Orbital Sciences rocket explodes over pad

In article ,
ess says...

On 29/10/2014 10:44 AM, snidely wrote:
A non-recoverable rocket failed to send a Cygnus capsule to orbit and rendezvous with ISS. I guess those Halloween treats got tricked.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/us/nasa-rocket-explodes/

Reuters also has reports, and Smithsonian Air&Space has a link to their twittering in the article about last night's postponement due to a slow boat.

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/whats-deal-boat-scuttling-last-nights-antares-rocket-launch-180953176/

/dps


I was a bit surprised that the range safety officer didn't destroy it
before it landed back on the pad.

Range safety did "press the button", but did so only a few seconds
before it hit the ground/pad. In other words, when they activated the
range safety charges, it was clear that the vehicle could not "fly
away" from the pad.

I suppose it's possible the explosion on the ground is safer, but I'd
have to wonder, given that it means that the launch tower is available
to be made into shrapnel.

Reportedly there is damage to the "erector" at the pad. No word on just
how bad the damage is.

It could have been worse. Orbital is thinking about an all solid
replacement for the first stage (from ATK, since Orbital is buying
them). Go look at videos of case ruptures of large solids on YouTube.
Those are some very rapid and very violent "spontaneous disassembly"
events. By comparison, the Antares failure was very slow and only
violent when it finally did explode (which was many seconds after it was
very clear that there had been a failure).

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On 30/10/2014 9:08 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
ess says...

On 29/10/2014 10:44 AM, snidely wrote:
A non-recoverable rocket failed to send a Cygnus capsule to orbit and rendezvous with ISS. I guess those Halloween treats got tricked.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/us/nasa-rocket-explodes/

Reuters also has reports, and Smithsonian Air&Space has a link to their twittering in the article about last night's postponement due to a slow boat.

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/whats-deal-boat-scuttling-last-nights-antares-rocket-launch-180953176/

/dps


I was a bit surprised that the range safety officer didn't destroy it
before it landed back on the pad.

Range safety did "press the button", but did so only a few seconds
before it hit the ground/pad. In other words, when they activated the
range safety charges, it was clear that the vehicle could not "fly
away" from the pad.

I suppose it's possible the explosion on the ground is safer, but I'd
have to wonder, given that it means that the launch tower is available
to be made into shrapnel.

Reportedly there is damage to the "erector" at the pad. No word on just
how bad the damage is.

It could have been worse. Orbital is thinking about an all solid
replacement for the first stage (from ATK, since Orbital is buying
them). Go look at videos of case ruptures of large solids on YouTube.
Those are some very rapid and very violent "spontaneous disassembly"
events. By comparison, the Antares failure was very slow and only
violent when it finally did explode (which was many seconds after it was
very clear that there had been a failure).


I've seen some of those solid-fuel failures before. Very spectacular,
but also very nasty.

Sylvia.

On Thursday, October 30, 2014 5:59:54 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
david.l.spain says...

I'm left with the impression that the most costly in terms of
recovery time (& perhaps materials) for this mishap will be the
pad rebuild. If this were to happen to SpaceX we'd be in a real
bind for ISS resupply until Boca Chica comes on-line.

Would it be possible to launch from the existing SpaceX pad at
Vandenburg pad to ISS?

Jeff

I'm thinking the answer is no. Because the inclination you need to achieve to launch from Vandenberg that is also not retrograde vs ISS puts you over land and populated areas.

Did Kodiak ever get an upgrade to do Falcon 9? I'd have to look at that.

Dave

On 31/10/2014 4:05 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 29/10/2014 10:44 AM, snidely wrote:
A non-recoverable rocket failed to send a Cygnus capsule to orbit and rendezvous with ISS. I guess those Halloween treats got tricked.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/us/nasa-rocket-explodes/

Reuters also has reports, and Smithsonian Air&Space has a link to their twittering in the article about last night's postponement due to a slow boat.

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/whats-deal-boat-scuttling-last-nights-antares-rocket-launch-180953176/

/dps


I was a bit surprised that the range safety officer didn't destroy it
before it landed back on the pad.


Range Safety doesn't 'destroy' things, Sylvia. All the flaming
wreckage is going to come down SOMEWHERE. Range Safety terminates
flight. It can't disintegrate things. Sometimes flight termination
involves actually blowing up the vehicle, but frequently it does not.

You could adopt a less patronising tone. You might also, if you put any
thought into it, realise that I obviously know all that already.

Sylvia.

On 31/10/2014 4:08 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Apparently not, since you expressed surprise that range safety didn't
'destroy it' to prevent pad damage.

No I didn't. If you're going to patronise, at least try to read properly
first.

Sylvia.

On 1/11/2014 6:55 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 31/10/2014 4:08 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Apparently not, since you expressed surprise that range safety didn't
'destroy it' to prevent pad damage.

No I didn't. If you're going to patronise, at least try to read properly
first.


I note you've 'cleverly' removed your prior remarks. Let me quote you
and ask about your intent in one of the statements by you that you
have so 'cleverly' removed.

So you're now claiming that your statement "I was a bit surprised that
the range safety officer didn't destroy it before it landed back on
the pad." doesn't mean you were a bit surprised at all, but you were
hungry or thirsty or something instead and just used 'surprised' as a
random verb? That phrasing is really intended to demonstrate your
understanding that whether or not Range Safety trips the FTS, the same
amount of exploding burning stuff lands on the pad rather than what it
does say?

"before" just means "before". It doesn't mean "to prevent it from". If
I'd meant the latter, I'd have said the latter, and you have no
reasonable grounds for thinking otherwise.

The behaviour of the explosion differs depending on whether it occurs
substantially away from the ground, or adjacent to it, because in the
latter case the ground prevents the gasses from expanding downwards. One
of these scenarios is presumably safer than the other.

Sylvia.

On 1/11/2014 9:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 1/11/2014 6:55 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 31/10/2014 4:08 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Apparently not, since you expressed surprise that range safety didn't
'destroy it' to prevent pad damage.

No I didn't. If you're going to patronise, at least try to read properly
first.


I note you've 'cleverly' removed your prior remarks. Let me quote you
and ask about your intent in one of the statements by you that you
have so 'cleverly' removed.

So you're now claiming that your statement "I was a bit surprised that
the range safety officer didn't destroy it before it landed back on
the pad." doesn't mean you were a bit surprised at all, but you were
hungry or thirsty or something instead and just used 'surprised' as a
random verb? That phrasing is really intended to demonstrate your
understanding that whether or not Range Safety trips the FTS, the same
amount of exploding burning stuff lands on the pad rather than what it
does say?

"before" just means "before". It doesn't mean "to prevent it from". If
I'd meant the latter, I'd have said the latter, and you have no
reasonable grounds for thinking otherwise.


But you then went into stories about pad damage and shrapnel, as if
Range Safety firing the FTS would have prevented that.

You do like putting words into people's mouths. I didn't mention pad
damage.

My shrapnel point is valid because the direction of the blast hitting
the tower would have been different.


Wriggle, wriggle, Little Sylvie...


The behaviour of the explosion differs depending on whether it occurs
substantially away from the ground, or adjacent to it, because in the
latter case the ground prevents the gasses from expanding downwards. One
of these scenarios is presumably safer than the other.


Well, you COULD presumably blow it up during ascent, but that would
seem to mitigate against ever having a successful launch. Do you have
ANY idea how Range Safety works?


There was a significant period from when the craft was obviously
irretrievably damaged, to when it hit the pad. The Range Safety officer
had time to trigger destruction.

Sylvia.

In article ,
ess says...
Well, you COULD presumably blow it up during ascent, but that would
seem to mitigate against ever having a successful launch. Do you have
ANY idea how Range Safety works?


There was a significant period from when the craft was obviously
irretrievably damaged, to when it hit the pad. The Range Safety officer
had time to trigger destruction.


Please! You have the benefit of repeatedly reviewing the videos from
many different angles while engaging in this sort of rampant
speculation. This is called "hindsight", and it's really not useful in
this case where the range safety officer gave the vehicle several
seconds before hitting the "destruct button".

Why those several seconds before actually pressing the button? You
would have to directly ask the person who pressed the button. Are those
several seconds consistent with the rules that a range safety officer
must follow? You'd have to read all the rules and interview the
instructors and officers who are in charge of the range safety officers.

I'm sure that all of this this will be part of the investigation, but it
will be such a minor part, I doubt we'll hear about it in the press or
even on the online space news websites.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Vaughn wrote:
Naturally we will leave the final determination of the fault to the
experts.

In the meantime... The initial explosion seemed to be at the base
of the first stage, which is right where you would expect it to be
if a main engine suffered a catastrophic failure like the one that
disassembled itself on the test stand.

I'll bet tonight there aren't too many folks at Orbital who are
thinking that using those bargain-basement surplus Russian moon
engines was a great idea.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11...bop ump_fail/

makes it sound like they are indeed ready to dump the surplus Russian
engines.

rick jones
--
the road to hell is paved with business decisions...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

In article ,
says...

Vaughn wrote:
Naturally we will leave the final determination of the fault to the
experts.

In the meantime... The initial explosion seemed to be at the base
of the first stage, which is right where you would expect it to be
if a main engine suffered a catastrophic failure like the one that
disassembled itself on the test stand.

I'll bet tonight there aren't too many folks at Orbital who are
thinking that using those bargain-basement surplus Russian moon
engines was a great idea.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11...bop ump_fail/

"preliminary analysis of the telemetry from its failed launch in
late October suggests that a turbo-pump probably failed in one of
the two first-stage main engines"

makes it sound like they are indeed ready to dump the surplus Russian
engines.

That would seem to be the prudent course of action. Although it will be
quite embarrassing if Orbital chooses to launch its next Cygnus on a
Falcon 9. The Falcon 9's payload fairing is big enough and the payload
capacity is sufficient.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer