How are FTS signals sent? If it's a narrow-beam microwave signal or something like that, could the vehicle's sudden descent moved it out of the transmission beam for a critical few moments until the antenna re-established a lock?
Quote from: SWGlassPit on 10/28/2014 11:00 pmAn air burst at 300 feet would have done an enormous amount of damage. Considering the rocket was not going to land anywhere populated, I can see why it would make sense to let it explode on contact with the ground. If it's going to explode either way, choose the way that does less damage to infrastructure on the ground.This doesn't make any sense to me. The force of an explosion falls off logarithmically with distance. If X amount of fuel/oxidizer is going to rapidly burn either way, isn't it better that occur further away from pad infrastructure?Or is it that firing the FTS would lead to more thorough fuel/oxidizer mixing and a more efficient, more powerful detonation than just letting the tanks hit the ground and burn on the ground less mixed?
An air burst at 300 feet would have done an enormous amount of damage. Considering the rocket was not going to land anywhere populated, I can see why it would make sense to let it explode on contact with the ground. If it's going to explode either way, choose the way that does less damage to infrastructure on the ground.
From the local news chopper:http://interactives.wavy.com/photomojo/gallery/14913/277009/wavy-chopper-10-flies-over-rocket-debris/wallops-island-va/...and video: http://wavy.com/2014/10/29/raw-video-chopper-10-flies-over-nasa-rocket-launch-debris/
An arial view of the space port for reference:
anyhow, my point was that the article doesn't seem to be saying 'the engines were working properly' but instead is saying 'our engines will work properly'
Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/29/2014 12:07 pmThe chaos at the press site:Why everyone is running? They are some miles away from the kaboom.
The chaos at the press site:
Quote from: Norm38 on 10/29/2014 02:56 pmQuote from: SWGlassPit on 10/28/2014 11:00 pmAn air burst at 300 feet would have done an enormous amount of damage. Considering the rocket was not going to land anywhere populated, I can see why it would make sense to let it explode on contact with the ground. If it's going to explode either way, choose the way that does less damage to infrastructure on the ground.This doesn't make any sense to me. The force of an explosion falls off logarithmically with distance. If X amount of fuel/oxidizer is going to rapidly burn either way, isn't it better that occur further away from pad infrastructure?Or is it that firing the FTS would lead to more thorough fuel/oxidizer mixing and a more efficient, more powerful detonation than just letting the tanks hit the ground and burn on the ground less mixed?No expert here but it seems to me that it's the same concept of why they detonate Nukes a certain height above an area, not on impact. Anyway, if Antares exploded just above the pad as opposed to ground level ie. next to the pad, the entire area, all those fuel and oxygen tanks would have probably been covered with burning debris, exploded and wiped out the rest of the pad.Either way, it's a mess on many levels. My positive thoughts are with all the dedicated, hard working men and women. This to shall pass.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/29/2014 02:30 pmImages and video of launch site from the air this morning. http://wavy.com/2014/10/29/raw-video-chopper-10-flies-over-nasa-rocket-launch-debris/ - Ed KyleGreat video. Significant damage to pad 0A, blast overpressure damage to surrounding structures including pad 0B. As suspected, the impact area was a few 10s of meters NE of the launch mount.
Images and video of launch site from the air this morning. http://wavy.com/2014/10/29/raw-video-chopper-10-flies-over-nasa-rocket-launch-debris/ - Ed Kyle
Quote from: newpylong on 10/29/2014 01:47 pmThey will pick up the pieces after the investigation and fly again as-is. All this talk of re-engining or moving to another LV is premature. There was already talk of a new first stage. Agreed, nothing is known until the AIB makes its determinations, but after various NK-33 failures, and the age of the equipment, that is not beyond speculation. something went wrong, and will have to be fixed. It's not flying again "as is"
They will pick up the pieces after the investigation and fly again as-is. All this talk of re-engining or moving to another LV is premature.
Re.: Status of MARS and SLC-0AQuote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/29/2014 02:34 pmFrom the local news chopper:http://interactives.wavy.com/photomojo/gallery/14913/277009/wavy-chopper-10-flies-over-rocket-debris/wallops-island-va/...and video: http://wavy.com/2014/10/29/raw-video-chopper-10-flies-over-nasa-rocket-launch-debris/Owww... ouch! Lots of buildings chewed up; mostly shock-wave and thermal damage by the looks of things. It's the damage below the surface that's going to really hurt, though - infrastructure, service and prop lines and the like.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/29/2014 01:06 pmQuote 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. I also wished that they didn't stop the shuttle program but figuring that the shuttle had a failure every 50 launches, we would be getting really close to 150 launches by now.. NASA was pushing their luck with the shuttle so pulling the plug was the best thing. also figure that the shuttle carries more cargo so a failure has an even bigger impact.
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.
Just another reason why shutting down the Shuttle Program was a mistake
It appeared that the second stage came apart and ignited (or ignited then came apart) and didn't burn in a single piece. Could the FTS have simultaneously ignited and unzipped the stage, or was it more likely the stage coming apart from impact and shock damage, and igniting in the heat of the fireball?
I am *not* going rabid-conspiracy-theorist, here, but I do have a question.As I understand it, the AJ-26 engines and the first stage tanking for the Antares are manufactured in the Ukraine....And is it possible that the unrest in the region might have caused additional problems for the Ukrainians in manufacturing the engines and tankage involved in last night's launch failure?
No expert here but it seems to me that it's the same concept of why they detonate Nukes a certain height above an area, not on impact.