Author Topic: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES  (Read 466676 times)

Offline rickl

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
  • Pennsylvania, USA
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 150
Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
« Reply #560 on: 10/29/2014 03:55 am »
Is this the worst accident in Wallops history?  For the most part they've launched small sounding rockets and such.


My condolences to the folks at Orbital.
The Space Age is just starting to get interesting.

Offline mtakala24

Is this the worst accident in Wallops history?  For the most part they've launched small sounding rockets and such.


My condolences to the folks at Orbital.


Look for Conestoga failure.

In comparison, ORB-3 is much worse..

Conestoga as a project / company was doomed already, where as Orbital is a strong company still.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2014 04:20 am by mtakala24 »

Offline Helodriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
  • Liked: 5971
  • Likes Given: 700
Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
« Reply #562 on: 10/29/2014 04:05 am »
Is this the worst accident in Wallops history?  For the most part they've launched small sounding rockets and such.


My condolences to the folks at Orbital.

The biggest bang by far, biggest since the Conestoga 1620 failure in 1995, which incidentally flew from the same pad, 0A.



Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
« Reply #563 on: 10/29/2014 04:21 am »
1) All these people asking for pad redundancy... do you have any idea how much it costs to build a pad?  SMH.  Now, it would be reasonable to consider which direction is downrange and site the important stuff uprange.

2) If I were a launch company, I would only insure my non-guaranteed money, i.e. the mission success payment and anything refundable due to a failure.  NASA self-insures, or rather the taxpayers pay again to get the value of the mission or lose value elsewhere within the NASA budget to regain the value lost in a mission failure.

3) NSF ain't Facebook, but it is crawled by Google.  L2 isn't, however.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2014 04:22 am by Antares »
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 meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
« Reply #564 on: 10/29/2014 04:44 am »

An unbroken rocket that's not flying right is the very scenario that FTS is supposed to mitigate.

No, FTS is to keep rockets from going outside the impact boundaries.  This one was within them and posed no threat to the public or other facilities.

On the launches that I've been on, the general FTS guideline was that if anything catastrophic was going wrong that you engage the FTS in order to keep it on range.  Once things start to fail, you have to assume that the FTS will fail imminently, so you hit destruct the second you know.  It's big trouble if you don't hit the FTS because it's still on range, then the FTS link goes down in the failure and the rocket continues and heads off range...

In many launches, just not even having TM/radar to know where the object is in 3-dimensions (even if you have it visually) for over 3-5 seconds is enough to warrant a destruct.

That's right, wrt to what FTS does, and why.

On the drive home from work I had another hypothesis.  Perhaps FTS was issued a lot earlier than we think.

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.

While it seemed like an eternity, it was only a few seconds.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
« Reply #565 on: 10/29/2014 04:57 am »
Good to hear Frank Culbertson say in no uncertain terms: "I can assure you we will find out what went wrong, and we will correct it, and we will fly again."

Right now it's like Metallica said, "Nothing else matters."

So close no matter how far
Couldn't be much more from the heart
Forever trusting who we are
And nothing else matters

— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline yokem55

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
« Reply #566 on: 10/29/2014 05:13 am »
If there is a substantial delay in brining Antares back to flight (say they have to come up with a replacement for the AJ26 ahead of schedule), could Cygnus be adapted to go up on a different launcher (Falcon, Atlas, Ariane?) in the short term to avoid losing the CRS contract?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
« Reply #567 on: 10/29/2014 05:16 am »
The presser was less downbeat than I expected. All were cool calm and professional and focused on picking up the pieces, learning from the experience and moving forward. Kudos to the launch team as they also handled the stressful “bad day” in a superb manor...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48140
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81623
  • Likes Given: 36931
Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
« Reply #568 on: 10/29/2014 05:21 am »
Quote
Chris Lewicki (@interplanetary)
29/10/2014 05:05
Cheer up everybody - A3 was just a robot! We are making more. #LiveToFlyAnotherDay #ARKYD @PlanetaryRsrcs

https://twitter.com/interplanetary/status/527325378864365568

Offline John44

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3887
  • Netherlands
    • space-multimedia
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 0

Online owais.usmani

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 581
Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
« Reply #570 on: 10/29/2014 06:03 am »
N1-curse?


July 3rd, 1969, replayed on October 28th, 2014.

Offline mtakala24

Now, after looking up some Orb-2 footage, satellite images and Orb-3 coverage, the launch pad is not in very bad shape. Possibly the flame duct is damaged, and two of the rather flimsy lightning towers are topled. Other that that, I don't see any obvious disastrous damages.

The wind was towards north and the TEL avoidance made the rocket go South East. Net effect: just to the east of launch table? With most of the stuff on the beach.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2014 06:09 am by mtakala24 »

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1131
Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
« Reply #572 on: 10/29/2014 06:27 am »
Yes, I'm an AJ-26 basher and admit it. 30 something year old rocket engines?  Really???? Is there a future there?

I am willing to hold off on judgment until the investigation comes back and reports that a turbopump blew itself apart... ;-)

Nothing wrong with 30 year old designs. The AJ-26 is a highly efficient engine.
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline SoulWager

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 177
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
« Reply #573 on: 10/29/2014 06:39 am »
Did we ever hear a root cause on the test stand failure earlier this year?

The plume change makes me think it was running fuel rich for a fraction of a second before the explosion. Oxidizer flow issues could cause the preburner to overheat and fly apart.

Offline Mapperuo

  • Assistant Webmaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1684
  • Yorkshire
  • Liked: 533
  • Likes Given: 68
- Aaron

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
« Reply #575 on: 10/29/2014 07:09 am »
Yes, I'm an AJ-26 basher and admit it. 30 something year old rocket engines?  Really???? Is there a future there?

I am willing to hold off on judgment until the investigation comes back and reports that a turbopump blew itself apart... ;-)

Nothing wrong with 30 year old designs. The AJ-26 is a highly efficient engine.

If I understand the issues properly, it isn't the age of the design that's the problem, it's the physical age of the hardware. All the NK-33s have been mothballed for decades. Whilst I'm sure AJ did all that they can, a higher instance of metallurgical problems must be expected.
"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 ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
« Reply #576 on: 10/29/2014 08:28 am »
Perhaps in this rocket, all FTS does is kill the thrust (in the other engine) and unzip the tanks

You'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.

Online FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
« Reply #577 on: 10/29/2014 09:19 am »
Hopefully, pretty sure payloads are well insured (I think) so maybe some solace there to mount replacements in the future. Hopefully no criticals for ISS supplies lost. Also, thank god no personnel injured, was a very nasty explosion and fire.

Did not seem to me like a TVC failure or that destruct command ever made it to the vehicle, instead very clearly appears to be at least a partial explosive failure of the engine, that or the engine lost all pressure in an explosive manner (chamber/throat, or turbo-pump cracked/split?).

Mr. Culbertson said there was "some" insurance (I inferred it was not fully/heavily insured).  And of course we know that having insurance doesn't necessarily mean there is a timely payout...

Mr. Culbertson also confirmed FTS was engaged, though I agree there was a (rapid) failure of an engine leading to FTS.  I would GUESS turbo machinery failure, especially knowing the single shaft "stacked" nature of said gear.

It was pretty obvious that despite being sent FTS signal never made it in time. Vehicle hit the ground prior to FTS activation, or FTS was disabled by the initial engine failure explosion. Unclear, but it certainly did not appear to be terminated prior to ground impact it just hit as is. Not really an issue though when it fails this close to the ground whether the FTS works or not is a non issue.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
« Reply #578 on: 10/29/2014 09:28 am »
I think it says a lot about the quality of Antares' flight control computer that the vehicle remained upright instead of tumbling due to off-axis thrust on its way down.

I'll be interested to see if the FTS may have commanded a radical pitch-over to push it as far down-range and away from the pad rather than trigger a self-destruct. That minimises the risk to SLC-0A and, as the NOTAM would have cleared downrange, there was no significant risk of the vehicle coming down on anyone.
"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 inventodoc

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 193
  • Grand Rapids, Michigan
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 573
Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
« Reply #579 on: 10/29/2014 09:47 am »
Yes, I'm an AJ-26 basher and admit it. 30 something year old rocket engines?  Really???? Is there a future there?

I am willing to hold off on judgment until the investigation comes back and reports that a turbopump blew itself apart... ;-)

Nothing wrong with 30 year old designs. The AJ-26 is a highly efficient engine.

No problem here with a nearly 40 year old design at all. Big problem with 30 year old hardware.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0