This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

ORB-3 Antares Explodes Shortly After Launch

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 28, 2014
Filed under

Orbital Antares Rocket Explodes Shortly After Launch Shocking Onlookers, SpaceRef Business
“The launch was proceeding as expected. Across the board, the Orbital team manning their stations had green lights. The weather was almost perfect. There was a sense of anticipation after seeing the launch scrubbed the day before because a boat had wandered into the range. No one could have foreseen what would happen next.”
NASA Statement Regarding Oct. 28 Orbital Sciences Corp. Launch Mishap
“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’s Statement Regarding Orb-3 Launch 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.”
Keith’s note:According to Frank Culbertson from Orbital Sciences there was an indication of problems 10-12 Seconds into the flight and that the range safety officer sent a destruct command at around 20 seconds. No idea what happened other than the rocket stopped, started to come apart, and fell straight to the ground. Crews will be in early tomorrow to start looking for debris.
Smith, Palazzo Statement on Failed Launch at Wallops Island
“Chairman Smith and Palazzo: “We add our disappointment to the thousands in the space community who worked tirelessly in support of Tuesday evening’s launch attempt at Wallops Island. We are relieved to hear there are no reported fatalities, and we anticipate learning more about the circumstances surrounding the launch failure in the near future.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

159 responses to “ORB-3 Antares Explodes Shortly After Launch”

  1. supermonkey says:
    0
    0

    Oh that’s right – now I remember why they have those rules about boats in the restricted area.

    • Antilope7724 says:
      0
      0

      That explosion shockwave would have put some wind in their sails. 😉

      • Ben Russell-Gough says:
        0
        0

        A press photographer about 2 statute miles from LC-0A reported on NSF that he was knocked backwards by the shock-wave and suffered very mild burns to his face. So, yeah, a boat close inshore could easily have been capsized or its flammable materials ignited by the shock-wave.

        • Doug Mohney says:
          0
          0

          What?!?

          1) It’s pad 0A

          2)I was there on site at the press and while there was a hot flash, like you’d get when open a hot oven, I can’t see how ANYONE would get “mild burns.” Oh, and I’m also photo sensitive because of my blood pressure meds….

  2. Spacetech says:
    0
    0

    Excellent coverage Keith!
    It will be interesting to see if they have any kind of anomaly data at this evenings press conference.

  3. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    Some days you get the bear. Other days the bear gets you.

  4. OpenTrackRacer says:
    0
    0

    What could go wrong with 40 year old Soviet surplus NK-33 engines? Plenty it seems. This doesn’t surprise me at all. I’ve kinda been expecting something to happen, even before the test stand failure. This is EXACTLY why we have two launch providers for Station resupply.

    • SpaceMunkie says:
      0
      0

      Those are not NK33 engines but AJ26. They are not 40 years old. They are rebuilt by Aerojet so blame them for doing a crappy job on checking all the components and doing the rebuilt.

      • OpenTrackRacer says:
        0
        0

        Not to be crass, but have you been drinking Aerojet’s Koolaide? These are indeed 40 year old NK-33 engines. Aerojet can call them anything they want but that doesn’t change that fact. They are not rebuilt. They are “reconditioned” and tested. There have been 1-2 test stand failures and now this flight failure. Not to mention all the N-1 related failures. The NK-33 has never been a reliable engine.

        • SpaceMunkie says:
          0
          0

          Those engines are completely disassembled, inspected, and reassembled. If there are no faults found with the hardware, there is no need to change it.

      • Denniswingo says:
        0
        0

        It is my understanding that these are the same engines that Kistler was going to use in the K1’s back in the 1990’s. When Kistler went bankrupt Aerojet ended up with the engines and Orbital picked them up as a cheap way to get their design done and flying soon. Solids are a bad idea due to the limited total impulse and super hard ride up hill.

        So yes, these are the same NK-33’s that have been around for decades. Disclaimer: I have not followed this super closely but it is the history of those engines. Part of the problem that Orbital has always had is that there were only a finite number of those engines available.

      • korichneveygigant says:
        0
        0

        Having been inside the horizontal assembly building, I can assure you, these “AJ26” have plenty of Cyrillic all over them, some even have “HK-33” still painted on the side

        • SpaceMunkie says:
          0
          0

          Yes, there is a bunch of cyrilic all over them, do you erase the “made in china” from your blender just because you tighten a screw?

          • korichneveygigant says:
            0
            0

            no, but I dont put tags/info plates back on after I “refurbish” it, in a language that none of my assembly facility/launch pad personnel speak. Judging from the multitude of Ukrainian/Russians at Wallops, when I was there I would say there is still a bit of a learning curve.

          • SpaceMunkie says:
            0
            0

            You don’t have to take a tag or a plate off to refurbish something, that would be like milling off the serial number off of a matching engine block.

      • hikingmike says:
        0
        0

        Modifications done-
        “To convert an NK-33 to the AJ-26, Aerojet Rocketdyne implements a number of modifications on the engine. These include the addition of US electronics, the implementation of electromechanical valve actuators in the propellant system, modifications to the fuel systems, the removal of the engine harness and the installation of gimbaling equipment.”
        Per Wikipedia

    • SpaceMunkie says:
      0
      0

      Trouble is that these “surplus” engines are more powerful and more efficient than anything we have built to date.

  5. Joe Denison says:
    0
    0

    My wife and I watched it live. Thank God nobody was killed. Hopefully Orbital will find out what happened and fix it and get back to launching soon.

  6. Terry Stetler says:
    0
    0

    Pad damage? TE damage? 40 y/o Russian motors that have had failures on test stands twice, and how many were rejected? A couple days ago they said they’re re-starting the RD-180 kerfuffle with ULA with another anti-trust lawsuit possible. They need a solution a LOT faster than that.

    Meanwhile, Cygnus on Falcon 9?

    • Russel aka 'Rusty' Shackleford says:
      0
      0

      That’s my thinking as a stop-gap.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      I don’t know… OTC are merged with ATK now. Could they launch a Cygnus on top of ATK’s all-solid Athena-III?

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        Athena III is a paper rocket. If they can’t fix the Antares, they are out of the business as far as ISS contract 1 is concerned.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      That will be an interesting pricing question for Mr. Musk.

    • korichneveygigant says:
      0
      0

      the pad is very limited on space, and alot of the ground systems are relatively close to the pad. I wouldnt be surprised if there was plenty of damage. The propellant storage/supply tanks are maybe 100-200 feet away from the flame bucket. The RP1 tank is actually not too far from the base of the water tower

      • hikingmike says:
        0
        0

        Frank Culbertson and the Wallops director said in the press conference that the pressure in the tanks appeared to be fine.

        • korichneveygigant says:
          0
          0

          I saw the picture of the aftermath, they got extremely lucky that Antares fell where it did, could have put MARS “out of business”

    • objose says:
      0
      0

      So if there is pad damage, given NASA’s excess of PADS, will NASA rebuild this? Should they. There is one engine test site (Stennis) one flight hardware site (MAF). I do not know: does NASA need multiple launch sites? Is it worth the $$?

      • korichneveygigant says:
        0
        0

        technically this pad belongs to “MARS” so Im not sure who would be responsible for repairs/rebuilding

  7. Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
    0
    0

    WOAH

  8. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    The split second uniformity of the downward blast patter is curious.

    • OpenTrackRacer says:
      0
      0

      Just noticing that. After looking more closely it’s very possible that the detonation was the range safety package going off, not an engine coming apart. I have no idea where they are placed on Antares.

  9. jamesmuncy says:
    0
    0

    Well, this is why we separated crew from cargo. I’m sure the great team at Orbital will learn what went wrong, fix it, and get back on-line as soon as humanly possible.

    • Lawrence Williams says:
      0
      0

      Well it’s DEFINITELY separated now!

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Why did they seperate cargo from crew? To lower launch rate? They seperated cargo from crew with shuttle then flew people on the same dangerous rocket and had another disaster. Spacex has a trunk on a human rated vehicle. What’s wrong with flying humans with cargo? Nothing

      • PsiSquared says:
        0
        0

        Are you asking real questions, or are your questions rhetorical and part of point you’re trying to make?

      • Bill Adkins says:
        0
        0

        See the Columbia accident investigation report for an explanation of why crew and cargo were separated.

        • jerr says:
          0
          0

          what page?

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          The committee recognizes the important role for the space shuttle for missions where there is the need for human involvement,” the panel noted in its final report. ”Nonetheless, the committee believes in hindsight that it was, for example, inappropriate in the case of Challenger to risk the lives of seven astronauts and nearly one-fourth of NASA’s launch assets to place in orbit a communications satellite.” Challenger report

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            While the above is true (e.g. a comsat can fly on an unmanned launch vehicle), there is no real reason to ban cargo on a flight that would have been crewed anyway. In other words, on manned shuttle missions to ISS (for crew rotation), it would not have made any sense to fly to ISS with the payload bay empty to make it “safer” by separating the cargo from the crew.

            The last time I checked, NASA is still planning to launch Orion on SLS. If an Orion mission required some sort of orbital module (e.g. an inflatable HAB module), it would make sense to launch it underneath the Orion on the same SLS flight if SLS has the payload capacity to do so.

      • Antilope7724 says:
        0
        0

        Depends on the cargo. Food, tanks of air or water, science experiments, etc are okay.

        Fueled upper stages (solid or liquid) with fueled satellites, etc may be too risky.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Do you build to the same safety standards for a cargo trailer as you do for the Cab pulling the trailer?
        You utilize the most economical transportation system for cargo and for humans. When you utilize human cargo systems to move standard cargo you always pay a slight premium. Like a cargo plane verus passenger plane. You can buy a passenger plane and fill it will cargo, but I will beat you for cost if I use a stripped down cargo plane.

      • ex-utc says:
        0
        0

        crew requires man rating which means nasa gets in the way asking idiotic questions and triggering wild goose chases, failure modes are identfied and redundancies added, but you know the review is very thorough. for cargo they just care that it doesnt blow up near the station, they dont pay attention to how the engines are built and if there is any redundancy, vegetables and tv dinners are cheap to replace.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          The payload was lost on this flight. The military claims to have payloads that are more important than on board human lives.
          Dragon 2 will carry cargo with its pusher Draco abort system? Might we in the near future perhaps on falcon heavy flights see cargo flights with a payload abort system? How much does satellite insurance cost? How much could that insurance cost be reduced if cargo payloads had reuseable Launch Escape Systems? RLES

          Couldn’t someone design a draco system that could protect the payload to space and then if not used renter the atmosphere and be recovered?

          Not a capsule. not a faring. A recoverable faring maybe. Or the dracos used used for second stage recovery if not used for in flight payload abort? With the added margin of falcon heavy shouldnt such a system be practical??

          • Steve Pemberton says:
            0
            0

            Two things would be needed, the launchers would have to be essentially man rated as they would need all of the sensors etc. to trigger the escape system. And the payload would have to be designed to be recoverable and include an escape system. It would fall to the satellite manufacture to make their payload recoverable. They could enclose it in some type of vessel that is water tight and includes LAS and parachute. Maybe a third party company could manufacture such a vessel and satellite companies who want recoverability would build their satellite to fit in the vessel.

            However most likely the cost to do all of this man rating and recovery vessels and escape systems is too prohibitive considering that launch failures are a relatively small percentage of launches and since insurance covers it. And there would probably be a limit to the size of satellite that this is even feasible.

          • hikingmike says:
            0
            0

            Does insurance cover government satellite launches? I know a couple customers that would probably like to have this ability. Of course it has to be weighed with cost, but I bet with the extra cost benefit SpaceX promises would allow for it. It may not be needed though, this doesn’t happen that often.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        It wasn’t so much separating cargo from crew as much as not risking a human crew simply to deliver cargo. Plus not carrying dangerous cargo like kick stages. Also at a billion and a half per flight the shuttle was not a good cargo van.

  10. Bennett In Vermont says:
    0
    0

    I called my 8 year old son in to watch the launch. Never thought I would see something like this happen *live*, with my son on my lap.

    My thoughts go out to all of the folks that worked so hard to bring this rocket to the pad. No one likes to see this happen.

    If a well known ULA shill writer uses this accident to try and discredit Orbita, SpaceX, COTS or CCP, everyone should post the YouTube link to the 1997 Boeing Delta II accident as a
    way to level the playing field.

  11. Frank Coffin says:
    0
    0

    Thankfully it was unmanned, but that’s why ya build new rockets (ie: F/F9/FHV) , (dare I say Ares V, oops I mean SLS, oops I really mean JPR (Jobs Project Rocket)) and not use decades old Russian surplus rockets for your first stage. Glad Orbital just announced plans for a new first stage. That said, I may be premature blaming the NK-33/AJ-26, we’ll see in a few days.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      I mean SLS, oops I really mean JPR (Jobs Project Rocket)) and not use decades old Russian surplus rockets for your first stage.

      SLS uses literally recycled, decades old SSME’s from the three retired orbiters for the first stages of the first two missions (2017/2021.)

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        While true, the SSMEs were designed from the beginning to be reused. It took several iterations on some of the components (like the turbopumps) to get them as reliable as they were at the end of the program. Before their use on Antares, the Russian NK-33 engines were used in a single, failed, program and therefore did not have the luxury of successive design iterations. So, even though they were touted as being a quite sophisticated design, they were arguably a very early version of that design.

        The SpaceX Merlin 1-D engine may arguably not be as “sophisticated” in some ways, but its design has evolved several times (hence the “D” designation) and is currently in production. That’s two advantages that the old NK-33 engines do not have.

        While Russian LOX/kerosene engines may be more “sophisticated”, they clearly have their downsides.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Actually, the Russian N1, heavy lift launch vehicle, that was to be used for Lunar launches, but exploded four times, did not use the NK-33. That launch vehicle utilized the NK-15. The engine designer, Nikolay Kuznetsov (NK), upgraded the NK-15 used on the N1 to the NK-33 that would then be used on the new N1F but that launcher never flew.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            I’ll concede that the NK-33 was an upgrade of the NK-15. But I don’t believe the NK-33 was ever flown by the Russians, so one could argue that it wasn’t actually flight tested. Integration issues could easily arise that are arguably partly the cause of the engine and how it responds to the flight environment.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            True, I do not believe it was ever actually flown by Russia, they did test it though. A good history here:

            http://www.russianspaceweb….

          • Denniswingo says:
            0
            0

            The NK-33 is the engine of choice for the Soyuz light launch vehicle.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            Yet another proposed, but never funded to completion, launch vehicle. Russian space history is literally littered with them.

            It would be very interesting to find out, from Soyuz launch vehicle engineers/designers, their point of view on this proposed upgrade. Was it never done because of development costs or over concern that the upgrade might have some sort of negative impact on the program.

          • Denniswingo says:
            0
            0

            The upgrade was funded, developed, and now qualified..

            http://www.russianspaceweb….

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            So, the new light Soyuz launcher first flew with a surplus NK-33 engine, but will eventually use the RD-193 engine, which is a new engine derived from RD-170 to RD-191 to RD-193.

        • Paul451 says:
          0
          0

          While true, the SSMEs […] took several iterations on some of the components (like the turbopumps) to get them as reliable as they were at the end of the program.

          Have you been reading Wayne Hale’s story about the SSME issues on STS-93. Ageing is an issue on the SSMEs too. “Reusable” doesn’t mean “unlimited life”.

        • Denniswingo says:
          0
          0

          Finally got some of the history in an article….

          http://www.forbes.com/sites

  12. GoalieLax says:
    0
    0

    why is the payload area light up like it’s on fire right at lift off? t0:09-t0:14 on the youtube clip above. is that just lens flare/reflection of the main ignition?

    • hikingmike says:
      0
      0

      I think that’s the exhaust plume lighting up from the light of the engine. I noticed it kind of appears out of nowhere near the top of the rocket at that angle, but I guess there was exhaust that wasn’t lit at first and you couldn’t see it due to the low light and when the rocket started climbing it lit up the higher exhaust plume. My guess 🙂

  13. CadetOne says:
    0
    0

    I remember this 2012 quote from Elon Musk. Clearly no idea if the older engines contributed to the failure, but it is something to keep in mind:

    “One of our competitors, Orbital Sciences, has a contract to resupply the International Space Station, and their rocket honestly sounds like the punch line to a joke. It uses Russian rocket engines that were made in the ’60s. I don’t mean their design is from the ’60s—I mean they start with engines that were literally made in the ’60s and, like, packed away in Siberia somewhere.”

    http://www.wired.com/2012/1

    • jski says:
      0
      0

      Those NK-33 engines are considerably more sophisticated in their design than Musk’s Merlin engines. As for being geriatric engines as measured by years, they were supposedly well tested at Stennis and should have been well prepared for launch.

      • Ben Russell-Gough says:
        0
        0

        I believe that there has been two failures during AJ-26-58 (the ‘cover’ name for NK-33 to make them sound non-Russian) testing at Stennis. If it IS an engine failure (and this isn’t proven yet), the evidence is moving towards a lower reliability rate for these reconditioned engines. This shouldn’t come as a surprise. What comes as an unpleasant surprise, especially for OTC/ATK, is that high-criticality faults might not be detectable in testing.

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        While true they are supposed to be “more sophisticated in their design” the engines are still quite old hardware and most of the engineers who actually worked on the design and the workers who produced the engines have long since retired.

        SpaceX just produced their 100th copy of the Merlin 1-D engine. There is something to be said for using currently produced hardware.

        • John Thomas says:
          0
          0

          Except they can’t get a high thrust out of the Merlin compared to the Russian engines.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            What difference does it make if your rocket is sized for 8 lower thrust engines or 2 higher thrust engines? As long as the stage is engineered for the configuration and the economics are positive, either is fine. The 8 engine cluster does allow engine-out mission completion.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            The Falcon Heavy design has plenty of thrust from the 27 first/core stage engines which fire simultaneously. Need more thrust? Add more engines. Problem solved.

      • Terry Stetler says:
        0
        0

        Time does weird things to complex metallurgy, and sometimes KISS is better for reliability. Merlin also has about the best T/W of anything flying.

        • jerr says:
          0
          0

          I agree. Complexity done not mean reliability.

        • John Thomas says:
          0
          0

          I thought the Merlin engines are not capable of very high thrust and that’s why they use more engines. Also why they can’t be used to replace the Russian engines.

          • Terry Stetler says:
            0
            0

            A high T/W simply means that for its thrust Merlin is very light, having a ratio of 150:1+. Most engines are under 80:1.

            A lower thrust means you use more engines, which brings in an engine-out capability. This saved a Falcon 9 v1.0 launch when an engine dome failed, reducing thrust 11%. The armor plate and blow-out panels around each engine protected the other 8, and the avionics just lengthened the burns to make up for the thrust loss. SpaceX has said they’ll use the 9 engine Octaweb layout in Falcon 9 v1.1 in their super-duper-heavy launcher, so it too should have engine-out.

            Too bad Antares couldn’t do that.

      • Saturn1300 says:
        0
        0

        Yes, but running the 1st stage on the pad may have shown the problem. If it blew up then, no cargo damage. If they did like SpaceX with a short burst, of course would not show anything that is caused by a long run.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        The Merlin 1D is extremely sophisticated. It is also extremely simple, with low parts count and very basic, very reliable components.
        It has the highest thrust to weight ratio of any flying engine. It has been shown in testing to go through as least 40 full burns. It is capable of mass manufacturing.

        What does one want in an engine? We should be getting past the era of using a “Formula One” racing engine in a school bus or delivery van.

        The NK-33 is very complicated and has a reasonably horrible record over the last 50 years. It has flown 10 times into space and the launcher exploded on 5 of them. Only 1 Soyuz 2 and 4 Antares have succeeded.

        Plus some test stand failures.

      • Dewey Vanderhoff says:
        0
        0

        Well tested at Stennis , you say ? An identical AJ26 / Nk33 blew up on the Stennis test stand on May 22 this year.

        Originally designed and built for the Soviet N-1 moon rocket, which failed every time it was launched, 0 for 4. although to be fair only one failure was near ground level…the N-1 actually made it to 15 miles once before engine failure destroyed it. The N-1’s all died of NK33 engine failure, and the Soviet moon program with them. I’m guessing trying to get thirty ( 30! ) NK-33 engines in the first stage to behave as a team was somewhat difficult…

        But Antares only has two , so go figger’

        I’m guessing Orbital’s and Aerojet Rocketdyne stock is also falling back to Earth today , too.

        • disqus_wjUQ81ZDum says:
          0
          0

          Nk-33 came after the N-1. You’re thinking of the NK-15. The N-1F was never built and the NK-33 never flew until the Antares and now the Soyuz-2-1v.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            The NK-33 is a significant upgrade directly from the NK-15. So, I think one can loosely refer to them interchangeably. Different preburner, able to be relit, ruggedized, etc., but still very similar.

            Lets call one the daddy of the other.

        • jski says:
          0
          0

          Get your facts right: the NK-33 engines were NEVER used in the N-1. The NK-33’s were designed to solve the problems associated with the NK-15’s which were used in the N-1.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Rocketplane Kistler, the company that competed in COTS before Orbital Sciences, also planned to use the NK-33 and NK-43 in their commercial resupply launch vehicle.

          • Denniswingo says:
            0
            0

            These are THE engines that were supposed to fly for Kistler. Aerojet got them after the bankruptcy.

        • Tannia Ling says:
          0
          0

          It is not clear at all what the N-1’s died of. According to wikipedia there was only one documented engine failure (and as others pointed out that was the NK-15).
          I do agree with you that it is very likely getting 30 engines to work in tandem – along with all their support infrastructure such as piping, valves, etc. was likely a large challenge, and I’d be willing to speculate that was a prime reason for some of the N-1 failures.

      • Antilope7724 says:
        0
        0

        The Falcon 9 has flown 117 C & D engines on 13 missions (not counting the additional similar upper stage engine). There was 1 “C” engine failure, but the Falcon 9 still completed the primary mission.

        The Antares has flown 10 “sophisticated” engines on 5 missions with 1 total failure.

        Is this a case of the perfect being an enemy of the good?

  14. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    Those antique Russian probably exploded, like one did on the test stand. Running at 108% may have had something to do with it. After the test stand blow up, it would be logical to reduce power, not increase it. No more launches from these folks in a long time. SpaceX will have to take up the slack and Orbital may never get any more launches to ISS. They will have to use the new engines and that will take awhile. SpaceX bid to do all the CRS and now they have it. The amount that SpaceX has delivered, I don’t think they can do all. They may have to make a pressurized module in the Trunk. They could extend it. They need more volume. SpaceX could launch Cygus on F9. Since GAO has said that NASA has paid Orbital for all or part of 6 missions. That was a year or so ago. They probably have paid in advance for all of them by now. NASA will have to double pay.
    At least the engines are not in the ocean. They may be able to walk up to them and see something obvious. Split pressure chamber,turbo pump, fuel lines. It will not take long. If it is engines, I don’t see how they could be trusted. They should have run the engines on the stand with just the 1st stage. Would not show up every problem, but a lot. SpaceX at the Cape, just has a short trip on rails. Orbital has a long road trip. They need to do it though.

    • Russel aka 'Rusty' Shackleford says:
      0
      0

      Is there any reason they couldn’t integrate the Cygnus into the Falcon 9? No reason they can’t keep providing the vehicles.

      • Zed_WEASEL says:
        0
        0

        The enhanced Cygnus fits inside the standard Falcon 9 payload fairing. Maybe Orbital should just buy a few Falcon 9 launches out of LC-40 for the rest of their CRS flights.

      • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
        0
        0

        i’ve looked at the numbers and it seems that a Cygnus would easily fit within the Falcon 9 payload fairing. it’s possible, but can’t say how likely it is, though.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      If Spacex did extend the trunk and pressurize it, how much weight can they add and still have enough fuel to send the first stage to a barge?

      • Saturn1300 says:
        0
        0

        Dragon is volume limited. They have only delivered around 2000lbs per flight. The mods needed would add weight. Not enough to stop the landing on the football size barge on the next CRS flight in Dec. I am surprised at no coverage of this here that Elon said at the MIT conference last Friday. I missed the WebCast. They have a WebCast on demand, but I could not get it to work. That is right. Land on a barge this Dec. What everyone wanted.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          I am surprised at no coverage of this here that Elon said at the MIT conference last Friday.

          I posted that last week in the 100th Merlin 1D thread:

          yales • 4 days ago
          Latest SpaceX news…
          SpaceX is completing a 90 meter by 50 meter football field size floating platform in a Louisiana shipyard. It is to be used if possible in December with the next nasa cargo flight for a falcon first stage soft landing. They give it a 50/50 chance, but 80-90% chance of successful landing in 2015.
          SpaceX would like to reuse the stage. After a few successes they plan on-shore landings.
          Musk believes that they will not try to recover the falcon 2nd stage. There is too much performance lost to make it worthwhile. They do plan to make the next version (I am assuming the BFR and not the FH)
          fully reusable.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          CRS-3 carried about 4,660 pounds of cargo.

          CRS-4 carried about 4,885 pounds of cargo.

        • rktsci says:
          0
          0

          There were also many STS missions that “bulked out” before they hit mass limits.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Just push for a falcon heavy. Do not slow down the testing for reusablity.

    • NowWeTryItMyWay says:
      0
      0

      Why write off Antares altogether? The S1 engine is the problem, and a modern all-solid replacement is already in work. No way they’ll make the ORB4 launch date, but they’ll recover. I’d also hope to see the majority of the propulsion engineering group replaced, given the ATK talent coming in.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        What makes it an Antares? The entire 1st stage would be completely replaced if it were solid. I can’t think of anything that could be retained, from avionics to nuts and bolts. It would be a complete start from scratch. If Orbital cannot get its existing rocket flyable, it will be years of testing and certification ahead.

        http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-E

      • Terry Stetler says:
        0
        0

        This came up at NSF. Supposedly they can’t fly a solid first stage that large from Wallops; the stand won’t take it and there are range safety issues.

        • Doug Mohney says:
          0
          0

          Difficult to believe given they’ve flown a Minotaur 4 out of Wallops…

        • NowWeTryItMyWay says:
          0
          0

          You’re right, I had heard Wallops is poorly located range safety-wise. Still, what are they going to do? Use an RD-181? They can’t possibly be that thick-headed. That’d be suicide for the CRS-2 contract, and would put a final nail in the coffin for any future Antares missions. The obvious option is to launch elsewhere and incorporate ATK’s S1 design.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        that’s what those guys over on the west coast said about launching from a barge.

        This is a huge hit for any business. And with so many questions, Orbital’s only chance (in the view of this non-engineer) is this: the issue better be something other than the engines.

        I also wonder if they are planning to build these engines after the storehouse empires; Keith’s tweet that the engines are Aerodyne really confused me.

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

          Yeah I agree. They probably realize they’re in a really tough spot if the issue is the 1st stage engines. It will be hard to trust them again if that’s the case here.

    • Antilope7724 says:
      0
      0

      I wonder if an Ares I-X (single 4 or 5 segment Shuttle solid booster) with the Castor X second stage and the Cygnus on top would work? Of course that would take years to develop, so it’s not a short term solution.

      NASA and SpaceX were going to start increasing the Dragon cargo payload weights carried to the ISS in the coming missions. Maybe they will now move this up to fill the gap.

      NASA and SpaceX should remove the Falcon 9 landing gear and use the first stage landing fuel reserve to send more cargo uphill in the Dragon for the short term.

    • Graham West says:
      0
      0

      108% means “108% of the required and planned thrust for the baseline design”. If the final design has better capabilities than the baseline and thus exceeds the requirement, it can be run at more than 100% of that planned thrust.

      More succinctly, they weren’t running the engine over specification.

    • rktsci says:
      0
      0

      Running at 108% may have had something to do with it.

      Possibly not. The shuttle engines ran at over 100% because the reference value for 100% thrust was set early in the program and the engines found to be capable of higher thrust.

  15. Steve Pemberton says:
    0
    0

    Sadly this particular spacecraft was named after Deke Slayton.

    A few minutes ago I watched ISS pass overhead and I thought about the six astronauts and cosmonauts who I’m sure have been informed by now, if they weren’t watching it live. I’m sure they must be extremely disappointed. It’s one thing for a cargo shipment to be delayed a few weeks but something else again to completely lose one. All of that manifest now has to be shifted to other cargo flights. The upcoming Progress might be delayed if they decide they need to change what it will be taking up. And it will likely change the manifest for the next Dragon resupply. I’m sure they are okay on consumables but this is real wrench thrown into the ISS planning for the next several months.

    Update – per Mike Suffredini the Progress resupply will launch on schedule. It’s scheduled in just a few hours at 3:09am Wednesday morning which means that less than nine hours after the accident another resupply mission will launch, hopefully successfully of course.

  16. Jafafa Hots says:
    0
    0

    Wow. That’s gotta hurt.

  17. Chris says:
    0
    0

    Here’s hoping Planetary Resources followed the great American tradition of building a backup model at twice the cost.

  18. MarcNBarrett says:
    0
    0

    This definitely takes Orbital out of the ISS resupply business for a while, maybe a long while, depending on the cause of the explosion. It also makes SpaceX look just that much better, never having had an actual mission failure.

    This rocket contained 5000 pounds of supplies to the ISS, including food. I am wondering how this will be replaced. Will NASA have to buy an extra unmanned Soyuz resupply mission?

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      the ISS has enough food and water and other supplies to last until March. there’s a Soyuz Progress resupply mission slated for launch soon tomorrow, and a Dragon supply mission slated for mid December. they may pack in some extra supplies on the next few missions to the ISS, but this probably won’t change too much.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        Looking at the cargo manifest for Orb 3, the big losses seem to be experiment hardware, vehicle hardware (JAXA and US), and EVA hardware. We’ll see if all or only some of the experiment hardware was insured. Do people typically insure their cubesats?

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          is there a manifest list somewhere? i’d like to see what all was lost. I found the NASA press kit with the Orb-3 flight manifest. it looks like they lost some interesting experiments, though it looks like nothing terribly major was lost, with the exception of several cubesats and the Meteor study instrument. i hope they had a back-up of that built.

          i know there are insurance companies that specialize in insuring launches, and i know satellites can be insured against launch failure, but i don’t know anything about the details of these arrangements or if cubesats can be insured. i assume they can be, but i don’t know if they typically are or not. it would be safe to assume that they were, and that all parties involved will be looking to recover some of their losses from the insurance.

    • Saturn1300 says:
      0
      0

      NASA does not use Progress for supplies on the USA side. There is fuel for the ISS engines though.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        “NASA already has signed contracts totaling $780 million for Russian Soyuz capsules and Progress cargo vessels through 2011. That contract will be funded at least in part out of the $2.6 billion NASA has budgeted through 2013 for space station crew and cargo transportation services.”

        http://www.space.com/4974-n

        NASA uses progress cargo vessels.

  19. BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
    0
    0

    SpaceX can probably take up at least some of the slack. They’re production capability has increased significantly over the last 12 months and although they have a monthly manifest for 2015, their production rate can accommodate more and they’ve demonstrated a couple of pretty short turnaround launches.
    Bad luck for Orbital. Guess the rocket business is still pretty hard.
    Cheers,

    • ex-utc says:
      0
      0

      there is no slack, russian and european supply missions maintained their original schedule as if NASA resupply missions didnt exist.

  20. Antilope7724 says:
    0
    0

    The Russians have also had a Progress launch failure on an ISS resupply mission.

    It was Progress M-12M, launch attempt 24 Aug 2011. 3rd stage failure.

  21. Steve Pemberton says:
    0
    0

    In the press conference no one mentioned what to me was a very noticeable hesitation of the rocket at about T+3 seconds. I watched it several times thinking maybe the video was stalling, but the clock is continuous.

    • Chris Holmes says:
      0
      0

      Steve, I also noticed that as well as a lateral shift from the pad on the second Orbital launch a few months ago. It appeared to me that on that second launch there was an instability along the vertical axis that caused the entire stack to shift, and you could see engines gimballing to account for that. Now, I have no hard data to support any theory, but that’s what I believe I saw then, and again today.

      • Klaus Berger says:
        0
        0

        You are indeed right. This was not due to cross wind.

      • Todd Austin says:
        0
        0

        I understand that this is intentional. The Antares is programmed to translate laterally after liftoff – something about managing sound pressure around the pad.

        • Chris Holmes says:
          0
          0

          Thanks, Todd. I didn’t know about that. It seems to me a safer way to suppress sound is water, but that would probably cause all sorts of logistics problems onsite. Now…because they have to rebuild the stand, I wonder if they would consider that type of suppression scheme to lessen the risk of cross loading the platform and also the likelihood of collision with the tower?

    • Chris Holmes says:
      0
      0

      Here’s the ORB 2 launch I’m talking about. https://www.youtube.com/wat

      • hikingmike says:
        0
        0

        That is interesting, it happens immediately, like the engines are gimballed one way as it’s released and gimballed the other way very quickly after it starts going up a little sideways. I’m sure it’s intentional.

  22. Antilope7724 says:
    0
    0

    In addition to using two launch suppliers, maybe each of those companies (Orbital & SpaceX) should have 2 launch pads (I’m not saying 2 launch complexes, just 2 pads. But the assembly buildings should be a safe distance from the pads). No rocket is 100% perfect. You are going to have failures.

    • Terry Stetler says:
      0
      0

      SpaceX said if push came to shove they could fly Dragon to ISS from Vandenberg, but it would take all F9’s reserves to do the dogleg. They’re also converting KSC 39A for F9 and FH, and in ~2 years will.have the Brownsville Texas site active.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      SpaceX has 4, pad 40 and 39a (being modified) in Florida, one at vandenberg for polar flights, and 1 in Texas under construction.

      • Antilope7724 says:
        0
        0

        I wonder if SpaceX will keep complex 40 after 39A is active? That horizontal assembly building at LC40 is really close to the pad. An Antares type of failure might take it out.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          It looks like commercial flights out of TX, Pad 39a for SpaceX’s NASA flights, and Pad 40 for national security flights. SpaceX has proposed massive expansion for pad 40 including a second 40b for FH launches.

    • Antilope7724 says:
      0
      0

      Orbital and SpaceX are using only one launch pad each and yet they have to keep the ISS supplied.

      Historically, multiple launch pads have been used:

      On the east coast:

      Redstone rocket – Complex 4, 5, 6, 26
      Jupiter rocket – Complex 5, 6, 26
      Atlas & Atlas Agena (ICBM, A, B, C, D) – Complex 11, 12, 13, 14
      Atlas Centaur – Complex 36A & 36B
      Titan I & II & IIIA, IIIB – Complex 15, 16, 19, 20
      Titan IIIC, IIID & IV – Complex 40, 41
      Delta I, II, III, Thor – Complex 17A & 17B
      Saturn I & IB – Complex 34, 37A, 39B
      Saturn V, Shuttle – Complex 39A & 39B

      Now, NASA and the Air Force seem to put all their eggs
      in one basket

      Delta IV – Complex 37B
      Atlas V – Complex 41
      Falcon 9 – Complex 40
      Antares – Wallops Complex 0A

      This may be cheaper, but is it a wise decision?

      • Tannia Ling says:
        0
        0

        While I tend to agree with you, today’s launch complexes are significantly less elaborate than those of the past. Just compare the towers at 17A/B or 39A/B with the very simple erectors that Orbital and SpaceX use.

  23. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    Only guesswork at this point.

    However, on NSF, one poster noted that the engine plume changes colour in a way that suggested oxygen starvation to one of the combustion chambers. Another poster noted a lateral flame low down on the side of the core. Taken together, that makes me think ‘failed oxidiser line’. The low-oxygen state then ruptured the combustion chamber, probably taking out the other engine. Even if it hadn’t, Antares is pretty close to T/W = 1 at launch, so there wouldn’t have been any way the surviving engine could keep her aloft. A LOM is inevitable in those circumstances.

    Interestingly, someone on NSF said that the FTS may not have been triggered as a self-destruct at low altitude (basically a Fuel/Air Explosive low air-burst) would have been more destructive to Pad 0A than allowing the rocket to crash very slightly down-range of it’s launching spot.

    We’ll just have to see what comes out of the investigation. It’s a filthy thing to happen to OTC after their travails with Taurus-XL and the early problems with Pegasus.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      i’m inclined to agree with the speculation that the problem was more likely in a fuel or oxidizer line rather than with the engine, since just before the failure there was a report of everything running nominally, something i wouldn’t expect if there were a problem with an engine.

      Orbital has made statements that the FTS was triggered about 20 seconds in the flight – at that point, the rocket had already failed and was very close to or maybe even on the ground. the large explosion at or near ground level, which can be attributed to the 2nd stage detonating, was possibly triggered by the FTS rather than impact.

      • Jeff Havens says:
        0
        0

        Does the Antares rocket have the same “hold down” that the Falcon does, to verify all is 100% before release?

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          It kinda looks like it does, for a moment, just after ignition. I don’t know the details so I really can’t say for sure.

    • disqus_wjUQ81ZDum says:
      0
      0

      NSF has also reported that some AJ26’s suffered from corrosion problems. Like the failure on the stand back in 2011, when it caught fire.

  24. William Bormann says:
    0
    0

    Whoa! Just woke up and wanted to watch video of a successful launch, not an explosion.

    So, pad repairs and failure analysis is in front of Orbital. Hopefully Orbital has enough money in the bank to get back into the launch business in six months – does that sound too optimistic?

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      Given they’re now sharing funds with ATK, it shouldn’t be a problem even if it’s longer than six months for Antares. Anyway, they’ve still got Minotaur (the Minotaur pad, SLC-0B, is undamaged).

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        0A was seriously upgraded. I suspect a major repair and renovation of damages at 0A would be faster and cheaper than upgrading 0B

  25. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    Question: Launch Abort Systems (LAS) are expensive, their development time delays the maiden launch and reduces payload. Is a LAS still required when launching a modern manned spacecraft?

    Answer: YES. As shown by the catastrophic failure during launch of an Orbital Science’s Antares launch vehicle on October 28, 2014 modern rockets can still explode.

    Comment: NASA got that requirement right.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      The “nice” thing about this failure was that it played out in “slow motion” which would have given a launch escape system plenty of time to “escape”. By comparison, case ruptures of large solids are very fast, very nasty, failures.

      Comment: NASA didn’t get the memo on the historical failure modes of large solid rocket motors.

      • rktsci says:
        0
        0

        Depends on who you talk to at NASA. There were plenty of folks inside NASA that were not happy with the design of Ares I due to the use of a large solid. Upper management had other thoughts.

  26. Charles Dickson says:
    0
    0

    Noooo! If only those commercial space advocates had gotten their way with their frivolous redundant options and ‘competition’, then we’d still have a way to supply the Space Station using American rockets! Oh wait, they did. Well then, let’s get back to down-selecting Commercial Crew to just Boeing.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      Since we’re clearly being tongue in cheek…

      Brilliant! Last I checked, Vladimir Putin is more than happy to keep providing the US with the state of the art RD-180 LOX/kerosene rocket engine which powers the first stage of the Atlas V launch vehicle which Boeing has baselined to launch the CST-100.

      Seriously though, this dependence on Russia for rocket engines (either decades old surplus or newly manufactured) is turning out to be quite a bad idea.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      I agree. If Congress continues to push for a further downselect they will be proving themselves incompetent.

  27. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    A nice article on issues with an all solid Antares at Wallops:

    http://www.spacenews.com/ar

    If they do need to stop the liquid Antares and go all solid, Orbital’s CEO said the company needs three years to develop a new Antares first stage. Not test, not certify, but “develop”.
    Since Phase 1 of the delivery contract ends in 2016, it looks like Orbital is out for the duration.

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      That’s only true if they decide the NK-33 was at fault and that they can’t fly it anymore. No one knows the cause of the crash yet.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        That’s only true if they decide the NK-33 was at fault

        Exactly. That’s why the “if they do need to stop”. However, orbital appears to be committing to a non-nk33 by 2018 no matter what.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        If we assume that an engine was starved then two options with very different outcomes result. If it was external to the engine, say a broken oxidizer line , then the failure – design, materials, installation, etc. – is corrected and flights go on. If there is a design flaw in the engine, or corrosion damage from 50 years of storage, then I see the Antares 1st stage as history.

  28. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    The CEO of Orbital Sciences told investors and analysts today that:


    – launch complex spared any major damage
    – Orbital carried insurance that will cover contract revenue on flight and repairs to launch complex”

    http://www.parabolicarc.com