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 Failure Report Released

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 29, 2015
Filed under , , ,
Orb-3 Failure Report Released

NASA Review of Orbital ATK Accident Released, NASA
“The team determined the proximate cause of the Antares launch vehicle failure was an explosion within the AJ-26 rocket engine and identified three credible technical root causes, any one or combination of which could have resulted in the engine failure. The team outlined six technical findings and made seven recommendations to address those technical findings. In addition, since Orbital ATK was in the process of procuring and testing new engines to replace the AJ-26 for future Antares flights while the investigation was ongoing, the team provided several recommendations for Orbital ATK and the ISS Program that were used to support those testing activities and to reduce overall risk for Antares return-to-flight and follow-on mission efforts. The NASA team’s findings are consistent with the AIB’s findings.”

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

12 responses to “Orb-3 Failure Report Released”

  1. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    “TR-2 For the new RD-181 engine that Orbital ATK has identified as a replacement to the AJ26 engine, Orbital ATK should ensure a thorough qualification program and acceptance test program is implemented specific to planned Antares operations.”

    In other words, the potential exists for Orbital ATK to repeat the same mistakes with the RD-181 that they made with the AJ-26 rocket engine (which was little more than an ancient NK-33 engine which neither Aerojet Rocketdyne nor Orbital ATK fully understood).

  2. james w barnard says:
    0
    0

    Another question is, in light of the brouhaha over use of the RD-180 in the Atlas V, how can Orbital ATK justify use of another Russian engine?

    • EtOH says:
      0
      0

      Because they don’t launch national security payloads. ULA can launch as many commercial / NASA payloads as it wants with the RD-180, its just the pentagon that doesn’t want to be reliant on it.

      • TerryG says:
        0
        0

        Didn’t the Senate vote 89-11 against the RD-180 while the USAF still likes them?

        I’d like to think the Senate wised-up that the RD-180 isn’t good for US jobs and the US industrial base, but it was more likely a reaction to Mr Putin and Crimea/Ukraine hostilities.

        • james w barnard says:
          0
          0

          The RD-180 is one fine rocket engine! Unfortunately, the international political situation is dictating the embargo against further use of the engine for national security launches. I may be wrong, but I believe the current engines are all that can be purchased by ULA. The original plan was to have half manufacturered in the U.S. It proved “cheaper” to buy them from Russia than to tool up and make them here.! Bad decision in the long run.

      • james w barnard says:
        0
        0

        Understood. But Orbital ATK is putting themselves at the same risk of being cut off by Putin, even if Russia needs the money. Not too smart in the long run IMHO.

        • EtOH says:
          0
          0

          I think that their priority was get the launch vehicle back up and running as quick as possible. There are no suitable US engines on the market currently, I remember they were looking into a solid 1st stage, but that would take time and money to develop and they have a CRS contract to fulfill. I don’t think they had much of a choice.

  3. Charlie X Murphy says:
    0
    0

    Here is a crock of bull in one of the recommendations. “

    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.”

    There is nobody at Marshall with such experience. They haven’t developed an operational vehicle since the late 70’s. And what limited “experience” they have is only associated with shuttle propulsion system. They haven’t worked on current ELV’s

  4. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    Looking over the executive summary (I couldn’t find a link to the whole report) I’m not sure I’d like to be in Orbital/ATK’s position. The two of the three technical root causes don’t look easy to solve. TRC1 and TRC3 basically say the AJ26 engine was designed and built by the people who brought us Chernobyl, with all that implies, and testing and inspection were inadequate to weed out items which should not have been used in flight. At least to my reading, some of the language implies that no realistic amount of testing and inspection could be adequate. Admittedly, TRC2, evidence of FOD (in other words junk in the fuel) could have been the sole cause. That’s correctable. But I’d hate to be in the position of fixing TRC1 and 3.

    Comment added later: In hindsight, that’s probably too harsh. Orbital/ATK have a viable solution to TRC1 and 3: Stop using the AJ26. And the designers of the AJ26 deserve a little more credit: Chernobyl was a bad design from first principles. The problems with the AJ26 sound like implementation of the concept, not the concept itself.

    • rockofritters says:
      0
      0

      Nasa and orbital disagreed from the beginning on Fod. Nasa because they Warned of it an orbital because eliminating it would drive cost they didnt want. Dont forget their corporate experience is buying an already built atk solid. Complex liquids is brand new to them. And they may not have learned the fod lesson due to their penny pinching culture