launch Complex 374-7 Background info: http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2543
Titan II pads (373 and 373 SMS units) In Arkansas: http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2266
https://www.facebook.com/forbidden.hillcrest/posts/720157944707720
http://themilitarystandard.com/missile/titan2/silo/index.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-25C_Titan_II
« Last Edit: 09/03/2016 04:08 AM by russianhalo117 »

Offline Chrup4

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #17 on: 09/03/2016 07:07 AM »
Samos 3 exploded on LC 1-1 at PALC on September 9, 1961. A pad umbilical did not detach at liftoff, which caused the Atlas-Agena B to switch from internal to external power. The engines shut down and the Atlas dropped back onto the pad and exploded in a huge fireball, resulting in the total loss of the photoreconnaissance satellite.

Pad damage was evidently not that bad as Samos 4 flew from LC 1-1 only nine weeks later.

Offline Chrup4

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #18 on: 09/03/2016 07:16 AM »
The first Thor IRBM lifted from LC-17B at Cape Canaveral on January 26, 1957. Almost immediately at liftoff, the engine shut down and the missile fell back through the launch stand and exploded. It was unclear what caused the failure until a film review of prelaunch preparations showed pad crews dragging a LOX filler hose through a sandy area, thus it was concluded that the LOX became contaminated with foreign debris, resulting in valve failure.

Pad damage was repaired quickly and LC-17B hosted the second Thor test flight in April 1957.

Offline Chrup4

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #19 on: 09/03/2016 07:24 AM »
The third Thor IRBM test, Missile 103, never made it off the pad. During prelaunch preparations on May 22, 1957, the LOX tank exploded and for the second time in 5 months, LC-17B had to be repaired and was out of use until the following September.

This incident was traced to a stuck LOX vent valve which allowed tank pressure to build up to the point where it suffered a structural failure, combined with a careless technician who failed to pay attention to a LOX pressure gauge reporting dangerous pressure levels.

Offline Chrup4

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #20 on: 09/03/2016 07:31 AM »
The fifth Thor test on October 3, 1957, was launched from LC-17A. In a near repeat of Thor 101, the missile lost thrust almost immediately at liftoff, fell back through the launch stand, and exploded. This incident was traced to a failure of the gas generator valve to open.

Pad damage was evidently quite minor, as LC-17A hosted the launch of Thor 108 on October 24, only 21 days later.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2016 07:36 AM by Chrup4 »

Offline Chrup4

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #21 on: 09/03/2016 07:40 AM »
(no picture)

Thor 121 launched from LC-17B on April 19, 1958 and resulted in yet another loss of thrust at liftoff followed by an explosion. This time, the culprit was apparently a collapsed fuel duct.

LC-17B was out of service for two months and hosted its next launch in June.

Offline Chrup4

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #22 on: 09/03/2016 08:04 AM »
A couple of points about the Atlas/Titan failures mentioned earlier.

It is probably correct that the explosion of Titan C-3 was less damaging than B-5 due to the nature of the failure. Since the RSO charges went off, they would have split the first stage tanks open and largely prevented propellant mixing from occurring (which is exactly what they're designed to do), resulting in a much less energetic blast. I would imagine that Titan B-5's RP-1 tank probably rammed into the LOX tank when the vehicle broke apart (somewhat like what happened with Challenger's external fuel tank), causing a lot of propellant mixing and thus a rather violent explosion.

Atlas 51D was intentionally destroyed by the Range Safety Officer once it became apparent that there was a malfunction in one engine. There is a closeup shot showing the tanks splitting open and an explosion in the area of the common bulkhead where the RSO charges were located.

Atlas 48D did not get off the pad to my knowledge. I've never seen film of this launch, but as I understood it, the sustainer engine exploded prior to liftoff which would explain why the thrust section is resting inside the launcher mechanism in the aftermath photo.

Also I can't account for the quick damage recovery from Samos 3 given the similarity of the failure to Titan B-5 and Atlas AC-5, except maybe the Agena's hypergolic propellant did not explode with as much force as the cryo propellants in the other vehicles and thus less pad damage.

Online Hobbes-22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Acme Engineering
    • Acme Engineering shop
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #23 on: 09/03/2016 11:21 AM »
N-1 5L: The LOX turbopump for engine no. 8 exploded just before liftoff. The rocket managed to clear the tower, at 10 seconds into the flight the KORD system started shutting down 29 of the 30 engines. The rocket crashed on the pad, wiping it out and damaging the second N-1 pad nearby.

The photo shows the escape system firing to yank the capsule away from the N-1 as it begins to fall back down onto the pad.


Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8254
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 927
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #24 on: 09/03/2016 12:24 PM »
So how is the Sea Launch NSS-8 launch failure in jan. 30, 2007 counted. Would this be considered an American launch failure due to partial Boeing ownership? Also wouldn't, okay just checked F9 contains ~20% more propellants than the Zenit. So would it be the second largest US pad explosion? Third going to AC-5?
I just saw some idiot at the gym put a water bottle in the pringles holder on the treadmill.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12032
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2754
  • Likes Given: 483
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #25 on: 09/03/2016 03:23 PM »
Samos 3 exploded on LC 1-1 at PALC on September 9, 1961. A pad umbilical did not detach at liftoff, which caused the Atlas-Agena B to switch from internal to external power. The engines shut down and the Atlas dropped back onto the pad and exploded in a huge fireball, resulting in the total loss of the photoreconnaissance satellite.

Pad damage was evidently not that bad as Samos 4 flew from LC 1-1 only nine weeks later.
Thanks for adding this one!   This was Atlas 106 D and Agena B A2201.  I have to date found no photos of the failure or its aftermath.  This could have been a more powerful explosion than Atlas-Able, the previous U.S. largest.  At the time, Atlas Agena B was the largest, most-powerful U.S. launch vehicle.  The next launch from Point Arguello LC 1-1 (later renamed VAFB SLC 3 West) took place on November 22, 1961.  It also failed, but not on the pad.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/03/2016 03:31 PM by edkyle99 »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12032
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2754
  • Likes Given: 483
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #26 on: 09/03/2016 03:37 PM »
So how is the Sea Launch NSS-8 launch failure in jan. 30, 2007 counted. Would this be considered an American launch failure due to partial Boeing ownership? Also wouldn't, okay just checked F9 contains ~20% more propellants than the Zenit. So would it be the second largest US pad explosion? Third going to AC-5?
To me, Zenit 3SL was a Ukrainio-Russian rocket with a U.S. payload fairing.  It definitely was not an "American launch vehicle".  It might fall into an "International" category.  (Atlas 5 has a European payload fairing, but I've never heard anyone suggest that it is a European launch vehicle.)

In terms of U.S. pad (or near-pad) explosions, Falcon 9 is likely most powerful, followed by Antares and Atlas Centaur 5.  The three had GLOWs of about 587 tonnes, 286 tonnes, and 138 tonnes, respectively.  (We can debate whether Antares fits the "on-pad" category.  I think it fits due to the severe pad damage.  We can also debate whether Antares is a "U.S. launch vehicle", but maybe not here!) 

Amazing that we've seen the two worst such U.S. failures during just the past two years.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/03/2016 03:45 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Liked: 789
  • Likes Given: 216
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #27 on: 09/03/2016 04:11 PM »
The fifth Thor test on October 3, 1957, was launched from LC-17A. In a near repeat of Thor 101, the missile lost thrust almost immediately at liftoff, fell back through the launch stand, and exploded. This incident was traced to a failure of the gas generator valve to open.

Pad damage was evidently quite minor, as LC-17A hosted the launch of Thor 108 on October 24, only 21 days later.

A second-hand personal note about Thor failures...

My good friend and mentor the late Max Hunter (Thrust into Space, 1966, and the fictional movie character "Dr. Hunter" in "2001: A Space Odyssey" hibernaculum, as a homage from his friend Arthur C. Clarke), once told me why Thor pads could be brought back on line so quickly.  Max was Chief Engineer on Thor (and also the S-IV and S-IVB stages).

The Thor was built with separate propellant tanks.  If it fell back onto the pad in a more or less vertical orientation, the vehicle descended below the pad deck through the center hole, hit the flame deflector and skidded along it, breaking neatly into two parts, one fuel and one oxidizer. One tank would break open below the deck, the other above. The propellants didn't inertially mix as thoroughly as was the case on other pads, such as Atlas.  While there was a still large conflagration, the blast effects were less than were seen on other stands.

Offline Archibald

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 431
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #28 on: 09/03/2016 06:26 PM »
Ah. So SpaceX explosion was bigger than Atlas Centaur AC-5 ? That record stood for 51 years.
(my favorite rocket explosion of all times)
 Didn't realised it, but of course Falcon 9 is a lot bigger than the old Atlas.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2016 06:34 PM by Archibald »

Offline Nomic

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #29 on: 09/03/2016 07:04 PM »
Stretching to test stand explosions, what about the Titan IV booster (after a redesgin became the srmu)  explosion at Edwards AFB? Only 280 tonnes of prop though...

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Liked: 789
  • Likes Given: 216
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #30 on: 09/03/2016 11:40 PM »
Stretching to test stand explosions, what about the Titan IV booster (after a redesgin became the srmu)  explosion at Edwards AFB? Only 280 tonnes of prop though...

OK, another anecdote...I was on that stand with my business partner something like a month before the firing (and kaboom). Being a liquid guy, and not liking solids at all, I remember being very nervous walking under the plugged nozzle, and he said something soothing like "if it blows up you'll never even feel it."  Neither of us had any idea that it was going to do that, of course. 

If you can visit the Evergreen Air Museum in Oregon, you can see an unloaded version of the composite case they used.

Offline WBailey

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Planet Earth
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #31 on: 09/03/2016 11:59 PM »
If the Titan II ICBM silo explosion of 1980 counts, and we're including other nationalities:

Nedelin Disaster: On the 24th of October, 1960 at Baikonur the second stage engines of an R-16 ICBM prototype activated on the pad. The missile was instantly destroyed and over 90 people were incinerated, including Nedelin himself. The pad was closed until 1961, and serves as a memorial to the disaster today.





Offline Chrup4

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #32 on: 09/04/2016 01:17 PM »
Thanks for adding this one!   This was Atlas 106 D and Agena B A2201.  I have to date found no photos of the failure or its aftermath.  This could have been a more powerful explosion than Atlas-Able, the previous U.S. largest.  At the time, Atlas Agena B was the largest, most-powerful U.S. launch vehicle.  The next launch from Point Arguello LC 1-1 (later renamed VAFB SLC 3 West) took place on November 22, 1961.  It also failed, but not on the pad.

The video of the launch is on CriticalPast, but I've also never found any still photos of Samos 3 other than the prelaunch one I posted earlier. One of the more peculiar things I noted in the video is that the Agena appears to break apart before the fireball reaches it. The best I figure out is that the RSO charges on the Agena went off from vibration as the Atlas started to break up. This was not the first time the umbilicals on LC 1-1 caused trouble since they were also responsible for the loss of Samos 1 eleven months earlier.

For the record, Atlas 9C was a larger blast than Samos 3 because the common bulkhead between the propellant tanks collapsed, which caused the entire load of LOX to fall into the RP-1 tank and turn into explosive gel. The explosive force was tremendous, enough to completely level the pad umbilicals and hurl a one-ton piece of the service tower about 50 feet. As noted earlier, LC-12 took seven months to restore while the damage from Samos 3 was completely repaired in a month and a half.

I'm also fairly certain that Vanguard TV-3, Samos 3, and Cygnus CRS-3 were the only pad explosions of a US launch vehicle during an actual orbital launch attempt (assuming you discount Atlas-Centaur AC-5 because it had only a dummy Surveyor probe for a payload). Every other pad explosion I can think of was suborbital or occurred during a PFRT.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2016 06:12 PM by Chrup4 »

Offline Chrup4

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #33 on: 09/04/2016 01:37 PM »
The Thor was built with separate propellant tanks.  If it fell back onto the pad in a more or less vertical orientation, the vehicle descended below the pad deck through the center hole, hit the flame deflector and skidded along it, breaking neatly into two parts, one fuel and one oxidizer. One tank would break open below the deck, the other above. The propellants didn't inertially mix as thoroughly as was the case on other pads, such as Atlas.  While there was a still large conflagration, the blast effects were less than were seen on other stands.

It could be a combination of the pad design and the nature of the failure. Like noted earlier, Titan I B-5 caused enough damage to put LC-19 out of service for six months while C-3 only put LC-16 out for two months. As I understand, most of the damage to LC-19 was the umbilical tower, which suffered extensive fire damage.

B-5 also got further off the pad than C-3, a couple feet before the engines cut off. Most likely, the engines struck the flame deflector pit and got rammed upward into the RP-1 tank, which then rammed up into the LOX tank. Since it fell down from a couple of feet up, there must have been considerable force being imparted into the missile as it hit the flame deflector. The propellants thus mixed, blew, and caused extensive damage.

C-3 really didn't even lift, maybe an inch or so when the RSO charges activated and split the first stage tanks open, which would have mostly just spilled out the propellants and caused a low intensity deflagration.

Offline Chrup4

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #34 on: 09/04/2016 01:49 PM »
The third Redstone missile test, RS-3, took place from LC-4 at CCAS on May 3, 1954 and ended ignominiously when the engine cut off one second after liftoff, causing the missile to fall back onto the launch stand in a ball of white flame.

Afterwards, Major General Holger Toftoy asked Werner Von Braun "Werner, why did the rocket explode?" Von Braun replied that he had no idea, but they would review telemetry data to find out. When Toftoy continued to press Von Braun for the cause of the failure, he replied "It exploded because the damn sonofabitch blew up!"

Von Braun subsequently pushed for better quality workmanship on the Redstones, noting acidly "Maximum reliability will be achieved when the target area of the missile becomes more dangerous than the launching area."

Offline Chrup4

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #35 on: 09/04/2016 02:05 PM »
N-1 5L: The LOX turbopump for engine no. 8 exploded just before liftoff. The rocket managed to clear the tower, at 10 seconds into the flight the KORD system started shutting down 29 of the 30 engines. The rocket crashed on the pad, wiping it out and damaging the second N-1 pad nearby.

The photo shows the escape system firing to yank the capsule away from the N-1 as it begins to fall back down onto the pad.

There were many Soviet pad explosions that were spectacular beyond belief, but the last one to date was the 1990 Zenit disaster. I'm not aware of any happening in the post-Soviet era unless there was a missile test or two at some point.

Aside from the Nedelin Catastrophe and N-1 5L, there were numerous R-7s that blew on or near the pad over the years. The very first R-36 launch in 1963 lost thrust at liftoff and fell back onto the pad. Two Kosmos (R-14) boosters blew on the pad in the early 70s, one lost thrust at liftoff, the other caught fire during servicing and killed 9 people.

Offline Chrup4

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #36 on: 09/04/2016 04:13 PM »
The final Titan I R&D launch was that of Missile V-4 from VABF's 395-A1 on the evening of May 1, 1963. In an ominous prediction of Atlas 45F five months later, the missile experienced a stuck engine valve that prevented the LR-87 engines from achieving sufficient thrust to lift the 110 ton missile, which then tipped over and exploded on impact with the ground.

395-A1 was repaired in two months and hosted Titan SM-7 on August 15.

Offline Phillip Clark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Hastings, England
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 511
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #37 on: 09/05/2016 03:04 AM »
I am surprised that no-one has mentioned the on-the-pad explosion of the Brazil's third VLS.

The launch was scheduled for August 25, 2003 and it was planned to orbit the SATEC and UNOSAT 1 payloads.   On August 22 one of the four strap-on boosters exploded, with the launch pad being destroyed and 21 people being killed.

Work on the VLS continued until earlier this year, when it was decided to develop the VLM-1 instead.

Offline Arch Admiral

  • Member
  • Posts: 54
  • 14th Naval District
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #38 on: 09/05/2016 06:13 AM »
A factor in the rapid repair of the old IRBM and ICBM pads in the 60s was that these were top-priority national programs with unlimited funding, so spare pad hardware was stockpiled. Pad explosions were expected and planned for. Note how launch support equipment was well separated from the pads and protected by concrete blast walls (or the long-vanished 'Blockhouses"). Also, the RP-1 usually burned off quickly, so there usually was not thermal damage to the underlying concrete structure.

SpaceX clearly thought pad explosions were a thing of the past, since the fueling and other support equipment was located close to the pad and was completely fried by the prolonged RP-1 fire. Also, witnesses report spalling and cracking of the concrete pad and exhaust duct. It will take a long time to get LC-40 operational again.

Offline Phillip Clark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Hastings, England
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 511
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #39 on: 09/05/2016 06:50 AM »
Will Space X have to pay the bill for the repairs or is that the responsibility of the CCAFB?

Offline Chrup4

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #40 on: 09/05/2016 10:54 AM »
A factor in the rapid repair of the old IRBM and ICBM pads in the 60s was that these were top-priority national programs with unlimited funding, so spare pad hardware was stockpiled. Pad explosions were expected and planned for. Note how launch support equipment was well separated from the pads and protected by concrete blast walls (or the long-vanished 'Blockhouses"). Also, the RP-1 usually burned off quickly, so there usually was not thermal damage to the underlying concrete structure.

I had heard that the damage from Atlas AC-5 was mostly repaired in three months even though the next launch from LC-36A was not for over a year (probably more fire than structural damage). The Atlas-Centaur launch rate was small (only two during the time LC-36A was offline) and probably 36B alone was enough to handle it. Also while LC-13 was offline six months following Atlas 51D, some of that delay could have been due to converting the pad for Atlas E launches.

As for the RP-1 burning off quickly, you have to remember also that most of it doesn't actually go off in an explosion. Even on N1-5L, about 80% of the propellant load in the booster did not ignite and what did was mostly in the first stage. After the blockhouse crew were allowed outside, there were unburned droplets of RP-1 raining down from the sky. Despite the blast being intense enough to level the service towers and cave in the concrete launch stand, they still recovered most of the vital telemetry tapes intact from the rubble.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8254
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 927
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #41 on: 09/05/2016 11:00 AM »
Will Space X have to pay the bill for the repairs or is that the responsibility of the CCAFB?

Considering they are the ones who built and operate it, I would assume they (or insurance) has to not only pay for any pad repairs, but also any damage they inflicted on other people's equipment.
« Last Edit: 09/05/2016 11:02 AM by kevin-rf »
I just saw some idiot at the gym put a water bottle in the pringles holder on the treadmill.

Offline Chrup4

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #42 on: 09/05/2016 02:25 PM »
Operation Fishbowl in 1962 involved a series of high altitude nuclear tests launched from Johnson Island in the Pacific on Thor IRBMs. After the "Bluegill" launch failed on June 2, the next attempt, code named Bluegill Prime, was made on July 25 but ended disastrously when the Thor caught fire on the pad. A stuck engine value cut the flow of LOX to the combustion chamber and RP-1 ignited on contact with the hot engine. The Range Safety Officer sent the destruct command and blew up the Thor on the pad, also destroying the nuclear warhead.

The pad area was extensively contaminated with plutonium and had to be cleaned up before the destroyed launch stand could be rebuilt.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30209
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 8504
  • Likes Given: 271
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #43 on: 09/05/2016 03:25 PM »

SpaceX clearly thought pad explosions were a thing of the past, since the fueling and other support equipment was located close to the pad

Not really, they were protected by berms just like days of old.  They reused the existing Titan berms

You can see here

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40868.msg1578330#msg1578330
« Last Edit: 09/05/2016 03:32 PM by Jim »

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4088
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1125
  • Likes Given: 642
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #44 on: 09/05/2016 10:22 PM »
video of pad explosion of Atlas-Centuar AC-5 (video of explosion starts at 2:13)

Largest Explosion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgqnlUifggw?t=000

« Last Edit: 09/05/2016 10:24 PM by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 598
  • Likes Given: 1033
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #45 on: 09/06/2016 04:02 AM »
Very fascinating series, Ed.

But what I'm taking away from this is why there were over 43 separate launch pads in the old days.

Blow one up? Go fly on another while you examine the charred, painted rocket pieces and rebuild the pad.

Took a while to rebuild pads, and it is only slightly faster today with light-gantry launches using strongbacks.
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline Chrup4

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #46 on: 09/06/2016 10:36 AM »
video of pad explosion of Atlas-Centuar AC-5 (video of explosion starts at 2:13)

Oddly enough, in all this time nobody's turned up the postflight launch reports for AC-1 or AC-5 although the reports for several early Centaur launches are online.

Offline Chrup4

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #47 on: 09/06/2016 11:17 PM »
The final Titan I R&D launch was that of Missile V-4 from VABF's 395-A1 on the evening of May 1, 1963. In an ominous prediction of Atlas 45F five months later, the missile experienced a stuck engine valve that prevented the LR-87 engines from achieving sufficient thrust to lift the 110 ton missile, which then tipped over and exploded on impact with the ground. 395-A1 was repaired in two months and hosted Titan SM-7 on August 15.

I should add, I saw a video of Titan I V-4 on the net a long time ago. It was just like Atlas 45F--nighttime launch where the thing tipped over as soon as it was released. There's a closeup shot on the engines which are essentially not firing at all. I also once saw a brief clip of Redstone RS-3 on a Youtube rocket failure compilation. Otherwise most of those videos just have failures everyone's already seen hundreds of times like Juno AM-16, Atlas 27E, and Delta II 241.

Offline koroljow

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Rees - Germany
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: On-Pad Explosions
« Reply #48 on: 03/12/2017 06:02 PM »
Samos 3 exploded on LC 1-1 at PALC on September 9, 1961. A pad umbilical did not detach at liftoff, which caused the Atlas-Agena B to switch from internal to external power. The engines shut down and the Atlas dropped back onto the pad and exploded in a huge fireball, resulting in the total loss of the photoreconnaissance satellite.

Pad damage was evidently not that bad as Samos 4 flew from LC 1-1 only nine weeks later.
Thanks for adding this one!   This was Atlas 106 D and Agena B A2201.  I have to date found no photos of the failure or its aftermath.  This could have been a more powerful explosion than Atlas-Able, the previous U.S. largest.  At the time, Atlas Agena B was the largest, most-powerful U.S. launch vehicle.  The next launch from Point Arguello LC 1-1 (later renamed VAFB SLC 3 West) took place on November 22, 1961.  It also failed, but not on the pad.

 - Ed Kyle

Sorry (again) for digging up an old thread.  But if someone (Ed?) ist still interested: this is the link to a video showing Atlas 106D's fate:


-Olaf-
Geschichte und Geschichten aus mehr als 5 Jahrzehnten Raumfahrt:
http://www.raumfahrtkalender.de

Tags: