NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => NGIS (Formerly Orbital ATK) - Antares/Cygnus Section => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 03:17 pm

Title: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 03:17 pm
LIVE UPDATE Coverage for Orbital's Antares launch of Cygnus on the ORB-3 (CRS-3) mission to the International Space Station. This is ATTEMPT 2.


Launch Coverage Sponsored by ATK:
(http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ATK.jpg) (http://www.atk.com)

This is a live update thread, so all posts need to be updates, or they will be removed. Please use the other threads for non updates.

T-0: 18:22 Local.

Resources:

Orbital GENERAL Forum Section:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=46.0

Orbital (Antares/Cygnus) News Articles:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/orbital/

Main ORB-3/CRS-3 Feature Article - by William Graham:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/10/orbitals-antares-loft-fourth-cygnus-iss/

==

L2 Antares/Cygnus Section - Really good section with a lot of documentation, hundreds of photos, video and content resources exclusive to L2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=54.0
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/28/2014 03:33 pm
groundhog day ;D

Looking brighter outside? 

LIVE  http://www.ustream.tv/search?q=nasa%20wallops
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 05:43 pm
97 percent chance of good weather.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: mrhuggy on 10/28/2014 06:44 pm
FTS and power systems all working ok, Nominal.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 06:50 pm
NASA Television coverage of Tuesday's launch will begin at 5:30 p.m.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/28/2014 07:37 pm
Next up poll to begin fuel loading... :D

L -1hr 27 fuel load begin
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 07:48 pm
Now into RP-1 fast fill
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 07:51 pm
holding at T-1 hr 17min
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 07:58 pm
Waiting on LO2 tank venting before filling begins
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:00 pm
RED team falling back
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:00 pm
5 min to resuming CDT hold
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:06 pm
Resuming the count
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:08 pm
LO2 fill in progress
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:14 pm
1-hr 10min from planned T-0
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:14 pm
no issues for range (fingers crossed), but keeping an eye on possible debris drift
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:18 pm
NASA TV coverage has started.
Replaying encapsulation video shown yesterday
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:19 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:19 pm
NASA TV now showing rollout to pad
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:23 pm
passing T-1 hour
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: a_langwich on 10/28/2014 08:25 pm
groundhog day ;D

Looking brighter outside? 

LIVE  http://www.ustream.tv/search?q=nasa%20wallops


Is there a HD version?  I don't see any video quality settings when I go through ustream; going through the NASA TV site, I can choose to go higher def.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 08:25 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:28 pm
groundhog day ;D

Looking brighter outside? 

LIVE  http://www.ustream.tv/search?q=nasa%20wallops


Is there a HD version?  I don't see any video quality settings when I go through ustream; going through the NASA TV site, I can choose to go higher def.

There is a 'quality' area at the bottom (1/3 way from the right)
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:28 pm
A bit hazy, but still pretty
(and a different camera angle)
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:29 pm
Hey! Someone just superimposed a NASA TV feed directly over the livestream feed!
(so no more live loop feed)
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 08:30 pm
Here we go!
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 08:31 pm
T-52 mins.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:31 pm
Dan Huot is our announcer from JSC
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:31 pm
Coverage has begun.

Not tracking any issues.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 08:31 pm
Range is green.

Captain Pugwash is nowhere to be seen (UK joke ;) )
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:33 pm
Launch at 6:22 pm EDT.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:34 pm
95% chance for favourable weather. From rollout.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:35 pm
T-48 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 08:35 pm
Fun for the North Eastern based American folk here.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:36 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:36 pm
T-47 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: SaxtonHale on 10/28/2014 08:37 pm
Just as beautiful today.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:37 pm
Nice closeup of the LOX vent.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 08:37 pm
Nice close up there. Hopefully not because they are checking into something (unlikely).
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 08:38 pm
Heh. One controller was digging into some food there!
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:38 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/28/2014 08:39 pm
Launch staff still in the throwback clothing.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 08:39 pm
Legend.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:39 pm
T-45 minutes. OSC control room.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:39 pm
Trajectory file 0 to be loaded
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:39 pm
Full retro!
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 08:40 pm
Royce Renfrew at MCC-H has given a go.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:40 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:40 pm
ISS control room.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:41 pm
Wallops
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:41 pm
Wallops launch control centre.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/28/2014 08:41 pm
Full retro!

Bonus points to the guy in the lower-right with tape on his glasses.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:42 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:42 pm
T-41 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:43 pm
T-40 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:44 pm
Our beautiful little planet
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 08:44 pm
Showing off the ISS' HDEV camera.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:44 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:45 pm
configuring for no fuel adjustment
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:45 pm
Live view from ISS.

Configuring for no fuel adjustment.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:47 pm
It's almost like a military salute with all the contrails in the sky
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:48 pm
Now into polling for lo flow chilldown

RSO go pending relocation of NASA personnel

(apparently Asatiga? island)
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:49 pm
T-35 minutes. RSO is go pending on relocation of personal from an island.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/28/2014 08:50 pm
I can only assume the NASA personnel on Assateague are there to shake their fists threateningly at any passing boats.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/28/2014 08:50 pm
some nice con trails on this one...
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:50 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:50 pm
T-33 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:51 pm
Launch animation.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:53 pm
About T-30 minutes. Berthing coverage.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:54 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:54 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:55 pm
busy wednesday!
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:55 pm
Progress undocked yesterday.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 08:55 pm
So much for sleep tonight.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:56 pm
Everything on track to launch.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:57 pm
T-26 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:58 pm
for the moon buffs out there...
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:58 pm
Where we should be going. :-)
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 08:58 pm
T-24 min
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 08:59 pm
T-24 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:00 pm
into FTS polling
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:00 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:00 pm
Performing poll for FTS power on.

T-23 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:01 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:01 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:02 pm
Final balloon data: all criteria met, still pending debris (5 cars to clear out of the area)
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 09:02 pm
T-21 minutes. She's getting rather noisy now.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/28/2014 09:02 pm
way too artsy....
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 09:02 pm
Five cars to clear out of the area for the debris hazard.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:03 pm
FTSA external power on
FTSB external power on
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:03 pm
T-20 minutes. FTS safe.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:03 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/28/2014 09:04 pm
what a view...
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:04 pm
FTS internal pwer status: voltage and current nominal
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:04 pm
T-19 minutes. FTS on internal power.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:04 pm
T-18 min
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:05 pm
FTS armed
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:05 pm
T-18 minutes. FTS arm test being performed.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:05 pm
upper level winds green
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:06 pm
area is green for debris drift!
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 09:06 pm
Five minutes to final polling.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:06 pm
T-17 minutes. Ranges is green.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 09:06 pm
That ship's captain has moved his car ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:06 pm
T-16 min
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:07 pm
T-16 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:08 pm
Cygnus to internal power (in work)

Arming TEL for rapid retract (initiated)
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:08 pm
T-15 minutes. Transferring Cygnus to internal power.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:08 pm
TEL rapid retract is now armed
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:09 pm
T-14 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:09 pm
beautiful venting
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:10 pm
T-13 minutes. One minute to poll start.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:10 pm
Cygnus on internal power & nominal

Into final polling
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 09:11 pm
Cygnus on internal power. Polling!
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:11 pm
T-12 minutes. Poll being performed. Cygnus is on internal power.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:11 pm
Go for launch!
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 09:11 pm
All go!
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:12 pm
All is go for launch.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:12 pm
Giving my big thumbs up for go, and a successful launch tonight (go Orbital!!)
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:13 pm
T-9:52 minutes. Lost synch there.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:13 pm
T-9 min
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:14 pm
T-9 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:15 pm
T-8min and the sound level just went sky high! Ouch
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 09:15 pm
She's a noisy venter! (Nitrogen purge to be accurate).
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:15 pm
T-8 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:16 pm
T-7 minutes. Venting nitrogen.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:17 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:18 pm
T-6 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 09:18 pm
Range is green!
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:18 pm
T-5 minutes. Range is green.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:19 pm
server crash - we're back though
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:19 pm
T-4 minutes. Vehicle is armed.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:19 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:19 pm
auto sequencer has started
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 09:20 pm
T-3 mins.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:20 pm
ODM voltages & corrent nominal
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:20 pm
T-3 minutes. Autosequence start.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:20 pm
T-2 min
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:21 pm
Starting tank pressurization
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 09:21 pm
Into press.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:21 pm
T-2 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:21 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:21 pm
T-1 min
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 09:22 pm
T-60 seconds.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:22 pm
T-1 minute.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:22 pm
liftoff!
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/28/2014 09:23 pm
No!!!!!
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:23 pm
Ignition!
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Comga on 10/28/2014 09:23 pm
Oh OH!

Failure!

Fireball!
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Jeff Lerner on 10/28/2014 09:23 pm
It blew up
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Norm38 on 10/28/2014 09:23 pm
Oh my God!!  They just had a massive engine explosion!
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:23 pm
OH WOW

Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Mapperuo on 10/28/2014 09:23 pm
Failure.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 09:24 pm
Oh no!
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: wjbarnett on 10/28/2014 09:24 pm
OMG
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Joey S-IVB on 10/28/2014 09:24 pm
Oh frack!! Blew up! The Aj-26 isn't looking like a bargain.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: shotty on 10/28/2014 09:24 pm
Oh no!  :'( :'( :'( :'(
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 09:24 pm
Guests removed for obvious reasons. Keep chatter down. Keep on updates.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:24 pm
Bad day at Wallops.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:25 pm
My sincere and heartfelt regrets to Orbital
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Jeff Lerner on 10/28/2014 09:25 pm
Lifted off...and then fell back onto  the pad...
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Joey S-IVB on 10/28/2014 09:25 pm
The launch pad looks to be badly damaged. Rocket blew up not more than 50 metres above pad
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:25 pm
Will bring updates as they become available.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 09:26 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: starsilk on 10/28/2014 09:26 pm
pad looks destroyed.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:26 pm
into contingency ops
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:26 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Kaputnik on 10/28/2014 09:26 pm
Looks like damage to the pad, as you would expect.
All quiet on the net after announcement of the failure.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/28/2014 09:26 pm
bad
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: AncientU on 10/28/2014 09:26 pm
Solids still burning
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:26 pm
There's a fire to the left.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Jarnis on 10/28/2014 09:27 pm
Oh no....  :'(
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/28/2014 09:27 pm
Detonations on grounds...
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Joey S-IVB on 10/28/2014 09:27 pm
This hopefully won't have Congress question commercial cargo.   
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: NaN on 10/28/2014 09:28 pm
"Damage is limited to facility - no danger to personnel - significant property damage and significant vehicle damage.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: WindnWar on 10/28/2014 09:28 pm
Launch failure at 6 seconds after liftoff. No indication of personal in danger though there is significant property and vehicle damage.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:28 pm
Vehicle exploded at T+6 seconds.

Implementing contingency plan.

Damage limited to facility. Significant property and vehicle damage.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Poole Amateur on 10/28/2014 09:29 pm
Damage limited to facility with significant property damage. Bad fire.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Kaputnik on 10/28/2014 09:29 pm
Webcast ended
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: simonbp on 10/28/2014 09:29 pm
Solids still burning

That is going to keep things dangerous for quite a while.

Damn.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:29 pm
over the loop:
A mishap has occurred on Pad 3A

Appears damage is limited to the facility

No personnel in danger

Significant property damage
Significant vehicle damage

Wishing to work with mission assurance reps to collect all data
segregate all mission notes and data

(announcer is a bit choked up, understandably)

lock down any data
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:29 pm
Securing data.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Helodriver on 10/28/2014 09:30 pm
Liftoff looked slow, engine performance was subnominal right from liftoff. With pad damage we may have just witnesses the last Antares launch.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Targeteer on 10/28/2014 09:30 pm
audio is continuing on the ISS streaming live feed http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream  Failure leading the CBS evening news
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:30 pm
FAA notified

taking witness statements
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:31 pm
There's now a small fire to the right of the pad.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Joey S-IVB on 10/28/2014 09:31 pm

Liftoff looked slow, engine performance was subnominal right from liftoff. With pad damage we may have just witnesses the last Antares launch.

Sadly, I agree, last flight with the AJ-26 engines.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 09:31 pm
Everyone only post updates.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:31 pm
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Mapperuo on 10/28/2014 09:32 pm
The pad is bad...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Joey S-IVB on 10/28/2014 09:32 pm
NASA TV still covering it
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 09:32 pm
Fire services heading to the site.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:32 pm
fire engines can be heard in the background
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Elvis in Space on 10/28/2014 09:32 pm
Watching NASA tv on local cable. Fire burned down and explosion took out the lights. Hear fire sirens in distance.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:33 pm
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/28/2014 09:33 pm
Keep a stiff upper lip Orbital..

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Swatch on 10/28/2014 09:33 pm
Original Youtube Video Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHMmMgdcOSU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHMmMgdcOSU)



More extensive Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh5oYmTURhc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh5oYmTURhc)



Higher quality video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL5eddt-iAo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL5eddt-iAo)

Reminder to all of us... Rockets are hard.  Keep up the spirits Orbital!
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: newpylong on 10/28/2014 09:33 pm
Let there be no questions about redundant providers anymore.

This is sad. The Orbital crew are the nicest folks.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:33 pm
Heard sirens in background.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: meekGee on 10/28/2014 09:33 pm
Is FTS inhibited during the first seconds?

I'm asking, since it seems to have fallen back intact, many seconds (it seemed) after the engine went.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: starsilk on 10/28/2014 09:34 pm
NASA TV showing coverage of fires on the beach. (good job NASA, didn't cut away).
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:34 pm
A lot of debris on the beach. ISS crew has been informed of accident.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:34 pm
ISS crew has been informed

All that science & spare parts - gone

Such is the nature of spaceflight though
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/28/2014 09:34 pm
more
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Targeteer on 10/28/2014 09:35 pm
The ISS crew was informed of the failure but that exchange was not on the streaming ISS feed.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:35 pm
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/28/2014 09:35 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: docmordrid on 10/28/2014 09:35 pm
Liftoff looked slow, engine performance was subnominal right from liftoff. With pad damage we may have just witnesses the last Antares launch.

At least until it's re-engined, if its re-engined.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Mapperuo on 10/28/2014 09:35 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL5eddt-iAo&list=UUdF5d0UwSJJunRcRVzP1uDg

1080p link from satellite Reuters feed.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:35 pm
Latest information from upcoming news conference.
Title: Re: LIVE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) ATTEMPT 2 - LAUNCH UPDATES
Post by: Brovane on 10/28/2014 09:35 pm
This hopefully won't have Congress question commercial cargo.

Of course the usual suspects will probably use this opportunity.

Sucks they even named the Cygnus spacecraft after Deke Slayton.  Deke deserved better. 
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: starsilk on 10/28/2014 09:36 pm
watching the replay, did it contact the tower?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Helodriver on 10/28/2014 09:36 pm
Solid fuel has burned out.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:36 pm
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: QuantumG on 10/28/2014 09:36 pm
I really feel for Planetary Resources, their Arkyd 3 test vehicle was on that rocket. :(

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Joey S-IVB on 10/28/2014 09:36 pm
It's live on NBC nightly News broadcast.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:36 pm
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:37 pm
Still burning.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:38 pm
Not the sunset we wanted to see.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Mapperuo on 10/28/2014 09:38 pm
May I just say my deepest thoughts to all those who worked on the vehicle. And appreciate NASA keeping with this and updating us, Most others would cut the feed.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:38 pm
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/28/2014 09:39 pm
watching the replay, did it contact the tower?

Nope.

And I'm not sure about engines running abnormally at liftoff - with a bigger solid this thing should have went slower than the last few ones.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:40 pm
LD: will need to implement an accident investigation team
Orbital, NASA, MARS

Richard Straka? interim lead
Will impound all the data relavent to the launch today
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:40 pm
Talking about accident investigation team. Richard Strafter? will be lead.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Helodriver on 10/28/2014 09:41 pm
Looking at Google Maps, that ground fire to the left is burning around other MARS facilities. This will impact other programs and activities as well.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/28/2014 09:41 pm
Looks to me like the basic concrete structure of the pad is still intact.  Perhaps she slid off a bit and missed a direct fallback.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:41 pm
You can see debris hanging from the tower.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:41 pm
geese can be heard in the background (that time of year)

recommendation to power down the ground mock-up & stop archiving
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:42 pm
Go to stop telemetry logging & power down mock-up
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:43 pm
Talking about stopping ground power and telemetry archive. Standing by.

Go ahead and stop archive and power down.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Norm38 on 10/28/2014 09:43 pm
Watching the replay loop on CNN ("NASA rocket explodes on launch"), after the explosion at the engines, the stage looks to remain intact, and falls back vertically.  Flame increases, but the big mushroom cloud doesn't happen until the stage hits the ground.

So it looks to me like the tanks stayed intact, but with the turbopumps and fuel lines likely shredded, fuel was just pouring out the bottom until it hit.

No sign that FTS was ever activated.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: ugordan on 10/28/2014 09:43 pm
Looks to me like the basic concrete structure of the pad is still intact.  Perhaps she slid off a bit and missed a direct fallback.

The TEL avoidance maneuver imparted some sideways motion that probably saved at least a good bit of the actual pad structure.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:44 pm
EGSC? power down

asking to retrieve logging files

(CNN covering this also with Miles O'Brien)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:44 pm
Anything we need to shut down remotely?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:44 pm
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:45 pm
LD: all personnel accounted for. No injuries

Cygnus spacecraft has classified scam equipment on board, so the area needs to be secured
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Jeff Lerner on 10/28/2014 09:45 pm
Lots of small fires on the beach still going on...not seeing any fire equipment...guess they will let it go out by themselves..
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/28/2014 09:45 pm
All personnel accounted for

classified equipment on board, must protect area
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: John44 on 10/28/2014 09:46 pm
Orbital Sciences/Cygnus CRS-3 Launch
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9139
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:46 pm
No injuries in the operation today. Cygnus has classified scamgraphic equipment. Need to maintain area in a secure manner.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:46 pm
LD: asking for MARS personnel to secure any info for archiving & logged
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/28/2014 09:46 pm


1080p link from satellite Reuters feed.

nasty sound on this one...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: simonbp on 10/28/2014 09:46 pm
No sign that FTS was ever activated.

Is it explosive FTS? If it is just a thrust-termination FTS, then it would have behave just like this. If the good engine was still running after the other blew up, then the FTS would try to turn it off.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:47 pm
Secure data in ground computers to be archived and logged.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: eeergo on 10/28/2014 09:47 pm
Looks to me like the basic concrete structure of the pad is still intact.  Perhaps she slid off a bit and missed a direct fallback.

The TEL avoidance maneuver imparted some sideways motion that probably saved at least a good bit of the actual pad structure.

The Castor 30XL appeared to be burning just on the beach side of the flame deflector. The beach side masts are the most obvious absence, but looks like the pad itself missed the brunt of the impact. What the raining debris and blast wave might have done to it is another matter.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: meekGee on 10/28/2014 09:47 pm
watching the replay, did it contact the tower?

Nope.

And I'm not sure about engines running abnormally at liftoff - with a bigger solid this thing should have went slower than the last few ones.

I agree.  At first look only, the engine event was very well defined, and before it the rocket did evrything right including the slip-slide maneuver.

They might find signs of the impending event already at T+0, but I don't think it impacted the flight.

EDIT:  By "Event" I mean the very visible change in the plume that preceded the explosion.

Adding my condolences to Orbital.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Remes on 10/28/2014 09:48 pm
N1-curse?

Spacecraft contains secret scam-equipment. Requires clean up of area, debris, etc.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:48 pm
Personnel in ?, Dulles and Newchurch: asking for any archiving & notes should be secured, and forwarded to Ken Holter for cataloging & archiving in a central location for the AIB to access
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:50 pm
LD: OFI

asking if NTSB will be involved

nobody interview anyone as NTSB gets first crack
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Targeteer on 10/28/2014 09:50 pm
NTSB may be involved in the investigation
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:50 pm
LD: Responsibility for working with any parties to come through AIB
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/28/2014 09:50 pm
Talking about accident investigation board.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Targeteer on 10/28/2014 09:51 pm
AIB is Accident Investigation Board
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: executor314 on 10/28/2014 09:51 pm
I have to say… they need to get off of Russian engines.  Despite refurbishment, the NK-33 didn't have a good track record (N-1).  Such a sad irony that they were going to announce a replacement in the short future… 
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/28/2014 09:52 pm
Didn't each NK-33 AJ-26 used got a full test fire before integration? Hmm.....

That could mean that something left over in the engines a la one Ariane 4 in 1990 might be plausible....  :-X
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:52 pm
CNN: NASA getting comments from former NASA astronaut Mark Kelly
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Bob Shaw on 10/28/2014 09:54 pm
The pad may be out of commission for a considerable time, what with repairs and the environmental clean-up (probably a lot of solid fuel residue (burnt and unburnt) in the soil for years to come. Is there another pad which Orbital can use, either at Wallops or elsewhere?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: ariek on 10/28/2014 09:54 pm
CNN starts calling it a NASA-contracted rocket after about 15 minutes. Have been calling it a NASA rocket up to now.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:54 pm
CNN: Mark Kelly also noting asking his brother (via phone) of any of his supplies were on board Cygnus for his stay on ISS (and likely was)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: executor314 on 10/28/2014 09:54 pm
Also, from what it looked like, the launch pad got the brunt of it.  How long will repairs take?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: starsilk on 10/28/2014 09:55 pm
The pad may be out of commission for a considerable time, what with repairs and the environmental clean-up (probably a lot of solid fuel residue (burnt and unburnt) in the soil for years to come. Is there another pad which Orbital can use, either at Wallops or elsewhere?

probably Cygnus launched on Atlas V, or even Falcon 9.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 09:55 pm
CNN starts calling it a NASA-contracted rocket after about 15 minutes. Have been calling it a NASA rocket up to now.

Only the caption. Live comments by Wolf Blitzer saying it's a NASA-contracted rocket
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Helodriver on 10/28/2014 09:55 pm
Most of the continuing burning near the pad seems to be in the area of the propellant tanks and lines.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: DaveS on 10/28/2014 09:55 pm
The pad may be out of commission for a considerable time, what with repairs and the environmental clean-up (probably a lot of solid fuel residue (burnt and unburnt) in the soil for years to come. Is there another pad which Orbital can use, either at Wallops or elsewhere?
No. There's no other Antares pad, either at MARS or elsewhere. This was the only one.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Mapperuo on 10/28/2014 09:56 pm
I do wonder the next time we'll see an Antares launch.. :( The launch pad build took a while from scratch as is didn't it?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: eeergo on 10/28/2014 09:56 pm
I have to say… they need to get off of Russian engines.  Despite refurbishment, the NK-33 didn't have a good track record (N-1).  Such a sad irony that they were going to announce a replacement in the short future… 

Note the engines flown in all N-1's were NK-15 (or 15V), not NK-33, and one of the reasons for the poor track record of those was that they were not re-ignitable, so only "sample" engines could be tested - the flight units were actually never tested. NK-33 are "re-useable" in that sense.

What I wonder is if the problem will be related to the test stand failure from earlier in the year.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Brovane on 10/28/2014 09:56 pm
"Rockets are tricky" Elon Musk 
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Jeff Lerner on 10/28/2014 09:57 pm
I realize this is waaaay too early but just wanted to toss this pure speculation out there...want there. AJ-26 failure on a test stand a few months ago...some possible relationship ???
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: meekGee on 10/28/2014 09:57 pm
No sign that FTS was ever activated.

Is it explosive FTS? If it is just a thrust-termination FTS, then it would have behave just like this. If the good engine was still running after the other blew up, then the FTS would try to turn it off.

I think it is supposed to be explosive, and it might have been inhibited.

The inhibit might also have saved the pad.  If it crashed on the ground, even 50 m away, it is better than in the air, 50 m above.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Danderman on 10/28/2014 09:59 pm
I have to say… they need to get off of Russian engines.  Despite refurbishment, the NK-33 didn't have a good track record (N-1).  Such a sad irony that they were going to announce a replacement in the short future… 

N-1 never used NK-33.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/28/2014 09:59 pm
EDIT:  By "Event" I mean the very visible change in the plume that preceded the explosion.

These are one frame apart (click for animation).  Looks to me like the plume went from blue/white (on the camera) to a much more orange color.  I think that indicates a cooler burn, which would mean fuel-rich, which might indicate a failure on the oxygen side.  Did we ever hear what failed on the test stand?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/28/2014 09:59 pm
Most of the continuing burning near the pad seems to be in the area of the propellant tanks and lines.

I think it's beyond the tank farm up the beach a bit. Looks like the strobes are still on in the Lox farm. Had a better view over there earlier
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: SaxtonHale on 10/28/2014 10:01 pm
I got pictures and video... but we had to run to the bus and leave our gear.

From the press site it looked/sounded like an engine failed, it started falling, then FTS popped an instant before it hit the ground and finished exploding.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: orbitaldebris on 10/28/2014 10:01 pm
It looked like an engine exploded. If that's the case, the decision to clear the AJ-26 after the May explosion may not have been a wise one.  :(
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 10:01 pm
I'm getting upset at CNN (in the background)

They're using the 'classified scam equipment on board' as a hook
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Helodriver on 10/28/2014 10:02 pm
Most of the continuing burning near the pad seems to be in the area of the propellant tanks and lines.

I think it's beyond the tank farm up the beach a bit. Looks like the strobes are still on in the Lox farm. Had a better view over there earlier

Agree, its burning around that tube framed structure that covers the Minotaur launch stand.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Targeteer on 10/28/2014 10:04 pm
I'm getting upset at CNN (in the background)

They're using the 'classified scam equipment on board' as a hook

No CNN on DISH right now due to a fee dispute which sounds like a good thing :)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: topsphere on 10/28/2014 10:05 pm
Poor Planetary Resources :( :(
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: postholer on 10/28/2014 10:05 pm
From my comfortable seat of ignorance, it looks like it was damaged before it even left the pad.

The TEATEB ignited and it appears there was a not-normal flash, explosion, which may have damaged an engine.

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 10:07 pm
At least a CNN reporter said it right (with regards to the science experiments on board) 'a serious cataclysm'
He also noted that for the spacecraft to get to this stage (to launch), it would have gone though a lot of reviews
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Elvis in Space on 10/28/2014 10:08 pm
I'm getting upset at CNN (in the background)

They're using the 'classified scam equipment on board' as a hook

No CNN on DISH right now due to a fee dispute which sounds like a good thing :)

They finally got Miles O'Brien. He's making a little more sense for them now. Bill Nye on too. Anchor reporter is absolutely clueless.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: eeergo on 10/28/2014 10:08 pm
Poor Planetary Resources :( :(

And PlanetLabs: they just lost all their 26 new generation birds in one go, which coupled with the CubeSat dispenser trouble probably has set back their plans quite a bit.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 10:08 pm
CNN: (Miles O'Brien): 'There's nothing routine about going into space'

Amen
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: simonbp on 10/28/2014 10:09 pm
Hopefully they have insurance. This is what it is there for.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 10:10 pm
CNN: (Miles O'Brien) noting the issue of the scam equipment as being misleading, and not related to spying at all
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: CardBoardBoxProcessor on 10/28/2014 10:10 pm
From my comfortable seat of ignorance, it looks like it was damaged before it even left the pad.

The TEATEB ignited and it appears there was a not-normal flash, explosion, which may have damaged an engine.

So I was not the only one that noticed this. As soon as it started up I had a bad feeling. I was expecting an abort to be called due to it.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Space Pete on 10/28/2014 10:12 pm
Oh my, this is unbelievable. I'm truly shocked to see this.

Obviously this is not good news for ISS at all - both in terms of the immediate logistical impact, and the long-term impact should any pad reconstruction be needed.

My heart goes out to the Orbital teams.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jabe on 10/28/2014 10:13 pm
any have side by side comparison of launches yet?.. :)  well at least a link to a previous launch...
jb
sad day for rocketry..but not the end......
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Mapperuo on 10/28/2014 10:14 pm
any have side by side comparison of launches yet?.. :)  well at least a link to a previous launch...
jb
sad day for rocketry..but not the end......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYYNc2_EqQY

During daytime sadly
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Elvis in Space on 10/28/2014 10:14 pm
From my comfortable seat of ignorance, it looks like it was damaged before it even left the pad.

The TEATEB ignited and it appears there was a not-normal flash, explosion, which may have damaged an engine.

So I was not the only one that noticed this. As soon as it started up I had a bad feeling. I was expecting an abort to be called due to it.

Same here. I'm watching on a 70" screen and I got a bad feeling almost right away. Be interesting when the investigation reveals how soon things went bad.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: simonbp on 10/28/2014 10:14 pm
Obviously this is not good news for ISS at all - both in terms of the immediate logistical impact, and the long-term impact should any pad reconstruction be needed.

And the Minotaur pad, which may be lost as well. Bad day at MARS.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Joey S-IVB on 10/28/2014 10:14 pm
I wonder if SpaceX has the capability in the short-term to replace one or two Cygnus missions without impacting its other commercial clients? I'm guessing that most of the payload lost today, is replaceable on a later mission?

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/28/2014 10:16 pm
Obviously this is not good news for ISS at all - both in terms of the immediate logistical impact, and the long-term impact should any pad reconstruction be needed.

And the Minotaur pad, which may be lost as well. Bad day at MARS.

Probably too far from that pad I think......
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: asmi on 10/28/2014 10:16 pm
They might find signs of the impending event already at T+0, but I don't think it impacted the flight.
I doubt that. RUD events of staged combustion engines tend to happen very quickly - we're talking milliseconds here.
Looking at the history of similar events in RD-1xx family and keeping in mind that these engines have been fire-tested prior to flight (which all but rule out engine-related issues unless something happened during integration), I'd hazard a guess of some sort of foreign object in the fuel/oxidizer. SC engines are extremely touchy when it comes to fuel, even tiny foreign particle can cause RUD event.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 10:16 pm
Still burning near the pad. No need to post image of such a bad day for Orbital
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: mtakala24 on 10/28/2014 10:17 pm
Can someone analyze what is burning there? It must be either launch pad fuel or oxygen systems, although the farm seems to be safe.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/28/2014 10:17 pm
My condolences to the people involved.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 10:18 pm
Keep the noise down folks. No one really cares that the mass media are covering this. Of course they are. They wouldn't if it was a success.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: cscott on 10/28/2014 10:18 pm
I wonder if SpaceX has the capability in the short-term to replace one or two Cygnus missions without impacting its other commercial clients? I'm guessing that most of the payload lost today, is replaceable on a later mission?
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/arkyd-3.htm lists Flock-1d 1-26, Arkyd-3, RACE, and GOMX 2 as secondary payloads.

Condolences to Orbital.  Not what I was hoping to watch today.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/28/2014 10:19 pm
One question: given that documentation for the initial construction of these engines might not exist today (do they do that in the 1970s?), how could Aerojet investigate this?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 10:19 pm
Call on the loop not to talk to the press. Understandable.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: the_other_Doug on 10/28/2014 10:20 pm
As just asked, in the current B&W feed on NASA TV, we've seen the fire on the left and behind the pad suddenly intensify, and then a small fire to the right and directly behind the pad structure is getting much, much larger.  What in the ground installations could be feeding those fires?

-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: asmi on 10/28/2014 10:20 pm
Sh*t happened. Rockets are hard, and sometimes these things happen. I'm sure Orbital folks would be able to sort out what happened and bring rocket back to flight.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/28/2014 10:20 pm
Culbertson rallies the troops, warns not to speculate, talk to press, etc.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/28/2014 10:21 pm
Pad 0B (Minotaur) was in the opposite direction from where the Antares fell, it is ok.

It appears to have landed on the beach or seawall just NE of its pad.

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Silmfeanor on 10/28/2014 10:21 pm
As just asked, in the current B&W feed on NASA TV, we've seen the fire on the left and behind the pad suddenly intensify, and then a small fire to the right and directly behind the pad structure is getting much, much larger.  What in the ground installations could be feeding those fires?

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

Solids burning unevenly; the upper stage, most likely. Without the normal pressure environment of the intact stage, solids can burn very weirdly.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Damon Hill on 10/28/2014 10:21 pm
A likely suspect for the remaining fires is burning solid fuel grain; I seem to recall this from that spectacular Delta II failure some years ago. 
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 10:21 pm
sorry, making supper. Wasn't expecting a long mission feed

Frank on the loop (sorry Frank):
'We've alll seen this before'
(missed the second part, about getting through this)
'be very judicious, especially (speculation?)'
missed 'outside our family' (details likely)

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Mapperuo on 10/28/2014 10:22 pm
From my comfortable seat of ignorance, it looks like it was damaged before it even left the pad.

The TEATEB ignited and it appears there was a not-normal flash, explosion, which may have damaged an engine.

Watched it on YT and it looks like it's just the hold down bolt firing?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 10:23 pm
LD: 'NTSB will be active, but only in a monitor mode'

'we are free to interview'
'NASA free to interview their people'
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/28/2014 10:23 pm
NTSB will be active, but in "monitor mode" meaning they waive their right to first interviews.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: CardBoardBoxProcessor on 10/28/2014 10:24 pm
ANyone at the Arbuckle viewing point? they okay at their 1.8 Mile distance?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: sanman on 10/28/2014 10:24 pm
Oh no - I paid $40 to have my picture sent up to space and photographed via the Arkyd-3 payload that was part of the manifest on this launch.

Somebody up there just doesn't like me  :(
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/28/2014 10:26 pm
From my comfortable seat of ignorance, it looks like it was damaged before it even left the pad.

The TEATEB ignited and it appears there was a not-normal flash, explosion, which may have damaged an engine.

Watched it on YT and it looks like it's just the hold down bolt firing?

I'm not seeing anything obviously off nominal in the replay.

Remember Antares has a very low T/W at liftoff, and with the TEL avoidance maneuver Antares launches have all looked kind of "uncomfortable" for the first few seconds.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Elvis in Space on 10/28/2014 10:27 pm
CNN is saying they are loading additional images. Personal stuff I guess. Might be interesting.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: meekGee on 10/28/2014 10:27 pm
They might find signs of the impending event already at T+0, but I don't think it impacted the flight.
I doubt that. RUD events of staged combustion engines tend to happen very quickly - we're talking milliseconds here.
Looking at the history of similar events in RD-1xx family and keeping in mind that these engines have been fire-tested prior to flight (which all but rule out engine-related issues unless something happened during integration), I'd hazard a guess of some sort of foreign object in the fuel/oxidizer. SC engines are extremely touchy when it comes to fuel, even tiny foreign particle can cause RUD event.
I know, that's what I meant.  Everything looked normal until the plume changed, and then right afterwards the engine exploded, but the rocket did not.

If there's a root cause that was detectable at T+0, I don't think it had a direct impact on the flight until that last second.

Then, as you say, things happened very quickly.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Remes on 10/28/2014 10:28 pm
From my comfortable seat of ignorance, it looks like it was damaged before it even left the pad.

The TEATEB ignited and it appears there was a not-normal flash, explosion, which may have damaged an engine.

Watched it on YT and it looks like it's just the hold down bolt firing?

If this is, what you are talking about, yes, it looks very much some pyro-bolt.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/28/2014 10:29 pm
I watched the launch live on my phone (heh; space tech, eh?) and as she climbed from the Pad I said "It's slow, it doesn't look right" and of course about three seconds later, it wasn't :( I feel for the folks at Orbital, NASA and the ISS crew. I really wanted to see that new Castor 30XL fly! And to think I really liked those NK-33/AJ-26 engines - I have more than a gut feeling that they will turn out the culprits. With several launches still to go on the Commercial Cargo contract, this is a real nuisance for all involved. Let's hope for a speedy recovery of all systems.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: somepitch on 10/28/2014 10:31 pm
View from a different angle

https://twitter.com/EddieInTheYard/status/527229715770535936 (https://twitter.com/EddieInTheYard/status/527229715770535936)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: petec on 10/28/2014 10:31 pm
ANyone at the Arbuckle viewing point? they okay at their 1.8 Mile distance?

I was wondering about the Arbuckle viewing. Saw the launch last fall from there and it was spectacular, but I wondered if the safety czars would shut that down. They probably will now. Bummer.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jtrame on 10/28/2014 10:35 pm
I watched the launch live on my phone (heh; space tech, eh?) and as she climbed from the Pad I said "It's slow, it doesn't look right" and of course about three seconds later, it wasn't :( I feel for the folks at Orbital, NASA and the ISS crew. I really wanted to see that new Castor 30XL fly! And to think I really liked those NK-33/AJ-26 engines - I have more than a gut feeling that they will turn out the culprits. With several launched still to go on the Commercial Cargo contract, this is a real nuisance for all involved. Let's hope for a speedy recovery of all systems.

And Cygnus is a great spacecraft.  A setback, that's for sure
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: somepitch on 10/28/2014 10:36 pm
Observer video

http://instagram.com/p/uts_2Qqcus/?modal=true (http://instagram.com/p/uts_2Qqcus/?modal=true)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/28/2014 10:36 pm
Besides Orbitial, I fell sorry for all those people with experiments on board.

SpaceX may need to bring some of their Dragon CRS flights forward as it is going to take months before Antares flys again.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jsmjr on 10/28/2014 10:39 pm
I watched the launch live on my phone (heh; space tech, eh?) and as she climbed from the Pad I said "It's slow, it doesn't look right" and of course about three seconds later, it wasn't :( I feel for the folks at Orbital, NASA and the ISS crew. I really wanted to see that new Castor 30XL fly! And to think I really liked those NK-33/AJ-26 engines - I have more than a gut feeling that they will turn out the culprits. With several launched still to go on the Commercial Cargo contract, this is a real nuisance for all involved. Let's hope for a speedy recovery of all systems.

Antares launches slowly and also does a very noticeable sideways maneuver only a few feet up, to clear some pad structures as I recall.  It's a complex dance, but it's not off-nominal.  Things seemed to go wrong higher up with stage-one engines perhaps at greater thrust?  That's why I can't think the pyrotechnic bolts were an immediate cause, unless they inflicted damage that would evidence itself somewhat later in the mission.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Helodriver on 10/28/2014 10:39 pm
Observer video

http://instagram.com/p/uts_2Qqcus/?modal=true (http://instagram.com/p/uts_2Qqcus/?modal=true)


And that right there pretty much puts to bed the idea of flying a large monolithic solid motor from Wallops.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Poole Amateur on 10/28/2014 10:39 pm
Mark Kelly getting his engines wrong on CNN...thinks they are RD180s
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: postholer on 10/28/2014 10:39 pm
From my comfortable seat of ignorance, it looks like it was damaged before it even left the pad.

The TEATEB ignited and it appears there was a not-normal flash, explosion, which may have damaged an engine.

Watched it on YT and it looks like it's just the hold down bolt firing?

I honestly don't know, but it looked more like a flash of a significant amount of flammable gas igniting. I'm thinking this is a ground/pad issue.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: JasonAW3 on 10/28/2014 10:40 pm
Looks to me like the basic concrete structure of the pad is still intact.  Perhaps she slid off a bit and missed a direct fallback.

The TEL avoidance maneuver imparted some sideways motion that probably saved at least a good bit of the actual pad structure.

The Castor 30XL appeared to be burning just on the beach side of the flame deflector. The beach side masts are the most obvious absence, but looks like the pad itself missed the brunt of the impact. What the raining debris and blast wave might have done to it is another matter.

Looked like the whole rocket got over the beach before the engines went.  If it were a maned flight, the ejection system would have had plenty of time to save the crew. 

Are the nk-33's turbo fed or pressure fed?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: orbitaldebris on 10/28/2014 10:42 pm
Mark Kelly getting his engines wrong on CNN...thinks they are RD180s
Yeah I heard that. Unbelievable. "an engine with a good track record" he said.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: JimO on 10/28/2014 10:42 pm
Keep the noise down folks. No one really cares that the mass media are covering this. Of course they are. They wouldn't if it was a success.

Roger that. NBC is sending a car from Houston now to take me to a studio for a 10:15 EDT MSNBC hit and taping for the morning show. Meanwhile, Mark Kelly is embarrassing himself on CNN and I need to make sure I don't.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 10:42 pm
From my comfortable seat of ignorance, it looks like it was damaged before it even left the pad.

The TEATEB ignited and it appears there was a not-normal flash, explosion, which may have damaged an engine.

Watched it on YT and it looks like it's just the hold down bolt firing?

I honestly don't know, but it looked more like a flash of a significant amount of flammable gas igniting. I'm thinking this is a ground/pad issue.

No.

All looked fine for at least T+5 seconds, then it looks like an engine let go (likely internally).
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Norm38 on 10/28/2014 10:42 pm
Mark Kelly on CNN is confused, says Antares is using the RD-180, same as ULA, and that their failure record counts for this flight.  Surprised he got that wrong.  Heads up ULA, you're going to get questions. 
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: somepitch on 10/28/2014 10:42 pm
And another one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHkDc-CwoQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHkDc-CwoQ)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: JimO on 10/28/2014 10:44 pm
Call on the loop not to talk to the press. Understandable.

That's Frank Culbertson, he was NASA's guy in charge of Shuttle-Mir in 1997 for that parade of crises.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Helodriver on 10/28/2014 10:44 pm
View from a different angle

https://twitter.com/EddieInTheYard/status/527229715770535936 (https://twitter.com/EddieInTheYard/status/527229715770535936)

Shot from Wishart point. 3.2 miles away.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Kim Keller on 10/28/2014 10:44 pm
Is FTS inhibited during the first seconds?

I'm asking, since it seems to have fallen back intact, many seconds (it seemed) after the engine went.

No, FTS is active as soon as the safe & arm devices are rotated to 'arm". The system wasn't activated because there were no conditions met which would trigger it. The rocket was in one piece, and the MFCO would have had no reason to send "arm/destruct" commands.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: somepitch on 10/28/2014 10:45 pm
View from a different angle

https://twitter.com/EddieInTheYard/status/527229715770535936 (https://twitter.com/EddieInTheYard/status/527229715770535936)

Shot from Wishart point. 3.2 miles away.

Would this be the same spot? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qNL59WkIRY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qNL59WkIRY)

Probably feels close when things are going wrong...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/28/2014 10:48 pm
From Wallops Flight Facility:
Quote
The Orbital Sciences Corp.'s Antares rocket lifted off to start its third resupply mission to the International Space Station, but suffered a catastrophic anomaly shortly after liftoff at 6:22 p.m. EDT.

The Orbital Sciences team is executing its contingency procedures, securing the site and data, including all telemetry from the Antares launch vehicle and Cygnus spacecraft.

Before launch the Orbital team was not tracking any issues.

No injuries have been reported, and Orbital reports that all personnel around  the Wallops Flight Facility launch site have been accounted for.

NASA will continue to provide additional updates as it becomes available, as well as the earliest expected time for a news conference.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Orbiter on 10/28/2014 10:49 pm
Video from the ground from Matthew Travis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ0SgAU9LXI&feature=autoshare
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Proponent on 10/28/2014 10:50 pm
Are the nk-33's turbo fed or pressure fed?

Definitely turbo.  Oxygen-rich staged combustion.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Kim Keller on 10/28/2014 10:50 pm
No sign that FTS was ever activated.

Is it explosive FTS? If it is just a thrust-termination FTS, then it would have behave just like this. If the good engine was still running after the other blew up, then the FTS would try to turn it off.

Explosive FTS, required by all US launch ranges. The "FTS" here were those darned antique engines (my opinion only).
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: pericynthion on 10/28/2014 10:51 pm
And PlanetLabs: they just lost all their 26 new generation birds in one go, which coupled with the CubeSat dispenser trouble probably has set back their plans quite a bit.

We drink champagne on launch success, whiskey on failure.  It's a bit of a bummer for us but we can build more sats quickly, feel much worse for Orbital and folks with one-off science experiments onboard :/
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/28/2014 10:52 pm
briefing at 8:30 EDT
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 10:52 pm
press conference at 8:30pm EDT
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: smith5se on 10/28/2014 10:52 pm
Observer video

http://instagram.com/p/uts_2Qqcus/?modal=true (http://instagram.com/p/uts_2Qqcus/?modal=true)

This looks like the Arbuckleneck Rd viewing...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/28/2014 10:54 pm
The suborbital facility 100 yards away (one of several at WFF) seems to be ok, and there are no scheduled suborbital launches from Wallops until January.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: skater on 10/28/2014 10:54 pm
Story Musgrave was going off on the Russian engines and Ukrainian tankage on CNN.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jtrame on 10/28/2014 10:57 pm
Story Musgrave was going off on the Russian engines and Ukrainian tankage on CNN.

"We can do this better." -- Story Musgrave
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/28/2014 10:57 pm
Applause for NASA's continuing coverage instead of a random cutaway.

NSF's coverage is average for NSF (i.e. outstanding, as usual).

Really, really feel bad for a lot of people - Orbital, the ISS program, the folks with payloads on board, the astronauts on ISS and that will soon be on ISS, etc.  Rough day for us, but a really rough day for them, and a long road of recovery ahead.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: B. Hendrickx on 10/28/2014 10:57 pm
Mark Kelly on CNN is confused, says Antares is using the RD-180, same as ULA, and that their failure record counts for this flight.  Surprised he got that wrong.  Heads up ULA, you're going to get questions.

Even worse, he claimed the RD-180 has made "hundreds, if not thousands" of successful missions. Does he think it's flown on the Soyuz rocket as well? First it took CNN an hour to figure out the rocket was carrying Russian engines and now this...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: meekGee on 10/28/2014 10:57 pm
Is FTS inhibited during the first seconds?

I'm asking, since it seems to have fallen back intact, many seconds (it seemed) after the engine went.

No, FTS is active as soon as the safe & arm devices are rotated to 'arm". The system wasn't activated because there were no conditions met which would trigger it. The rocket was in one piece, and the MFCO would have had no reason to send "arm/destruct" commands.

Isn't loss of control / failure to maintain trajectory a criteria for FTS activation?   or loss of thrust?   Given the purpose of FTS, I'd think these are stronger criteria than integrity of the body of the rocket.

I understand there's a break wire running the length of the rocket, but that should be a sufficient, not a necessary condition for destruct.   An unbroken rocket that's not flying right is the very scenario that FTS is supposed to mitigate.

Then, there's manual activation by the RSO, but that's a judgement call as long as the rocket is not threatening to leave range boundaries.

I expected a destruct as soon as thrust was lost.  If the non-FTS was a result of forethought (e.g. an inhibit, or manual override) then fine, and it might have lessened the damage.  But if it wasn't, then it's a second anomaly, which is why I'm asking.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Blackstar on 10/28/2014 10:59 pm
Mark Kelly getting his engines wrong on CNN...thinks they are RD180s

CNN's coverage is horrible. They keep talking like it is a classified payload. Lots of bad comments from a number of people.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/28/2014 10:59 pm
Story Musgrave was going off on the Russian engines and Ukrainian tankage on CNN.

"We can do this better." -- Story Musgrave

And if that isn't the issue will he be hauled back in front of cameras to eat his words?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: SWGlassPit on 10/28/2014 11:00 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.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 11:01 pm
Mark Kelly getting his engines wrong on CNN...thinks they are RD180s

CNN's coverage is horrible. They keep talking like it is a classified payload. Lots of bad comments from a number of people.

They should have read NSF's feature article for all the background info they would need
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: USAF Flyboy on 10/28/2014 11:01 pm
Tough day for OSC and NASA.

How much commonality is there with Antares and other OSC vehicles, Taurus, Minotaur IV?  How will this likely impact them?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/28/2014 11:02 pm

I expected a destruct as soon as thrust was lost.
It's not designed to destroy the rocket for any anomaly, it's designed to destroy the rocket if it has the potential to cause harm.

If it's falling within the designated danger zone then there's no reason for it to change that status quo.

Tough day for OSC and NASA.

How much commonality is there with Antares and other OSC vehicles, Taurus, Minotaur IV?  How will this likely impact them?
I understand a few of the subsystems and software are common, but that there is almost no commonality in the major hardware (such as the first stage engines).
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Kim Keller on 10/28/2014 11:04 pm
Isn't loss of control / failure to maintain trajectory a criteria for FTS activation?   or loss of thrust?   Given the purpose of FTS, I'd think these are stronger criteria than integrity of the body of the rocket.

I understand there's a break wire running the length of the rocket, but that should be a sufficient, not a necessary condition for destruct.   An unbroken rocket that's not flying right is the very scenario that FTS is supposed to mitigate.

Then, there's manual activation by the RSO, but that's a judgement call as long as the rocket is not threatening to leave range boundaries.

I expected a destruct as soon as thrust was lost.  If the non-FTS was a result of forethought (e.g. an inhibit, or manual override) then fine, and it might have lessened the damage.  But if it wasn't, then it's a second anomaly, which is why I'm asking.

Loss of thrust won't trigger FTS - That's FTS's job! That early in the flight the rocket wouldn't have deviated from its flight path to trigger a command from MFCO.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: simonbp on 10/28/2014 11:04 pm
Tough day for OSC and NASA.

How much commonality is there with Antares and other OSC vehicles, Taurus, Minotaur IV?  How will this likely impact them?

Not much, and almost none on the first stage. There shouldn't be any technical fallout for Taurus or Minotaur, but unfortunately there might be political or commercial fallout.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Kim Keller on 10/28/2014 11:06 pm
Tough day for OSC and NASA.

How much commonality is there with Antares and other OSC vehicles, Taurus, Minotaur IV?  How will this likely impact them?

Lots of electronics crossover.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: ugordan on 10/28/2014 11:06 pm
I expected a destruct as soon as thrust was lost. 

Why? It's not an autonomous FTS and the vehicle didn't leave the launch corridor so there was no immediate reason for the RSO to push the button. He could have destructed it when it was obvious there was a failure, but there were only a few seconds (during which time the LCC was still making nominal call-outs, delays in telemetry and all that) between thrust loss and pad impact for him to make that determination and it's understandable one would not be eager to activate destruct without really good proof things went south.

Things just happened too low and too quickly to act. IMHO.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Kim Keller on 10/28/2014 11:07 pm
Story Musgrave was going off on the Russian engines and Ukrainian tankage on CNN.

Don't send an astronaut to do a rocket engineer's job. The astros just don't know the details of these launchers.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Kim Keller on 10/28/2014 11:09 pm
Tough day for OSC and NASA.

How much commonality is there with Antares and other OSC vehicles, Taurus, Minotaur IV?  How will this likely impact them?

Not much, and almost none on the first stage. There shouldn't be any technical fallout for Taurus or Minotaur, but unfortunately there might be political or commercial fallout.

Sorry, but you are mistaken.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: JimOman on 10/28/2014 11:09 pm
As for people remarking that the rocket was "slow", a quite and dirty side-by-side with CRS-2 shows that CRS-2 cleared the lightning towers less than half a second before CRS-3 did today. That tiny difference may be explained by my own error, different payload masses, slightly different camera angles, or any number of things.

In short, the difference in initial launch speed from T+0 to T+8 seconds is negligible.

Jim
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 11:11 pm
I'm keeping the forum on member only through the night as the site's been hammered since the failure (obviously). I'm amazed it's stayed up, so that's one tiny bit of good news tonight.

Presser in 20 minutes. This is going to be hard for those participating.

And AGAIN. Stop posting what the mass media are saying. No one is interested in that here. Will delete such comments. Update thread. Posts have to be related to updated. Not "I'm sorry to hear. What now" posts.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/28/2014 11:11 pm
As for people remarking that the rocket was "slow", a quite and dirty side-by-side with CRS-2 shows that CRS-2 cleared the lightning towers less than half a second before CRS-3 did today. That tiny difference may be explained by my own error, different payload masses, slightly different camera angles, or any number of things.

In short, the difference in initial launch speed from T+0 to T+8 seconds is negligible.

Jim

Don't forget this one has the larger upper stage too.

I agree - this looked nominal at liftoff and stayed that way until the plume changed color and shape.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 11:12 pm
Well one thing's for sure: the site has a great crowd on hand.

We should probably organize who's doing what for the presser, to keep things smooth
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 11:14 pm
Well one thing's for sure: the site has a great crowd on hand.

We should probably organize who's doing what for the presser, to keep things smooth

Everyone can chip in what anything of interest they hear. I don't mind duplicates. It's better than missing something.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Proponent on 10/28/2014 11:16 pm

From my comfortable seat of ignorance, it looks like it was damaged before it even left the pad.

The TEATEB ignited and it appears there was a not-normal flash, explosion, which may have damaged an engine.

So I was not the only one that noticed this. As soon as it started up I had a bad feeling. I was expecting an abort to be called due to it.

Same here. I'm watching on a 70" screen and I got a bad feeling almost right away. Be interesting when the investigation reveals how soon things went bad.

This has been reported on a number of mainstream forums and fair number of people have commented that it looked to be struggling from the get go, which is a view I share.

Compare it with the video of the previous, successful launch posted by Mapperuo (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35939.msg1278358#msg1278358).  Until several seconds after lift-off, the two are quite similar.  Both show a flash just before T-0.  In both the rocket shows a bit of a wobble just after lift-off and climbs quite slowly.  If there are any visible anomalies, they're pretty subtle.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Damon Hill on 10/28/2014 11:17 pm
This may also impact the new versions of the Soyuz launcher that are using NK-33 engines in the core.
Title: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Star One on 10/28/2014 11:18 pm
As for people remarking that the rocket was "slow", a quite and dirty side-by-side with CRS-2 shows that CRS-2 cleared the lightning towers less than half a second before CRS-3 did today. That tiny difference may be explained by my own error, different payload masses, slightly different camera angles, or any number of things.

In short, the difference in initial launch speed from T+0 to T+8 seconds is negligible.

Jim

Don't forget this one has the larger upper stage too.

I agree - this looked nominal at liftoff and stayed that way until the plume changed color and shape.

I disagree and yes I am aware of how it launches, it did not look normal even at launch compared to prior flights, it might be subtle but there was something off about it even from the get go.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: emarkay on 10/28/2014 11:19 pm
I am amazed in the explosive downforce seen when whatever failed (a turbopump maybe?) shot a plume of smoke at high velocity downward, almost to the ground....

Also big thanks for this site and the contributing membership!

MRK
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: the_roche_lobe on 10/28/2014 11:20 pm
This is all over the Australian media atm. These flight never get coverage at all when they are nominal. 'If it bleeds it leads' (especially if you have the 'disaster porn' on video) still rules.

Chris - please remove this if you think it violates your previous dictum. I just thought I'd mention how far this has already travelled.

I hope Orbital can recover from this - I've always like their style.

P
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 11:20 pm

October 28, 2014
NASA to Hold News Conference Following Orbital Launch Mishap Tonight

NASA will hold a news conference on NASA Television tonight at approximately 8:30 p.m. EDT to discuss the mishap that occurred at Pad 0A of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia during the attempted launch of Orbital Sciences Corp’s Antares rocket and Cygnus cargo spacecraft at 6:22 p.m. Tuesday.

Participating in the news conference are:

    Bill Gerstenmaier, associate administrator of NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate
    Frank Culbertson, Executive Vice President and General Manager of Advanced Programs Group at Orbital Sciences Corp.
    Bill Wrobel, director of NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility
    Mike Suffredini, NASA’s International Space Station Program Manager
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 11:20 pm
Well one thing's for sure: the site has a great crowd on hand.

We should probably organize who's doing what for the presser, to keep things smooth

Everyone can chip in what anything of interest they hear. I don't mind duplicates. It's better than missing something.

Then I'll pass on the screenshots (as it's a pain for me), and concentrate on the commentary

edit to add: hopefully someone can fill in on that part
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Joffan on 10/28/2014 11:22 pm
https://twitter.com/OrbitalSciences/status/527252854076354560

Quote
Frank Culbertson will be on the press confernce panel this evening for Orbital
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: iamlucky13 on 10/28/2014 11:23 pm
I watched the Falcon 9 CRS-1 engine failure again a couple times to try to get a sense how the initial event compared. In this case, engines accounting for at least half the thrust/fuel flow were involved, and with minimal aerodynamic effects on the resulting fireball. In the Falcon 9 case, 1/9th of the engines were involved, and the resulting fireball was swept back by drag near Max-Q.

Those factors considered, I think the events were proportionally similar, but the major differences in distance, speed, and engine count make the comparison very iffy.

Of course, it's obvious that whatever happened to the Antares caused the entire exhaust plume to die, so both engines were affected.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: SaxtonHale on 10/28/2014 11:24 pm
Here is my video (lots of cursing)

http://youtu.be/ecdTDG6xo8A

Many images to follow.

Ears hurt. Face burnt from the fireball.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: mtakala24 on 10/28/2014 11:25 pm
If you look at the footage, there is clearly parts of the 1st stage flying in all kinds of directions very very fast very soon after the flame changed. That implies there must have been a turbopump failure. But thats just speculation, they'll have the data.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/28/2014 11:25 pm
press conference moved "closer to 8:45"
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: mr. mark on 10/28/2014 11:26 pm
As Far as SpaceX, those engines were the Meriln 1C not the current D engines.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: just-nick on 10/28/2014 11:28 pm
To help the amature sleuthing, lpre.de has a few dozen diagrams of the NK-33 turbo machinery: http://lpre.de/sntk/NK-33/index.htm

-Nick
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Star One on 10/28/2014 11:29 pm

If you look at the footage, there is clearly parts of the 1st stage flying in all kinds of directions very very fast very soon after the flame changed. That implies there must have been a turbopump failure. But thats just speculation, they'll have the data.

Looks like the engines shredded the vehicle.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Karlman on 10/28/2014 11:30 pm
One thing I haven't seen mentioned..

one of the last things I hear in the video before the failure is a report that seems to say Main Engines at 108%.

I know lots of engines are run at more than "max power" on newer rockets.. do we know if the power though ramps up just after lift off, or would the engines been at max launch power since ignition?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/28/2014 11:30 pm
Here is my video (lots of cursing)

Many images to follow.

Ears hurt. Face burnt from the fireball.
Your second image shows one of the lightning masts being knocked over, by the water tower.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: emarkay on 10/28/2014 11:35 pm
Here is my video (lots of cursing)
Many images to follow.
Ears hurt. Face burnt from the fireball.
Your second image shows one of the lightning masts being knocked over, by the water tower.

Note on the first image - 2 brown plumes thrust downward almost to the ground. Or at least, the one on the right, from the initial explosion.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: nlec on 10/28/2014 11:37 pm
I wonder if its possible that any of the cargo survived, encased in the Cygnus and depending where it ended up in relation to the fireball.  They seem to do a pretty thorough job of packing these cargo craft for the trip to space.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: MegabytePhreak on 10/28/2014 11:39 pm
Here is my video (lots of cursing)

Many images to follow.

Ears hurt. Face burnt from the fireball.
The first image seems to show a lot of little white burning bits as well. In some of the videos you can see a lot more emerge from the main fireball later, so I thought it might be second stage  fuel fragments, but from this picture it looks like burning metal fragments from the engines.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: sailor.dm on 10/28/2014 11:40 pm
They seem to do a pretty thorough job of packing these cargo craft for the trip to space.
For the trip to space, not for surviving a huge fireball.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: catdlr on 10/28/2014 11:41 pm
NASA / Orbital CRS-3 Press Conference delayed till 8:45 p.m. ET
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: iamlucky13 on 10/28/2014 11:41 pm
Here is my video (lots of cursing)
Many images to follow.

Ears hurt. Face burnt from the fireball.

Glad everyone is ok. I hope you don't mean anything worse than heat-flushed and not a true burn. How far away were you?

The first photo is startling, from that angle, the main in-flight event is quite a bit more dramatic looking that from the live feed video.

Your second image shows one of the lightning masts being knocked over, by the water tower.

I saw that, too. I was also trying to decide if the water tower is partially enveloped by the fireball, or if it just looks that way due to overexposure of adjacent pixels.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 11:41 pm
presser starting soon (heard tone test)

edit: now 9:00pm EDT
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: just-nick on 10/28/2014 11:43 pm
Many images to follow.

Ears hurt. Face burnt from the fireball.

Intense photographs. Incredible. Like something out of Apocalypse Now.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jimvela on 10/28/2014 11:43 pm
Sounded like mic feedback on NASATV feed.
I can't post pictures at the moment but may post details as they go...
now showing "approx 9:00 EDT"
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2014 11:44 pm
...

I saw that, too. I was also trying to decide if the water tower is partially enveloped by the fireball, or if it just looks that way due to overexposure of adjacent pixels.

It looks to have gotten a scorching
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: veblen on 10/28/2014 11:45 pm
presser moved to 9pm
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: mr. mark on 10/28/2014 11:46 pm
Looks like I'm going to miss the conference could some please post a video of it thanks.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: wxmeddler on 10/28/2014 11:47 pm
I wonder if its possible that any of the cargo survived, encased in the Cygnus and depending where it ended up in relation to the fireball.  They seem to do a pretty thorough job of packing these cargo craft for the trip to space.

My guess would be not. Even if it survived the initial G forces of the rocket impacting the ground, the temperature and pressure wave (likely several hundred psi) would compromise the structural integrity of anything inside the cargo capsule.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: eeergo on 10/28/2014 11:47 pm
I wonder if its possible that any of the cargo survived, encased in the Cygnus and depending where it ended up in relation to the fireball.  They seem to do a pretty thorough job of packing these cargo craft for the trip to space.

It's probably doubtful, especially considering the majority of the cargo was quite delicate. I wonder about the REBR (re-entry breakup recorder) though: it's designed to withstand hypersonic breakup events, so if it didn't fall in the brunt of the fire, it probably can be recoverable. The use of that may be quite limited though, it was probably not even activated.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/28/2014 11:48 pm
Big Condolences out to the Orbital folks. This will be a hard one.

Quick question, the fuel  in the Castor 130. Can it detonate (like Trident SLBM propellant) or does it just burn at a very rapid rate?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: subzero788 on 10/28/2014 11:48 pm
I guess this is why NASA has two cargo service suppliers.

My sincere condolences to everyone at Orbital and all the engineers and scientists with items and experiments onboard.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Damon Hill on 10/28/2014 11:49 pm
The main fireball would have been from the suddenly compacted, mixed and violent deflagration of the kerosene and oxygen; the rocket went almost straight in with a nearly full propellant load.  I'm guessing some of the larger white objects were burning second and third stage solid fuel grain ignited by the initial ground explosion.  Some of those pieces were really corkscrewing.

At least one of the giant N-1 rockets went in just like this, so you start to get a feel for how enormous >that< explosion must have been.

Watching several videos of tonight's launch failure, and listening to the crowds' astonished and panicked reaction once they realized what had just happened.  That fireball was several hundred feet in diameter.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: a_langwich on 10/28/2014 11:51 pm
press conference moved "closer to 8:45"

now at 9:00

I doubt anybody wants to go before the cameras for this one.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Exci on 10/28/2014 11:52 pm
View from an airplane:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zarWT7H9t54&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: sanman on 10/28/2014 11:53 pm
From farther out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxcuxnYz14A
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: butters on 10/28/2014 11:53 pm
press conference moved "closer to 8:45"

now at 9:00

I doubt anybody wants to go before the cameras for this one.

At least Omar Baez doesn't have to do this yet again.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 11:55 pm
About to start.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:03 am
Press conference 'Will Begin Momentarily"
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: RyanC on 10/29/2014 12:06 am
I'm wondering about the longer term implications of this on other space programs; considering another engine of the same family blew up on a test stand back during the summer and the behavior of the solid upper stage post RUD (was it burning for 10 minutes~ on the pad following the initial fire and explosion?).
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: mr. mark on 10/29/2014 12:09 am
Aj 26 is only used for Orbital's vehicle. ULA use 180's and SpaceX uses mD's.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: topsphere on 10/29/2014 12:11 am
Was due to start 10 mins ago - late start is hardly surprising...

Commencement due soon
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Nickolai on 10/29/2014 12:11 am
Heard someone say "Frank" on the audio, then it got cut off. Guess they're still getting ready
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: clongton on 10/29/2014 12:13 am
Presser Live http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html#.VFA_A_nF-YI (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html#.VFA_A_nF-YI)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jimvela on 10/29/2014 12:13 am
be patient.  For some of these folks, it is presently one of the worst days of their lives.
Many are still working to follow contingency procedures for a launch mishap.
That we even get a presser this quickly is commendable.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: just-nick on 10/29/2014 12:13 am
...and the behavior of the solid upper stage post RUD (was it burning for 10 minutes~ on the pad following the initial fire and explosion?).
Unconfined, solid propellant is going to burn very differently (more slowly) than in an intact motor at elevated pressure. Think of gunpowder burning unconfined: fwoosh! but not BANG!

Not sure there's anything to be concerned about with that particular thing.

-N
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: RyanC on 10/29/2014 12:15 am
Aj 26 is only used for Orbital's vehicle.

AFAIK; AJR (pre/post merger) was pushing variants of the AJ-26 family or it's technologies for a lot of applications besides Antares.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jimvela on 10/29/2014 12:16 am
starting
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 12:16 am
Finally we're live.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jimvela on 10/29/2014 12:17 am
introducions
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: topsphere on 10/29/2014 12:17 am
Rachel Kraft opens the presser
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jimvela on 10/29/2014 12:17 am
gerst stating how hard launch is and how the investigation will go
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: topsphere on 10/29/2014 12:18 am
Gerstenmaier: "We have confidence in Orbital to get back flying"
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jimvela on 10/29/2014 12:18 am
nothing critical was lost no near term iss danger
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 12:19 am
Gerst noting how difficult the business is.

Orbital will lead the investigation. Station is fine for consumables. No critical cargo.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jimvela on 10/29/2014 12:19 am
orbital apologizing for not being able to meet obligations
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 12:19 am
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 12:19 am
All we lost was hardware - a reference to no loss of life.

Need to work the root cause.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 12:20 am
Noting the public shouldn't go near the debris.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jimvela on 10/29/2014 12:20 am
cautioning public to call a number that will be provided and not to touch anything found.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 12:22 am
"We will come back to Wallops. We will launch again".
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: topsphere on 10/29/2014 12:22 am
Orbital:

"disappointed we were not able to fulfill our obligation in delivering payload to the ISS"

"we will determine the root cause, correct it, and fly at Wallops again..."
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 12:23 am
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/29/2014 12:23 am
Noting the public shouldn't go near the debris.

No souvenir collecting.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 12:23 am
Damage contained to the south of the hazard area. Debris in the water may float outside.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:23 am
Phone: Bill Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator of Human Exploration & Operations

Orbital, FAA & NASA will be part of the investigation
Confident Orbital will find route cause
Good shape as far as consumables
No cargo absolutely critical
Feels for Orbital
Want to understand what has happened


Frank Cuthbertson:

Tough evening
Express our disappointment to not fullfill their commitments on this launch.

Not as tragic as losing a life, and no injuries on the ground.
Harware very important
Something went wrong, and we will find the route cause and fly again here at Wallops
Evaluating debris (around launch pad).
Caution to the public, as this is an accident scene. Rocket has hazardous materials on board, and not to collect souvenirs. Call phone # (To be provided), or call local authorities.
We will determine corerctive action. We take our job seriously. High risk and high energy.
We will fly as soon as we can, safely and with confidence.

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jimvela on 10/29/2014 12:25 am
757 824 1295 incident response team for any found items by public
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: topsphere on 10/29/2014 12:25 am
Will start collecting and cataloguing the data in the morning. Information will be released when it becomes available.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:25 am
Will hit the area hard at daybreak
Planned for the posibility of a failed launch attempt (and hope it doesn't happen)

Orbital led team will take control of the investigation

Some debris may wash on shore or on the island.

if the public finds something suspicious, please call 757-824-1295

Thanks public
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 12:25 am
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 12:26 am
Suff is confident they will get to root cause, resolve and get back to flying to ISS. Station is protected from such an event (logistics). Four to six months margin.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: clongton on 10/29/2014 12:26 am
ISS has 4-6 months logistics onboard - enough to last well into next year.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/29/2014 12:27 am
Can see that the control room has been cleared.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: clongton on 10/29/2014 12:27 am
Station and crew in great shape.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: clongton on 10/29/2014 12:27 am
Q&A
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:28 am
Phone: Mike Sufferdinin, NASA's ISS program manager

Siginificant portion of the ISS
We have every confidence in the Orbital team and to fly again to the ISS

We plan for this type of event

Logistics on ISS can support for 4-6 months

2:09 CDT (CST?), progess will launch and SpaceX also has a flight for Dec 9th
We will continue to do the research we have to do on board
Lost quite a bit of research hardware.
Lost some spares that we will have to replace.

Station is in great shape.
Crew in great shape.
Plenty of supplies to keep them going.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 12:28 am
Not as crowded as a I would have guessed
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 12:29 am
Not going to be drawn on root cause it would appear.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 12:29 am
Fires contained, but letting them burn themselves out.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:29 am
Frank (from question):

What we know is what everyone saw on screen
We don't have access to all the data yet.
We go through a methodical process to go through all the data
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: NaN on 10/29/2014 12:29 am
Mentioned that they are indeed just allowing fires to burn out, given they know solid propellant is in the area
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: topsphere on 10/29/2014 12:30 am
No cause can be identified as of yet.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:30 am
Q : Does Orbital have to refly this mission on their own costs?

Mike: Contract is set up for compensation. Will work with Orbital to get all the hadrware to ISS at some point.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 12:31 am
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 12:31 am
Range initiated FTS around 20 seconds in. Failure began 10-12 seconds in.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/29/2014 12:31 am
Contract allows for incidents, partial compensation and a follow up opportunity to try again.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/29/2014 12:31 am
conference view
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:31 am
Q: Did FTS cause the explosion?

Frank: FTS was initiated 10-12 sec after liftoff

Range safety ~ 20 seconds afterwards
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 12:32 am
Too early to comment on damage to the pad. Some systems showing readings, so some parts intact.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: topsphere on 10/29/2014 12:32 am
Too early to comment on the extent of launch pad damage.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:32 am
Q: Pad damage?

A: Some of the systems still intact. Pressures still being read.
Was some damage, not sure of the extent. Will know in the morning.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 12:34 am
Mike explains ISS logistics 101 to local press
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: NaN on 10/29/2014 12:35 am
Will probably rearrange the next SpX mission manifest 'a little bit' to compensate for today's losses
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:35 am
Q: (ABC): Supplies to station (how to get more)

A (Mike): Crew has all the food, water and consumables to support them until next year, and until about March if no other vehicle arrived.
Tomorrow monrning a Progress launch vehicle will arrive, and then a month later (Dec 9th) SpaceX will launch.
Will likely adjust the launch date to (modify the supplies).
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: emarkay on 10/29/2014 12:35 am
Train of thought here on a same-day conference...

"We have video, we have data, we have thoughts.  I know you all want to know what happened. But as of now, and after confirming no one was hurt...we have no idea."

I remember the days and weeks of the (pre-Internet) Challenger tragedy, and then, the Columbia failure, online, as it happened (The university had a T1 line then); how methodical the investigations were. 

Wishing support to Orbital, Wallops, the ISS partners, NASA. Also to those young adults who may have seen this and who may take this event, with interest and fascination, to help us all venture further into inner and outer space.

MRK
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: topsphere on 10/29/2014 12:36 am
Mentions the possibility of adjusting SPX-5 in December to make up for what was lost in this launch.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 12:36 am
Not going to be drawn on the Stennis failure and the relationship on the engines.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:37 am
Q (Irene from Reuters): Did range safety trigger the rocket destruction
AJ26 pad failure

Frank: Observed it visually. Range safety officer sent the destruct command before it hit the ground (but not exactly sure when that was)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:38 am
Question on damage to facilities

Frank: Not sure about processing facility.

Tankage still holding pressure

HIF outside the area, so unlikley it was exposed to anything
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: emarkay on 10/29/2014 12:39 am
Not going to be drawn on the Stennis failure and the relationship on the engines.
But does it not seem strange that there has been no specific details as to what caused that malfunction?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:40 am
Frank: Get out to the accident launch site, pad
Identify things. See if anything is related.
Evaluate, time to process, post-processing
Dozens of cameras trained that will need to be evaluated
A little more challenging at night, and NASA has some excellent cameras.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:42 am
Q for Orbital: Delays on any future flights?
What if pad significantly damaged

Frank: This is the only pad certified for Antares launch. Repairing pad is our highest priority
Will do it as quickly & safely as possible in conjunction with local (& state?) officials

Will not fly until root cause found
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rdale on 10/29/2014 12:43 am
I missed who asked the minute long question that seemed strange?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 12:43 am
Culbertson pledges to keep public updated
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 12:43 am
Will be keeping the public informed on the investigation.

They didn't on the Stennis failure.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 12:43 am
I missed who asked the minute long question that seemed strange?

Seth Borenstein from AP maybe? prior to that was Fox News Radio.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/29/2014 12:44 am
I missed who asked the minute long question that seemed strange?

guy from the AP
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jimvela on 10/29/2014 12:44 am
I missed who asked the minute long question that seemed strange?

I couldn't follow that question.  It was like an ADHD train of thought / expression and not a well formed question or even series of questions.  Horrible...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/29/2014 12:44 am
Frank doesn't know the actual timing on the events (didn't put a stopwatch to it yet), so he was just guessing on the timings he mentioned earlier.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:45 am
Frank on Q from (AP): Seth Bornstein?

A (Frank): Cannot provide details on timing of range/FTS destruct, & amount of damage sustained.

(Will): Propulsion is critical to rocket performance. They do a green run of these engines at Stennis to make sure they work.
Will continue to learn from this. Expand the learning to other rockets. To make the maximum effort to learn from this so it doesn't happen again. Will fly again at the right time with Orbital.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: emarkay on 10/29/2014 12:45 am
Will be keeping the public informed on the investigation.
They didn't on the Stennis failure.

Chris, Thanks!
I have L2 on my holiday wish list, but is there any chatter there on what may have happened?

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 12:45 am
ISS Crew were watching.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 12:47 am
Next spacex flight will probably carry nitrogen tank instead of O2

(for ISS internal atmosphere)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 12:47 am
Will evaluate changing some payloads on Dragon to compliment the losses from Cygnus.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:47 am
Q (items shifted on the manifest for SpaceX)

Mike: Certain ISS crew dissappointed. Aware they have plenty on board.
Potentially 1 item that we will need to change (N2 resupply tank). May change an O2 tank on SpaceX and make it a N2 tank.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: NaN on 10/29/2014 12:48 am
Alan Boyle nbc

ISS crew reaction?
Crew has been informed, they had a feed and were witness to it.

SpaceX manifest adjustment?
Nitrogen resupply tank was on Cygnus; the SpaceX manifest had Oxygen but they will probably change to a Nitrogen supply. We still have to work out the rest ...



Space.com question:
Are there some failures easier to recover from than others?

The answer is yes (laughter)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:48 am
Q: Best case. Failure better to recover from than another

A: Yes. We really don't know what it is yet, and it is going to take some time.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 12:48 am
"some insurance"
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jimvela on 10/29/2014 12:48 am
orbital does carry some insurance...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:49 am
Q (jeff Foust): Was this flight insured?

A (Frank): yes, there was some insurance on this
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: emarkay on 10/29/2014 12:49 am
Curious - on the first video after the accident, initially showing the pad area. What was causing the bluish purple smoke?  What chemical would cause smoke to show purple in an intense fire?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: topsphere on 10/29/2014 12:49 am
emphasis on "some"  insurance
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Kim Keller on 10/29/2014 12:50 am
Will be keeping the public informed on the investigation.
They didn't on the Stennis failure.

Chris, Thanks!
I have L2 on my holiday wish list, but is there any chatter there on what may have happened?



Launch teams are instructed to not use social media in the event of a "contingency".
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jimvela on 10/29/2014 12:50 am
gerst again reminding how difficult space flight is, and expressing confidence in Orbital.
I really like this guy...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: veblen on 10/29/2014 12:50 am
Gerst: "important not to overreact to this failure"
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: abaddon on 10/29/2014 12:50 am
Will take lessons learned from Cargo and apply it to Crew.

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:50 am
Q to Bill on Commerical Crew and congress

Bill: As much as we didn't want a failure, we need to be prepaired for a failure.
I don't see this as a problem, it's just more awareness of what we're trying to do.
Don't think this is easy.
We'll learn from this and will be valuable as we move forward.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: grythumn on 10/29/2014 12:51 am
Was the launch / cargo insured? "Some insurance"
Houston chronicle. Asks about Commercial Crew. Important to not overreact, just figure out root causes, learn lessons and get back to flying. Not a problem for CC.

The reporters don't seem to be listening to each others' questions. And most disregard the 1 question per person.

Surprised that no one's asked about the new Antares engine.
-Bob
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:52 am
Q from Florida Today on pad damage, based on experience, and time to fly again. 6 months?

Frank: Will take a few weeks to figure out
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: eeergo on 10/29/2014 12:54 am
Curious - on the first video after the accident, initially showing the pad area. What was causing the bluish purple smoke?  What chemical would cause smoke to show purple in an intense fire?
By the energetic burning, it was most probably the second stage (Castor 30XL). Not sure what specific chemical was the cause of the purple hue, but I'm guessing part of it was the camera's color balance adjusting for the very bright flame spewing out of the breached casing.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 12:54 am
Culbertson: Rocket and S/C worth over $200M
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: abaddon on 10/29/2014 12:54 am
Cost of rocket (edit: and Cygnus) over $200 million.  Will take time to assess damage to ground and assign a figure to that.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: emarkay on 10/29/2014 12:55 am
Will be keeping the public informed on the investigation.
They didn't on the Stennis failure.
Chris, Thanks!
I have L2 on my holiday wish list, but is there any chatter there on what may have happened?
Launch teams are instructed to not use social media in the event of a "contingency".

Correct, and understood, but I thought a dedicated forum such as this would be as close to the sources as possible.  This isn't Facebook....
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: grythumn on 10/29/2014 12:55 am
Currently 8500' safety perimeter around launch site.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:55 am
Q on environmental Damage:

Frank: Most of the kerosense burned, as could be seen
LO2 will dissipate
Some of the fuel was solid, and we have to handle that very carefully
That will be part of the investigation as they enter the area.
Spacecraft had hypergolic fuel (Hydrazine and N2O2), so that's why we advise people to stay away and not go souvenir hunting.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:55 am
another Q on phone:
Q: estimate on cost lost overall

Frank: Rocket over $200M
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Kim Keller on 10/29/2014 12:57 am
Will be keeping the public informed on the investigation.
They didn't on the Stennis failure.
Chris, Thanks!
I have L2 on my holiday wish list, but is there any chatter there on what may have happened?
Launch teams are instructed to not use social media in the event of a "contingency".

Correct, and understood, but I thought a dedicated forum such as this would be as close to the sources as possible.  This isn't Facebook....

I, for one, have no desire to test my employer's tolerance levels on this.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: abaddon on 10/29/2014 12:57 am
Reporter getting twitter questions on why the use of such an old engine.

Not a lot of options, they were available, passed all testing, etc.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jimvela on 10/29/2014 12:58 am
over
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/29/2014 12:58 am
Curious - on the first video after the accident, initially showing the pad area. What was causing the bluish purple smoke?  What chemical would cause smoke to show purple in an intense fire?
By the energetic burning, it was most probably the second stage (Castor 30XL). Not sure what specific chemical was the cause of the purple hue, but I'm guessing part of it was the camera's color balance adjusting for the very bright flame spewing out of the breached casing.
Castor 30B (cousin to 30XL)
PROPELLANT DESIGNATION:
TP-H8299, HTPB polymer, 20% aluminum

from: http://cms.atk.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/ProductsAndServices/ATK-Motor-Catalog-2012.pdf
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:58 am
Rebecca Moore? (NASA social)

Q: On Twitter, many wanting to know why Orbital decided to go with an engine design that was a bit older, not knowing the failure cause

Frank: Not sure the engine was involved. History on engine well known. Designed to fly cosmonauts to the moon. Several bought. Very robust. Tested at Stennis before installed on rocket & used as the powerplant. Acceptance & pressure testing done. No anomalies that would cause issue. Available to us. Quite proven in testing in Russia. Not many other options.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 12:58 am
Presser over
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: topsphere on 10/29/2014 12:59 am
Presser wrapped up. Contact details for incident response team shown on screen before stream ends.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 12:59 am
presser over and I'm out for the night.

Good luck Orbital, ATK, NASA, MARS.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: sanman on 10/29/2014 01:00 am
From 30 NM out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abD_-hhAf08
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: emarkay on 10/29/2014 01:00 am
Curious - on the first video after the accident, initially showing the pad area. What was causing the bluish purple smoke?  What chemical would cause smoke to show purple in an intense fire?
By the energetic burning, it was most probably the second stage (Castor 30XL). Not sure what specific chemical was the cause of the purple hue, but I'm guessing part of it was the camera's color balance adjusting for the very bright flame spewing out of the breached casing.
Good point on the white balance of video (the second most insidious failure of videographers after failing to disable autofocus on distance shots), but the colors did seem to be pretty accurate. However, the smoke did not seem to be 'blossoming' as would expect from a propellant or gaseous source...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jimvela on 10/29/2014 01:01 am
Great job, Chris and crew, for keeping the site up and available throughout.

Condolences to Orbital and NASA.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/29/2014 01:02 am
It seems Orbital and NASA have handled this quite professionally.

If any of you Orbital folk will be at Langley tomorrow (at 4pm), it'd be my honor to buy you a drink (of your choice) at our little on-center after-hours bar. PM me.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 01:02 am
Will be keeping the public informed on the investigation.
They didn't on the Stennis failure.

Chris, Thanks!
I have L2 on my holiday wish list, but is there any chatter there on what may have happened?



I immediately made a note in the L2 ORB-3 area that it would be inappropriate to set up that failure info thread in L2. We have full respect for Orbital and I thought it would be both premature and unwarranted to run what would be speculation in L2. It really would be speculation at this point and we all heard on the loop for people not to speak to the media. I'm not going to encourage or welcome someone breaching that request. We have a high level of cooperation on such things.

We have this one single centralized public thread for this immediate aftermath and we'll go from there over the coming days and weeks.

Thanks to all for the interactive nature of this thread. Apologies to the guests who I removed seconds after the failure as I know we would be swamped. It would benefit no one if the site went down via over demand and being a member is free.

Guests will return shortly, as the site is calming down.

Thanks again to all, especially Robert and Steven. Best wishes to Orbital and all concerned.

Antares will fly again.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: abaddon on 10/29/2014 01:10 am
My condolences to Orbital as well.  Rockets do explode on occasion, and I have faith they will rise from this and relaunch successfully.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: QuantumG on 10/29/2014 01:12 am
PlanetLabs response https://www.planet.com/pulse/
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: iamlucky13 on 10/29/2014 01:13 am
Curious - on the first video after the accident, initially showing the pad area. What was causing the bluish purple smoke?  What chemical would cause smoke to show purple in an intense fire?

Presumably the solid rocket fuel, possibly in combination with the metal of the casing throwing some extra color in. Also, camera settings can affect the apparent color, for example making blue colors appear purplish.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/29/2014 01:13 am
Rebecca Moore? (NASA social)

Q: On Twitter, many wanting to know why Orbital decided to go with an engine design that was a bit older, not knowing the failure cause

Frank: Not sure the engine was involved. History on engine well known. Designed to fly cosmonauts to the moon. Several bought. Very robust. Tested at Stennis before installed on rocket & used as the powerplant. Acceptance & pressure testing done. No anomalies that would cause issue. Available to us. Quite proven in testing in Russia. Not many other options.

This needs to be emphasized at this point - while it's easy to point the fingers at the NK-33 AJ-26s (understandably), even with what we can see it could also easily be a tank structure, problems with the structure of gimbals or even control system issues. So hold your horses on engine replacement just yet...  :-X

Also I have to offer condolences to the Aerojet engine team - 2014 certainly isn't a good year for them, and they are now at investigation ground-zero....
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Jim on 10/29/2014 01:15 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.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: brokndodge on 10/29/2014 01:16 am
I missed who asked the minute long question that seemed strange?

I couldn't follow that question.  It was like an ADHD train of thought / expression and not a well formed question or even series of questions.  Horrible...

His question had something to do with other unrelated engine failures from other companies and how this engine failure would impact procedures with those other companies.  It was an odd question but [speculation] it seemed to be aimed at SpaceX as if he was going to draw some negative attention their direction over the OS accident[/speculation]
.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: enkarha on 10/29/2014 01:20 am
In any case, we know that an FTS order was sent.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: emarkay on 10/29/2014 01:21 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 to threat to the public or other facilities.

Always thought of the "Destruct" button as like an ejection seat.
If you can maneuver to a safe landing without harm, don't pull the handle; ride it out. However, if you can't steer away from the mountain, save yourself and push that button. IMHO, the explosion at altitude may do more harm than a contained ground level blast.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Jim on 10/29/2014 01:21 am
I wonder if its possible that any of the cargo survived, encased in the Cygnus and depending where it ended up in relation to the fireball.  They seem to do a pretty thorough job of packing these cargo craft for the trip to space.

My guess would be not. Even if it survived the initial G forces of the rocket impacting the ground, the temperature and pressure wave (likely several hundred psi) would compromise the structural integrity of anything inside the cargo capsule.

Some cargo survived Columbia.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/29/2014 01:22 am

Presumably the solid rocket fuel, possibly in combination with the metal of the casing throwing some extra color in. Also, camera settings can affect the apparent color, for example making blue colors appear purplish.

I thought the Castor 130 had a composite case. In which case it could be a resin or binder.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: eeergo on 10/29/2014 01:24 am
Castor 30B (cousin to 30XL)
PROPELLANT DESIGNATION:
TP-H8299, HTPB polymer, 20% aluminum
from: http://cms.atk.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/ProductsAndServices/ATK-Motor-Catalog-2012.pdf
Good point on the white balance of video (the second most insidious failure of videographers after failing to disable autofocus on distance shots), but the colors did seem to be pretty accurate. However, the smoke did not seem to be 'blossoming' as would expect from a propellant or gaseous source...
Presumably the solid rocket fuel, possibly in combination with the metal of the casing throwing some extra color in. Also, camera settings can affect the apparent color, for example making blue colors appear purplish.

Interesting what one learns with these events: http://ualr.edu/dhsnider/papers/rocket_spectral_study.pdf this paper about hybrid motors also studied the emission spectrum of an HTPB-based motor and, although there will be of course differences in formulation, finds a prominent peak around 400nm (violet). This raises the question of why other such motors (Shuttle's SRBs, to give a famous example) didn't give off this violet hue (maybe the grain, being optimized for vacuum regimes and so slow-burning, doesn't wash-out to white the emission lines?) - I don't have enough expertise on this field to give a good answer, so I'll defer to somebody more knowledgeable. By the way, metal shouldn't be adding any color since Castor 30XL uses a wound composite casing.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Jim on 10/29/2014 01:24 am
and the behavior of the solid upper stage post RUD (was it burning for 10 minutes~ on the pad following the initial fire and explosion?).

This is known and nothing needs to be done about it.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Jim on 10/29/2014 01:25 am
third stage solid fuel grain inicked reaction once they realized what had just happened.

No third stage
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 10/29/2014 01:27 am
What is the potential  impact to orbital on the new CRS2 contract that they are putting in a proposal?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: eeergo on 10/29/2014 01:29 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 to threat to the public or other facilities.

Wouldn't FTS be needed for breaching the second stage however, given that it would probably not explode by itself but would possibly ignite? If the casing remained more or less intact, is it expectable for it to take off in an uncontrolled -and dangerous- fashion? If that is the case, I guess FTS destruct command at low altitude is the optimal solution (not too high so as not to expand the debris field, not too low to risk ground impact and FTS being disabled)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: emarkay on 10/29/2014 01:36 am
Quote
Interesting what one learns with these events: http://ualr.edu/dhsnider/papers/rocket_spectral_study.pdf this paper about hybrid motors also studied the emission spectrum of an HTPB-based motor and, although there will be of course differences in formulation, finds a prominent peak around 400nm (violet). This raises the question of why other such motors (Shuttle's SRBs, to give a famous example) didn't give off this violet hue (maybe the grain, being optimized for vacuum regimes and so slow-burning, doesn't wash-out to white the emission lines?) - I don't have enough expertise on this field to give a good answer, so I'll defer to somebody more knowledgeable. By the way, metal shouldn't be adding any color since Castor 30XL uses a wound composite casing.

I think 2 things here - darkness and reflection, and volume of material.  The solid's "smoke" in daylight is "ash"; debris and shadows, while what is visible in the dark, is but yellowed-out fragments illuminated by the flame, and what is shadowed is invisible. Here was a well illuminated, low velocity burn... Just thought it almost bizarre, as this was not a fireworks emission, but a post reaction result.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Targeteer on 10/29/2014 01:38 am
Will be keeping the public informed on the investigation.

They didn't on the Stennis failure.

This will be interesting to monitor.  The engine failed in testing and nothing has been released (ITAR?) about the cause or corrections.  If the engine failed on this mission, what about ITAR or any other reasons for not releasing details has changed or would not be used to once again prevent release of details?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: emarkay on 10/29/2014 01:42 am
Will be keeping the public informed on the investigation.
They didn't on the Stennis failure.

This will be interesting to monitor.  The engine failed in testing and nothing has been released (ITAR?) about the cause or corrections.  If the engine failed on this mission, what about ITAR or any other reasons for not releasing details has changed or would not be used to once again prevent release of details?

Either that, or something more obvious - "don't bite the hand that feeds you, or, that which takes you to your Space Station..." ?  Regardless, I am sure if it was directly connected, it would have been corrected before return-to-flight.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/29/2014 01:47 am
Will be keeping the public informed on the investigation.

They didn't on the Stennis failure.

This will be interesting to monitor.  The engine failed in testing and nothing has been released (ITAR?) about the cause or corrections.  If the engine failed on this mission, what about ITAR or any other reasons for not releasing details has changed or would not be used to once again prevent release of details?
It is puzzling.  Note also that Aerojet-Rocketdyne declared a $17.5 million loss in the last quarter in part due to the costs of the AJ-26 testing failure and the ensuring recovery effort.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/financial-report/42180aerojet-rocketdyne-takes-loss-on-aj-26-engine-problems

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: PahTo on 10/29/2014 01:53 am

I wanted to wait until after the presser to post anything.
I saw the failure live on NTV on a 60" HD--it was evident then, and in subsequent replays that the FTS was engaged, and glad to see Mr. Culbertson confirm that.  It appeared to me to be an NK33/AJ26 failure--at least the plume changed color, the rocket slowed/stopped, then the FTS engaged.
I believe the "flowering" debris seen spinning high and way from the main crash/explosion was the solid propellant/30XL, especially considering the big secondary fire(s) that started after, and well to the right of the actual crash site.
The TEL appeared to be mostly intact, as did much of the pad plumbing behind the TEL, but it sure was hard to see if the launch table was still there!  Glad to hear at the presser that they still had pressure readings from some of the plumbing.
The biggest question now is what is the status of the pad/facilities?  Tomorrow will reveal much.
Ironically, the pressure is really on SpX now to deliver, both cargo and crew.
Also glad ULA is working to a future solution too--while the CNN stuff was pretty lame, Dr. Musgrave nailed it with how troubling it is that so much of the current US launch capability is not home-grown.
My regards to the teams involved--such a tough business...




Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: kaiser on 10/29/2014 02:02 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.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/29/2014 02:11 am
I wanted to wait until after the presser to post anything.
I saw the failure live on NTV on a 60" HD--it was evident then, and in subsequent replays that the FTS was engaged, and glad to see Mr. Culbertson confirm that.  It appeared to me to be an NK33/AJ26 failure--at least the plume changed color, the rocket slowed/stopped, then the FTS engaged.
I believe the "flowering" debris seen spinning high and way from the main crash/explosion was the solid propellant/30XL, especially considering the big secondary fire(s) that started after, and well to the right of the actual crash site.

I would imagine one reason to use the FTS is for the Castor 30XL, which if it landed intact and ignited would be like a missile.  Better to rip that open and let it burn on the launch site.

Quote
Ironically, the pressure is really on SpX now to deliver, both cargo and crew.

For the right reasons or the wrong ones, a lot of people will be watching the next Falcon 9/Dragon launch.

Quote
My regards to the teams involved--such a tough business...

Wholeheartedly agree.  I look forward to Cygnus getting up to the ISS again.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: catdlr on 10/29/2014 02:18 am
October 28, 2014
RELEASE 14-302
NASA Statement Regarding Oct. 28 Orbital Sciences Corp. Launch Mishap

The following statement is from William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator of NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Directorate, regarding the mishap that occurred at Pad 0A of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia during the attempted launch of Orbital Sciences Corp’s Antares rocket and Cygnus cargo spacecraft at 6:22 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 28.

“While NASA is disappointed that Orbital Sciences' third contracted resupply mission to the International Space Station was not successful today, we will continue to move forward toward the next attempt once we fully understand today's mishap. The crew of the International Space Station is in no danger of running out of food or other critical supplies.

“Orbital has demonstrated extraordinary capabilities in its first two missions to the station earlier this year, and we know they can replicate that success. Launching rockets is an incredibly difficult undertaking, and we learn from each success and each setback. Today's launch attempt will not deter us from our work to expand our already successful capability to launch cargo from American shores to the International Space Station.”

Updates will be posted as available on NASA’s Orbital page, at:

http://www.nasa.gov/orbital

-end-

Rachel Kraft
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1100
[email protected]
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jsmjr on 10/29/2014 02:33 am
Rebecca Moore? (NASA social)

Q: On Twitter, many wanting to know why Orbital decided to go with an engine design that was a bit older, not knowing the failure cause

Frank: Not sure the engine was involved. History on engine well known. Designed to fly cosmonauts to the moon. Several bought. Very robust. Tested at Stennis before installed on rocket & used as the powerplant. Acceptance & pressure testing done. No anomalies that would cause issue. Available to us. Quite proven in testing in Russia. Not many other options.

This needs to be emphasized at this point - while it's easy to point the fingers at the NK-33 AJ-26s (understandably), even with what we can see it could also easily be a tank structure, problems with the structure of gimbals or even control system issues. So hold your horses on engine replacement just yet...  :-X

Also I have to offer condolences to the Aerojet engine team - 2014 certainly isn't a good year for them, and they are now at investigation ground-zero....

I know it's somewhat premature to focus in on the AJ-26, because all possible fault branches must be followed.  But kudos to the amateur in the room for asking one of the most trenchant questions of the night.  It was a question that showed knowledge of the vehicle's heritage and presumably some of the concerns raised in recent testing.  Culbertson was clearly anticipating it, but one wonders if he found its unorthodox source surprising?

Other good questions came from outside the "mainstream media" -- outlets like Universe Today and CollectSpace.  I expect continued good reporting from these sources (including, of course, NSF).  This is the democratization of media and it's a good sign that NASA embraces these unconventional sources because they are more likely to ensure the full story gets told. 

We may have great respect for the classic space reporters, e.g. Bill Harwood @ CBS, but more and more, their own employers don't and that does a disservice to us as their audience.  Insurgent social media is becoming very important to fill in the gaps (even if you have to learn new skills as a news consumer to separate the wheat from the chaff).
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: mr. mark on 10/29/2014 02:35 am
Did anyone record the post launch news conference?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/29/2014 02:37 am
In addition to using two launch suppliers, maybe each of those companies (Orbital & SpaceX) should have 2 east coast launch pads. No rocket is 100% perfect. You are going to have failures.
Silly comment. The only one who will have 2 pads on either East coast or West Coast will be SpaceX on the East coast after they refitted LC-39A. All other US launch vehicles only have one pad on each coast. Underused infrastructure is just a money pit with duplicated pad launch staff, tankage and GSE.

From what I read. ULA is planning on reducing to one pad on each coast eventually.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: ChrisC on 10/29/2014 02:41 am
Did anyone record the post launch news conference?

If not, NASA should have it up on their Youtube channel in the morning.  Lately they've been getting things done pretty early, so we shouldn't have to wait long.

Plus NTV is likely to be repeating the presser all night.
EDIT 1:  replaying at midnight and 1am, before they breakaway for Progress launch coverage.
EDIT 2:  aaand now NASA has posted it, per below.  Thanks NTV for working late tonight!

Of course this happens the one day I couldn't watch  :o Wow

Yep, me too.  Consolation: at launch time, I was at a car dealership signing the papers for my shiny new car :)  While the salesman stepped out to take care of something, I checked my phone and saw the NSF tweet.  Immediately got the Youtube clips, and started showing the car guys what they'd be seeing on the news when they got off work ...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Henchman21 on 10/29/2014 02:45 am
In addition to using two launch suppliers, maybe each of those companies (Orbital & SpaceX) should have 2 east coast launch pads. No rocket is 100% perfect. You are going to have failures.
I would definitely agree, and if there is anything to take away from this failure, its that we have Commercial cargo for a reason. Multiple rockets=Multiple redundancy
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: wxmeddler on 10/29/2014 02:47 am
Did anyone record the post launch news conference?

NASA just uploaded it to youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5HaD5zZjeE
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/29/2014 02:48 am
Hi all couple quick statements from me. Heard about this on the radio home from work. My heart goes out to the OSC team I feel your pain guys, best of luck on the accident board and any inquiry boards. Also condolences to any other launch customers, any ISS customers who had experiments on the vehicle/experiment teams who may have lost their gear when it went down. 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.


From what I could tell after reviewing the available facts and the video appears that maybe plus 5 or so seconds, and its very obvious when this happens, the exhaust trail of the first stage motor changes markedly, appears to brighten and then fluctuate before there is what appears to be an engine explosion or explosive loss of pressure event. Stage seems to catch fire at this point and then, due to no thrust, falls sideways to the ground and explodes. 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?). Of course will have to see what ultimately is found as that root cause, sometimes it can be pretty surprising what causes these things, but it seemed to be to definitely be an engine issue. Was somewhat surprising how long the solid motor components burned on the ground afterward.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: inventodoc on 10/29/2014 02:50 am
This is so unfortunate for Orbital.     One possible repercussion could be on SpaceX - altered rules or schedule for their next CRS-5 mission could endanger the first stage platform-based landing attempt.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: HailColumbia on 10/29/2014 02:51 am
In addition to using two launch suppliers, maybe each of those companies (Orbital & SpaceX) should have 2 east coast launch pads. No rocket is 100% perfect. You are going to have failures.
Silly comment. The only one who will have 2 pads on either East coast or West Coast will be SpaceX on the East coast after they refitted LC-39A. All other US launch vehicles only have one pad on each coast. Underused infrastructure is just a money pit with duplicated pad launch staff, tankage and GSE.

From what I read. ULA is planning on reducing to one pad on each coast eventually.

Yeah. How silly... It's not like an exploding rocket could ever damage the pad or anything... redundancy is for ugly people.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: PahTo on 10/29/2014 03:00 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.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/29/2014 03:02 am
I missed who asked the minute long question that seemed strange?

I couldn't follow that question.  It was like an ADHD train of thought / expression and not a well formed question or even series of questions.  Horrible...

His question had something to do with other unrelated engine failures from other companies and how this engine failure would impact procedures with those other companies.  It was an odd question but [speculation] it seemed to be aimed at SpaceX as if he was going to draw some negative attention their direction over the OS accident[/speculation]
.

it hasn't even been 24hrs but I just pulled Yahoo up, and one of the poor writers out there wrote a piece based on a 2012 EM Wired interview....sad, sad.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/29/2014 03:03 am
At something like 286 tonnes at liftoff, I believe that Antares with Orb-3 may be the second heaviest-ever rocket to fail and fall back on or near its launch pad in United States history, but it may be the heaviest-ever liquid stage to fail this way in the U.S..

Number one has to be, hands down, Titan 34D-7 which weighed about 680 tonnes-plus when it blew apart at T+16 seconds above SLC 4E at VAFB on April 18, 1986.  But its liquid stages only weighed about 178 tonnes.

Delta 241, a 7925 with GPS 2R-1 that failed at T+7 seconds on January 16, 1997 above Cape Canaveral LC 17A, weighed 232 tonnes but it only carried  about 96 tonnes of RP/LOX compared to the 242 tonnes on board the Antares first stage.

The spectacular Atlas Centaur 5 fireball at Cape Canaveral LC 36A on March 3, 1965 was created by a rocket that weighed less than 140 tonnes at liftoff, but it happened at T-0 right on the launch stand.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Helodriver on 10/29/2014 03:05 am
Tonight's events on the pad should give pause to those who in designing new launchpads, put critical assembly and payload preparation facilities inside the explosive saftey clear zone. Just because rockets don't explode and fall to Earth often, does not mean its a good idea to put everything important within 500 feet of the flame trench. First the Kodiak pad and now MARS. Lets hope not LC-39A or Brownsville.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 10/29/2014 03:16 am
Does anyone know if there were any animals, insects, etc on board?  Just curious.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: WindnWar on 10/29/2014 03:17 am
I've watched several of the vids a few times at this point as well as watching the NASA TV feed live as it happened, and everything looked fine during the first 3-4 seconds. After that, just before the plume changes it appears as though there is flames on the left hand side of the base of the first stage, about 10% of the way up the vehicle. Then there is the change in plume followed by a fairly energetic explosion at the base of the rocket with debri flying in all directions, then the base is visibly engulfed in flames as it falls back to the pad. Whatever happened we'll hopefully find out more this time then we did about the Stennis test stand incident. If there was a fire at the base of the rocket, could that be from a ruptured fuel line or a possible tank issue? I'd lean toward the fuel lines myself as they have had issues with them before on the test stand.

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: spectre9 on 10/29/2014 03:20 am
Just heard about this not long ago and came straight to NSF.

I've read everything in this thread since the failure and I thank everybody for all the updates they've posted.

It's a bad day for Orbital and NASA but we can't just launch straight into bashing the AJ-26 and the decision to use the engine.

What was different about this rocket compared to previous Antares? More fuel? Heavier payload? Would the engines have been working harder?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/29/2014 03:32 am
Quote
@elonmusk: Sorry to hear about the @OrbitalSciences launch. Hope they recover soon.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/527247155954610176 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/527247155954610176)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Henchman21 on 10/29/2014 03:36 am
Does anyone know if there were any animals, insects, etc on board?  Just curious.
I believe here were no animals or insects aboard.

If anything was aboard, probably at most a tardigrade or a few microbes of something extremely small and undetectable. If a tardigrade were on board however, it is very likely it would have survived the launch failure anyway, because those things can survive practically anything.

I'm not sure if planetary protection applies to LEO, It might apply to ISS however.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: WindnWar on 10/29/2014 03:38 am
Just heard about this not long ago and came straight to NSF.

I've read everything in this thread since the failure and I thank everybody for all the updates they've posted.

It's a bad day for Orbital and NASA but we can't just launch straight into bashing the AJ-26 and the decision to use the engine.

What was different about this rocket compared to previous Antares? More fuel? Heavier payload? Would the engines have been working harder?

I wouldn't say people are bashing the AJ-26's. I think people have legitimate questions about these engines given the couple of test stand failures and the lack of info related to the second test stand failure that was apparently quite destructive. SpaceX proved with the Merlin 1C failure that even tested engines can still fail so Orbital isn't alone in that category. I think there would be fewer questions if there had been more info on what happened back in May on the stand. I'm not sure if it would be better for this to be completely unrelated or not honestly.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: inventodoc on 10/29/2014 03:44 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... ;-)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: S.Paulissen on 10/29/2014 03:47 am
I choose to look at it this way, I'm really glad this engine blew here and now rather than on an n1 carrying people aboard.   ... that's assuming it was an engine failure. .... and really stretching for s silver lining.  Sorry orbital,  it was really sad, even if spectacular,  ending to a launch.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rickl 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.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: mtakala24 on 10/29/2014 04:01 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.


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.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Helodriver 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.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWDJBkf_P3Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWDJBkf_P3Y)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Antares 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.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: meekGee 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.

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: sdsds 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

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: yokem55 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?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Rocket Science 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...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist 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 (https://twitter.com/interplanetary/status/527325378864365568)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: John44 on 10/29/2014 05:37 am
NASA News Conference on Orbital Mishap
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9143
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: owais.usmani on 10/29/2014 06:03 am
N1-curse?


July 3rd, 1969, replayed on October 28th, 2014.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: mtakala24 on 10/29/2014 06:04 am
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.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Dalhousie 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.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: SoulWager 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.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Mapperuo on 10/29/2014 06:49 am
Some photos on the NASA flickr:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/with/15470719960/
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Ben the Space Brit 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.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: ugordan 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.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: FinalFrontier 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.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Ben the Space Brit 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.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: inventodoc 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.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: pagheca on 10/29/2014 10:03 am
No problem here with a nearly 40 year old design at all. Big problem with 30 year old hardware.

Is this statement based on actual knowledge?

There is a huge amount of testing technology available today. And engines are not like cakes: they are mainly made of inorganic materials and there is no obvious reason to state that a 30 years old hardware is dangerous.

Problems may come by incorrect storage or lack of understanding of potential issues, but a very long testing process like the one they passed through should intercept them (exactly like they intercept issues in new hardware).

We live and depends on organic materials that actually rotten. But the majority of a rocket engine is not organic and does not "rotten". The organic part, if they exist (gaskets? o-rings? ...) have been assessed and substituted for sure as required.

I would wait before pointing the finger using "common sense" and not specific observations and information. The culprit may be an incorrect procedure or a new component. We actually do not know at this time.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 10/29/2014 10:03 am
Some photos on the NASA flickr:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/with/15470719960/

thanks.

I actually chose the 'other' fire ball image to look at first: the sun rising behind the pad.

Orbital, and Antares, will rise again, I'm sure of that.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/29/2014 10:06 am
Bit more speculation to throw out there. Mentioned previously (others have too) exhaust brightened took on a "Fuel rich" look just prior to the engine loss event. Could this have been a first stage fuel leak? Seems like a similar failure mode to falcon 1 flight 1, simply with less flight time duration. Other fuel leak failures in the past have also shown a similar trend. It occurs to me possible engines failed/exploded/lost pressure due to that, as opposed to the engine (s) itself failing. This sort of failure might be easier to recover from/mitigate in terms of forward planning. Thoughts?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: cdleonard on 10/29/2014 10:09 am
How are failures dealt with in the CRS contract from a financial perspective? Will NASA pay anything for this, or do they just lose their payload?

In the press conference the loss was estimated at >200M for the rocket and spacecraft, before even assessing pad damage. Will Orbital have to cover everything out of their own pocket? It's a huge amount of money.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/29/2014 10:11 am
How are failures dealt with in the CRS contract from a financial perspective? Will NASA pay anything for this, or do they just lose their payload?

In the press conference the loss was estimated at >200M for the rocket and spacecraft, before even assessing pad damage. Will Orbital have to cover everything out of their own pocket? It's a huge amount of money.

Not totally clear. It will likely be a mix depending on who insured what and who (insurers) ultimately hold liable. But in all likelyhood it will be a mix since CRS is a NASA program. As for a "Huge amount of money" 200M is chump change frankly.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Kabloona on 10/29/2014 10:49 am

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.

FTS has no guidance function. Its sole purpose is flight/thrust termination. It is entirely independent of the flight computer in order to maintain functionality in case of every other avionics system on the vehicle going down.

It's basically a radio receiver, batteries, and explosive charges.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/29/2014 11:09 am
This is rather intriguing from a CRS standpoint.

OSC took over the remainder of the money from Rocketplane/Kistler, who were originally thought to be the "safe pair of hands" on the cargo transport contract (and failed). Later they got several 100 $m out of NASA for a test flight.

OSC ran the process as typical "Big aerospace" integration contract with multiple suppliers in multiple countries. They also were thought to be the "Safe pair of hands." Unlike SpaceX at the time.

IIRC the CRS contract awarded more money to them to transport slightly less cargo to the ISS (But I'll have to check those recollections. Others may have better numbers).

Transport contracts were awarded before either vehicle had flown, which seemed very generous to me.

So when it comes time for competing the next round of CTS Orbital are looking a)More expensive b) Less reliable.

Note also there is a finite supply of original build NK33's and the Russians have started to use the ones they still own for their new launcher,  while they have a new generation ORSC engine which IIRC they are planning to replace it with (already built). Naturally buying that off the Russians will be a serious PITA for Orbital.

Orbital's lack of effort at finding a replacement engine for what is a finite supply suggested to me that any talk (from them) about "We want to capture the market the Delta II had" was hot air. If they still had enough engines for CRS II they'd use them for that, otherwise they'd try and sell a few launches and then retire Antares with "mission accomplished."  :( 

Note that Orbital is a publicly quoted joint stock company. Minimizing internal investment and maximizing profit (IOW Don't spend a dime of your own money and kill the project when the government stops coughing up), is SOP for such an entity.

This is a bad day for Orbital. However it's how organisations behave in crises that tells you a lot about how good they are as organisations.  Will they spend more time doing the root cause analysis or more time telling you they are doing a root cause analysis?

Time will tell.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/29/2014 11:23 am
ABC news reported that it was not an engine failure (sources unnamed)... Take that for what it’s worth...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/29/2014 11:25 am
ABC news reported that it was not an engine failure (sources unnamed)... Take that for what it’s worth...

That's not impossible. The SpX-CRS-2 anomaly looked like an engine failure but turned out to be a structural failure where the LOX line entered the Merlin-1c, didn't it?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Jim on 10/29/2014 11:27 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.

No, it is as I stated.  Quit making statements about things you know nothing about
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: ugordan on 10/29/2014 11:29 am
The SpX-CRS-2 anomaly looked like an engine failure but turned out to be a structural failure where the LOX line entered the Merlin-1c, didn't it?

1) CRS-1
2) it was an engine failure, pure and simple
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Rifleman on 10/29/2014 11:34 am


Note that Orbital is a publicly quoted joint stock company. Minimizing internal investment and maximizing profit (IOW Don't spend a dime of your own money and kill the project when the government stops coughing up), is SOP for such an entity.



On a side note, ORB is down over 14% in pre market trading this morning.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/29/2014 11:35 am
ABC news reported that it was not an engine failure (sources unnamed)... Take that for what it’s worth...

That's not impossible. The SpX-CRS-2 anomaly looked like an engine failure but turned out to be a structural failure where the LOX line entered the Merlin-1c, didn't it?
No it’s not and if speaking in terms of the engine is how did they define it (combustion chamber and bell) and separate out turbo pumps, feed lines and controller etc...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/29/2014 11:36 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.
More like inertia... the RUD of the engine most likely took out the other engine. With the loss of both engines the "computer" had no way to control the vehicle.

It just fell, to tumble, one end would have had to fall faster than the other end (localized gravity gradients not included).
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Kabloona on 10/29/2014 11:37 am

Will they spend more time doing the root cause analysis or more time telling you they are doing a root cause analysis?


Come on. You think Frank Culbertson, a NASA/Shuttle veteran, won't or can't lead a thorough investigation? Orbital just had the worst day in their corporate history, and the only way to ensure it doesn't happen again is to find and fix the root cause. To suggest that they may spend more time on PR than actually finding and fixing the problem is just silly.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: mtakala24 on 10/29/2014 11:39 am
It may sound obvious, but it just occurred to me that OSC has footage from every possible angle of the rocket hitting the ground.

I wonder if we'll get to see any closeup angles.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/29/2014 11:47 am
ABC news reported that it was not an engine failure (sources unnamed)... Take that for what it’s worth...

That's not impossible. The SpX-CRS-2 anomaly looked like an engine failure but turned out to be a structural failure where the LOX line entered the Merlin-1c, didn't it?
No it’s not and if speaking in terms of the engine is how did they define it (combustion chamber and bell) and separate out turbo pumps, feed lines and controller etc...
It all goes to how narrowly you define the failure. CRS-1 was the LOX dome failure.

To use Clinton the definition of "IS", the LOX dome while part of the engine "is" not the engine.

Sea Launch Intelsat 27 was the hydraulic pump that feeds off the turbo machinery and controls the TVC binding. Again not an engine failure even though it "is" part of the engine.

I suspect that this failure will be very similar to the Sea Launch NSS-8 failure, where something caused the Turbo machinery to shred. If you want to be very narrow, again it "is" not the engine, but the turbo machinery part of the engine.
 
Edit: I am not trying to say this is not an engine failure, just pointing out that a narrow definition of failure that pin points a subsystem in a larger system can be used to say the larger system "is" not at fault. It "is" a failure of the system. The rest is spin.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/29/2014 12:01 pm

Will they spend more time doing the root cause analysis or more time telling you they are doing a root cause analysis?


Come on. You think Frank Culbertson, a NASA/Shuttle veteran, won't or can't lead a thorough investigation? Orbital just had the worst day in their corporate history, and the only way to ensure it doesn't happen again is to find and fix the root cause. To suggest that they may spend more time on PR than actually finding and fixing the problem is just silly.

While this is a big one, I wonder if this has a larger impact than, say, various Pegasus failures in the 1990s. Nowadays they have a diverse business profolio and I doubt that it would make a long time impact unless more problems surfaces.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: gingerscot on 10/29/2014 12:03 pm
Hi,

Just 2 quick questions that may have already been answered (sorry only read about 10 of the 40 pages!).

Was there an onboard camera on the side of stage 1/2 like with SpaceX streaming live and if so has that been seen?

What sort of info will Orbital have likely received from Antares once post ignition about engine parameters, temps, pressure etc. Will there have been a delay in streaming? Is it likely that they've got full data until the moment of total engine failure to work with? 

Thanks,
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: MarekCyzio on 10/29/2014 12:04 pm

Note that Orbital is a publicly quoted joint stock company. Minimizing internal investment and maximizing profit (IOW Don't spend a dime of your own money and kill the project when the government stops coughing up), is SOP for such an entity.

I was wondering, it may be cheaper for Orbital to walk away from the CRS contract at this moment - they got awarded $1.9B for 8 flights = $237.5M per flight. Each rocket costs around $200M (that's what they said during the conference). Assuming significant pad damage, all of their profits on the CRS contract might have just evaporated with this explosion.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/29/2014 12:06 pm
... I doubt that it would make a long time impact unless more problems surfaces.

I'm worried about those"more problems" being something common to all the engines, and they decide they can't fly this stage anymore.  I don't know of a near-term plan for such a contingency.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/29/2014 12:07 pm
The chaos at the press site:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IclTka711xo
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/29/2014 12:07 pm
$200m is the price per flight that they charge, not necessarily their internal costs. Besides, it would do an enormous amount of brand damage for them to walk away.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: docmordrid on 10/29/2014 12:08 pm
... I doubt that it would make a long time impact unless more problems surfaces.

I'm worried about those"more problems" being something common to all the engines, and they decide they can't fly this stage anymore.  I don't know of a near-term plan for such a contingency.

Integrate Cygnus into F9 or Atlas V?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/29/2014 12:11 pm
I'm convinced Orbital will pick up the pieces and fly again. This isn't the world 's first rocket failure.

Ed Kyle
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: hopalong on 10/29/2014 12:12 pm

Note that Orbital is a publicly quoted joint stock company. Minimizing internal investment and maximizing profit (IOW Don't spend a dime of your own money and kill the project when the government stops coughing up), is SOP for such an entity.

I was wondering, it may be cheaper for Orbital to walk away from the CRS contract at this moment - they got awarded $1.9B for 8 flights = $237.5M per flight. Each rocket costs around $200M (that's what they said during the conference). Assuming significant pad damage, all of their profits on the CRS contract might have just evaporated with this explosion.

They could sub-contract the remaining flights to cough - SpaceX - cough  ;)
I am sure that the contract between Orbital and NASA will have whole chapters covering this eventually, if not, they should claim their legal costs back from the lawyers. 
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: spectre9 on 10/29/2014 12:12 pm
How about Orbital does a full investigation, finds the cause, builds new rockets and goes on with life.

One failure doesn't mean you shut down a whole line of rockets.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Oli on 10/29/2014 12:13 pm
... I doubt that it would make a long time impact unless more problems surfaces.

I'm worried about those"more problems" being something common to all the engines, and they decide they can't fly this stage anymore.  I don't know of a near-term plan for such a contingency.

Integrate Cygnus into F9 or Atlas V?

Indeed. Even Atlas 401 has a marginal cost of $100m according to ULA so I don't quite see the point of Antares. Sorry.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rdale on 10/29/2014 12:17 pm
Can we set up a discussion thread so that the updates thread has updates?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: truth is life on 10/29/2014 12:20 pm
Edit: I am not trying to say this is not an engine failure, just pointing out that a narrow definition of failure that pin points a subsystem in a larger system can be used to say the larger system "is" not at fault. It "is" a failure of the system. The rest is spin.
Well, I'm minded of things like the Titan IIIE Proof Flight failure, which turned out to be caused by a too-short rivet being used to hold a probe in the Centaur oxygen tank, which subsequently fell off and got ingested by the turbomachinery. Yes, I suppose that technically it was an engine failure, but the engines were blameless there. I suppose we'll have to wait for the accident report to find out the whole ins-and-outs; at least they have the rocket to look at, that's one positive I suppose...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: mcgyver on 10/29/2014 12:22 pm
It's very hard to understand what you guys say, with all these acronyms.... Is there any acronyms list in the site? Some sites even uses an engine which automatically highlight acronyms, so you have just to hover over them with mouse to know their meaning.

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: mcgyver on 10/29/2014 12:24 pm
Does Antares have self-destruction system? Was it activated? From ground or from onboard SW?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: sghill on 10/29/2014 12:24 pm

Note that Orbital is a publicly quoted joint stock company. Minimizing internal investment and maximizing profit (IOW Don't spend a dime of your own money and kill the project when the government stops coughing up), is SOP for such an entity.

I was wondering, it may be cheaper for Orbital to walk away from the CRS contract at this moment - they got awarded $1.9B for 8 flights = $237.5M per flight. Each rocket costs around $200M (that's what they said during the conference). Assuming significant pad damage, all of their profits on the CRS contract might have just evaporated with this explosion.

I can't imagine a worse fate for commercial  cargo and commercial crew than to have Orbital walk away.  Detractors in Congress would try to kill the commercial launch programs.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Jarnis on 10/29/2014 12:26 pm
Does Antares have self-destruction system? Was it activated? From ground or from onboard SW?

Yes, Yes, not sure. I would imagine from the ground.

(this has been covered in this thread before)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/29/2014 12:28 pm
I'm convinced Orbital will pick up the pieces and fly again. This isn't the world 's first rocket failure.

I agree that it is hardly unprecedented. However political considerations may unnecessarily complicate issues. Additionally, the conclusions of the AIB could lead to very dramatic requirements for RTF. It's even money as to whether OSC/ATK would be willing to meet them if they're too extreme.

I can't imagine a worse fate for commercial  cargo and commercial crew than to have Orbital walk away.  Detractors in Congress would try to kill the commercial launch programs.

I can't imagine them walking away but I can see a lengthy stand-down whilst Antares is either made right or Cygnus is re-engineered as much as necessary to use an alternate launcher.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: notsorandom on 10/29/2014 12:28 pm
They will figure out what caused this, fix it, and fly again. There is no reason for OrbitalATK to walk away from Antares. Hypothesizing about putting Cygnus on other rockets or putting another engine on Antares may be fun to speculate on but it would be more expensive and time consuming to do that. There are still a few years worth of NK-33s left. They still have the majority of their CRS missions ahead of them and thus assured revenue. Also let us not forget that Antares flew flawlessly the four previous times.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jacqmans on 10/29/2014 12:37 pm
Orbital to Conduct Conference Call with Financial Analysts and Investors to Discuss Antares Rocket Launch Failure

-- 1:00 p.m. (EDT) Conference Call with Financial Analysts and Investors to be Webcast --

DULLES, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 29, 2014-- Orbital Sciences Corporation (NYSE: ORB) announced that it will host a conference call with investors and analysts later today to discuss yesterday’s launch failure of the company’s Antares rocket on a cargo delivery mission to the International Space Station for NASA. The call will begin at 1:00 p.m. (EDT) and will be hosted by:
 Mr. David W. Thompson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
 Mr. Garrett E. Pierce, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer

To access to the conference call, dial (888) 541-8767 and use the conference ID number 28574595. The conference call will also be webcast through a link on Orbital’s web site at www.orbital.com/investor. A replay of the conference call will be available later in the day online or by dialing (855) 859-2056 and using the same conference ID number. The replay will remain active for three days, until November 1, 2014.


More information about Orbital can be found at http://www.orbital.com.
 
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/29/2014 12:38 pm

Will they spend more time doing the root cause analysis or more time telling you they are doing a root cause analysis?


Come on. You think Frank Culbertson, a NASA/Shuttle veteran, won't or can't lead a thorough investigation?
We shall see.  Different companies do failure boards with different degrees of success.  There are lots of explicit and implicit pressures (PR, trying to preserve sunk costs, people who are *sure* what the cause is, political fallout, etc.) that must be ignored, since as Feynman said, "Mother Nature cannot be fooled".   Orbital has had failure board failures in the past - they lost a mission due to a failed fairing, convened a failure board, implemented what they thought were enough fixes, then lost the next mission in the same manner.

The pressure on a company-employed failure board member could be enormously intense, even if self-induced.  Suppose you were investigating the test stand explosion of the AJ-26.  One possible outcome of the review board might be that these decade-old engines cannot be trusted.  Do YOU want to be the person to tell your chairman your company made a mistake in picking these engines, it will need to refund the CRS contract, subject the company to public humiliation, stand down for four years, and lay off thousands of employees?  The failure board folks know full well their recommendations have consequences, and it would require an inhuman level of dispassionate analysis for an employee to avoid even unconscious bias.

So no, I would not trust Frank Culbertson, or any Orbital employee, to lead the investigation.  They have too much of an internal conflict of interest, despite their best intentions.  I think the board must be led by, and primarily composed of, outsiders.  To do otherwise is to expect too much of human beings.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: gospacex on 10/29/2014 12:41 pm
The chaos at the press site:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IclTka711xo

Why everyone is running? They are some miles away from the kaboom.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: WindnWar on 10/29/2014 12:46 pm
I wonder what the likelihood of debris in the tank being the cause? Are there debris screens in the fuel lines? Will Yuzhnoye be involved in the investigation as well? A lot of questions at the moment, will take weeks to find out.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 12:47 pm
Can we set up a discussion thread so that the updates thread has updates?

I'm on it....
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 12:57 pm
Discussion Thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35950.0

Remind anyone not posting an update or update related post from this point onwards of that thread. Need the communities help to self moderate.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/29/2014 01:04 pm
Kuznetsov reports that their engines were working properly......  ::) http://itar-tass.com/kosmos/1539681 (http://itar-tass.com/kosmos/1539681)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Carl G on 10/29/2014 01:23 pm
Moderation note. This is now strictly updates only. If you respond to an earlier post, quote and use the discussion thread. All none update posts will be otherwise removed.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/29/2014 02:30 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
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Helodriver on 10/29/2014 02:46 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.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Kim Keller on 10/29/2014 02:47 pm
Does Antares have self-destruction system? Was it activated? From ground or from onboard SW?

Yes, Yes, not sure. I would imagine from the ground.

(this has been covered in this thread before)


The FTS was commanded by the MFCO just before the rocket impacted the ground.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 04:07 pm
On Conference call. Thompson:

based on the preliminary inspections conducted this morning, launch complex "spared any major damage"

Processing facilities not impacted.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 04:09 pm
Cost of facility repairs reimbursable by insurance.

NASA performance payment also covered by insurance.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: skater on 10/29/2014 04:11 pm
Cautioning that there may be changes in the estimate of the impact as investigation continues.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 04:13 pm
Thompson:

It is possible that they may accelerate engine change, but no decision yet.

"Orbital has experienced adversity in the past, some of which has been worse than this"
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: skater on 10/29/2014 04:15 pm
"Very rich record of telemetry and video data"
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 04:16 pm
Question on merger (w/ ATK):

No specific provision for launch failure. "I think things will continue."

[paraphrasing] days to narrow down failure tree, longer to get to bottom of it. Hopes RTF takes less than a year
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 04:21 pm
still on track to submit CRS2 proposal shortly. still "full speed ahead on future business"
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: skater on 10/29/2014 04:22 pm
Arachnitect seems to be covering updates very well, so I'll drop out, except to say that Orbital is downplaying any financial impact in the call, except for delays in performance payments due to delays in future Cygnus launches.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 04:23 pm
cautions against focusing too quickly on likely cause, but expects to be "zeroing in" on likely cause in a week or so
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 04:24 pm
Not sure how much the two years or so to re-engine Antares could be accelerated.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 04:26 pm
work on Cygnus will continue.

milestones related to Cygnus will still be accomplished. Cygnus is the larger part of the contract, will continue.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 04:30 pm
no reason to be concerned about new upper stage. nothing suggests it contributed.

Q: impact to sales?

A: "not helpful" in general, but sooner introduction of new MPS could possibly be a positive.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 04:34 pm
Too early to tell whether they will be delaying shareholder vote on merger.

"could be" other options for keeping supply line open beyond re-engine, but doesn't want to comment beyond that. Want to look at all alternatives to minimizing disruption to cargo delivery disruptions to ISS. Looking to have an idea of path forward in November.

Q: possibility of outsourcing?

A: "pass"
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2014 04:36 pm
CRS-1 extension, CRS-2 were based on re-engined Antares.

No comment on whether non CRS sales would use AJ-26 or new engine.

Call Ended.

I know I missed some of the more technical accounting type questions, but I think I got most of the things people are interested in here. I think every caller was associated with a financial institution.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jacqmans on 10/29/2014 05:02 pm
News Release Issued: Oct 29, 2014 (11:57am EDT)

ATK Statement Regarding Orbital's Antares Launch Failure
 
ARLINGTON, Va., Oct. 29, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- An unfortunate failure occurred during Orbital Sciences Corporation's Antares launch on October 28, 2014. ATK (NYSE: ATK) is conducting a thorough evaluation of any potential implications resulting from this incident, including current operating plans, long-term strategies, and the proposed transaction to merge the company's Aerospace and Defense businesses with Orbital.

ATK is an aerospace, defense, and outdoor sports and recreation company with operations in 21 states, Puerto Rico, and internationally. News and information can be found on the Internet at www.atk.com, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/atk, or on Twitter @ATK.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: marsman2020 on 10/29/2014 06:56 pm
Removed, didn't see the discussion thread.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/29/2014 07:56 pm
Orbital stock down 15% in afterhours trading. Down 16% at the bell today (Only dropping 1% once trading started is a good thing). For perspective, they are still up 15% since the beginning of the year.

ATK (because of their potential for a merger) down 6%.

Willis Group Holdings was the rocket's insurer. Some media sources say the rocket was insured for up to 50 million dollars. I'm not sure if this also includes Cygnus. It does not include the pad which is insured separately.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: yg1968 on 10/29/2014 08:37 pm
Here is the transcript of the Orbital conference call of today:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEXT2_-mshLVR2U0M4bWNwNGc/view?pli=1
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: SkipMorrow on 10/29/2014 10:15 pm
What does CRS-1/2/3 refer to? I get ORB-1/2/3, and I know CRS is Commercial Resupply Services, but I don't get CRS-1/2/3.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Comga on 10/29/2014 10:28 pm
Just sent out from NASA in an HQ News release

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/launch-pad-looking-south-after-failure.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/launch-pad-looking-south-after-failure.jpg)
An aerial view of the Wallops Island launch facilities taken by the Wallops Incident Response Team Oct. 29 following the failed launch attempt of Orbital Science Corp.'s Antares rocket Oct. 28.

Could be much worse
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: catdlr on 10/29/2014 10:40 pm
Just sent out from NASA in an HQ News release

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/launch-pad-looking-south-after-failure.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/launch-pad-looking-south-after-failure.jpg)
An aerial view of the Wallops Island launch facilities taken by the Wallops Incident Response Team Oct. 29 following the failed launch attempt of Orbital Science Corp.'s Antares rocket Oct. 28.

Could be much worse

Not bad.  The launch pad looks in remarkable good condition structure wise.  No apparent  significant damage to the adjacent fuel tanks and piping.  The two towers are down.  The crater left by the explosion is marked by the arrow (edited picture from NASA).

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: catdlr on 10/29/2014 10:54 pm
Just sent out from NASA in an HQ News release

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/launch-pad-looking-south-after-failure.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/launch-pad-looking-south-after-failure.jpg)
An aerial view of the Wallops Island launch facilities taken by the Wallops Incident Response Team Oct. 29 following the failed launch attempt of Orbital Science Corp.'s Antares rocket Oct. 28.

Could be much worse

Not bad.  The launch pad looks in remarkable good condition structure wise.  No apparent  significant damage to the adjacent fuel tanks and piping.  The two towers are down.  The crater left by the explosion is marked by the arrow (edited picture from NASA).




Here is a before and after picture (best I could with Google Earth).  Looks like it landed very close to the east most tower.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: NovaSilisko on 10/29/2014 11:00 pm
Is that an engine?

Sort of looks cylindrical though, hard to tell.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2014 11:10 pm
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/MissionUpdates/Orb-3/

More on the NASA release:
ISS Commercial Resupply Services Mission (Orb-3)

Update – October 29

Early this morning, range officials performed an aerial survey of the launch facilities and surrounding areas at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility where yesterday's failure of the Antares rocket occurred after it lifted off from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport’s Pad 0A.  Shortly after, a team of representatives from NASA, MARS and Orbital entered the launch site to perform a preliminary assessment of the launch complex and related facilities.  The overall findings indicate the major elements of the launch complex infrastructure, such as the pad and fuel tanks, avoided serious damage, although some repairs will be necessary.  However, until the facility is inspected in greater detail in the coming days, the full extent of necessary repairs or how long they will take to accomplish will not be known.

NASA has posted aerial views of the launch pad taken earlier today here.

Also today, Orbital made progress forming a permanent Accident Investigation Board (AIB) comprised of company officials, along with representatives from NASA and the NTSB, with the FAA providing overall oversight of the process.  Initially, Mr. Rich Straka, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Manager of Orbital's Launch Systems Group, served as the interim chairman to begin the investigation process immediately after the launch mishap.  Today, Orbital appointed Mr. Dave Steffy, Senior Vice President and Chief Engineer of the company’s Advanced Programs Group, a highly experienced engineer well-versed in launch vehicle engineering and operations, to serve as the permanent chairman of the AIB.

No follow-on press conferences are planned at this time. Further updates on the situation and the progress of the ongoing investigation will be provided as they are available.

ORBITAL’S STATEMENT REGARDING ORB-3 LAUNCH MISHAP

Orbital Sciences Corporation confirms that today’s Antares rocket launch from NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility was not successful. Shortly after lift-off from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport Pad 0A at 6:22 p.m. (EDT), the vehicle suffered a catastrophic failure. According to NASA’s emergency operations officials, there were no casualties and property damage was limited to the south end of Wallops Island. Orbital has formed an anomaly investigation board, which will work in close coordination with all appropriate government agencies, to determine the cause of today’s mishap.

“It is far too early to know the details of what happened,” said Mr. Frank Culbertson, Orbital’s Executive Vice President and General Manager of its Advanced Programs Group.“As we begin to gather information, our primary concern lies with the ongoing safety and security of those involved in our response and recovery operations. We will conduct a thorough investigation immediately to determine the cause of this failure and what steps can be taken to avoid a repeat of this incident. As soon as we understand the cause we will begin the necessary work to return to flight to support our customers and the nation’s space program.”

Orbital will provide more information as it becomes available and is verified.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: catdlr on 10/29/2014 11:53 pm
October 29, 2014
RELEASE 14-303
NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility Completes Initial Assessment after Orbital Launch Mishap

The Wallops Incident Response Team completed today an initial assessment of Wallops Island, Virginia, following the catastrophic failure of Orbital Science Corp.’s Antares rocket shortly after liftoff at 6:22 p.m. EDT Tuesday, Oct. 28, from Pad 0A of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia.

“I want to praise the launch team, range safety, all of our emergency responders and those who provided mutual aid and support on a highly-professional response that ensured the safety of our most important resource -- our people,” said Bill Wrobel, Wallops director. “In the coming days and weeks ahead, we'll continue to assess the damage on the island and begin the process of moving forward to restore our space launch capabilities. There's no doubt in my mind that we will rebound stronger than ever.”

The initial assessment is a cursory look; it will take many more weeks to further understand and analyze the full extent of the effects of the event. A number of support buildings in the immediate area have broken windows and imploded doors. A sounding rocket launcher adjacent to the pad, and buildings nearest the pad, suffered the most severe damage.

At Pad 0A the initial assessment showed damage to the transporter erector launcher and lightning suppression rods, as well as debris around the pad.

The Wallops team also met with a group of state and local officials, including the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the Virginia Department of Emergency Management, the Virginia Marine Police, and the U.S. Coast Guard.

The Wallops environmental team also is conducting assessments at the site. Preliminary observations are that the environmental effects of the launch failure were largely contained within the southern third of Wallops Island, in the area immediately adjacent to the pad. Immediately after the incident, the Wallops’ industrial hygienist collected air samples at the Wallops mainland area, the Highway 175 causeway, and on Chincoteague Island. No hazardous substances were detected at the sampled locations.

Additional air, soil and water samples will be collected from the incident area as well as at control sites for comparative analysis.

The Coast Guard and Virginia Marine Resources Commission reported today they have not observed any obvious signs of water pollution, such as oil sheens. Furthermore, initial assessments have not revealed any obvious impacts to fish or wildlife resources. The Incident Response Team continues to monitor and assess.

Following the initial assessment, the response team will open the area of Wallops Island, north of the island flagpole opposite of the launch pad location, to allow the U.S. Navy to return back to work.

Anyone who finds debris or damage to their property in the vicinity of the launch mishap is cautioned to stay away from it and call the Incident Response Team at 757-824-1295.

Further updates on the situation and the progress of the ongoing investigation will be available at:
http://www.orbital.com
and
http://www.nasa.gov/orbital
-end-

source: http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-s-wallops-flight-facility-completes-initial-assessment-after-orbital-launch/#.VFGLZ_nF-kE
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/30/2014 12:07 am
Here's another picture from the survey.

You can see 0B (Minotaur) in the foreground, 0A obviously, and the HIF farther in the background with the meatball and flag. The damaged building behind 0A is a sounding rocket shed. Take note of the seemingly melted lightning masts draped across the flame duct.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: mlindner on 10/30/2014 12:08 am
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

Is there a mirror? That video appears to not play.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Henchman21 on 10/30/2014 12:09 am
You can see the tower fall in this vid if you look carefully.
I screencapped the tower falling if anyone couldnt get it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ0SgAU9LXI&list=PLsa-dEwv56FbBzymZbf0GrVdQMZjkEuO2
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: catdlr on 10/30/2014 12:13 am
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

Is there a mirror? That video appears to not play.

Try a different browser (it didn't play for me on Chrome but did on IE)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: llanitedave on 10/30/2014 12:29 am
It's amazing how well the water tower came out of it.  It looks like a pretty big grass fire occurred off to the northwest, unless that had been burned off previously.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Antares on 10/30/2014 02:45 am
Are the cross-country lines leading into the pad still there in the after picture?  I can't decide if most of the fire near the pad was the Castor 30 burning off or a LOX fire.  It looked intense enough on Youtube that it had to be one or the other.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Kabloona on 10/30/2014 03:49 am
Are the cross-country lines leading into the pad still there in the after picture?  I can't decide if most of the fire near the pad was the Castor 30 burning off or a LOX fire.  It looked intense enough on Youtube that it had to be one or the other.

My money is on Castor 30. The intense white flame is typical of aluminum oxide radiance, whiter than the more yellow/orange radiance of carbon in a LOX/hydrocarbon flame, and you can see the massive plumes of white smoke as the aluminum oxide cools.

You can also see chunks of white-hot material being ejected from the center of the fire, which look like chunks of burning aluminized solid propellant.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: catdlr on 10/30/2014 07:39 am
Orbital Sciences Antares CRS 3 Complete Launch Coverage - Explosion

Complete 2hr 20 min video coverage on NASA TV.

Published on Oct 29, 2014
Cygnus CRS Orb-3, also known as Orbital Sciences CRS Flight 3 or Orbital 3 (Orb-3), was an attempted flight of Cygnus, an automated cargo spacecraft developed by United States-based company Orbital Sciences, on October 28, 2014. This flight, which would have been its fourth to the International Space Station and the fifth of an Antares launch vehicle, resulted in the Antares rocket exploding seconds after liftoff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4HEnfLlu0M
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/30/2014 03:54 pm
Interesting spool of weather radar images showing the long-lasting plume from the deflagration drifting from the launch site northeast over the Atlantic, and still being tracked about 1.5 hours later.

http://qz.com/288956/what-the-antares-rocket-explosion-looked-like-on-weather-radar/

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: chrisking0997 on 10/30/2014 05:32 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4HEnfLlu0M

I wonder if we will get to see the complete video from Camera 12, or any of the other cameras that stayed fixed on the pad
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: smith5se on 10/30/2014 07:03 pm
NASA Released a FAQ on Antares Launch Anomaly

http://www.nasa.gov/content/frequently-asked-questions-on-antares-launch-anomaly/#.VFKZEmNNdgl
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/30/2014 09:17 pm
Interesting spool of weather radar images showing the long-lasting plume from the deflagration drifting from the launch site northeast over the Atlantic, and still being tracked about 1.5 hours later.

http://qz.com/288956/what-the-antares-rocket-explosion-looked-like-on-weather-radar/

 - Ed Kyle

and the one line on there very, very interesting 

"they’re also a reminder of why NASA was willing to scrub a previous launch attempt when a sailboat ventured into the hazard area of the coast of the launch site. "
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: clongton on 10/30/2014 10:32 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

Is there a mirror? That video appears to not play.

Try a different browser (it didn't play for me on Chrome but did on IE)

It's obviously something besides your browser. Chrome worked just fine for me.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/30/2014 10:46 pm
 Update – October 30, 2014

 

Launch Site Status:

 

Based on initial sweeps conducted by an Orbital safety team, it appears a significant amount of debris remains on the site and it is likely substantial hardware evidence will be available to aid in determining root cause of the Antares launch failure. Some of the Cygnus cargo has also been found and will be retrieved as soon as we have clearance to do so to see if any survived intact. After up close visual inspections by the safety team, it still appears the launch site itself avoided major damage. There is some evidence of damage to piping that runs between the fuel and commodity storage vessels and the launch mount, but no evidence of significant damage to either the storage vessels or launch mount. Detailed evaluations by MARS and their engineering team will occur in the next couple of days. An Orbital-led team has begun cataloging and documenting the location of all pieces of debris over the next several days after which the debris will be relocated to storage bays on the island for further evaluation.

 

Antares Data Review:

 

Telemetry data has been released to Orbital and our engineers presented a very quick look assessment to the Accident Investigation Board at the end of the day. It appears the Antares vehicle had a nominal pre-launch and launch sequence with no issues noted. All systems appeared to be performing nominally until approximately T+15 seconds at which point the failure occurred. Evidence suggests the failure initiated in the first stage after which the vehicle lost its propulsive capability and fell back to the ground impacting near, but not on, the launch pad. Prior to impacting the ground, the rocket’s Flight Termination System was engaged by the designated official in the Wallops Range Control Center.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/31/2014 12:02 am
Interesting spool of weather radar images showing the long-lasting plume from the deflagration drifting from the launch site northeast over the Atlantic, and still being tracked about 1.5 hours later.

http://qz.com/288956/what-the-antares-rocket-explosion-looked-like-on-weather-radar/

 - Ed Kyle
Think the Aluminium in the Castor 30-XL will stay up longer than the other stuff and is good radar reflective material. Much easier for the weather radar to track.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rdale on 10/31/2014 12:51 am
I put together a recording of the first half-hour after explosion with fire / EMS / police traffic.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6375163/nasa.wav
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: NovaSilisko on 10/31/2014 05:13 am
It's obviously something besides your browser. Chrome worked just fine for me.

It just depends on your script blocking settings/plugins. NoScript reports more things than my monitor has space to display when I load it up in Firefox, and I need to enable the majority of them to get the video to play... which makes me kind of uncomfortable, frankly.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/31/2014 07:04 am
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

Is there a mirror? That video appears to not play.

Try a different browser (it didn't play for me on Chrome but did on IE)

It's obviously something besides your browser. Chrome worked just fine for me.

Doesn't work for me either on three different browsers. Appears to have been taken down.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/31/2014 07:35 am
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

Is there a mirror? That video appears to not play.

Try a different browser (it didn't play for me on Chrome but did on IE)

It's obviously something besides your browser. Chrome worked just fine for me.

Doesn't work for me either on three different browsers. Appears to have been taken down.
Still watchable on Chrome for me. Maybe your ISP is throttling the streaming feed. Also the video is Adobe FLASH.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: ruthsarian on 10/31/2014 12:29 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

Is there a mirror? That video appears to not play.

Try a different browser (it didn't play for me on Chrome but did on IE)

It's obviously something besides your browser. Chrome worked just fine for me.

Doesn't work for me either on three different browsers. Appears to have been taken down.
Still watchable on Chrome for me. Maybe your ISP is throttling the streaming feed. Also the video is Adobe FLASH.


You can find it on WAVY's YouTube channel as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7b6SzyO9xA
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/31/2014 11:10 pm
From Orbital:
Quote
Update - October 31, 2014

Antares Data Review

It is a travel day for the remainder of Orbital’sAntares data review team who were on site at Wallops Island supporting the initial “quick look” flight data evaluation on Wednesday and Thursday. At this point we believe the on-site data review process has progressed as far as necessary, so the team is transitioning back to their home bases. The Accident Investigation Board (AIB) Chairman, Mr. Dave Steffy, and members of the AIB that are now being identified, will immediately take over further development of the “fault tree” that will drive future investigation activities.

Launch Site Status

Today, the Wallops team continued to document and catalog the debris field. Yesterday’s focus was on clearing any potentially hazardous items. Current priorities are on finding, cataloging and securing any elements of the stage 1 propulsion system that will be of particular interest to the AIB, as well as any cargo that may be found at the site. The team’s goal is to complete that work today. With adverse weather predicted for the weekend, they do not want to lose any evidence or any of the intact cargo that survived the mishap. Orbital expects the process of cataloging and securing all the remaining debris to continue for several days.

CRS Go-Forward Plan

The company’s senior managers have begun developing a comprehensive plan to maintain the cargo supply line between Earth and the International Space Station, fulfilling Orbital’s commitment to NASA for the delivery of supplies for the astronaut crew, necessary equipment for the operation and maintenance of the station, and scientific experiments conducted aboard the orbiting laboratory. Details about Orbital’s approach for completing future missions under its Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract with NASA will be made public in the near future.

Our next update will be on Monday, November 3 to report on activities conducted during the weekend.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 11/01/2014 05:16 pm
A couple more pictures of the aftermath (from the viewing area):

http://www.universetoday.com/115856/launch-pad-damage-discernible-in-aftermath-of-catastrophic-antares-launch-failure-exclusive-photos/

Nothing we haven't already seen elsewhere, but I thought I'd link it.

The sounding rocket hanger is probably totaled, but the launch rail or whatever else is inside might be okay.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: cdleonard on 11/03/2014 10:32 pm
Orbital posted a new update: http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/MissionUpdates/Orb-3/

There is a list of people on the Accident Investigation Board but no actual new info.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: robertross on 11/03/2014 10:46 pm
Orbital posted a new update: http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/MissionUpdates/Orb-3/

There is a list of people on the Accident Investigation Board but no actual new info.
(full excerpt)

ISS Commercial Resupply Services Mission (Orb-3)
Update – November 3, 2014

Over the weekend, Orbital confirmed the participation of the following individuals who will serve on the Antares launch failure Accident Investigation Board (AIB), which is being led by Orbital under the oversight of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The composition of the AIB is as follows:

Chairman

David Steffy, Chief Engineer of Orbital’s Advanced Programs Group
Members

David Swanson, Senior Director of Safety and Mission Assurance for Orbital’s Technical Operations organization
Wayne Hale, Independent Consultant and Former NASA Space Shuttle Program Manager
David Cooper, Member of Orbital’s Independent Readiness Review Team for the company’s Launch Systems Group
Eric Wood, Director of Propulsion Engineering for Orbital’s Launch Systems Group
Tom Costello, Launch Vehicle Assessment Manager in the International Space Station Program at NASA’s Johnson Space Center
Matt Lacey, Senior Vehicle Systems Engineer for NASA’s Launch Services Program
FAA Oversight Team

Michael S. Kelly, Chief Engineer, FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation
Marcus Ward, Mishap Response Coordinator, FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation
Antares Data Review

The AIB is initially focused on developing a “fault tree” and a timeline of the important events during the launch sequence. Fortunately, due to the large amount of data available, the AIB is able to work with a rich source of information about the launch. One of the initial tasks for the AIB is to reconcile the data from multiple sources, a process that is now underway, to help create the launch sequence timeline.

Launch Site Status

Over the weekend, Orbital’s Wallops-based Antares personnel continued to identify, catalogue, secure and geolocate debris found at the launch site in order to preserve physical evidence and provide a record of the launch site following the mishap that will be useful for the AIB’s analysis and determination of what caused the Antares launch failure. The debris is being taken to a NASA facility on Wallops Island for secure and weather resistant storage.

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: abaddon on 11/04/2014 02:31 pm
I guess that explains this: https://twitter.com/waynehale/statuses/529235283385257984.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: russianhalo117 on 11/04/2014 06:24 pm
Orbital Sciences Corporation <[email protected]>

Orbital Sciences Corporation has added a news release to its Investor Relations website.

Title: Orbital to Conduct Conference Call with Financial Analysts and Investors to Discuss Go-Forward Plans for Antares Rocket and Cargo Deliveries for NASA


Date(s): 4-Nov-2014 2:08 PM

For a complete listing of our news releases, please click here

If you are unable to click on the link above, please copy and paste the URL below into a web browser
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=IROL-news&nyo=0
NASDAQ OMX 325 Donald J. Lynch Blvd, Marlborough, MA 01752 | 800/990-6397

--------------

News Release

Orbital to Conduct Conference Call with Financial Analysts and Investors to Discuss Go-Forward Plans for Antares Rocket and Cargo Deliveries for NASA
-- 8:30 a.m. (EST) Conference Call with Financial Analysts and Investors to be Webcast --

DULLES, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 4, 2014-- Orbital Sciences Corporation (NYSE:ORB) today announced that it will host a conference call with investors and analysts on Wednesday, November 5 at 8:30 a.m. (EST) to discuss the company’s plans to fulfill its commitments to NASA for cargo delivery services to the International Space Station and to upgrade the Antares launch vehicle. The call will be hosted by:

Mr. David W. Thompson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Mr. Garrett E. Pierce, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer
To access the conference call, dial (888) 541-8767 and use the conference ID number 31422418. The conference call will also be webcast through a link on Orbital’s web site at www.orbital.com/investor. A replay of the conference call will be available online or by dialing (855) 859-2056 and using the same conference ID number. The replay will remain active for one week, until November 12, 2014.

About Orbital

Orbital develops and manufactures small- and medium-class rockets and space systems for commercial, military and civil government customers. The company’s primary products are satellites and launch vehicles, including low-Earth orbit, geosynchronous-Earth orbit and planetary exploration spacecraft for communications, remote sensing, scientific and defense missions; human-rated space systems for Earth-orbit, lunar and other missions; ground- and air-launched rockets that deliver satellites into orbit; and missile defense systems that are used as interceptor and target vehicles. Orbital also provides satellite subsystems and space-related technical services to U.S. Government agencies and laboratories.

More information about Orbital can be found at http://www.orbital.com



Source: Orbital Sciences Corporation

Orbital Sciences Corporation
Barron Beneski, 703-406-5528
Public and Investor Relations
[email protected]
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/05/2014 11:21 am
Ok folks, that conference should be starting in about an hour.

Webcast:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=81036&eventID=5174142

You need to add your name and e-mail, but it then takes you straight through to the webcast (audio only I guess).

Please add notes into this thread. I will too, but I want to mainly work my article draft that will be going on shortly after.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: sdsds on 11/05/2014 11:46 am
Excerpt from a press release:
Quote
Orbital Announces Go-Forward Plan for NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services Program and the Company’s Antares Launch Vehicle
DULLES, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 5, 2014--
[...] While the work of the AIB continues, preliminary evidence and analysis conducted to date points to a probable turbopump-related failure in one of the two Aerojet Rocketdyne AJ26 stage one main engines. [...]
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: srepetsk on 11/05/2014 12:08 pm
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/release.asp?prid=1921

Orbital Announces Go-Forward Plan for NASA's Commercial Resupply Services Program and the Company's Antares Launch Vehicle

-- Revised Approach Will Maintain Required ISS Cargo Deliveries in 2015 and 2016 --

-- Accelerated Propulsion System Upgrade of Antares to be Implemented at Wallops --


(Dulles, VA 5 November 2014) – Orbital Sciences Corporation (NYSE: ORB), one of the world’s leading space technology companies, today announced comprehensive plans to fulfill its contract commitments under NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program as well as to accelerate an upgrade of the Antares medium-class launcher’s main propulsion system. Under the new approach and in line with Orbital’s existing CRS contract, all remaining cargo will be delivered to the International Space Station (ISS) by the end of 2016. There will be no cost increase to NASA and only minor adjustments will be needed to the cargo manifest in the near term.

Orbital’s Antares launch failure Accident Investigation Board (AIB) is making good progress in determining the primary cause of last week’s failure. A preliminary review of telemetry and video data has been conducted and substantial debris from the Antares rocket and its Cygnus payload has been collected and examined. While the work of the AIB continues, preliminary evidence and analysis conducted to date points to a probable turbopump-related failure in one of the two Aerojet Rocketdyne AJ26 stage one main engines. As a result, the use of these engines for the Antares vehicle likely will be discontinued. 

To maintain the CRS program’s critical ISS supply line, Orbital plans an early introduction of its previously selected Antares propulsion system upgrade in 2016. This will be preceded by one or two non-Antares launches of the company’s Cygnus cargo spacecraft to the ISS in 2015-2016, employing the spacecraft’s compatibility with various launch vehicles and its flexibility to accommodate heavier cargo loads as launcher capacity permits. In addition, the company expects repairs to the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) launch complex at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility to be undertaken quickly, allowing launch operations to continue at Wallops Island with the upgraded Antares beginning in 2016.

“Orbital is taking decisive action to fulfill our commitments to NASA in support of safe and productive operations of the Space Station. While last week’s Antares failure was very disappointing to all of us, the company is already implementing a contingency plan to overcome this setback. We intend to move forward safely but also expeditiously to put our CRS cargo program back on track and to accelerate the introduction of our upgraded Antares rocket,” said Mr. David W. Thompson, Orbital’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

“Exact financial impacts to Orbital will depend on which of several specific options for near-term launches is selected, but they are not expected to be material on an annual basis in 2015. In all cases, no significant adverse effects are projected in 2016 or future years, in part because the cost of the Antares propulsion system upgrade was already part of our internal investment plan during that time,” he added.

“We very much appreciate the tremendous support Orbital has received from NASA and Virginia’s MARS commercial spaceport team over the last seven years on our Antares rocket and CRS cargo programs. We look forward to working closely with them to quickly recover from last week’s setback,” Thompson concluded.

# # #
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: woods170 on 11/05/2014 12:13 pm
Excerpt from a press release:
Quote
Orbital Announces Go-Forward Plan for NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services Program and the Company’s Antares Launch Vehicle
DULLES, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 5, 2014--
[...] While the work of the AIB continues, preliminary evidence and analysis conducted to date points to a probable turbopump-related failure in one of the two Aerojet Rocketdyne AJ26 stage one main engines. [...]
For all those now interested in reading up on their NK-33/AJ-26: http://lpre.de/resources/articles/AIAA-1998-3361.pdf
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: woods170 on 11/05/2014 12:16 pm
Quick notes:


- Cause of failure is AJ-26 turbopump.
- Use of AJ-26 on Antares to be discontinued
- One or two flights of Cygnus on different launcher, prior to...
- Accelerated introduction of different engine on Antares. Now scheduled for 2016


Bl**dy h*ll. Wow!

I fully expected Antares to resume flights with the AJ-26. Not going to happen now after two test stand failures and one in-flight failure.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/05/2014 12:19 pm
Do we know what the non-Antares vehicle options are?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: pippin on 11/05/2014 12:23 pm
You forgot

- will use a bigger launcher to fly more cargo with the one or two non-Antares flights

More in the discussion thread...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: woods170 on 11/05/2014 12:24 pm
Do we know what the non-Antares vehicle options are?
Purely looking at similar or greater upmass-capacity to ISS orbit:

- Falcon 9
- Atlas V
- Delta IV
- Ariane 5
- Proton
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Beittil on 11/05/2014 12:24 pm
Logical options would be:

- Falcon 9
- Atlas 5

Not sure if the fairing on atlas is large enough though, Falcon 9's certainly is!

edit:
I doubt they would go with Delta IV or Ariane 5 (way to expensive) and to choose a Russian rocket now, oof :(
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rpapo on 11/05/2014 12:25 pm
Do we know what the non-Antares vehicle options are?
At a guess, Soyuz, Proton and Falcon.  Atlas, Delta and Ariane are all probably too expensive.  Long March has ITAR problems.  Nothing else is big enough, I believe.

One way or another, they will have to subcontract those flights, probably at a loss.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/05/2014 12:25 pm
Article, will update via the conference:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/post-mortem-for-crs-3-antares-turbopump/
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: newpylong on 11/05/2014 12:31 pm
Do we know what the non-Antares vehicle options are?
At a guess, Soyuz, Proton and Falcon.  Atlas, Delta and Ariane are all probably too expensive.  Long March has ITAR problems.  Nothing else is big enough, I believe.

One way or another, they will have to subcontract those flights, probably at a loss.



They cordoned the area following the failure due to sensitive equipment I doubt Baikonur or Guiana are options.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/05/2014 12:31 pm
Conference starting.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/05/2014 12:34 pm
Mr. Thompson:

Classes today as encouraging.

Six days into investigation. More work to do. Debris and video anaylized. Still prelim, strong suggestion one of the two AJ-26's failed. Believe it was in or directly effected the turbopump, but more work to do.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 11/05/2014 12:34 pm
Substantial work still ahead to determine root cause of failure.

Believe failure was TP failure at T+15s
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 11/05/2014 12:35 pm
Believe repair costs will be small fraction of original construction costs.

Orbital owned equipment repair/replace will be covered by insurance
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: woods170 on 11/05/2014 12:36 pm
Do we know what the non-Antares vehicle options are?
At a guess, Soyuz, Proton and Falcon.  Atlas, Delta and Ariane are all probably too expensive.  Long March has ITAR problems.  Nothing else is big enough, I believe.

One way or another, they will have to subcontract those flights, probably at a loss.



They cordoned the area following the failure due to sensitive equipment I doubt Baikonur or Guiana are options.
That sensitive equipment was part of the cargo. Similar cargo launches on ATV, on Ariane 5, from Guiana. IMO, Ariane 5 would be an option, although a hugely expensive and massively over-performing one.
I assume the latter two facts, plus the very crowded Arianespace flight schedule, will prevent Ariane 5 from being a competitive option.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/05/2014 12:38 pm
Repair assessments still being worked. But looking hopeful for speedy and not very expensive (talking in investor talk, as expected).

Looking forward: Contingency plans and product improvement plans. Go forward plan will be for commitments to NASA and return Antares as soon as possible. Plans still under review. Discussed with NASA. More details to be worked out.

Cygnus on third party LV. Option had already been considered in contingency plans. Should be straight forward. Not saying which LV.

All CRS will go up via four more capable Cygnus launches, than the current five. Complete all current CRS obligations probably faster than previously.

2017 was for the new engine. Now 2016. Likely discontinue AJ-26. Unless they can be conclusively shown as flight worthy.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 11/05/2014 12:39 pm
1 or 2 non-antares launches in 2015/2016

2 launches of upgraded Antares.

4 launches to cover entire CRS manifest

No cost increases to NASA.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/05/2014 12:40 pm
No cost increases to NASA. Modest delays for CRS schedule.

We will recover from last week's set back.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/05/2014 12:41 pm
They don't want to confirm RD-193.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: pippin on 11/05/2014 12:44 pm
That sensitive equipment was part of the cargo. Similar cargo launches on ATV, on Ariane 5, from Guiana. IMO, Ariane 5 would be an option, although a hugely expensive and massively over-performing one.
I assume the latter two facts, plus the very crowded Arianespace flight schedule, will prevent Ariane 5 from being a competitive option.


As said in the discussion thread: my bet would be on Proton, they need something significantly bigger than Antares to give sense to the "make use of additional cargo capacity" statement (need to increase the upmass by 50% to save a flight), so no Soyuz.

BTW: is Zenit (LandLaunch) another option or are they completely out of business?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/05/2014 12:45 pm
Talking to three launch providers. Two in the US. One in Europe! Between the three, there are 15 configurations available.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: guckyfan on 11/05/2014 12:45 pm
1 or 2 non-antares launches in 2015/2016

2ish launches of upgraded Antares.

4 launches to cover entire CRS manifest

No cost increases to NASA.

Seriously? They want to reduce their flights by two through increased payload? Is that even remotely acceptable?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 11/05/2014 12:45 pm
Keybank: What's the engine solution? Is it the RD-193?

A: won't tell you what the new engine is due to pending contracts.

Q: Financial impact of discontinuing AJ-26? Who's on the hook?

A: Premature to comment on details, but stresses do not see significant financial impact to company in 2016

Q: Is F9 the only option? What's available that wouldn't cost too much?

A: In talks with 3 operators, 2 US, 1 Europe. Capacity appears to be available. 5 or 6 scenarios look promising. Aiming to make final decisions of coming month
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: mtakala24 on 11/05/2014 12:46 pm
just to note, that the European one *might* be Soyuz from Guiana. Ariane 5 would be too expensive.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: pippin on 11/05/2014 12:48 pm
Talking to three launch providers. Two in the US. One in Europe!

Is Russia in Europe by their standards?

Would "two in the US" necessarily include SpaceX or would Boeing and LM count as separate "providers" because ULA is not marketing commercial flights? Does Boeing market Delta IV commercially at all?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/05/2014 12:48 pm
Sorry guys, my fault, but let's keep this on updates. Quote posts here and respond in the discussion thread. Thanks.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/05/2014 12:49 pm
This is mainly business plans and financials now (it's an investor conference).
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: pippin on 11/05/2014 12:50 pm
Can't really be SpaceX, can't it? Their manifest must be way too tight.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/05/2014 12:52 pm
New engine is based on increased reliability, performance and cost.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 11/05/2014 12:52 pm
Q: how does NASA pay, per launch? Per kg?

A: based on amount of cargo.

Q: what are you looking for in new engine?

A: Reliability, balance of performance and cost
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/05/2014 12:56 pm
Ariane 5 is NOT an option.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/05/2014 12:56 pm
Quote
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust 51s52 seconds ago

Q: is decision to stop using AJ26 based on "fundamental reliability" issues?
Thompson: that's a good assessment.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/529995149330636800 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/529995149330636800)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 11/05/2014 12:56 pm
No updates on ATK merger.

OSC agrees with assessment that AJ-26 problem may be undetectable/inherent

Q: Are the Cygnus upgrades what we've already seen, or something else?

A: Basically the same Enhanced Cygnus that was already planned, more payload from launch vehicles.

Q: Could Cygnus fly in a discounted lower payload slot on Ariane 5 (!)

A: It physically fits, but the orbits aren't compatible. That particular approach isn't on the table.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/05/2014 12:57 pm
End of presser. Mr. Thompson is impressive.

Thanks for the help everyone. Hat tip to arachnitect! :)

My article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/post-mortem-for-crs-3-antares-turbopump/

UPDATES ONLY FROM THIS POINT ONWARDS.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Jdeshetler on 11/05/2014 04:48 pm
I haven't come across this close up photo of "crater" on Pad 0A anywhere on this forum so here it is.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: yg1968 on 11/05/2014 09:11 pm
See below for the transcript of this morning's teleconference:

Apologies if I missed this up-thread, but transcript of today's "Conference Call To Discuss Go-Forward Plan" is available:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjU4NDU5fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1

Link above from the Investor Relations page:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-IRHome
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: catdlr on 11/05/2014 09:32 pm
I haven't come across this close up photo of "crater" on Pad 0A anywhere on this forum so here it is.

Already posted, see here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35939.msg1279506#msg1279506
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jacqmans on 11/06/2014 10:37 am
Antares Rocket Launch Conference Call Transcript

and

Antares & CRS Cargo Delivery Go-Forward Plan Transcript
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/06/2014 01:08 pm
And it becomes political:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/mcauliffe-calls-for-full-financial-review-of-spaceport-deal-with/article_8a67ede8-23e1-5dd3-abd1-7aa97abb637c.html

Quote
Gov. Terry McAuliffe has ordered a fresh look at the financial arrangements between a Virginia spaceflight authority and the private company that was responsible for a failed rocket launch from a state-owned pad on the Eastern Shore.

McAuliffe expressed concern this week over the state’s apparent financial liability for damage to the pad at the Wallops Island space facility under a memorandum of understanding between the Virginia Commercial Space Authority and Orbital Sciences Corp., as well as the state’s ongoing budget support of the authority and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, known as MARS.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jacqmans on 11/07/2014 01:06 pm
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Antares on 11/08/2014 07:26 pm
What time was that photo taken?  Looks like there are debris search parties on the beach.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 11/09/2014 06:58 pm
Another from Wallops
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: chrisking0997 on 11/10/2014 04:49 pm
Ive been wondering if debris struck the water tower at some point.  That pic shows what looks like at the very least a scorch mark on it...wonder if it has any damage?  Also suprised that the concrete of the flame trench doesnt seem to show any scorching from the fire yet the erector does.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: woods170 on 11/11/2014 09:03 am
Ive been wondering if debris struck the water tower at some point.  That pic shows what looks like at the very least a scorch mark on it...wonder if it has any damage?  Also suprised that the concrete of the flame trench doesnt seem to show any scorching from the fire yet the erector does.
You said it: the concrete of the FLAME trench. This is not yer regular concrete. It's a mix that has specifically been designed to be very resistive to heat input and over-pressure. Normal concrete would show scalding after prolonged exposure to extreme heat. At first look this concrete doesn't show scalding despite the fact that a rocket crashed, exploded and burned right next to it

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: apollolanding on 11/11/2014 10:46 am
You said it: the concrete of the FLAME trench. This is not yer regular concrete. It's a mix that has specifically been designed to be very resistive to heat input and over-pressure. Normal concrete would show scalding after prolonged exposure to extreme heat. At first look this concrete doesn't show scalding despite the fact that a rocket crashed, exploded and burned right next to it

Refractory Cement.  The construction/cement/asphalt company my family owned would do runs of refractory cement for power plants and brick kilns.  It contains a lot of aluminum silicate and a sandstone, high in quartz content.  This isn't your garden variety, 3000lb concrete that spalls with a propane torch and some water.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: yg1968 on 11/11/2014 03:11 pm
See below for the transcript of this morning's teleconference:

Apologies if I missed this up-thread, but transcript of today's "Conference Call To Discuss Go-Forward Plan" is available:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjU4NDU5fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1

Link above from the Investor Relations page:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-IRHome

Teleconference audio has now been posted on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR9sEwjYGHs&feature=youtu.be&a
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 11/11/2014 03:38 pm
note the fires startup on the right near the water tower around 2:40 in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4SH1B7tzJY
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: mtakala24 on 11/14/2014 08:59 pm
Virginia's Secretary of Transportation says it could take a year and up to $20 million to repair the commercial spaceport on Virginia's Eastern Shore, after a mishap damaged the launchpad last month.

http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/State-assessing-damage-considering-future-of-commercial-spaceport/29706358


I couldn't get the video to play here in Finland.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: catdlr on 11/14/2014 09:04 pm
Virginia's Secretary of Transportation says it could take a year and up to $20 million to repair the commercial spaceport on Virginia's Eastern Shore, after a mishap damaged the launchpad last month.

http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/State-assessing-damage-considering-future-of-commercial-spaceport/29706358


I couldn't get the video to play here in Finland.

You didn't miss anything, the clip was less then 20 seconds and summarized what you already read.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 11/14/2014 10:54 pm
Virginia's Secretary of Transportation says it could take a year and up to $20 million to repair the commercial spaceport on Virginia's Eastern Shore, after a mishap damaged the launchpad last month.

http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/State-assessing-damage-considering-future-of-commercial-spaceport/29706358


I couldn't get the video to play here in Finland.

You didn't miss anything, the clip was less then 20 seconds and summarized what you already read.

only a few items of interest hidden by code words.

Aubrey Layne says he expects the flights to resume, but with additional protections for Virginia taxpayers. "We do need to have our launch partner and the federal government take responsibility with us in this particular incident," Layne told WDBJ7.

they want some cash contribution, and maybe a rewording of the launch pad contract?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: GClark on 11/15/2014 07:04 am
AIUI, the Commonwealth is on the hook for a portion of the operating expenses of MARS via VCSFA.  The current Governor (McAuliffe) doesn't particularly care for that and wants Orbital/NASA to pick up more of the tab.

He's also catching some heat over a state-level scandal involving his CoS attempting to bribe a retiring state Senator & a rather vitriolic, profanity-laced voice mail the Governor left for said individual when he declined to be bribed, so he is looking to distract.


Mods:  Apologies for the small political diversion.

Edited to clarify.

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jacqmans on 11/16/2014 10:03 am
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 11/19/2014 09:31 pm
More news from Virginia and its not good.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/business/transportation/mcauliffe-wants-risks-shared-for-future-rocket-launches-at-wallops/article_4adc8e64-eccb-5c30-bf0e-50e0f8a9c119.html

McAuliffe wants risks shared for future rocket launches at Wallops Island

"Gov. Terry McAuliffe is seeking federal help for repairs to a state-owned rocket launch pad on Wallops Island and possibly a new deal with the commercial space flight company responsible for the aborted launch of a space station supply mission there last month."
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: SoulWager on 11/24/2014 02:23 am
A couple new perspectives, the exhaust plume is overexposed, but you can see a relatively clear reflection moving from the top of the screen to the bottom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9ythm-Rjy4
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: SaxtonHale on 11/24/2014 05:46 pm
More views, some are repeats, some are in slow motion.

http://youtu.be/UsvUVDTgPoI

http://youtu.be/KIRIW8kxi1U
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: AnalogMan on 11/25/2014 02:33 pm
NASA have recently posted a one-page "Environmental Summary for the Antares Mishap" (dated Nov 19, 2014):

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/EnvironmentalData.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/EnvironmentalData.pdf)

(copy also attached)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/08/2014 01:39 pm
So I'm going to write up an article on the pad repairs and start a thread for that 12 month process. Hopefully folks will be able to pass by (within reason) and add to any update photos they post....new thread when I've got the article done.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/09/2014 01:06 am
Could be over confidence on Virginia Space's part, but they specifically note end of 2015 for a hot fire. This is mainly about the repairs, however.

Return to Wallops: New Antares set for late 2015 hot fire
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/12/return-wallops-antares-2015-hot-fire/
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: russianhalo117 on 12/10/2014 02:28 pm
Could be over confidence on Virginia Space's part, but they specifically note end of 2015 for a hot fire. This is mainly about the repairs, however.

Return to Wallops: New Antares set for late 2015 hot fire
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/12/return-wallops-antares-2015-hot-fire/
To expand on Chris's article:

Orbital Announces Additional Details Concerning CRS Program and Antares Launcher Go-Forward Plans
Orbital Sciences Corporation <[email protected]>

News Release
Orbital Announces Additional Details Concerning CRS Program and Antares Launcher Go-Forward Plans


-- Next Cygnus Cargo Spacecraft to Be Launched on Atlas V Vehicle in Fall 2015 --

-- Upgraded Antares Rockets to Resume Flights from Wallops Island in Early 2016 --

DULLES, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 9, 2014-- Orbital Sciences Corporation (NYSE: ORB), one of the world’s leading space technology companies, today announced new details in its plans to resume cargo flights to the International Space Station (ISS) and to accelerate the introduction of an upgraded Antares launch vehicle. In formulating its go-forward plans, the company’s primary objective is to fulfill its commitment to NASA for ISS cargo deliveries with high levels of safety and reliability and minimum disruption to schedules. As previously announced, these plans are expected to allow Orbital to accomplish all remaining cargo deliveries under its current Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract with NASA by the end of 2016 and with no cost increase to the space agency.

The company’s go-forward plans for the CRS program and Antares launch vehicle include these major elements:

    Atlas V Launch: Orbital has contracted with United Launch Alliance for an Atlas V launch of a Cygnus cargo spacecraft from Cape Canaveral, Florida, in the fourth quarter of 2015, with an option for a second Atlas V launch in 2016 if needed. The Atlas rocket’s greater lift capacity will allow Cygnus to carry nearly 35% more cargo to the ISS than previously planned for CRS missions in 2015.
    Antares Propulsion Upgrade: The company has confirmed its ability to accelerate the introduction of a new main propulsion system for the Antares rocket and has scheduled three additional CRS launches in the first, second and fourth quarters of 2016 using the upgraded vehicle. The greater payload performance of the upgraded Antares will permit Cygnus spacecraft on each of these missions to deliver over 20% more cargo than in prior plans. With necessary supplier contracts now in place, the first new propulsion systems are expected to arrive at the Antares final assembly facility at Wallops Island, Virginia in mid-2015 to begin vehicle integration and testing.
    Wallops Launch Site Repairs: The Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) has assessed the clean-up, repair and reconstruction work necessary to return the Wallops launch complex to operational status. Current plans call for repairs to be substantially completed by the fall of 2015, with recertification taking place before year end.

The flexibility of Orbital’s Cygnus cargo spacecraft to accommodate heavier cargo loads, together with the greater lift capacity of the Atlas V and upgraded Antares vehicles, will allow the company to complete all currently contracted ISS deliveries in four missions instead of the five previously planned flights over the next two years. In addition, the company’s revised approach is not expected to create any material adverse financial impacts in 2015 or future years as Orbital carries out the CRS cargo delivery and Antares propulsion upgrade programs.

About Orbital

Orbital develops and manufactures small- and medium-class rockets and space systems for commercial, military and civil government customers. The company’s primary products are satellites and launch vehicles, including low-Earth orbit, geosynchronous-Earth orbit and planetary exploration spacecraft for communications, remote sensing, scientific and defense missions; human-rated space systems for Earth-orbit, lunar and other missions; ground- and air-launched rockets that deliver satellites into orbit; and missile defense systems that are used as interceptor and target vehicles. Orbital also provides research rocket and satellite subsystems and space-related technical services to U.S. Government agencies and laboratories. More information about Orbital can be found at http://www.orbital.com. Follow the company on Twitter @OrbitalSciences.

“Safe Harbor” Statement Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

Certain statements in this press release are "forward-looking statements" as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include those related to our go-forward plans for the CRS program and the Antares launch vehicle. These statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Forward-looking statements often include the words "forecast," "expect," "will," "intend," "plan," “to” and words of similar substance. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual financial results or operating performance to be materially different from the forward-looking statement. These risks and uncertainties include factors such as the timing of any future launches; the accounting, financial or commercial impact of the launch failure; the availability of insurance; changes in revenue and cost estimates and/or timing of programs; the potential termination of U.S. Government contracts; unstable geopolitical conditions; supply, modification and testing of components in a timely manner; the performance of our subcontractors, suppliers and other third parties; and the availability of and potential delays in funding or disputes associated with repairs. Additional information concerning these and other factors can be found in Orbital's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Orbital assumes no obligation to update or revise publicly the information in this press release except as otherwise required by law. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.

Source: Orbital Sciences Corporation

Orbital Sciences Corporation
Barron Beneski, 703-406-5528
Public and Investor Relations
[email protected]
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 12/11/2014 10:42 pm
Proposed Federal budget includes $20 million for NASA to be spent repairing facilities at WFF.

WFF will also host a public information session December 15th with launch, range safety, and environmental representatives.

Water has been pumped and removed from the crater and soil excavation around the impact site has already begun.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 12/16/2014 07:16 pm
http://www.13newsnow.com/story/news/local/virginia/2014/12/15/nasa-takes-questions-about-antares-failure-impact/20462623/

Mostly about site cleanup. RP-1 and perchlorate contamination only. No hypergol issues (which is good).
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: catdlr on 12/18/2014 07:11 pm
Virginia Senator Keane Visits Wallops Flight Facility, Tours Damaged Antares Pad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pUyyFkpz1g
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 12/21/2014 11:35 pm
Good photograph of the crater has been floating around the news the last few days. All things considered its pretty remarkable how little damage there is.


Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 02/20/2015 08:54 pm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/20/us-orbital-atk-gencorp-explosion-idUSKBN0LO28P20150220

Quote
Orbital initially linked the explosion to a problem with the turbo pump in one of the two Soviet-era NK-33 engines that power the rocket. GenCorp Inc's Aerojet Rocketdyne unit refurbishes the old motors and resells them as AJ-26 motors.

Orbital ATK on Friday acknowledged that so-called "foreign object debris" was one of more than a half dozen credible causes of the explosion, but said it was not "a leading candidate as the most probable cause of the failure."

say it ain't so OrbATK...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: SkipMorrow on 02/21/2015 07:33 pm
Cool article, but I'm not so sure that it really says anything. It says it is a possibility that debris left in the tank could cause an explosion. But then it says there is so evidence that this has happened. 

Now, I am not "in the know", and I could be completely wrong. To me, it just reads like any article that one typically finds after such an incident.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/13/2015 03:10 am
Orbital ATK CEO David Thompson said that the failure investigation should conclude by the end of this month.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/12/us-orbital-atk-investigation-idUSKBN0M82MQ20150312 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/12/us-orbital-atk-investigation-idUSKBN0M82MQ20150312)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: catdlr on 04/16/2015 03:11 am
U.S. FAA says plans careful look at Orbital report on rocket blast

Reuters By Andrea Shal

http://news.yahoo.com/u-faa-says-plans-careful-look-orbital-report-003743021--finance.html

Quote
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration will carefully review an Orbital ATK-led investigation into an October rocket explosion to ensure that all possible causes were properly considered, a top FAA official said Wednesday.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/16/2015 03:51 am
Nice piece at parabolicarc about Orbital and AeroJet (perhaps predictably) coming to different conclusions about th failure's root cause, each effectively blaming the other:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/04/15/orbital-aerojet-rocketdyne-disagree-antares-explosion/ (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/04/15/orbital-aerojet-rocketdyne-disagree-antares-explosion/)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: abaddon on 05/21/2015 08:47 pm
A little old, but I did not see it posted here: Both NASA and the state of Virginia say Orbital ATK should provide the remaining $2 million needed to finish repairing Pad 0A at the state-owned Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport. - See more at: http://spacenews.com/officials-onus-on-orbital-atk-for-wallops-island-repairs/#sthash.OnYHr21s.dpuf
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 05/21/2015 09:14 pm
Funny because Congress appropriated 20 million in windfall money to NASA for repairs which turned out to be only be 13 million, and then they only used 5 million and pocketed the rest.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jacqmans on 07/01/2015 03:54 pm
Some nice shots from the "new" pad

Source: https://www.facebook.com/SpaceflightPhotography
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Sam Ho on 07/31/2015 03:58 pm
Jeff Foust has an update on the investigation, but there isn't a whole lot of new information, just that it will be finished soon.

http://spacenews.com/orbital-atk-completing-final-report-on-antares-failure/
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/07/2015 02:22 pm
Updating things....
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/orb-4-cygnus-set-atlas-v-ride-ahead-antares-return/

Nathan Koga with the stunning render out of L2 :)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 08/07/2015 06:31 pm
Updating things....
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/orb-4-cygnus-set-atlas-v-ride-ahead-antares-return/

Nathan Koga with the stunning render out of L2 :)

and a very special  ;) for that render.   Looks better each time I see it.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jacqmans on 08/12/2015 06:55 pm
The MARS Pad 0A Repairs Are On Track
 
The MARS Pad 0A repairs are on track with completion scheduled for this fall to support an upcoming Antares hot fire test and return to flight operations in 2016. Photo credit: NASA/ Brea Reeves
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jacqmans on 08/12/2015 07:24 pm
Orbital ATK Updates Progress on International Space Station Cargo Delivery Program for NASA

-- Company in Advanced Preparations for Next Cygnus Mission Later This Year --

-- Antares Rocket on Track for Return to Flight from Wallops Island in Early 2016 --

Dulles, Virginia 12 August 2015 – Orbital ATK, Inc. (NYSE: OA), a global leader in aerospace and defense technologies, is making excellent progress in resuming its cargo delivery service to the International Space Station (ISS) for NASA under the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract, the company stated today.  Orbital ATK is on track to launch its next CRS mission late this year and is moving forward with integration of a new first stage propulsion system into the Antares launch vehicle in preparation for multiple CRS missions in 2016.

“We committed to NASA that we would resume CRS cargo delivery missions as soon as possible under a comprehensive ‘go-forward’ plan after the Antares launch failure last October,” said David W. Thompson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Orbital ATK. “Since that time our team has been sharply focused on fulfilling that commitment. With a Cygnus mission slated for later this year and at least three additional missions to the Space Station planned in 2016, we are on track to meet our CRS cargo requirements for NASA.”

Three main CRS program efforts are simultaneously underway, including preparing the enhanced Cygnus spacecraft for the next ISS cargo mission (OA-4) to launch aboard an Atlas V rocket this December; upgrading the Antares rocket by integrating and testing the new RD-181 main engines with the modified first stage core structure; and working with the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) to complete repairs to the Pad 0A launch complex at Wallops Island to support the resumption of CRS missions from Wallops Island in early 2016.

Preparations for the OA-4 Mission

Orbital ATK will launch its next Cygnus spacecraft to the ISS aboard an Atlas V rocket supplied by United Launch Alliance (ULA) from Cape Canaveral, Florida. The OA-4 CRS mission is scheduled for launch in early December 2015. Like most Orbital ATK spacecraft, Cygnus is designed to be compatible with multiple launch vehicles. This capability, combined with ULA’s flexibility in making available a launch slot this year, is enabling Orbital ATK to carry out the mission on a shortened schedule to be responsive to NASA’s ISS logistics requirements.

“For the OA-4 mission, launching aboard the more powerful Atlas V allows us to better support NASA’s ISS cargo needs with a full load of about 3,500 kg of pressurized cargo, consisting of essential supplies, equipment and science experiments,” said Frank Culbertson, President of Orbital ATK’s Space Systems Group. The company also recently contracted with ULA for a second Atlas V rocket that will be used to launch an additional CRS mission in 2016 in order to provide NASA with the maximum cargo load Cygnus can carry. 

“In 2016, we will carry out at least three more CRS missions:  two (or possibly three) will be launched by Antares rockets, the first of which is on a path to be ready to launch early in the year, and one more will be launched aboard Atlas V to support NASA’s need for additional cargo,” Culbertson added. “We have not finalized the exact sequence of these missions yet, but the plan capitalizes on the flexibility of Cygnus to launch on either vehicle and provides better schedule assurance for our customer.”

The Cygnus spacecraft to be used for upcoming CRS missions features an extended pressurized cargo module (PCM) that allows it to deliver larger volumes of cargo to the station than in previous missions.  The spacecraft will also use the latest in lightweight space-qualified power system technology with the addition of the company’s Ultraflex solar arrays.

The PCM for the OA-4 mission arrived at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) earlier this week where it will be integrated with the Cygnus spacecraft’s service module, which will arrive in early October. The service module, which houses the spacecraft’s avionics, electrical, propulsion and communications systems, is currently completing final testing at the company’s Dulles, Virginia satellite manufacturing facility. Final assembly, cargo loading and fueling of the Cygnus spacecraft will take place at KSC prior to its integration with the Atlas V rocket for an early December launch. 

Antares Return-to-Flight Progress 

Orbital ATK’s Antares program remains on schedule to commence flight operations from NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility in early 2016. Following the completion of certification and acceptance testing of the RD-181, the first dual-engine ship-set arrived at the Antares integration facilities at Wallops Island in mid-July.

“The RD-181 engine provides extra thrust and higher specific impulse, significantly increasing the payload capacity of the Antares rocket.  This state-of-the-art propulsion system is a direct adaptation of the RD-191 engine, which completed an extensive qualification and certification program in 2013, accumulating more than 37,000 seconds of total run time,” said Mr. Scott Lehr, President of Orbital ATK’s Flight Systems Group. 

Antares program engineers and technicians recently integrated the two RD-181 engines with a newly designed and built thrust frame adapter and modified first stage airframe.  Later this month, new propellant feed lines and first stage avionics systems will be delivered to Wallops to support full vehicle integration.  Orbital ATK plans to conduct a “hot fire” test on the launch pad late this year or in early 2016 to verify the vehicle’s operational performance and compatibility of the MARS launch complex.

“With the delivery of the first set of flight engines now accomplished, and the second ship-set expected to arrive in the fall, Antares remains solidly on track to resume flights early in 2016.  In fact, within the next couple of weeks all the hardware for the next Antares vehicle will be at our Wallops final assembly facility, with equipment for several additional rockets following a few months later,” added Lehr.

Status of MARS Launch Pad Repairs 

Repairs of the MARS Pad 0A launch facility at Wallops Island are currently underway and are scheduled to be completed at the end of September. Working with MARS, Orbital ATK has installed an upgraded hydraulic system used to erect Antares vertically on the pad, which recently completed testing and certification. Other launch pad systems are on track to comfortably support the on-pad Antares “hot fire” test late this year or in early 2016.

The Orbital ATK CRS Team

Employees from Orbital ATK locations across the United States support the CRS program, including teams from Dulles, Virginia; Chandler, Arizona; Goleta and Commerce, California; Magna, Utah; and Wallops Island, Virginia. 

“Our team and our partners are devoting maximum efforts to ensuring the success of NASA’s ISS commercial cargo program,” said Thompson. “We are committed to meeting all CRS mission requirements, and we are prepared to continue to supply the Space Station for many years to come if we are selected for additional missions by NASA.”

http://www.orbitalatk.com/News-Room/release.asp?prid=63
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/26/2015 04:58 pm
Still waiting for Orbital to release their report into accident.

The politicians were very quick to ask questions about SpaceX CRS7 launch failure but have be strangely silent about the Antares failure.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 08/26/2015 09:47 pm
Still waiting for Orbital to release their report into accident.

The politicians were very quick to ask questions about SpaceX CRS7 launch failure but have be strangely silent about the Antares failure.
Because NASA was already investigating the Antares failure.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: woods170 on 08/27/2015 09:11 am
Still waiting for Orbital to release their report into accident.

The politicians were very quick to ask questions about SpaceX CRS7 launch failure but have be strangely silent about the Antares failure.
Because NASA was already investigating the Antares failure.
Wrong take. NASA is also investigating the SpaceX failure. The politicians (specifically rep. Lamar Smith) failed to notice however. The wording of Bolden in his letter was very gentle and kind, but basically boiled down to saying to mr. Smith: "Next time have yourself informed a little better before asking silly questions."
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/27/2015 02:09 pm
The public deserves to have an answer.  Private property damage was reported after Antares blew up.  Public property, paid for by local and national taxpayers, was damaged and destroyed.

The FAA investigates and reports on aircraft accidents.  It finds a way to report in a detailed, descriptive manner despite the legal disputes that often continue in the accident's wake.  It should be no different for Orbital-ATK's Antares.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: russianhalo117 on 08/27/2015 06:24 pm
The public deserves to have an answer.  Private property damage was reported after Antares blew up.  Public property, paid for by local and national taxpayers, was damaged and destroyed.

The FAA investigates and reports on aircraft accidents.  It finds a way to report in a detailed, descriptive manner despite the legal disputes that often continue in the accident's wake.  It should be no different for Orbital-ATK's Antares.

 - Ed Kyle
AFAIK. the report was declared by certain parties as Proprietary and we may or may not ever see the redacted version that is to be given to select members of Congress since they made a request for it.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: ngilmore on 08/27/2015 06:53 pm
Here is a quote from Orbital-ATK regarding the report:

Quote from: Melody Petersen
Barron Beneski, Orbital's vice president of communications, said the company would not release the report to the public because it contained confidential corporate information. And NASA and the FAA said they would not release it either.

The FAA said the company may release a summary of its findings.
source:
Despite rocket explosion, aerospace firm Orbital ATK's profits are soaring
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-orbital-crash-aftermath-20150820-story.html
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: woods170 on 08/28/2015 08:36 am
The public deserves to have an answer.  Private property damage was reported after Antares blew up.  Public property, paid for by local and national taxpayers, was damaged and destroyed.

The FAA investigates and reports on aircraft accidents.  It finds a way to report in a detailed, descriptive manner despite the legal disputes that often continue in the accident's wake.  It should be no different for Orbital-ATK's Antares.

 - Ed Kyle
Minor nit: investigation into aircraft accidents is usually done by NTSB, not FAA. FAA usually is informed about the NTSB investigation and tasked with taking recommendations from such investigations and turning them into regulation.

In the case of the Orbital launch failure there is no such thing as an NTSB to investigate the Orbital mishap. Orbital is, under the terms set in the CRS contract, investigating the mishap by itself. FAA and NASA are 'in' on the investigation, but Orbital is in the lead for the primary failure investigation. As such, there is no obligation to release the investigation final report to the public. Again, this is all laid down in legal terms in the CRS contract.

The investigation by NASA is there only to validate the outcome of the Orbital investigation. Since both reports (Orbital and NASA) are very likely to contain proprietary information, it is natural to assume (as confirmed by Orbital and NASA) that the reports will not be released to the general public. At best we will see some heavily redacted summaries.

It's all covered in the CRS contract. When commercial is involved, the public has no right to know all the dirty details. Like it or not, it's that simple.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Antares on 08/28/2015 03:43 pm
The aircraft analogy is inapt.  Where there is a large flying public that needs to understand the risk and a large industry that might benefit from lessons learned, there are no large constituencies for spaceflight.  Current and potential launch customers can request the insight they specifically need.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: LouScheffer on 08/28/2015 07:09 pm

It's all covered in the CRS contract. When commercial is involved, the public has no right to know all the dirty details. Like it or not, it's that simple.
This is certainly true, but I think it's a unfortunate aspect of the industry that is holding back progress.

It's human nature not to want to widely expose your mistakes.  But if everyone acts this way, no-one gets to learn from the mistakes of others.  This is likely a bad bargain.

Learning from the mistakes of others is especially crucial in fields that need high reliability, and where there are lots of subtle things that can go wrong.  Commercial aviation, scamgraphy, and operating system design, are examples where learning from others has been extremely helpful.  You would think commercial space fits this description, but it's descended from military technology which holds very different attitudes.  For example,  ITAR is based on exactly the opposite philosophy (force my opponents to discover for themselves the same errors I've already found).  This might make sense in terms of comparative advantage, but it hurts the field as a whole.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/28/2015 11:14 pm
In the case of the Orbital launch failure there is no such thing as an NTSB to investigate the Orbital mishap. Orbital is, under the terms set in the CRS contract, investigating the mishap by itself. FAA and NASA are 'in' on the investigation, but Orbital is in the lead for the primary failure investigation. As such, there is no obligation to release the investigation final report to the public. Again, this is all laid down in legal terms in the CRS contract.
I believe that there should be an NTSB (not FAA, thanks for that catch) equivalent for these investigations, with a report published at the end.  Public safety is involved.  As I mentioned, there were reports of private property damage that resulted from the Antares failure.  There were groundwater impacts, and of course major public property destruction. 

Failing a public investigation, I simply believe that Orbital-ATK has a responsibility as a corporate citizen to be accountable - to provide an honest explanation to the public before it presses the ignition button on its next rocket.  It really is as simple as that.  Otherwise, I might assume that it is covering up something embarrassing or improper, or worse.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: russianhalo117 on 08/28/2015 11:57 pm
In the case of the Orbital launch failure there is no such thing as an NTSB to investigate the Orbital mishap. Orbital is, under the terms set in the CRS contract, investigating the mishap by itself. FAA and NASA are 'in' on the investigation, but Orbital is in the lead for the primary failure investigation. As such, there is no obligation to release the investigation final report to the public. Again, this is all laid down in legal terms in the CRS contract.
I believe that there should be an NTSB (not FAA, thanks for that catch) equivalent for these investigations, with a report published at the end.  Public safety is involved.  As I mentioned, there were reports of private property damage that resulted from the Antares failure.  There were groundwater impacts, and of course major public property destruction. 

Failing a public investigation, I simply believe that Orbital-ATK has a responsibility as a corporate citizen to be accountable - to provide an honest explanation to the public before it presses the ignition button on its next rocket.  It really is as simple as that.  Otherwise, I might assume that it is covering up something embarrassing or improper, or worse.

 - Ed Kyle
For the record and in NASA Audio to the controllers, NTSB could have taken investigative lead but gave the lead to FAA. NTSB did activate a team to participate passively and officially declared itself full observer status in the investigation with the right to intervene and take over lead role from all parties as needed.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 08/29/2015 12:16 am
In the case of the Orbital launch failure there is no such thing as an NTSB to investigate the Orbital mishap. Orbital is, under the terms set in the CRS contract, investigating the mishap by itself. FAA and NASA are 'in' on the investigation, but Orbital is in the lead for the primary failure investigation. As such, there is no obligation to release the investigation final report to the public. Again, this is all laid down in legal terms in the CRS contract.
I believe that there should be an NTSB (not FAA, thanks for that catch) equivalent for these investigations, with a report published at the end.  Public safety is involved.  As I mentioned, there were reports of private property damage that resulted from the Antares failure.  There were groundwater impacts, and of course major public property destruction. 

 - Ed Kyle
The NTSB doesn't even investigate all aircraft accidents unless there's a fatality.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/29/2015 01:15 am
The NTSB doesn't even investigate all aircraft accidents unless there's a fatality.
or significant damage or injury or a near miss that could have caused any of the above...

To bring the point of the NTSB forward a little:

1. The point of report is to bring forward lessons learned to prevent future accidents. It is why they investigate an incident. It is not to tell the public who to point fingers at, or provide a ledger of property damage.

2. NTSB goes to great lengths to focus on lessons learned and not paint anyone in a bad light. When a draft report that placed the captain of Southwest WN345 in a bad light was incorrectly released there was quite a dust up. If memory serves the NTSB was quite upset with the FAA for releasing it. The final report of the July 2013 "hard landing" wasn't released until July of 2015. Two years later!

3. The NTSB usually takes a year or more to release a final report. They move slow because getting it right is important.

   -Delta DL1086 skidding off the runway during a snow storm on March 5, 2015. Last US main line crash, Six months later and still no report.
   -Asiana Air 214 hitting the seawall at LAX July 6, 2013. Last fatal US main line large passenger crash, Final report issues a year later in July of 2014.
   -UPS 1354 CFIT due to pilot fatigue on August 14, 2013. Last fatal large jet crash in the US (Cargo), Final report released almost two years later in June of 2015.

Nor is it out of line with the rest of the world. No final reports have been released for any of these recent crashes:

   -Air Canada 624 landing short of the runway and skidded up the embankment onto the runway March 29, 2015. No final report yet.
   -Germanwings 9525 pilot suicide on March 24, 2015. Despite all the leaks, no official final report yet.
   -AirAsia 8501 crashed into the sea for unknown reasons on December 28, 2014. No final report yet.
   -TransAsia Airways 235 crash due to pilot shutting down remaining good engine by mistake on February 4, 2015. No final report yet.

The point of an NTSB investigation is to get to the bottom of what happened so the lessons can be used to prevent future accidents. Not to provide lawyers and pundits a bulls eyes. In my eyes, Orbital did it correctly. Assuming they use the lessons learned (and they have a history with Taurus of not learning) and prevent future accidents.

I remember a while ago an excellent article in the Space Review of all places on how important lessons learned are. That is what is needed to come out and be shared from this accident.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: psloss on 09/17/2015 05:03 pm
NASA OIG is out with an audit; there are some interesting nuggets of information in the HEOMD responses to the recommendations (dated 14 September):

"NASA's Response to Orbital's October 2014 Launch Failure: Impacts on Commercial Resupply of the International Space Station (IG-15-023)"
http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY15/IG-15-023.pdf
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Targeteer on 10/01/2015 01:31 am
Good news  http://www.vaspace.org/index.php/news/8-news/18-mid-atlantic-regional-spaceport-launch-pad-0a-repair-completion

Completion Of Repairs at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport Launch Pad 0A

Norfolk, Va. September 30, 2015

RELEASE: IMMEDIATE

CONTACT: Zig Leszczynski, (757) 440-4020, [email protected]

NORFOLK, Va. – Today, September 30, marks the completion of the major repair work at the Virginia Space – MARS Launch Pad-0A, located on NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility. This is a significant milestone in support of Orbital ATK resuming cargo resupply service with the upgraded Antares launch vehicle to the International Space Station for NASA.

The rebuild effort restored to flight readiness the facility and all systems that were damaged during the October 28, 2014 launch mishap. This work included repairs or replacement to the Deluge, HVAC, Fire Alarm, Electrical systems, Controls, Liquid Fueling Facilities and any damaged structures. The work was completed as scheduled, and within the overall budget while keeping a small management reserve for final system performance testing, which started September 25, 2015.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/06/2015 06:23 pm
Just found out about this interesting bit from Russia

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/nk33.html#2015

"On October 5, 2015, the United Engine Corporation, ODK, announced that it had conducted a successful 40-second test firing of the NK-33 engine to certify it for the use on the Soyuz-2-1v rocket

The firing tested an upgraded combustion chamber and a newly manufactured ignition chamber. (Both components were apparently modified in the wake of an Antares rocket failure in 2014.) "

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Lars-J on 10/06/2015 11:20 pm
A new story from Popular Mechanics:
"How NASA Got Bullied Into Rebuilding a Spaceport"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a17619/nasa-wallops-island-spaceport-repairs/
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/07/2015 01:20 pm
A new story from Popular Mechanics:
"How NASA Got Bullied Into Rebuilding a Spaceport"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a17619/nasa-wallops-island-spaceport-repairs/

saw that story, such a mess wasn't worth posting on NSF ::)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: a_langwich on 10/08/2015 09:31 pm
A new story from Popular Mechanics:
"How NASA Got Bullied Into Rebuilding a Spaceport"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a17619/nasa-wallops-island-spaceport-repairs/

saw that story, such a mess wasn't worth posting on NSF ::)

The popular version of the story, as mentioned here and in the OIG report, is that NASA had to re-direct some of its funds ($5 million) to help repair Virginia's spaceport.  But the way I recall, from various SpaceNews articles, was that Virginia's US Senate delegation put $20 million extra pork in NASA's budget to help cover the repairs, and NASA chose to only send $5 million to Virginia and used the rest for itself.  Which is more accurate?

The bottom line, of course, is that national taxpayers were asked to bail out Virginia's lack of insurance.  The OIG rightly says NASA should take care in future negotiations to prevent other spaceports from doing the same, but it's hard to see that NASA could prevent it.  If NASA requires insurance, and the state chooses to self-insure, and its Congressional delegation can easily swing the pork to cover any losses, how do you stop that?  In fact, I wonder how much federal pork was used to build/setup the Virginia spaceport authority and new facilities (beyond NASA's pre-existing Wallops, I mean)?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: abaddon on 10/13/2015 03:27 pm
A new story from Popular Mechanics:
"How NASA Got Bullied Into Rebuilding a Spaceport"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a17619/nasa-wallops-island-spaceport-repairs/

saw that story, such a mess wasn't worth posting on NSF ::)

What an insightful rebuttal.  Or, are you saying that the insurance situation was such a mess?  Because I'd agree with that.  The situation is complicated enough that it is difficult to work out who is to blame, but between NASA, Virginia, and Orbital, there seems to be plenty of blame to go around.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/28/2015 09:22 pm
Has a final report been released?

Today is full of strange happenings.  The early local news had a video clip of the failed launch. It was announced as the anniversary of the failure.

The strange thing; blame for the failure was put on "the Russian Engine".   So who is doing negative PR about Orbital or this failure? 


Edit: some fixes 
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: ZachS09 on 10/28/2015 11:52 pm
Today marks the 1-year anniversary of the Orb-3 launch failure.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/29/2015 01:23 am
Today marks the 1-year anniversary of the Orb-3 launch failure.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Prober on 10/29/2015 07:34 pm
New NASA page Up & report

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-team-provides-summary-of-its-review-of-orbital-atk-accident

NASA Team Provides Summary of its Review of Orbital ATK Accident

A NASA team that independently reviewed the unsuccessful launch last year of Orbital ATK’s third commercial resupply services mission intended to deliver cargo to the International Space Station (ISS) has completed its report and publicly released an executive summary of its findings.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/29/2015 09:52 pm
Some interesting things in there. It also seems to imply OA has already submitted their own report to NASA.

Quote
The proprietary nature of launch vehicle information may be serving as an artificial barrier
to communications and leading to communication shortfalls.
It's interesting to see this one acknowledged. I wonder how NASA will move forward on it since nearly every NASA mission now is on a commercial rocket (even though this particular finding is only in reference to ISS cargo program).

Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/30/2015 01:26 am
"The IRT was not able to isolate a single technical root cause for the E15 fire and explosion."

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: psloss on 10/30/2015 01:30 am
"NASA, Orbital Differ on Root Cause of Antares Launch Failure"
http://spacenews.com/nasa-orbital-differ-on-root-cause-of-antares-launch-failure/

Quote
That finding regarding technical root causes is different from the Orbital’s own Accident Investigation Board. An executive summary of that report, submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration and obtained by SpaceNews...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: sdsds on 10/30/2015 02:44 am
Well now here's an interesting "Programmatic Recommendation!"
Quote
PR-1 The ISS Program should reassign LVA management responsibility to
a senior engineer at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) with
significant launch vehicle development and assessment experience, as
well as increase the number of individuals from MSFC engineering
supporting development of the LVA.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/30/2015 02:51 am
The three technical root causes concluded by the NASA Independent Review Team all appear to be mentioned in the February 21 Reuters article.

Did Andrea Shalal's article accurately foreshadow the IRT's Accident Investigation Report Executive Summary?

Were her anonymous sources knowledgeable sources?  Collectively, they appear to have been.


Re: faulty AJ-26 turbopump
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/20/us-orbital-atk-gencorp-explosion-idUSKBN0LO28P20150220 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/20/us-orbital-atk-gencorp-explosion-idUSKBN0LO28P20150220)
Exclusive: Orbital explosion probe said to find debris in engine: sources
Quote
Orbital initially linked the explosion to a problem with the turbo pump in one of the two Soviet-era NK-33 engines that power the rocket. GenCorp Inc's Aerojet Rocketdyne unit refurbishes the old motors and resells them as AJ-26 motors.

And from the NASA Independent Review Team's
Orb–3 Accident Investigation Report Executive Summary
Quote
Technical Root Cause-1: Inadequate design robustness of the AJ26 LO2 Hydraulic Balance Assembly
and turbine-end bearing for Antares. After performing extensive technical design evaluation and a
number of sensitivity analyses of the LO2 turbopump, it became apparent to the IRT that the HBA
and thrust bearing designs have several intricacies and sensitivities that make it difficult to reliably
manage bearing loads. As a result, this area of the turbopump is vulnerable to oxygen fire and failures.
The AJ26 engines were not subjected to a thorough delta-qualification program to demonstrate their
operational capability and margin for use on Antares. Performing a thorough delta-qualification
program for Antares would likely have revealed these issues. Furthermore, the Acceptance Test
Program (ATP) established for the AJ26 engines was not sufficient to test and screen the engines
for these design sensitivities and potential workmanship issues that could exacerbate those
sensitivities.


Re: Desiccant as FOD (silica is a common desiccant)
From the same Reuters article:
Quote
One of the sources familiar with the probe said investigators found particles of a crystallized desiccant, or drying agent, in the turbo pump and other parts of the AJ-26 engine. The crystals could have caused sparks and triggered a fire when they hit the turbo pump in the oxygen-rich environment, the source said.

Desiccants are often used to control moisture in fuel tanks but need to be removed before takeoff, the sources said.
 
While the NASA investigation had not finalized the root cause of the accident, there were multiple signs that suggested some "foreign object debris" had been ingested into the engine from the fuel tanks, one source said.

And from the NASA Independent Review Team's
Orb–3 Accident Investigation Report Executive Summary
Quote
Technical Root Cause-2: Foreign Object Debris (FOD) introduction to the E15 LO2 turbopump. Forensic
investigation identified the presence of both titanium and silica FOD within E15 prior to its
impact on the beach. However, no firm conclusions can be drawn with respect to the quantity of
FOD introduced to or already present within the engine prior to or at the time of the explosion.
The lack of significant particle impact damage to the recovered impeller and other components
indicates that there were not gross-levels of FOD present within the system. In addition, there is
no clear forensic evidence that FOD directly or indirectly led to the E15 failure.


Re: faulty workmanship
From the Reuters article:
Quote
No details have been released on the May 2014 test stand incident, but sources familiar with the earlier investigation said it was likely linked to faulty "workmanship" on the original motor, and additional inspections had been mandated to prevent mishaps with other engines.

And from the NASA Independent Review Team's
Orb–3 Accident Investigation Report Executive Summary
Quote
Technical Root Cause-3: Manufacturing or other workmanship defect in the E15 LO2 turbopump. Forensic
investigation performed by Orbital ATK and NASA discovered the presence of a defect on the
turbine housing bearing bore that was not consistent with baseline design requirements3. The
investigation determined that the defect was introduced during machining of the bearing bore
housing and was therefore present prior to the engine ATP and Antares launch for Orb-3.
Forensic investigation of Engine E17, which failed during ATP in May 2014, discovered the
presence of a similar non-conforming defect in the housing bearing bore. A limited number of
other engine turbine housings (i.e., Engine E16 and the 1998 test engine) previously and
successfully subjected to extended ground tests and ATP, as well as an untested spare turbine
housing, were inspected. Neither E16 nor the spare housing showed any evidence of a similar
manufacturing defect. However, the 1998 test engine that had been subjected to extensive ground
testing exhibited a similar defect to that observed in Engines E15 and E17, but it was not possible
to conclude whether the defect was introduced during manufacturing or was the result of wear
from extended operation of the engine. Sufficient information is not available without further
engine inspections and tests to conclude that the presence of this manufacturing defect would
always result in failure of the engine during operation.

3Further information about the turbine bearing bore housing design and the location and configuration of the defect is not provided due to proprietary restrictions.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/30/2015 03:00 am
From the NASA Independent Review Team's
Orb–3 Accident Investigation Report Executive Summary
Quote
The IRT concluded that the cause of the explosion on launch was loss of rotor radial positioning resulting in contact and frictional rubbing between rotating and stationary components within the Engine LO2 turbopump Hydraulic Balance Assembly (HBA) seal package. This frictional rubbing led to ignition and fire involving LO2 within the turbopump HBA. This conclusion is consistent with the proximate cause determination made by the Orbital ATK AIB investigation findings.

Is the HBA NK-33 original hardware?  Or is it part of the improvements made by Aerojet Rocketdyne to make NK-33s into AJ-26s?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/30/2015 05:03 pm
From the NASA Independent Review Team's
Orb–3 Accident Investigation Report Executive Summary
Quote
The IRT concluded that the cause of the explosion on launch was loss of rotor radial positioning resulting in contact and frictional rubbing between rotating and stationary components within the Engine LO2 turbopump Hydraulic Balance Assembly (HBA) seal package. This frictional rubbing led to ignition and fire involving LO2 within the turbopump HBA. This conclusion is consistent with the proximate cause determination made by the Orbital ATK AIB investigation findings.

Is the HBA NK-33 original hardware?  Or is it part of the improvements made by Aerojet Rocketdyne to make NK-33s into AJ-26s?

It's not listed among the modifications in an old AIAA paper on the conversion.

It's possible it was replaced by AJR, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/30/2015 07:40 pm
Well now here's an interesting "Programmatic Recommendation!"
Quote
PR-1 The ISS Program should reassign LVA management responsibility to
a senior engineer at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) with
significant launch vehicle development and assessment experience, as
well as increase the number of individuals from MSFC engineering
supporting development of the LVA.

This is exactly why it should be an independent body, such as the NTSB, that does these kinds of investigations.  A NASA board recommending NASA get more power -- there's an obvious conflict-of-interest here.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/30/2015 10:31 pm
From the NASA Independent Review Team's
Orb–3 Accident Investigation Report Executive Summary
Quote
The IRT concluded that the cause of the explosion on launch was loss of rotor radial positioning resulting in contact and frictional rubbing between rotating and stationary components within the Engine LO2 turbopump Hydraulic Balance Assembly (HBA) seal package. This frictional rubbing led to ignition and fire involving LO2 within the turbopump HBA. This conclusion is consistent with the proximate cause determination made by the Orbital ATK AIB investigation findings.

Is the HBA NK-33 original hardware?  Or is it part of the improvements made by Aerojet Rocketdyne to make NK-33s into AJ-26s?

It's not listed among the modifications in an old AIAA paper on the conversion.

It's possible it was replaced by AJR, but I doubt it.

So, the HBA in a NK-33 could fail on the Russians when used in a Soyuz-2-1v? (Unless they have improved the turbopump?)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 10/31/2015 12:10 am
From the NASA Independent Review Team's
Orb–3 Accident Investigation Report Executive Summary
Quote
The IRT concluded that the cause of the explosion on launch was loss of rotor radial positioning resulting in contact and frictional rubbing between rotating and stationary components within the Engine LO2 turbopump Hydraulic Balance Assembly (HBA) seal package. This frictional rubbing led to ignition and fire involving LO2 within the turbopump HBA. This conclusion is consistent with the proximate cause determination made by the Orbital ATK AIB investigation findings.

Is the HBA NK-33 original hardware?  Or is it part of the improvements made by Aerojet Rocketdyne to make NK-33s into AJ-26s?

It's not listed among the modifications in an old AIAA paper on the conversion.

It's possible it was replaced by AJR, but I doubt it.

So, the HBA in a NK-33 could fail on the Russians when used in a Soyuz-2-1v? (Unless they have improved the turbopump?)

I guess it's possible.

It's also possible that, even if they didn't change anything inside the turbopump, Aerojet's other modifications could have created problems for the TP bearings. It will be curious to see if the Russians can operate these engines without incident.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/31/2015 12:46 am
From the NASA Independent Review Team's
Orb–3 Accident Investigation Report Executive Summary
Quote
The IRT concluded that the cause of the explosion on launch was loss of rotor radial positioning resulting in contact and frictional rubbing between rotating and stationary components within the Engine LO2 turbopump Hydraulic Balance Assembly (HBA) seal package. This frictional rubbing led to ignition and fire involving LO2 within the turbopump HBA. This conclusion is consistent with the proximate cause determination made by the Orbital ATK AIB investigation findings.

Is the HBA NK-33 original hardware?  Or is it part of the improvements made by Aerojet Rocketdyne to make NK-33s into AJ-26s?

It's not listed among the modifications in an old AIAA paper on the conversion.

It's possible it was replaced by AJR, but I doubt it.

So, the HBA in a NK-33 could fail on the Russians when used in a Soyuz-2-1v? (Unless they have improved the turbopump?)

There's a part of the report that suggests to me that there was something about how the engine was used with Antares in particular that was an issue.  Here's the quote from the report (page 5):

Quote
TRC-1: Inadequate design robustness of the AJ26 LO2 HBA and turbine-end bearing for Antares. After performing extensive technical design evaluation and a number of sensitivity analyses of the LO2 turbopump, it became apparent to the IRT that the HBA and thrust bearing designs have several intricacies and sensitivities that make it difficult to reliably manage bearing loads. As a result, this area of the turbopump is vulnerable to oxygen fire and failures. The AJ26 engines were not subjected to a thorough delta-qualification program to demonstrate their operational capability and margin for use on Antares. Performing a thorough delta-qualification program for Antares would likely have revealed these issues. Furthermore, the Acceptance Test Program (ATP) established for the AJ26 engines was not sufficient to test and screen the engines for these design sensitivities and potential workmanship issues that could exacerbate those sensitivities.

What I take from that is that there was something different about the Antares environment that made the turbopump more likely to fail than in the environment the engine was designed for.  Maybe the fact that it's gimbled?  Something else?

Anyway, it suggests that maybe there was more of a danger with Antares than with Soyuz.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: a_langwich on 10/31/2015 02:34 am
Well now here's an interesting "Programmatic Recommendation!"
Quote
PR-1 The ISS Program should reassign LVA management responsibility to
a senior engineer at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) with
significant launch vehicle development and assessment experience, as
well as increase the number of individuals from MSFC engineering
supporting development of the LVA.

This is exactly why it should be an independent body, such as the NTSB, that does these kinds of investigations.  A NASA board recommending NASA get more power -- there's an obvious conflict-of-interest here.


??  I'm not sure you understood the situation.  NASA's recommendation, to NASA's ISS and Commercial Cargo program, is that when they perform a Launch Vehicle Assessment, they should engage the engineering expertise at MSFC, who have expertise in engine and vehicle design.  There's no recommendation to "shift" power here, except inside NASA to a small extent.  NASA, as the customer, always had full power to decide whether a launch vehicle was ready to go or not.  This recommendation, from NASA to NASA, is that the engineers at Marshall had expertise on these matters that should be used.

Edit:  I suppose it's just to the ISS program, because now that initial development is done, it's just a hands-off contract.  But, as the review board notes, the launch vehicles are continuing to change, in some ways in dramatic fashion, and without CCdev-ish contracts that explicitly have CDR milestones, NASA's Launch Vehicle Assessment will have to actively gather information and review changes to stay up to date.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/31/2015 02:53 am
Well now here's an interesting "Programmatic Recommendation!"
Quote
PR-1 The ISS Program should reassign LVA management responsibility to
a senior engineer at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) with
significant launch vehicle development and assessment experience, as
well as increase the number of individuals from MSFC engineering
supporting development of the LVA.

This is exactly why it should be an independent body, such as the NTSB, that does these kinds of investigations.  A NASA board recommending NASA get more power -- there's an obvious conflict-of-interest here.


??  I'm not sure you understood the situation.  NASA's recommendation, to NASA's ISS and Commercial Cargo program, is that when they perform a Launch Vehicle Assessment, they should engage the engineering expertise at MSFC, who have expertise in engine and vehicle design.  There's no recommendation to "shift" power here, except inside NASA to a small extent.  NASA, as the customer, always had full power to decide whether a launch vehicle was ready to go or not.  This recommendation, from NASA to NASA, is that the engineers at Marshall had expertise on these matters that should be used.

Edit:  I suppose it's just to the ISS program, because now that initial development is done, it's just a hands-off contract.  But, as the review board notes, the launch vehicles are continuing to change, in some ways in dramatic fashion, and without CCdev-ish contracts that explicitly have CDR milestones, NASA's Launch Vehicle Assessment will have to actively gather information and review changes to stay up to date.

MSFC is the NASA center that has traditionally built launch vehicles for NASA.  Suggesting moving oversight to MSFC, and particularly suggesting adding more MSFC engineers to the commercial program oversight is inevitably a way to get NASA to do more decision making at the expense of trusting the contractor to make decisions.

It's no accident that Senator Shelby, the fiercest critic of commercial programs at NASA, represents MSFC.

There's no doubt that shifting oversight responsibilities to MSFC would mean NASA trying to dictate more design details to contractors.

It would also mean putting the very people who are the competition for commercial crew in charge of commercial crew -- not a recipe for success.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: a_langwich on 10/31/2015 03:06 am

Quote
TRC-1: Inadequate design robustness of the AJ26 LO2 HBA and turbine-end bearing for Antares. After performing extensive technical design evaluation and a number of sensitivity analyses of the LO2 turbopump, it became apparent to the IRT that the HBA and thrust bearing designs have several intricacies and sensitivities that make it difficult to reliably manage bearing loads. As a result, this area of the turbopump is vulnerable to oxygen fire and failures. The AJ26 engines were not subjected to a thorough delta-qualification program to demonstrate their operational capability and margin for use on Antares. Performing a thorough delta-qualification program for Antares would likely have revealed these issues. Furthermore, the Acceptance Test Program (ATP) established for the AJ26 engines was not sufficient to test and screen the engines for these design sensitivities and potential workmanship issues that could exacerbate those sensitivities.

What I take from that is that there was something different about the Antares environment that made the turbopump more likely to fail than in the environment the engine was designed for.  Maybe the fact that it's gimbled?  Something else?

Anyway, it suggests that maybe there was more of a danger with Antares than with Soyuz.


I don't know.  The board's conclusion was about the HBA design, which would apply to all.  Wasn't Antares using the engines at a higher thrust rating?  That could affect the balance of the bearings, and certainly design margins.  But I don't know how the Soyuz-2-1v thrust level from the NK-33 compares to Antares's AJ-26.

Certainly, the machining defect found in two engines known to have had problems is something the Russians should look for.  And no doubt both the Russians and Orbital will redouble their efforts to eliminate/avoid any FOD issues in the future.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/31/2015 05:16 am
Note: the next Soyuz-2-1V launch, using the NK-33, is currently:
Quote
Fourth quarter – Kanopus-ST – Soyuz-2-1V/Volga – Plesetsk, 43/4

From the thread "Plan of Russian space launches (part 2)" (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26990.msg1440644)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/31/2015 06:20 am

Quote
TRC-1: Inadequate design robustness of the AJ26 LO2 HBA and turbine-end bearing for Antares. After performing extensive technical design evaluation and a number of sensitivity analyses of the LO2 turbopump, it became apparent to the IRT that the HBA and thrust bearing designs have several intricacies and sensitivities that make it difficult to reliably manage bearing loads. As a result, this area of the turbopump is vulnerable to oxygen fire and failures. The AJ26 engines were not subjected to a thorough delta-qualification program to demonstrate their operational capability and margin for use on Antares. Performing a thorough delta-qualification program for Antares would likely have revealed these issues. Furthermore, the Acceptance Test Program (ATP) established for the AJ26 engines was not sufficient to test and screen the engines for these design sensitivities and potential workmanship issues that could exacerbate those sensitivities.

What I take from that is that there was something different about the Antares environment that made the turbopump more likely to fail than in the environment the engine was designed for.  Maybe the fact that it's gimbled?  Something else?

Anyway, it suggests that maybe there was more of a danger with Antares than with Soyuz.


I don't know.  The board's conclusion was about the HBA design, which would apply to all.

An HBA design could be fine for some purposes but not for others, and that is exactly what the text I quoted suggests.  "Inadequate design robustness of the AJ26 LO2 HBA and turbine-end bearing for Antares."  Why put "for Antares" on that sentence if it applied to all?  They talk about a "delta-qualification program" being absent, where the delta is implied to be the delta between use on Antares and other uses of the engine.

Wasn't Antares using the engines at a higher thrust rating?  That could affect the balance of the bearings, and certainly design margins.

Yes, that's another possibility.  The point is that it's something that was different on Antares.  Presumably that's versus N-1, but if the engine was also qualified by Russia for Soyuz it could mean a difference between Antares and Soyuz too.

But I don't know how the Soyuz-2-1v thrust level from the NK-33 compares to Antares's AJ-26.

Certainly, the machining defect found in two engines known to have had problems is something the Russians should look for.  And no doubt both the Russians and Orbital will redouble their efforts to eliminate/avoid any FOD issues in the future.

I agree with that.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: jgoldader on 10/31/2015 10:48 am
So as a non-rocket-scientist, knowing some of you are...

I couldn't really get a feel of whether this is a "yeah, I guess we should have thought about that" thing or more of an "OMG, I can't believe we missed that" sort of thing.  It sounded like there were signals from the hardware that were misinterpreted as subtle.  Also, are there lessons to be learned about the danger of using legacy hardware where so much institutional knowledge may have been lost due to time?  If we aren't using those engines anymore, are there bigger lessons than, "double-check the bearings?"
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Jim on 10/31/2015 11:56 am
Well now here's an interesting "Programmatic Recommendation!"
Quote
PR-1 The ISS Program should reassign LVA management responsibility to
a senior engineer at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) with
significant launch vehicle development and assessment experience, as
well as increase the number of individuals from MSFC engineering
supporting development of the LVA.

That is just BS.  Marshall doesn't have the experience. The last "significant" launch vehicle development was more than 30 years ago with the shuttle.  They haven't developed anything that has become operational since then.  Same goes for "assessment" experience, what have they assessed lately and why should their opinion matter?

Just another case of Marshall doing empire building.

There is another NASA organization that has much, much more experience with commercial launch vehicles and is recognized as NASA's expert in these matters.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: a_langwich on 11/01/2015 08:21 am
Well now here's an interesting "Programmatic Recommendation!"
Quote
PR-1 The ISS Program should reassign LVA management responsibility to
a senior engineer at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) with
significant launch vehicle development and assessment experience, as
well as increase the number of individuals from MSFC engineering
supporting development of the LVA.

That is just BS.  Marshall doesn't have the experience. The last "significant" launch vehicle development was more than 30 years ago with the shuttle.  They haven't developed anything that has become operational since then.  Same goes for "assessment" experience, what have they assessed lately and why should their opinion matter?

Just another case of Marshall doing empire building.

There is another NASA organization that has much, much more experience with commercial launch vehicles and is recognized as NASA's expert in these matters.

I don't think developing a new launch vehicle is a necessary qualification, and the engineering analysis works the same whether it's a commercial or government-specified LV.

Who do you suppose did the analysis of the AJ-26 turbopump?  Who maintained an office that analyzed every SSME burn during the shuttle program, organized the various upgrades of the SSMEs, worked on the J-2X design, and is hip-deep in qualifying the RS-25s for SLS?  That's just engines, I think similar statements would apply to structural analysis of shuttle and SLS.

I wonder, if Wayne Hale is around, what he thinks about this recommendation and about the presence or absence of engineering expertise at MSFC?

Which NASA organization are you referring to, which would be recognized as NASA's expert in vehicle engineering? 
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/01/2015 04:27 pm
A question to ask is what  would these Marshall managers would actually have done if they had a say in the use of AJ-26.  Would they have actually have identified the problem (which by the way has not been definitively determined even post-failure)?  If they had been able to come to the conclusion, say, that the turbopump bearing design was bad, what would have been the solution?  Require Aerojet or OAO Kuznetsov to develop a new turbopump bearing?  Etc.

I suspect that the result would have been the same.  NK-33 was a gamble all along, and there were few alternatives to what was done, which was inspecting and test firing the things, bolting them to a rocket, and launching.  Orbital (and since it awarded the launch contracts, NASA) rolled the dice on this engine. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: AnalogMan on 11/01/2015 04:51 pm
A question to ask is what affect would these Marshall managers would actually have done if they had a say in the use of AJ-26.  Would they have actually have identified the problem (which by the way has not been definitively determined even post-failure)?  If they had been able to come to the conclusion, say, that the turbopump bearing design was bad, what would have been the solution?  Require Aerojet or OAO Kuznetsov to develop a new turbopump bearing?  Etc.

I suspect that the result would have been the same.  NK-33 was a gamble all along, and there were few alternatives to what was done, which was inspecting and test firing the things, bolting them to a rocket, and launching.  Orbital (and since it awarded the launch contracts, NASA) rolled the dice on this engine. 

 - Ed Kyle

OIG also noted that NASA was aware of the heightened risk of using the AJ-26 with limited testing:

"In 2012, NASA conducted a detailed technical assessment of the AJ-26 engine Orbital used in its original Antares 130 configuration and identified the risk that the engine had not been rigorously tested in Test-Like-You-Fly conditions. Specifically, NASA determined the configuration and operation of the AJ-26 engine was substantially different from the NK-33 engine on which it was based. In addition, limited test data was available at the thrust level used in the AJ-26 engines, and combining two of the AJ-26s into the Antares 130 first stage further increased the need for a Test-Like-You-Fly approach. Ultimately, after consulting with Orbital, NASA accepted the heightened risks associated with the engines and proceeded with Orbital’s flight plan."

http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY15/IG-15-023.pdf (http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY15/IG-15-023.pdf)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/01/2015 07:17 pm
COTS was primary about development of cargo vehicles ie Cygnus and Dragon. The LVs Antares and F9 that were developed at same time was a bonus for NASA. As Orbital have proven with Atlas launches they have ordered, Cygnus is not locked to Antares. NASA and Orbital knew this which would have allowed for some risk taking with Antares and its AJ26 engines.

If Antares was flying a capsule that could only fly on it, Orbital may not have been selected.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: woods170 on 11/01/2015 07:57 pm
COTS was primary about development of cargo vehicles ie Cygnus and Dragon. The LVs Antares and F9 that were developed at same time was a bonus for NASA. As Orbital have proven with Atlas launches they have ordered, Cygnus is not locked to Antares. NASA and Orbital knew this which would have allowed for some risk taking with Antares and its AJ26 engines.

If Antares was flying a capsule that could only fly on it, Orbital may not have been selected.
The possibility to fly Cygnus on other launchers was one of the points that 'sold' Orbital's COTS proposal to NASA. The main point of COTS was getting a cargo transportation capability in place. Neither SpaceX nor Orbital were forced to develop new launchers. They could have settled for just the spacecraft and have those launch on existing launch vehicles. That would have covered the COTS requirements just as well.

Also, NASA was not too worried about the increased risk of flying the Antares launcher with 30+ year old engines. After all, as Jim likes to state, CRS was about flying 'just' tang, t-shirts and toilet paper.
NASA got itself in trouble when they started flying things on CRS that fall well outside the 'tang, t-shirts and toilet paper' category. The minute they started doing that it was simply waiting for Murphy to step in. He did a year ago and again last June.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/01/2015 08:42 pm
After all, as Jim likes to state, CRS was about flying 'just' tang, t-shirts and toilet paper.
NASA got itself in trouble when they started flying things on CRS that fall well outside the 'tang, t-shirts and toilet paper' category. The minute they started doing that it was simply waiting for Murphy to step in. He did a year ago and again last June.

Citation needed.  What's the evidence NASA originally intended CRS to be just low-value cargo and then they switched that?
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Jarnis on 11/01/2015 09:07 pm
After all, as Jim likes to state, CRS was about flying 'just' tang, t-shirts and toilet paper.
NASA got itself in trouble when they started flying things on CRS that fall well outside the 'tang, t-shirts and toilet paper' category. The minute they started doing that it was simply waiting for Murphy to step in. He did a year ago and again last June.

Citation needed.  What's the evidence NASA originally intended CRS to be just low-value cargo and then they switched that?

Sounds to me like they planned to fly low value cargo on early flights - if there were any major flaws, those would probably show up during the first couple of flights. Both providers had several perfect missions, so NASA naturally thought "looks like these guys can build rockets and spacecraft" and moved to shipping more important stuff.

Mr. Murphy then said "Nope. They are good at what they are doing, but that doesn't mean things can't go wrong".
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: a_langwich on 11/01/2015 09:35 pm
A question to ask is what affect would these Marshall managers would actually have done if they had a say in the use of AJ-26.  Would they have actually have identified the problem (which by the way has not been definitively determined even post-failure)?  If they had been able to come to the conclusion, say, that the turbopump bearing design was bad, what would have been the solution?  Require Aerojet or OAO Kuznetsov to develop a new turbopump bearing?  Etc.

I suspect that the result would have been the same.  NK-33 was a gamble all along, and there were few alternatives to what was done, which was inspecting and test firing the things, bolting them to a rocket, and launching.  Orbital (and since it awarded the launch contracts, NASA) rolled the dice on this engine. 

 - Ed Kyle


If they identified the design concerns with the turbopump, I think they would have specified a more thorough test series.  That would have cost a little more, but I suspect both Orbital and NASA would have considered a few additional tests as well worth it if someone had justified why they were needed.

Quote from: orb3_irt_execsumm_0.pdf
TF-2
Given the non-linear rotordynamic behavior of the NK-33/AJ26 LO2 turbopump, life testing at the 2x Antares mission profile and duration was not sufficient to demonstrate bearing life margin.

Without question, further engineering scrutiny of the instrumentation used to track engine performance would have identified concerns and suggested changes.

Quote from: orb3_irt_execsumm_0.pdf
TF-3
The instrumentation suite for the engines during flight and ATP was not sufficient to gain adequate insight into engine performance and to support anomaly investigation efforts.

I wonder about what it took to discover the machining defect in the two engines, if that level of scrutiny would have been unrealistic to apply to the whole turbopump or not.  It seems to me, though, that if Aerojet were rigorously inspecting for corrosion at the level of detail needed in the turbopump area, these machining defects might well have been identified.

Quote from: orb3_irt_execsumm_0.pdf
TF-6
Based on forensic inspection of E15 and E17, workmanship issues in E15 are credible contributors to the Orb-3 failure.


Yes, the AJ-26 was a gamble of some amount, but every rocket launch is a gamble of some amount.   I think the incident review team has identified a slighter higher level of scrutiny which would have been adequate to flag these issues, and yet would still allow the Commercial program to be far cheaper than NASA's traditional approach.

Quote from: orb3_irt_execsumm_0.pdf
As part of its programmatic assessment efforts, the IRT concluded that the CRS model is generally working as intended...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/01/2015 09:49 pm
A question to ask is what affect would these Marshall managers would actually have done if they had a say in the use of AJ-26.  Would they have actually have identified the problem (which by the way has not been definitively determined even post-failure)?  If they had been able to come to the conclusion, say, that the turbopump bearing design was bad, what would have been the solution?  Require Aerojet or OAO Kuznetsov to develop a new turbopump bearing?  Etc.

I suspect that the result would have been the same.  NK-33 was a gamble all along, and there were few alternatives to what was done, which was inspecting and test firing the things, bolting them to a rocket, and launching.  Orbital (and since it awarded the launch contracts, NASA) rolled the dice on this engine. 

If they identified the design concerns with the turbopump, I think they would have specified a more thorough test series.

I don't see any reason to believe a few engineers from MSFC would have some special insight on this.  There's no way to know, really, but keep in mind that the engineers at Aerojet Rocketdyne know a thing or two about engines, as do the Russians who sold the original engines.  AR has more experience building engines used in operational vehicles than MSFC.  I don't see why someone at MSFC would have known something the AR engineers didn't know.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: a_langwich on 11/01/2015 09:56 pm
After all, as Jim likes to state, CRS was about flying 'just' tang, t-shirts and toilet paper.
NASA got itself in trouble when they started flying things on CRS that fall well outside the 'tang, t-shirts and toilet paper' category. The minute they started doing that it was simply waiting for Murphy to step in. He did a year ago and again last June.

Citation needed.  What's the evidence NASA originally intended CRS to be just low-value cargo and then they switched that?


Beyond that, whatever some in NASA thought, the bottom line is they are spending billions of dollars, and even if they were shipping something cheap and utterly replaceable like 20kg bags of rice, the bottom line is this is one of the cornerstones of getting stuff to ISS going forward.  ATV--gone.  HTV--extremely infrequent.  Progress--capacity already accounted for outside the need for US-side cargo.

So, given the billion dollar contracts, and the need for ISS to have these vehicles delivering stuff regularly, is a little more engineering analysis warranted?  Yes.  Do you think SES has whatever information it needs to allow its engineers to assess the risks of the "Full Throttle" Falcon?  Yes.  NASA is spending an order of magnitude more money, and assuming at least that much more sensitivity to risk because they don't carry insurance and because the operation and viability of a hundred-billion-dollar-plus outpost depends on those shipments.  So it seems reasonable for NASA to apply proportionally more engineering scrutiny.

It's a balancing act, but there's a huge amount of room between NASA's traditional managerial approach and the Commercial office's approach.  It seems likely a little more engineering analysis can be done without dragging the whole thing back to the traditional cost structure.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: a_langwich on 11/01/2015 11:40 pm
A question to ask is what affect would these Marshall managers would actually have done if they had a say in the use of AJ-26.  Would they have actually have identified the problem (which by the way has not been definitively determined even post-failure)?  If they had been able to come to the conclusion, say, that the turbopump bearing design was bad, what would have been the solution?  Require Aerojet or OAO Kuznetsov to develop a new turbopump bearing?  Etc.

I suspect that the result would have been the same.  NK-33 was a gamble all along, and there were few alternatives to what was done, which was inspecting and test firing the things, bolting them to a rocket, and launching.  Orbital (and since it awarded the launch contracts, NASA) rolled the dice on this engine. 

If they identified the design concerns with the turbopump, I think they would have specified a more thorough test series.

I don't see any reason to believe a few engineers from MSFC would have some special insight on this.  There's no way to know, really, but keep in mind that the engineers at Aerojet Rocketdyne know a thing or two about engines, as do the Russians who sold the original engines.  AR has more experience building engines used in operational vehicles than MSFC.  I don't see why someone at MSFC would have known something the AR engineers didn't know.


The Rocketdyne part of AR certainly does, but they weren't in the picture then.  The Aerojet engineering team had less experience than MSFC, but it's not clear they were asked to assess the turbopump either.  It's not clear that Aerojet actually had its engineers do any sort of analysis of the stability of the turbopump.  It sounds like they wanted to take it as is, on the basis of a twice-operating-duration test. 

If anybody wanted more analysis, here's the up-sell to a new paper rocket engine, which Aerojet claimed was based on what they learned from NK-33 but in fact looked very similar to all the other paper designs Aerojet had been floating for years.  The Russians(? Ukrainians?) selling the engine had not been involved in rocket engine design and manufacture for 40 years, if indeed any of them had been around that long.  And they really needed a sale and hard dollars, and the Soviet risk posture at the time of NK-33 development had been very tolerant of failure.

Based on statements like this:
Quote from: orb3_irt_execsumm_0.pdf
A variety of factors contributed to Orbital ATK accepting greater launch vehicle risk (and thus NASA accepting more risk of cargo loss) as time went on, and contributed to the lack of an integrated partnership between Orbital ATK and Aerojet-Rocketdyne as time went on.

It sounds like Orbital thought Aerojet had done a little more due diligence, and then had to backfill specifying that corrosion was checked, and various other problems were addressed, as they popped up.  And it sounds like Aerojet was dragging its feet about spending more money on the engines.  I think it's telling how quickly after the accident Orbital decided to switch engines.  Orbital had lost faith that Aerojet was on top of the engineering issues with the engine, and was capable of or willing to bring them up to the reliability level Orbital needed.

I think it's also telling that NPO Energomash, the real Russian rocket engine experts, convinced Ruscosmos not to re-open a production line for the NK-33.  Certainly there was a lot of domestic politics involved, but as it turns out, Energomash's charges that the turbopump design was prone to oxygen fires seems pretty accurate.  Self-serving, but accurate.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: woods170 on 11/02/2015 06:32 am
After all, as Jim likes to state, CRS was about flying 'just' tang, t-shirts and toilet paper.
NASA got itself in trouble when they started flying things on CRS that fall well outside the 'tang, t-shirts and toilet paper' category. The minute they started doing that it was simply waiting for Murphy to step in. He did a year ago and again last June.

Citation needed.  What's the evidence NASA originally intended CRS to be just low-value cargo and then they switched that?


Beyond that, whatever some in NASA thought, the bottom line is they are spending billions of dollars, and even if they were shipping something cheap and utterly replaceable like 20kg bags of rice, the bottom line is this is one of the cornerstones of getting stuff to ISS going forward.  ATV--gone.  HTV--extremely infrequent.  Progress--capacity already accounted for outside the need for US-side cargo.

So, given the billion dollar contracts, and the need for ISS to have these vehicles delivering stuff regularly, is a little more engineering analysis warranted?  Yes.  Do you think SES has whatever information it needs to allow its engineers to assess the risks of the "Full Throttle" Falcon?  Yes.  NASA is spending an order of magnitude more money, and assuming at least that much more sensitivity to risk because they don't carry insurance and because the operation and viability of a hundred-billion-dollar-plus outpost depends on those shipments.  So it seems reasonable for NASA to apply proportionally more engineering scrutiny.

It's a balancing act, but there's a huge amount of room between NASA's traditional managerial approach and the Commercial office's approach.  It seems likely a little more engineering analysis can be done without dragging the whole thing back to the traditional cost structure.

Mind you, my post was about the rationale NASA applied during COTS. Back then NASA couldn't care less about SpaceX planning to also use Falcon 9 for other-than-NASA missions. So, the SES argument doesn't apply here.
Also, the value of the barter agreements with ESA and JAXA for flying cargo up to ISS far exceeds the value of the current CRS-1 contract.
On the COTS demo missions and the early CRS missions NASA flew only very little cargo that was 'really valuable', contrary to ATV and HTV. Those latter two carried valuable science instruments, and other high-value cargo, from their first operational mission forward.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: woods170 on 11/02/2015 07:06 am
"The IRT was not able to isolate a single technical root cause for the E15 fire and explosion."

 - Ed Kyle

That statement in itself does not carry all that much weight, particularly not when considering the frame of reference.
NASA identifies, in it's summary, three candidate root causes. And then proceeds to largely disqualify one of those (the FOD one) immediately by stating:
Quote from: NASA
The lack of significant particle impact damage to the recovered impeller and other components indicates that there were not gross-levels of FOD present within the system. In addition, there is no clear forensic evidence that FOD directly or indirectly led to the E15 failure.
The same root cause (FOD) was also floated by the enige supplier (Aerojet). Yet the fact that Aerojet eventually paid $50 Million to Orbital, to settle their dispute, is a clear indicator that the Aerojet arguments for "the FOD did it" were anything but strong. That lines up with the conclusions about FOD in the NASA summary.

That leaves basically just two technical root causes with some merit: machining issue and design flaw. From the NASA report it is easy to understand what led Orbital to pick 'machining issue' as the primary technical root cause:
Quote from: NASA
TRC-3: Manufacturing or other workmanship defect in the E15 LO2 turbopump. Forensic investigation performed by Orbital ATK and NASA discovered the presence of a defect on the turbine housing bearing bore that was not consistent with baseline design requirements3. The investigation determined that the defect was introduced during machining of the bearing bore housing and was therefore present prior to the engine ATP and Antares launch for Orb-3. Forensic investigation of Engine E17, which failed during ATP in May 2014, discovered the presence of a similar non-conforming defect in the housing bearing bore. A limited number of other engine turbine housings (i.e., Engine E16 and the 1998 test engine) previously and successfully subjected to extended ground tests and ATP, as well as an untested spare turbine housing, were inspected. Neither E16 nor the spare housing showed any evidence of a similar manufacturing defect. However, the 1998 test engine that had been subjected to extensive ground testing exhibited a similar defect to that observed in Engines E15 and E17, but it was not possible to conclude whether the defect was introduced during manufacturing or was the result of wear from extended operation of the engine. Sufficient information is not available without further engine inspections and tests to conclude that the presence of this manufacturing defect would always result in failure of the engine during operation.
So, from this it becomes clear that only engines that failed (in-flight or teststand) showed the machining defect, with the 1998 test engine being the exception. That one did not fail, despite being hot-fired extensively.
However, it cannot be conclusively established that the similar defect in the 1998 test engine originated as a machining defect or is the result of extensive use of the test engine. This is a much-telling conclusion.
So, there are strong indicators that a machining defect is responsible for the observed engine failures.

That leaves the final candidate technical root cause. That particular one was, as far as the summary suggests, not observed from actual debris, but from technical design evaluation and sensitivity analysis. In short: that root cause is very likely entirely hypothetical.

Keep all of this in mind and it becomes not so hard to understand why Orbital identified the machining defect as the primary root cause of the E15 failure. It is the one that is best supported by hard(ware) evidence.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: a_langwich on 11/03/2015 09:29 pm
Beyond that, whatever some in NASA thought, the bottom line is they are spending billions of dollars, and even if they were shipping something cheap and utterly replaceable like 20kg bags of rice, the bottom line is this is one of the cornerstones of getting stuff to ISS going forward.  ATV--gone.  HTV--extremely infrequent.  Progress--capacity already accounted for outside the need for US-side cargo.

So, given the billion dollar contracts, and the need for ISS to have these vehicles delivering stuff regularly, is a little more engineering analysis warranted?  Yes.  Do you think SES has whatever information it needs to allow its engineers to assess the risks of the "Full Throttle" Falcon?  Yes.  NASA is spending an order of magnitude more money, and assuming at least that much more sensitivity to risk because they don't carry insurance and because the operation and viability of a hundred-billion-dollar-plus outpost depends on those shipments.  So it seems reasonable for NASA to apply proportionally more engineering scrutiny.

It's a balancing act, but there's a huge amount of room between NASA's traditional managerial approach and the Commercial office's approach.  It seems likely a little more engineering analysis can be done without dragging the whole thing back to the traditional cost structure.

Mind you, my post was about the rationale NASA applied during COTS. Back then NASA couldn't care less about SpaceX planning to also use Falcon 9 for other-than-NASA missions. So, the SES argument doesn't apply here.

I don't think you understood the SES argument, I'll come back to it shortly. 

But back to the rationale NASA applied during COTS...even though they deliberately did not ship things of great value on the first few flights, fundamentally the CRS contract is about the US resupplying the station in whatever ways are needed.  The shuttle was used to move as many spares and high-importance items up, in order to provide that leeway for the early flights.  There is NO provision for some other way to ship high-importance items in the long run, it's got to be CRS or CRS-2.  Sure, HTV and Progress might provide an alternative in an emergency, but the expectation is the American crew and cargo contracts handle the American crew and cargo needs.  So "Tang, t-shirts, and TP" may well describe the cargo on early flights, but that was not and is not the intention for the entire contract.  If it were, NASA would have set up a contract for the high value items.

Regarding SES, the point is that a commercial organization under a commercial contract still demands and gets engineering information at a reasonable level of detail, in order to decide whether or not to fly.  This is not some new innovation by SES, it's just that a customer waving a large check tends to be given what they ask in terms of assurance the check will be well spent.  So it is not unreasonable for NASA to demand the same, even under commercial contracting rules.  Much more so, as mentioned above.


Also, the value of the barter agreements with ESA and JAXA for flying cargo up to ISS far exceeds the value of the current CRS-1 contract.

On the COTS demo missions and the early CRS missions NASA flew only very little cargo that was 'really valuable', contrary to ATV and HTV. Those latter two carried valuable science instruments, and other high-value cargo, from their first operational mission forward.

We are talking about what is the appropriate level of engineering scrutiny, right?  And how much trust without verification should NASA place in the particular partner (commercial partner for SpaceX and Orbital-ATK; government partner for ESA and JAXA)?

Would you say Ariane had a bit more of a successful track record than Antares or Falcon 9?  Would you suppose ESA, CNES, Airbus et al combined have a bit more engineering depth than either of those two companies?  Are you having any trouble figuring out why NASA would have been willing to trust more important cargo to ATV on a first flight?  I'm not.  I'm not sure why you brought it up. 

At the same time, that trust is not a fixed property:  if any random Bob's Partly Reused Rockets can manage forty flights in a a row without a failure, they probably would be considered capable of handling critical items.   Or conversely if Ariane (or Proton, cough cough) has multiple accidents, the level of deference drops and the level of scrutiny is sharply increased.  Not to the level of a first flight, though, because the flight history has narrowed our concerns.

It's like your company hired a new engineer fresh out of school.  Chances are, you want to ease them into the job, and give them relatively straightforward tasks early on.  And, if you are prudent, you will apply a fairly high level of scrutiny to get a sense of their understanding and capabilities and motivation.  But ultimately, the hope is they step up and take over important tasks and do things no one else is available to do.  This is especially true if one or two very capable engineers just retired, some of their job duties still need to be filled, you have hired no one else, and your other engineers are busy.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Jarnis on 11/06/2015 05:27 am
I think this is new - NASA has posted a set of high quality images of the mishap;

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/sets/72157649018048375/

(mods, feel free to junk this if this set of photos is old)
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: NovaSilisko on 11/06/2015 05:40 am
Maybe someone could download the large-size images (bottom right, downward arrow above line) and attach them here, flickr is exceedingly slow for me lately. Or maybe it is for everyone...
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: eeergo on 11/06/2015 04:46 pm
This one is IMO the most spectacular one (with the permission of the second attachment  :o ), and it incidentally appears to show an engine (THE engine?) falling, engulfed in flames, slightly ahead of the rocket itself.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 11/06/2015 05:47 pm
I'll cross-post two more I found interesting:
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: arachnitect on 11/06/2015 05:55 pm
And here's a more hopeful one from before the failure.

Looking forward to Antares 200.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: DatUser14 on 11/06/2015 10:12 pm
The recently released pictures are trending on Facebook, posts filled with mean comments directed towards NASA :'( 
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: Star One on 11/06/2015 10:59 pm

The recently released pictures are trending on Facebook, posts filled with mean comments directed towards NASA :'(

That seems rather unfair.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: rayleighscatter on 11/07/2015 12:06 am
It's a shame they don't release this many pictures for the successful missions. There's some good stuff in there.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: NovaSilisko on 11/08/2015 10:21 pm

The recently released pictures are trending on Facebook, posts filled with mean comments directed towards NASA :'(

That seems rather unfair.

I saw people talking about how NASA sucked after the Super Strypi failure. Remember, NASA launches all rockets in the world.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: woods170 on 11/09/2015 07:51 am
The recently released pictures are trending on Facebook, posts filled with mean comments directed towards NASA :'( 


I saw people talking about how NASA sucked after the Super Strypi failure. Remember, NASA launches all rockets in the world.


Just goes to show that Facebook is largely populated by a bunch of glaring id**ts. I don't use it and most of my co-workers on my IT day-job do not use it either, for all the right reasons. Same goes for other 'social' media (the term itself is a contradiction-in-terms) such as Instagram and Twitter.

Edit: sorry for the OT rant. Mods: feel free to remove this post.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: NovaSilisko on 11/09/2015 07:53 am
Twitter

I find twitter depends more on who you follow, which I usually keep at planetary science people and spaceflight news... but actually this is most decidedly off topic so I'm gonna kinda be quiet now.  :P
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/26/2015 08:21 pm
Note: the next Soyuz-2-1V launch, using the NK-33, is currently:
Quote
Fourth quarter – Kanopus-ST – Soyuz-2-1V/Volga – Plesetsk, 43/4

From the thread "Plan of Russian space launches (part 2)" (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26990.msg1440644)
The same thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26990.msg1446696#msg1446696) now reports that this launch is the next Russian orbital launch, with a launch date of December 9.

EDIT December 1: The launch is now scheduled for December 4.
EDIT December 5: The launch is today.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: russianhalo117 on 12/01/2015 04:05 am
Note: the next Soyuz-2-1V launch, using the NK-33, is currently:
Quote
Fourth quarter – Kanopus-ST – Soyuz-2-1V/Volga – Plesetsk, 43/4

From the thread "Plan of Russian space launches (part 2)" (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26990.msg1440644)
The same thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26990.msg1446696#msg1446696) now reports that this launch is the next Russian orbital launch, with a launch date of December 9.
and to note this engine for this Russian Flight has since been modified and test fired twice in accoardance with the ORB-3 data and investigation findings, which are in the antares and Soyuz-2.1v threads. The findings required several herritage components to be replaced with new ones or modified

Test fire

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/nk33.html#2015

"On October 5, 2015, the United Engine Corporation, ODK, announced that it had conducted a successful 40-second test firing of the NK-33 engine to certify it for the use on the Soyuz-2-1v rocket
You left out the most important part of the entire post:
Quote
On October 5, 2015, the United Engine Corporation, ODK, announced that it had conducted a successful 40-second test firing of the NK-33 engine to certify it for the use on the Soyuz-2-1v rocket, which at the time was being prepared for its second launch. The firing tested an upgraded combustion chamber and a newly manufactured ignition chamber. (Both components were modified in the wake of an Antares rocket failure in 2014.) The ODK said that the final processing of the fifth NK-33 engine would be completed within next two weeks before its shipment to RKTs Progress, the developer of the Soyuz rocket family.
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/01/2015 04:37 pm
The firing tested an upgraded combustion chamber and a newly manufactured ignition chamber. (Both components were modified in the wake of an Antares rocket failure in 2014.)
The problem is that neither of the upgraded components listed here were considered to be related to the cause of the Antares failure, as I understand things.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/05/2015 01:54 pm
Re: the next use of the NK-33 engines
Note: the next Soyuz-2-1V launch, using the NK-33, is currently:
Quote
Fourth quarter – Kanopus-ST – Soyuz-2-1V/Volga – Plesetsk, 43/4

From the thread "Plan of Russian space launches (part 2)" (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26990.msg1440644)
The same thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26990.msg1446696#msg1446696) now reports that this launch is the next Russian orbital launch, with a launch date of December 9.

EDIT December 1: The launch is now scheduled for December 4.
EDIT December 5: The launch is today.
The launch was successful! http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36648.msg1453185#msg1453185 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36648.msg1453185#msg1453185)