Author Topic: FAILURE: Astra Rocket 3.3 – STP-27AD1 – Kodiak – August 28, 2021 (22:35 UTC)  (Read 72564 times)

Offline pb2000

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • Calgary, AB
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: Astra Rocket 3.3 – STP-27AD1 – Kodiak – August 28, 2021
« Reply #40 on: 08/28/2021 10:38 pm »
terminated
Launches attended: Worldview-4 (Atlas V 401), Iridium NEXT Flight 1 (Falcon 9 FT), PAZ+Starlink (Falcon 9 FT), Arabsat-6A (Falcon Heavy)
Pilgrimaged to: Boca Chica (09/19 & 01/22)

Offline niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1421
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 2033
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: Astra Rocket 3.3 – STP-27AD1 – Kodiak – August 28, 2021
« Reply #41 on: 08/28/2021 10:38 pm »
"Terminate sent"
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

I'll bet it tumbled because it was very low, and suffering under way more aerodynamic forces at burn-out than planned.
Wait, ∆V? This site will accept the ∆ symbol? How many times have I written out the word "delta" for no reason?

Offline Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1425
  • Liked: 726
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Astra Rocket 3.3 – STP-27AD1 – Kodiak – August 28, 2021
« Reply #43 on: 08/28/2021 10:41 pm »
Terminated!

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47546
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80463
  • Likes Given: 36426
twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1431747667177115649

Quote
LAUNCH! Astra's Rocket 3.3 vehicle, designated LV0006, launches from LP-3B at the Pacific Spaceport Complex in Kodiak, Alaska.

#PowerSlide!

Overview: nasaspaceflight.com/2021/08/astra-…

Play by Play:
forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topi…

NSF/Astra Livestream:
youtube.com/watch?v=O8Tdm7…

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1431748363427491853

Quote
Amazing it got uphill after that powerslide. Got to MECO and then it was terminated.

Offline cpushack

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
  • Klamath Falls, Oregon
  • Liked: 390
  • Likes Given: 123
There was a call out that the vehicle was 'approaching' a nominal trajectory, seems it never got there but WAS trying to get back on track.

Offline jstrotha0975

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • United States
  • Liked: 330
  • Likes Given: 2597
How much more cash do they have to keep launching rockets that fail?

Offline chrisking0997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
  • NASA Langley
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 317
nothing seemed normal about that, but on the other hand if it wasnt normal why didnt the FTS fire?  Maybe they just really enjoy dirtying up their launch site
Tried to tell you, we did.  Listen, you did not.  Now, screwed we all are.

Offline kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Somewhere on the boat
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 1262
Did they release the hold downs before full power was reached?
« Last Edit: 08/28/2021 10:43 pm by kevinof »

Offline ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1550
  • Likes Given: 743
The fact that it power slid and the TWR was exactly 1 at liftoff, one of the outer engines did not get up to nominal running.  I bet that was the scrub yesterday too and they just "modified" the program to ignore the slow startup.  I guess it was a slow startup for a reason.

Good luck next try Astra!!!!

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47546
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80463
  • Likes Given: 36426
https://twitter.com/astra/status/1431748557342601219

Quote
🚀 We suffered technical difficulties, but achieved 2.5 minutes of flight data. Every launch, whether successful or not, is an opportunity for us to learn. Our team will study the data and use this information to iterate on our next launch. #AdAstra

Offline RocketLover0119

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2892
  • Space Geek
  • Tampa, Florida
  • Liked: 6789
  • Likes Given: 1609
Screen grabs of launch. Definitely not nominal.
"The Starship has landed"

Offline DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8524
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1194
  • Likes Given: 65
The fact that it power slid and the TWR was exactly 1 at liftoff, one of the outer engines did not get up to nominal running.  I bet that was the scrub yesterday too and they just "modified" the program to ignore the slow startup.  I guess it was a slow startup for a reason.

Good luck next try Astra!!!!
Another item to investigate is that the two smaller hoses that was connected to the PLF didn't release on lift-off but several seconds afterwards.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline chrisking0997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
  • NASA Langley
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 317
that they had a failure video all ready to queue up doesnt exactly give confidence
Tried to tell you, we did.  Listen, you did not.  Now, screwed we all are.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5993
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9165
  • Likes Given: 38
IIRC Astra use engine cutoff as their FSS. Engine shutdown occurred immediately before the tumble, and RSO called terminate sent, so the tumble is likely a result of FSS rather than the cause.

That powerslide on launch would have wasted a lot of prop on gravity losses, so unless they had exceptional margin the vehicle would have been outside its safety corridor at MECO anyway. Up until then, it was flying a nominal trajectory within its corridor (at reduced mass and a few seconds behind schedule) so no reason to terminate until then. More data more better.

Offline Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1425
  • Liked: 726
  • Likes Given: 676
The failure statement from the boss was gracious, and pre-recorded!

Offline Jrcraft

The fact that it power slid and the TWR was exactly 1 at liftoff, one of the outer engines did not get up to nominal running.  I bet that was the scrub yesterday too and they just "modified" the program to ignore the slow startup.  I guess it was a slow startup for a reason.

Good luck next try Astra!!!!
Another item to investigate is that the two smaller hoses that was connected to the PLF didn't release on lift-off but several seconds afterwards.
I think we've seen those pop off when liftoff goes as planned, as they're pulled out by force of what should be a vertical liftoff.
AE/ME
6 Suborbital spaceflight payloads. 14.55 minutes of in-space time.

Offline Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1425
  • Liked: 726
  • Likes Given: 676
that they had a failure video all ready to queue up doesnt exactly give confidence

It reflects realism and forward planning. A bit cynical, but certainly not dishonest.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5993
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9165
  • Likes Given: 38
On lift off, something at the base of the vehicle is rapidly flipped up and impacts the side. Looks like the cable run aerocover.
« Last Edit: 08/28/2021 10:52 pm by edzieba »

Offline rocketmantitan

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
The prelaunch chart showed MECO at T+2:50, I think.  So not sure why we had engine cutoff at T+2:30 ish.  But doesn't look like a planned MECO. I wonder if fairing deployment was tagged to 5 seconds after MECO (as opposed to a T+ time) - didn't see it go past the camera before the webcast cutaway.

Tags:
 

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