-
Antares AJ-26 engine fails during Stennis testing
by
Chris Bergin
on 22 May, 2014 22:08
-
-
#1
by
catdlr
on 22 May, 2014 22:19
-
Great article Chris. Always a great site to get immediate news.
-
#2
by
arachnitect
on 22 May, 2014 22:32
-
super dang.
Stress corrosion cracking again?
-
#3
by
Lars_J
on 22 May, 2014 22:46
-
Hopefully this will not set back Orbital's schedule too much.
This - and SpaceX's delays - is why it is so important to have two contracted cargo delivery services.
-
#4
by
jongoff
on 22 May, 2014 23:13
-
Hopefully this will not set back Orbital's schedule too much.
This - and SpaceX's delays - is why it is so important to have two contracted cargo delivery services.
Hopefully Congress in its not-so-infinite wisdom learns from this and lets NASA continue with having at least two CC providers...
~Jon
-
#5
by
Rocket Science
on 22 May, 2014 23:23
-
Hopefully this will not set back Orbital's schedule too much.
This - and SpaceX's delays - is why it is so important to have two contracted cargo delivery services.
Hopefully Congress in its not-so-infinite wisdom learns from this and lets NASA continue with having at least two CC providers...
~Jon
You would think...
-
#6
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 May, 2014 00:03
-
-
#7
by
robertross
on 23 May, 2014 00:36
-
-
#8
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 May, 2014 00:48
-
Yep, absolutely. Was saying to one of the people working with these engines that it's better it has a tantrum on the test stand and not half way uphill.
-
#9
by
Halidon
on 23 May, 2014 00:51
-
Very glad to hear nobody was injured, Stennis professionals know how to do their jobs safely and it shows. As much as any failure is a bad day for someone, it's an important reminder about why the stands are good to have around.
-
#10
by
hpras
on 23 May, 2014 04:05
-
Yep, as my dad used to say, so long as no one was hurt, the rest is just money.
-
#11
by
docmordrid
on 23 May, 2014 17:16
-
I assume this will expedite a decision on possibly using an ATK (Dark Knight based?) solid for S1?
-
#12
by
kevin-rf
on 23 May, 2014 17:27
-
I assume this will expedite a decision on possibly using an ATK (Dark Knight based?) solid for S1?
Why, Solids can also fail...
-
#13
by
mgfitter
on 23 May, 2014 17:49
-
It would be interesting to see how much damage the test stand received during this failure.
Any chance NASA might release some photo's of the E stand once the engine (sensitive hardware) has been removed?
-MG
-
#14
by
edkyle99
on 23 May, 2014 18:11
-
I assume this will expedite a decision on possibly using an ATK (Dark Knight based?) solid for S1?
Orbital already knows that it has to replace NK-33 with
something after 2016 or thereabouts. That something could be RD-181 or solids or something else. This test failure doesn't change anything in that regard.
- Ed Kyle
-
#15
by
baldusi
on 23 May, 2014 18:34
-
I assume this will expedite a decision on possibly using an ATK (Dark Knight based?) solid for S1?
Orbital already knows that it has to replace NK-33 with something after 2016 or thereabouts. That something could be RD-181 or solids or something else. This test failure doesn't change anything in that regard.
- Ed Kyle
If this failure is indicative of a 20% failure rate for their 40 engine stock, it might move the need to replace to the left.
-
#16
by
JasonAW3
on 23 May, 2014 18:50
-
Well, that's what test stand hot firing engines is for. To catch any anomilies before they launch the main craft with a protetil defective bird.
-
#17
by
russianhalo117
on 23 May, 2014 19:18
-
It would be interesting to see how much damage the test stand received during this failure.
Any chance NASA might release some photo's of the E stand once the engine (sensitive hardware) has been removed?
-MG
That is very unlikely to be provided to the media or the public from a NASA POV. If a public guest was present for the test it would be a little more likely unless NASA, Orbital, and/or Aerojet Rocketdyne prohibit it from being published/uploaded or sue to have it removed.
Note: Images of the past failure were not made public at the request of Aerojet.
-
#18
by
LouScheffer
on 23 May, 2014 19:56
-
I assume this will expedite a decision on possibly using an ATK (Dark Knight based?) solid for S1?
Orbital already knows that it has to replace NK-33 with something after 2016 or thereabouts. That something could be RD-181 or solids or something else. This test failure doesn't change anything in that regard.
- Ed Kyle
Assuming the engine cannot be repaired, and Orbital/ATK would like continual service to ISS, it moves the deadline closer by a few months.
-
#19
by
edkyle99
on 24 May, 2014 04:36
-
I assume this will expedite a decision on possibly using an ATK (Dark Knight based?) solid for S1?
Orbital already knows that it has to replace NK-33 with something after 2016 or thereabouts. That something could be RD-181 or solids or something else. This test failure doesn't change anything in that regard.
- Ed Kyle
Assuming the engine cannot be repaired, and Orbital/ATK would like continual service to ISS, it moves the deadline closer by a few months.
My understanding is that Aerojet had some excess NK-33 engines that could be assigned to this first contract if needed.
- Ed Kyle
-
#20
by
Jason A
on 24 May, 2014 12:28
-
-
#21
by
Prober
on 24 May, 2014 15:30
-
I assume this will expedite a decision on possibly using an ATK (Dark Knight based?) solid for S1?
Orbital already knows that it has to replace NK-33 with something after 2016 or thereabouts. That something could be RD-181 or solids or something else. This test failure doesn't change anything in that regard.
- Ed Kyle
Assuming the engine cannot be repaired, and Orbital/ATK would like continual service to ISS, it moves the deadline closer by a few months.
My understanding is that Aerojet had some excess NK-33 engines that could be assigned to this first contract if needed.
- Ed Kyle
After the investigation I'm more than willing to remove the scrap metal
-
#22
by
catdlr
on 24 May, 2014 21:14
-
-
#23
by
AJA
on 14 Jul, 2014 09:37
-
So, did they have a root cause for this nailed down before the ORB-2 launch? I know that the AJ-26s on Antares 4 passed their testing, but wouldn't you like to rule out commonality? The ones used in Antares-4 (which did, indeed, perform without hiccup) might've passed testing, as well as the flight itself - despite being out of design parameters..?
-
#24
by
ugordan
on 14 Jul, 2014 10:51
-
So, did they have a root cause for this nailed down before the ORB-2 launch?
They wouldn't have launched unless they were convinced they nailed it down. They did borescope inspections of these engines to verify they weren't affected by whatever that was AFAIK.
