Any photos of the pad now that it's daylight again?
Posting this over from the Cygnus update thread (as it clearly doesn't belong there). WRT future RD-180 use:Orbital also has however many AJ-26 engines on their floor that they have paid for (albeit some likely have not yet been converted and/or tested). Then there's the associated plumbing and any rocket changes. And finally a part of the workforce that may have to stand down for some time (which always pains me).That has to enter into the equation as to when they move onto the RD-180.I'm not saying they won't consider it, but it would be a greater sunk cost to dump the engines at this stage.
Quote from: starsilk on 10/29/2014 02:18 pmQuote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/29/2014 01:04 pmKuznetsov reports that their engines were working properly...... http://itar-tass.com/kosmos/1539681difficult to be sure with the Google translation of that page - but I read that article as 'Americans modified the engines, we don't know/trust what they did to them' and 'our NK-33s are much safer'.What is they say they would say that wouldn't they.
Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/29/2014 01:04 pmKuznetsov reports that their engines were working properly...... http://itar-tass.com/kosmos/1539681difficult to be sure with the Google translation of that page - but I read that article as 'Americans modified the engines, we don't know/trust what they did to them' and 'our NK-33s are much safer'.
Kuznetsov reports that their engines were working properly...... http://itar-tass.com/kosmos/1539681
Peter B. de Selding @pbdesOrbital's Antares Cygnus mission carried $48 million in insurance coverage.A quarter of one mission's costs......
My question is, is 2.1 (or whatever it is) seconds after lightoff enough time for the engines to be fully stabilized and considered "ready to fly"?
For me, I sure would like to see another second or 2 on the pad before the rocket is let go...
Have there been any photos released from the launch site since we're in daylight now?
I keep reading that the rocket failed or even "exploded" only six seconds after liftoff. I'm not sure where that came from.When I ran the NASATV video I counted 14 seconds between engine ignition and the first signs of failure (the sudden change in the exhaust appearance) and a tic longer until the fireball erupted from the base of the rocket. That would be 12 seconds, at least, between actual liftoff and failure. An additional roughly 10 seconds passed before ground impact. That's the way I saw it, for what it is worth. - Ed Kyle
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.
Not that building a new rocket is easy, but it's got to be easier than building a new pad.
Quote from: meekGee on 10/29/2014 01:25 pmI was going through every possible explanation for the lack of FTS visual evidence, other than "FTS failed".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?
I was going through every possible explanation for the lack of FTS visual evidence, other than "FTS failed".
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?
While the root cause may be a propellant supply issue (feed line rupture leading to engine failure), given what we all know/the history of the engine, including Stennis, and what was observed by so many here, methinks starting the investigation at the back end of the rocket and moving forwards makes sense.Again, my regards to the teams involved. Spaceflight is indeed difficult: human laws are easily (and regularly) broken. Physics is a bit more demanding...
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