Just another reason why shutting down the Shuttle Program was a mistake
Kuznetsov reports that their engines were working properly...... http://itar-tass.com/kosmos/1539681
* An FTS signal was sent to the vehicle at approximately T+0:00:20 but it is unclear if this reached the vehicle and was actioned before it impacted with the ground/pad,
Orbital stated in April that it would take three years to develop a new first stage (they were considering ATK solid versus two other Russian bids).http://aviationweek.com/blog/orbital-eying-atk-solid-propulsion-system-antares-first-stage-1If the AJ-26 were to be considered unusable, how much (if at all) could they accelerate the development of an alternative?
I've watched several of the vids a few times at this point as well as watching the NASA TV feed live as it happened, and everything looked fine during the first 3-4 seconds. After that, just before the plume changes it appears as though there is flames on the left hand side of the base of the first stage, about 10% of the way up the vehicle. Then there is the change in plume followed by a fairly energetic explosion at the base of the rocket with debri flying in all directions, then the base is visibly engulfed in flames as it falls back to the pad. Whatever happened we'll hopefully find out more this time then we did about the Stennis test stand incident. If there was a fire at the base of the rocket, could that be from a ruptured fuel line or a possible tank issue? I'd lean toward the fuel lines myself as they have had issues with them before on the test stand.
If the AJ-26 were to be considered unusable, how much (if at all) could they accelerate the development of an alternative?
So no, I would not trust Frank Culbertson, or any Orbital employee, to lead the investigation. They have too much of an internal conflict of interest, despite their best intentions. I think the board must be led by, and primarily composed of, outsiders. To do otherwise is to expect too much of human beings.
Quote from: meekGee on 10/29/2014 04:44 amPerhaps in this rocket, all FTS does is kill the thrust (in the other engine) and unzip the tanksYou're pretty much describing the norm, at least for U.S. operated vehicles.Quote, expecting aero loads to do the rest - which in fast flight will take a fraction of a second - but in this case took several seconds before there was significant mixing of fuel and oxygen. The unzipped tanks didn't crumple or buckle, because they were in free fall, with no load, and barely moving.Tanks are pressurized for flight. You don't get to unzip the tanks and not see it immediately as propellant being (violently) vented/dispersed. I don't see any evidence of FTS action until after the falling vehicle was lost into the smoke on the way down.
Perhaps in this rocket, all FTS does is kill the thrust (in the other engine) and unzip the tanks
, expecting aero loads to do the rest - which in fast flight will take a fraction of a second - but in this case took several seconds before there was significant mixing of fuel and oxygen. The unzipped tanks didn't crumple or buckle, because they were in free fall, with no load, and barely moving.
I was going through every possible explanation for the lack of FTS visual evidence, other than "FTS failed".
Quote from: brettreds2k on 10/29/2014 01:01 pmJust another reason why shutting down the Shuttle Program was a mistake If we had Shuttle and another failure like this had occurred, we wouldn't have just lost cargo, we would've lost the whole crew.