Author Topic: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread  (Read 295961 times)

Offline JazzFan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
  • Florida
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #900 on: 04/14/2015 11:28 PM »
https://twitter.com/ColinDefense/status/588037901532995584

AJ-26 rocket engine failure caused by "excessive bearing wear in turbo pump” #FAA should get report “in days” Ronald Grabe EVP #OrbitalATK

FWIW AJ-26/NK-33 uses subcooled LOX as lubricant in certain places. So is this an issue with manufacturing, inspection, test, ... or FOD in lubricant?

Nice to see some results of investigation.

The next question is where will the results of the investigation lead?  ObitalATK has already moved on to another engine.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9601
  • Liked: 356
  • Likes Given: 460
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #901 on: 04/15/2015 02:45 PM »
It should be noted that the two most recent CATO events, SeaLaunch and Antares both used Yuzhmash tankage. In the case of SeaLaunch, FOD was the most likely culprit.

It is possible that RD-180 has operated so well due to the Lockheed tankage not producing any FOD.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32227
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10882
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #902 on: 04/15/2015 02:51 PM »

It is possible that RD-180 has operated so well due to the Lockheed tankage not producing any FOD.


No, since Lockheed has not been involved in producing tanks for more than 8 years

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9601
  • Liked: 356
  • Likes Given: 460
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #903 on: 04/15/2015 04:49 PM »

It is possible that RD-180 has operated so well due to the Lockheed tankage not producing any FOD.


No, since Lockheed has not been involved in producing tanks for more than 8 years

Or whoever builds/integrates tanks for Atlas these days.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #904 on: 04/15/2015 06:55 PM »
I think the lawyers will end up deciding cause of this explosion. There is a lot of money at stake as somebody needs to wear cost of the AJ26 engines which are never going to fly.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/04/15/orbital-aerojet-rocketdyne-disagree-antares-explosion/

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2903
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #905 on: 04/15/2015 07:41 PM »
Lawyers attempt to find for clients. Not the same as launch integrity/safety "proof". Can "win" for "wrong" reason.

NASA doesn't want to get pulled into this squabble. Might be a factor in CRS 2 though.

However, this dispute injures both companies irrespective of "who pays" as to customers/clients.

Neither needs distractions at the moment.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #906 on: 04/15/2015 08:26 PM »
So Orbital and GenCorp had independent investigations? How is that at all permissible to FAA, NTSB or NASA?

Parties of a joint investigation could still register disagreement on conclusions, but everyone would at least have to go over their evidence together.

I'm assuming Orbital has reasons to believe it wasn't FOD, but the fact that Gencorp has a root cause and Orbital doesn't is suspicious.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12660
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3549
  • Likes Given: 715
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #907 on: 04/15/2015 08:27 PM »
Both parties agree with the "excessive wear of turbopump bearings" as the final cause.  Aerojet has its own theory about FOD being the cause of that "excessive wear".  Either way, hasn't this investigation provided Orbital ATK with all the information it needs?  It isn't using those bearings again, but it can add more FOD prevention checks, or at least delve deeply into the question, in the future, just in case. 

For those wanting to blame the tank manufacturer or the launch processing, that doesn't explain the failure on the Stennis test stand.  Also, an engine can make its own "FOD".

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/15/2015 08:29 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4460
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1056
  • Likes Given: 573
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #908 on: 04/16/2015 04:16 AM »
Both parties agree with the "excessive wear of turbopump bearings" as the final cause.  Aerojet has its own theory about FOD being the cause of that "excessive wear".  Either way, hasn't this investigation provided Orbital ATK with all the information it needs?  It isn't using those bearings again, but it can add more FOD prevention checks, or at least delve deeply into the question, in the future, just in case. 

For those wanting to blame the tank manufacturer or the launch processing, that doesn't explain the failure on the Stennis test stand.  Also, an engine can make its own "FOD".

 - Ed Kyle
Apparently Russian authorities and industry will be notified of the findings since heritage components were identified as involved are in use on NK-33A on Soyuz 2.1v. RKTs Progress has already performed additional inspections as a precaution on already manufactured first stages. The results of the final investigation will be incorporated into readiness review for the next Soyuz 2.1v scheduled to launch. No delays are needed at this time. corrective actions will be performed as needed.

Offline MarekCyzio

Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #909 on: 04/17/2015 06:34 PM »
Looks like AviationWeek got their hands on the report:
http://aviationweek.com/space/questions-remain-antares-explosion-investigation

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5201
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #910 on: 04/17/2015 08:42 PM »
How do you get to that conclusion?  It looks like they heard Grabe talk at Space Symposium.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4370
  • Liked: 170
  • Likes Given: 295
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #911 on: 04/21/2015 12:18 AM »
Both parties agree with the "excessive wear of turbopump bearings" as the final cause.  Aerojet has its own theory about FOD being the cause of that "excessive wear".  Either way, hasn't this investigation provided Orbital ATK with all the information it needs?  It isn't using those bearings again, but it can add more FOD prevention checks, or at least delve deeply into the question, in the future, just in case. 

For those wanting to blame the tank manufacturer or the launch processing, that doesn't explain the failure on the Stennis test stand.  Also, an engine can make its own "FOD".

 - Ed Kyle

But wasn't the failure on the  Stennis stand a failure of a pipe vs a turbo pump RUD?

If the tank is creating FOD a change of engines may not eliminate future problems.

Online SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Liked: 326
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #912 on: 04/21/2015 02:57 PM »
As I recall, the FOD in question wasn't really made by the tank, it was supposedly dessicant used to protect the tank in shipping and storage that should have been removed before it was ever filled up.

Offline ZachS09

Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #913 on: 04/27/2015 02:23 PM »
I still can't get over the fact that Orb-3 exploded! I was expecting it to be a successful launch like the last four were, but it just blew up! I understand the cause of why the mission failed, but I have never seen anything like this on live TV. It's just haunting!
"Liftoff of Falcon 9: the world's first reflight of an orbital-class rocket."

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4370
  • Liked: 170
  • Likes Given: 295
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #914 on: 04/29/2015 12:18 AM »
Same here I was expecting Antares launches to become relatively routine as the first four launches were flawless.

Though from a failure and redundancy standpoint two is not the best number of engines to have in the first stage.

« Last Edit: 04/29/2015 12:28 AM by Patchouli »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #915 on: 04/29/2015 05:58 AM »
Same here I was expecting Antares launches to become relatively routine as the first four launches were flawless.

Though from a failure and redundancy standpoint two is not the best number of engines to have in the first stage.



Very few rockets will have the performance to deal with engine out at T +12s.

Of course if the explosion frags the rocket it doesn't matter.

Tags: