Cygnus CRS3 launch failure
Discussion
rufusruffcutt said:
Bit of a mess (sorry for the large image - click on it for a larger still)
Wow! In some ways that's more impressive than the failure footage, given the impact and explosion you'd expect far more damage, at least from a distance the launch pad looks pretty intact all things considered.scubadude said:
rufusruffcutt said:
Bit of a mess (sorry for the large image - click on it for a larger still)
Wow! In some ways that's more impressive than the failure footage, given the impact and explosion you'd expect far more damage, at least from a distance the launch pad looks pretty intact all things considered.Orbital have released their statement ( https://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/release.asp?prid=...)
Looks like it was the engines (turbo pumps specifically), which is a shame as it'll keep them grounded for a while, plus the general public is going to be able to say 'I told you so' for all the flak they received for using it in the first place (despite the fact it is a very capable engine and was well ahead of its time).
If they are going to use a different launcher they've got three options really:
1. Atlas V
2. Soyuz (either from Korou or Baikonour)
3. Falcon 9
Can't see them going through SpaceX or launching from Russia.
So looks like it'll either be an Atlas through ULA or a Soyuz through ESA.
I'll be interested to see how this pushes development of the new engine along, looks like it'll be an RD-1xx engine, unless this failure is used as leverage to make them pursue a US built engine.
Looks like it was the engines (turbo pumps specifically), which is a shame as it'll keep them grounded for a while, plus the general public is going to be able to say 'I told you so' for all the flak they received for using it in the first place (despite the fact it is a very capable engine and was well ahead of its time).
If they are going to use a different launcher they've got three options really:
1. Atlas V
2. Soyuz (either from Korou or Baikonour)
3. Falcon 9
Can't see them going through SpaceX or launching from Russia.
So looks like it'll either be an Atlas through ULA or a Soyuz through ESA.
I'll be interested to see how this pushes development of the new engine along, looks like it'll be an RD-1xx engine, unless this failure is used as leverage to make them pursue a US built engine.
Edited by J98 on Wednesday 5th November 18:05
Closeup remote camera images of the explosion released http://www.americaspace.com/?p=71970
I wonder- given the cost of the payload sometimes why commercial or non-manned flights don't have a launch abort system to recover the payload... I suppose price is the issue as usual, maybe SpaceX need to make a recoverable launch abort system based on their grasshopper to keep the cost down?
Turns out it is an Atlas V (401) through ULA, saves them having to use a foreign company or a direct competitor, as well as benefiting from the greater lift capacity.
Will be interesting to see how this affects the engine choice going forwards, they seem fairly keen to get away from using the RD-180 on the Atlas as it's not American.
If they do so would that open up the possibility to use it on the updated Antares, or will they keep the twin engines and use two RD-193? (The engine being developed to replace the native use of the NK-33 on the Soyuz 2-1v)
Either way good to see Orbital back on track.
Will be interesting to see how this affects the engine choice going forwards, they seem fairly keen to get away from using the RD-180 on the Atlas as it's not American.
If they do so would that open up the possibility to use it on the updated Antares, or will they keep the twin engines and use two RD-193? (The engine being developed to replace the native use of the NK-33 on the Soyuz 2-1v)
Either way good to see Orbital back on track.
A bit off topic but thought folk might like this .....
The salvage operation to recover the crashed space shuttle Challenger cost the US navy about $13 million......Ironically. .while they were searching for it, they found a floating duffle bag with $13millon worth of high quality cocaine...which would have paid for the entire operation
The salvage operation to recover the crashed space shuttle Challenger cost the US navy about $13 million......Ironically. .while they were searching for it, they found a floating duffle bag with $13millon worth of high quality cocaine...which would have paid for the entire operation
Thought I'd posted this here, apparently not.
http://aviationweek.com/space/antares-upgrade-will...
Pretty much as speculated, single chamber derivative of the engine they originally wanted for Antares.
http://aviationweek.com/space/antares-upgrade-will...
Pretty much as speculated, single chamber derivative of the engine they originally wanted for Antares.
After all the slagging off of the Russian engines, it seems the problem may not have been an engine failure but debris left in the fuel tank
"Last October's explosion of Orbital ATK Inc's Antares rocket may have been triggered when debris inadvertently left in a fuel tank traveled into the booster's main engine, two people familiar with investigations into the accident told Reuters. The sources said the preliminary findings suggest that a simple assembly mistake by Orbital ATK could have caused the explosion, which destroyed a cargo ship bound for the International Space Station."
There also seems to be an ongoing argument regarding paying for repairs to the launch site - seems the site owner decided to 'self insure'
"Last October's explosion of Orbital ATK Inc's Antares rocket may have been triggered when debris inadvertently left in a fuel tank traveled into the booster's main engine, two people familiar with investigations into the accident told Reuters. The sources said the preliminary findings suggest that a simple assembly mistake by Orbital ATK could have caused the explosion, which destroyed a cargo ship bound for the International Space Station."
There also seems to be an ongoing argument regarding paying for repairs to the launch site - seems the site owner decided to 'self insure'
MartG said:
After all the slagging off of the Russian engines, it seems the problem may not have been an engine failure but debris left in the fuel tank
"Last October's explosion of Orbital ATK Inc's Antares rocket may have been triggered when debris inadvertently left in a fuel tank traveled into the booster's main engine, two people familiar with investigations into the accident told Reuters. The sources said the preliminary findings suggest that a simple assembly mistake by Orbital ATK could have caused the explosion, which destroyed a cargo ship bound for the International Space Station."
There also seems to be an ongoing argument regarding paying for repairs to the launch site - seems the site owner decided to 'self insure'
I saw this the other day also, can't remember where though (no it wasn't a Russian site Eric)"Last October's explosion of Orbital ATK Inc's Antares rocket may have been triggered when debris inadvertently left in a fuel tank traveled into the booster's main engine, two people familiar with investigations into the accident told Reuters. The sources said the preliminary findings suggest that a simple assembly mistake by Orbital ATK could have caused the explosion, which destroyed a cargo ship bound for the International Space Station."
There also seems to be an ongoing argument regarding paying for repairs to the launch site - seems the site owner decided to 'self insure'
If true it raises an interesting point regarding their contract with Aerojet Rockeydyne, not sure they'll be too happy about being ditched if it turns out it was even their fault.
Edit to add:
Searched my history and found the article in question:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/20/us-orbit...
Edited by J98 on Wednesday 25th February 19:02
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff