Author Topic: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread  (Read 372894 times)

Offline pagheca

  • Bayesian Pundit. Maybe.
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Lives in Ivory, Tower
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 161
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #60 on: 10/29/2014 03:14 pm »
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?

It's easy to be a blunter in the field, but I would be quite surprised if FTS signals are not sent through a very wide beam if not by a non-directional antenna, high power and maybe at multiple frequencies for redundancy. A rocket in need of an urgent FTS can move in an unexpected direction and you don't need any additional risk of ... "no... a little bit on the right... ok... try again... no, higher... a bit higher.. try again...".

However, I asked earlier if that large delay in sending the FTS ("20 sec after lift-off", according to several sources) after the first clear signs of a major malfunction appeared is normal procedure or something eventually got wrong.

Any idea?
« Last Edit: 10/29/2014 03:21 pm by pagheca »

Offline ddeflyer

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #61 on: 10/29/2014 03:16 pm »
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.

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?

The FTS should cause a deflagration of the propellent instead of a detonation by slower mixing of fuel and oxidizer. From the looks of things, the impact of the rocket on the ground probably caused a very rapid forced mixing of the oxidizer and propellent which was more of a detonation. Though there was much less fuel involved, think about how the Falcon 9R dev 1 FTS resulted in a more orange'ish plume vs. the very bright white yellowish initial plume of the Antares. Slowing down the combustion even a little greatly reduces overpressure and peak heat flux.

Offline moralec

Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #62 on: 10/29/2014 03:17 pm »
An Google maps view of the space port from the air for reference.

The Wavy Chopper photos show that the water tank is undamaged, but the buildings close to the pad are severely damaged.

« Last Edit: 10/29/2014 03:18 pm by moralec »

Offline grakenverb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • New York
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #63 on: 10/29/2014 03:17 pm »
Looking on the bright side, if there is one, perhaps the fact that the rocket failed so close to the ground will lead to a quicker determination of what went wrong.  It will certainly be easier to recover wreckage from around the pad than from the bottom of the ocean.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #64 on: 10/29/2014 03:18 pm »
Re.: Status of MARS and SLC-0A

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/

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.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline WindnWar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
  • South Carolina
  • Liked: 333
  • Likes Given: 1811
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #65 on: 10/29/2014 03:18 pm »
An arial view of the space port for reference:

The building in the bottom left of that image is the one I was wondering what it was. The chopper vid shows a lot of damage to it with roof and side panels missing.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #66 on: 10/29/2014 03:20 pm »
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'

No, the article says

"во время вчерашнего старта двигатели первой ступени AJ-26, являющиеся модификацией НК-33, работали в штатном режиме"
- translation -
"during yesterday's launch, 1st stage engines AJ-26, a modified version of NK-33, worked nominally"

I am surprised too to read this (for one, they can't possibly know that, they get no telemetry), but in recent month the level of b.s. coming from Russian press and govt become routinely stoopid ("we don't have troops in Ukraine", whom they think they're fooling?).
« Last Edit: 10/29/2014 03:21 pm by gospacex »

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #67 on: 10/29/2014 03:21 pm »
The chaos at the press site:


Why everyone is running? They are some miles away from the kaboom.

Because (a) it is standard procedure, (b) there are burning chunks of solid rocket propelling themselves away from the incident, and if one of them is heading your way it could still be a bad day, (c) the wind could be blowing hazardous fumes toward you from the site, which may not even be visible, (d) unknown unknowns.

Although I'm not sure that *sprinting* is required, certainly moving out of the open air and further away from the launch site is/was an excellent idea.

Offline ddeflyer

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #68 on: 10/29/2014 03:21 pm »
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.

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.

I believe that nuclear weapons are detonated above the ground for a couple of reasons. One of the biggest is fallout reduction; you don't pull in as much material from the ground to irradiate.

The second is overpressure wave angle of impingement and reflection off of ground. I don't know much of the details, but as I understand it you end up multiplying the overpressure wave by having the primary at one angle followed almost instantaneously by the two three punch of low pressure in the wake of the first wave and a second high pressure wave going at a totally different angle.

Also I think you get more thermal damage over a larger area by having more of the fireball directly visible to the surrounding area.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2014 03:23 pm by ddeflyer »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #69 on: 10/29/2014 03:21 pm »
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

Great 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.

Okay, with SLC-0B damaged, that means they can't launch Minotaur either! With Kodiak still being rebuilt after the USAF launch abort, Orbital's luck just keeps getting worse!
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #70 on: 10/29/2014 03:24 pm »
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.

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"

Those talks are for a future CRS-2 bid.

Back in the present, it has to fly again "as is".  It would not financial sense for Orbital to proceed and there is not enough time to change configuration. By "as is" I obviously meant the overall configuration, not any changes from the investigation.

Offline moralec

Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #71 on: 10/29/2014 03:26 pm »
A diagram of the pad from spaceflightnow.com. Unfortunately it does not show the buildings around.... any one knows of a better one we could use to clarify what was the use of the damaged buildings?
« Last Edit: 10/29/2014 03:27 pm by moralec »

Online jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Liked: 322
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #72 on: 10/29/2014 03:28 pm »
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? 
Recovering astronomer

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #73 on: 10/29/2014 03:32 pm »
Re.: Status of MARS and SLC-0A

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/

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.

Watching the kaboom the first time, I expected a crater where the pad used to be.
It looks far better than that.
The pad concrete structure is intact.
Flame duct exit is intact.
The erector still stands.
Water tower still stands.
Tanks did not rupture and ignite.

Two lightning towers are gone.
The building to southwest seems damaged by blast wave. Judging by pre-kaboom photos, it was not renovated. I'm guessing it wasn't used by Orbital - not a part of their infrastructure?
« Last Edit: 10/29/2014 03:34 pm by gospacex »

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #74 on: 10/29/2014 03:33 pm »
Just 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.

Failures get less frequent as a vehicle and system matures. Failures feed into investigations which feed into changes which reduces failures later on. Shuttle flight #26 was a different vehicle than flight #25. If everything was done clean sheet after every failure, you would have a lot of brand new untested machines and things would be riskier for it. Anyways, Shuttle failed after 25 flights. Modifications were made and the next subsequent failure was 88 flights after the first failure. You only have two data points and so if you extrapolate however you like, but if you do it linearly, the next failure would be 151 flights after Columbia. They just needed to inspect the heat shield (at least look at the video for debris strikes) and so you can't extrapolate statistics relating to heat shield debris penetration when you can 100% mitigate this by not deorbiting with a physically damaged heat shield. Just wait tell a LAS mis-fires or the hypergols end up leaking and all of a sudden the knee jerk reaction will be that we have to take the LAS out.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2014 03:36 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #75 on: 10/29/2014 03:33 pm »
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.  One of the reasons given by Energia Corp. for changing over from the Soyuz-U to the Soyuz-2 launcher is that the plants that manufacture much of the Soyuz-U launcher are also in the Ukraine, are getting very old, and they say they have observed quality control issues with the manufacturing from the Ukrainian plants.

Left unspoken is the question of moving important national defense manufacturing into Russia proper, and the discord in the area of late.  Of course, the Soyuz-2 decision was made well before the current unrest began, so there is little reason to suspect any connection there.  However, there is a question in my mind as to the manufacturing dates for the Ukrainian-built equipment used in the Antares that blew up last night.  When were the engines and tanks on that vehicle made and delivered to Orbital, I wonder?

Is there concern out there that there are quality control issues with the products we've been buying from the Ukrainian factories?  If not, then why did Russia decide to move a lot of their own rocket manufacturing out of 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?  Heck, are we even talking about the same factories for the Soyuz launcher work and the manufacturing for export to the U.S.?

(And, just to make clear, my thought as to how the recent unrest in the Ukraine could have an impact on their manufacturing industries is more about how workers being called up by the military reserves, and materials supply issues, could have degraded their work -- especially in quality control.  If the inspectors are working triple shifts because two-thirds of them have been called up for militia service, you can imagine some things getting past unnoticed that would not normally pass inspection.)

Like I said and I want to re-emphasize, I'm not suggesting anything sinister or deliberate.  At all.  Just wondering if the Russian decision in re their Soyuz launcher and the recent unrest in the Ukraine might have possibly been factors -- if, indeed, the accident investigation shows that the Ukrainian-built elements of the launcher were even at fault.

-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #76 on: 10/29/2014 03:36 pm »
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?

Lacking any other information, my guess is that the FTS would have destructed the upper stage if it had the chance. The timing is iffy; it looks like the destruct command would have been sent more-or-less at the moment of impact.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Kim Keller

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 970
  • Not OldSpace, Not NewSpace - I'm ALLSpace
  • Location: Wherever the rockets are
  • Liked: 2419
  • Likes Given: 125
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #77 on: 10/29/2014 03:38 pm »
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? 

Stage 2 doesn't unzip. The motor's dome structure is punctured to vent internal pressure, preventing propulsive motion.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #78 on: 10/29/2014 03:39 pm »
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, engines were manufactured in Samara, Russia (at that time, part of USSR). They are 30+ years old.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2014 03:40 pm by gospacex »

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Antares ORB-3 Failure Discussion Thread
« Reply #79 on: 10/29/2014 03:40 pm »
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.

Key word is detonate and this is where, I think, the analogy with Antares breaks down once you consider that in the FTS-in-the-air scenario, the tanks are ripped open and, while the liquid propellant venting rate might be vigorous, you would expect a big deflagration more than a detonation.

On the other hand, keeping the propellants bottled up and under pressure and then slamming them together at a sizable velocity into the ground provides for much faster mixing and energy release. I would maintain that the ground impact would produce a more violent shockwave than air dispersal would.

The point about debris coverage is a valid one, but it probably boils down to "pick the lesser of two evils".

Also, nukes are detonated high up to maximize destruction of "soft" targets by using the Mach stem effect of shock wave reinforcement. That is not going to be a factor for the rocket pad below because the Mach stem only forms at some distance from ground zero. It might produce higher peak overpressures at large distances (window breaking risk), though. Again, that's only if you assume the produced shockwave intensity is the same on ground impact as in the air.



Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1