FAILURE: Orbital's Antares/Cygnus ORB-3 (CRS-3) - UPDATES

[ngilmore]

Here is a quote from Orbital-ATK regarding the report:

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

[woods170]

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.

[Antares]

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.

[LouScheffer]

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.

[edkyle99]

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

[russianhalo117]

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.

[rayleighscatter]

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.

[kevin-rf]

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.

[psloss]

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

[Targeteer]

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.

[Prober]

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.) "

[Lars-J]

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/

[Prober]

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

[a_langwich]

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)?

[abaddon]

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.

[Prober]

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 

[ZachS09]

Today marks the 1-year anniversary of the Orb-3 launch failure.

[edkyle99]

Today marks the 1-year anniversary of the Orb-3 launch failure.

[Prober]

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.

[rayleighscatter]

Some interesting things in there. It also seems to imply OA has already submitted their own report to NASA.

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).