Updates Orbital Sciences' Cygnus CRS Flight 1 through Flight 8 updates.

[Evil_Onyx]

I take it the impact point was just past the flame trench. I would be worried about the equipment next to the trench would be the most damaged.

The pressure tanks are one of the things that I would expect to be most likely to survive, as they are not meant to fly they are probably made of thick steel.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

The pressure tanks are one of the things that I would expect to be most likely to survive, as they are not meant to fly they are probably made of thick steel.

There is a difference between "surviving" and being safe for continued operation. These tanks should be stamped ASME pressure vessels, and so at very least they would need documented inspections, repairs, and testing before they were returned to service. The prudent (and possibly the cheapest) thing to do would be to replace them. In the big scheme of things new tanks are probably one of the smaller costs.

If the civil works (steel and concrete) is more or less intact, they may be ready to launch when Cygnus is ready.

 

[RGClark]

Yeah, the O2 turbopump would be my bet too. It appeared to my eye that the 'explosion' was in a lateral plane as if the impeller flew apart, and then the flame got fuel rich.
Hopefully they have enough wreckage to identify a root cause. Had this happened a few seconds later the bulk of the debris would have fallen offshore which would have complicated the investigation significantly, even if the water wasn't very deep. As it is they will have to comb the launch site for any little piece of metal, not an easy task.

Anyone know what was the cause of the engine failure on the test stand back in May?

Bob Clark

 

[boogabooga]

There is a difference between "surviving" and being safe for continued operation. These tanks should be stamped ASME pressure vessels, and so at very least they would need documented inspections, repairs, and testing before they were returned to service. The prudent (and possibly the cheapest) thing to do would be to replace them. In the big scheme of things new tanks are probably one of the smaller costs.

If the civil works (steel and concrete) is more or less intact, they may be ready to launch when Cygnus is ready.

Orbital has a contract for these flights in the BILLIONS of dollars range. I'm sure that they can splurge on some new pressure tanks.

 

[Andy44]

I'm more surprised the tall spindly tower didn't fall over.

 

[RisingFury]

Orbital has a contract for these flights in the BILLIONS of dollars range. I'm sure that they can splurge on some new pressure tanks.

Trust in Orbital might start eroding. They lost 3 significant payloads in the last few years.

 

[Hielor]

I'm more surprised the tall spindly tower didn't fall over.

Tall and spindly means it has less surface area facing the blast and therefore experiences less force from it, maybe?

 

[tl8]

Tall and spindly means it has less surface area facing the blast and therefore experiences less force from it, maybe?

Correct, the TEL is probably ok structurally, though if they have a spare, they will likely replace it.

All the mating connectors will have to be replaced, but they would likely have spares of those as they may be damaged during a successful launch.

 

[Urwumpe]

Trust in Orbital might start eroding. They lost 3 significant payloads in the last few years.

Which other two significant? I only remember OCO and Glory, which had a higher scientific value than actual NASA value... both satellites and Taurus-C launchers did only cost 270 Million USD.

 

[MikeB]

Trust in Orbital might start eroding. They lost 3 significant payloads in the last few years.

Trust is quantifiable. That's what insurance companies do. Does anyone have any sources for insurance coverage/rates for the various launch companies/countries/vehicles?

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

Which other two significant? I only remember OCO and Glory, which had a higher scientific value than actual NASA value... both satellites and Taurus-C launchers did only cost 270 Million USD.

I think he is indeed saying about them. But I don't think there was an erosion in the confidence on NASA's side - they changed the launcher for OCO-2 because they were not sure about whether the root cause of the two fairing separation failure cases were found. And while CRS missions carries relatively lower cost payloads, the contracts are still in the billions of dollars....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other news, given that this explosion was probably the first one to happen within the eyes of spectators in the US since....1998 (Titan IV) and there weren't similar accidents for European and Japanese rockets recently either, I wonder if this will went down as the "Kaputnik" of the post-millennium period? :shifty: (especially as it was filmed in HD from many angles and attracted lots of FB/Twitter/..... users watching it live from Wallops, unlike similar accidents in Baikonur/Plesetsk/India etc.)

 

[RisingFury]

Which other two significant? I only remember OCO and Glory, which had a higher scientific value than actual NASA value... both satellites and Taurus-C launchers did only cost 270 Million USD.

OCO, Glory and Cygnus. I'd call these three quite significant.

But I don't think there was an erosion in the confidence on NASA's side - they changed the launcher for OCO-2 because they were not sure about whether the root cause of the two fairing separation failure cases were found.

NASA is no longer confident in Taurus, so they changed the launcher - those are exactly the trust issues I'm talking about.

And while CRS missions carries relatively lower cost payloads, the contracts are still in the billions of dollars....

The value of the CRS mission is not just the payload, but being able to execute it. This isn't just some chuck-wagon cubesat that you toss into some orbit and forget about it.

In other news, given that this explosion was probably the first one to happen within the eyes of spectators in the US since....1998 (Titan IV) and there weren't similar accidents for European and Japanese rockets recently either, I wonder if this will went down as the "Kaputnik" of the post-millennium period? :shifty: (especially as it was filmed in HD from many angles and attracted lots of FB/Twitter/..... users watching it live from Wallops, unlike similar accidents in Baikonur/Plesetsk/India etc.)

Yea, we're not used to seeing rockets explode on the pad anymore. There was that spectacular Russian failure, but this one was a real case of the fireworks :lol:

I don't think it'll bring down Orbital, though. The company is much larger than launch vehicles. I'd imagine that at this stage, a Falcon 9 failure would affect SpaceX much more profoundly than this Antares failure will affect Orbital. They need to get on top of their game, though. They can't afford many more slip-ups...

 

[Frilock]

The flight controllers were playing KSP again.

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

The accident investigation board has been established and has started working:

Update – November 3, 2014

Over the weekend, Orbital confirmed the participation of the following individuals who will serve on the Antares launch failure Accident Investigation Board (AIB), which is being led by Orbital under the oversight of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The composition of the AIB is as follows:

Chairman

David Steffy, Chief Engineer of Orbital’s Advanced Programs Group

Members

• David Swanson, Senior Director of Safety and Mission Assurance for Orbital’s Technical Operations organization
• Wayne Hale, Independent Consultant and Former NASA Space Shuttle Program Manager
• David Cooper, Member of Orbital’s Independent Readiness Review Team for the company’s Launch Systems Group
• Eric Wood, Director of Propulsion Engineering for Orbital’s Launch Systems Group
• Tom Costello, Launch Vehicle Assessment Manager in the International Space Station Program at NASA’s Johnson Space Center
• Matt Lacey, Senior Vehicle Systems Engineer for NASA’s Launch Services Program

FAA Oversight Team

• Michael S. Kelly, Chief Engineer, FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation
• Marcus Ward, Mishap Response Coordinator, FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation

Antares Data Review

The AIB is initially focused on developing a “fault tree” and a timeline of the important events during the launch sequence. Due to the large amount of data available, the AIB is able to work with a rich source of information about the launch. One of the initial tasks for the AIB is to reconcile the data from multiple sources, a process that is now underway, to help create the launch sequence timeline.

Launch Site Status

Over the weekend, Orbital’s Wallops-based Antares personnel continued to identify, catalogue, secure and geolocate debris found at the launch site in order to preserve physical evidence and provide a record of the launch site following the mishap that will be useful for the AIB’s analysis and determination of what caused the Antares launch failure. The debris is being taken to a NASA facility on Wallops Island for secure and weather resistant storage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must say that the inclusion of Mr. Hale in the AIB really boosts my confidence in the AIB clearing Antares of its problems! His excellent oversight and long experience in the Space Shuttle Program will surely find its use here. :thumbup:

 

[IronRain]

Nasa Spaceflight: Post mortem for CRS-3 Antares notes turbopump failure

Engineers are methodically working through stacks of data related to last week’s failure of the CRS-3/OrB-3 Antares launch vehicle. Orbital managers have noted that early data points to the failure of a turbopump on one of Antares’ AJ-26 engines as the leading reason the rocket failed just seconds after launch. The company are now working towards “upgrading” the propulsion system with a new engine, ready for 2016.

A switch to the RD-193 now appears to be favored – although Orbital do not wish to confirm the engine at this time. The new engine will debut on the Antares in 2016. In the meantime, one or two launches of Cygnus will take place on a different launch vehicle, possibly the Ariane 5, or even the Falcon 9 – among other options.

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

Nasa Spaceflight: Post mortem for CRS-3 Antares notes turbopump failure

I was shocked at this announcement. Apparently they are talking with 2 US launch service providers and 1 in Europe......sounds like ULA, SpaceX and Arianespace to me. Hmm.......:hmm:

 

[C3PO]

Wow! I didn't expect such a statement this early. I wonder if they'd move this quickly if the engines weren't Russian.

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

Wow! I didn't expect such a statement this early. I wonder if they'd move this quickly if the engines weren't Russian.

I doubt that considering that the rumored new engine for "Antares II" that was already in consideration for the CRS-2 contract is from Russia - apparently something derived from the RD-180/RD-191 engines for Atlas V/Angara..... :shifty:

 

[Kyle]

Hmm, I wonder how soon we'll see Cygnus fly on a Falcon 9/Atlas/Delta/Ariane. Cygnus CRS Orb-4 was scheduled for April 2015 before the accident.

 

[Urwumpe]

Hmm, I wonder how soon we'll see Cygnus fly on a Falcon 9/Atlas/Delta/Ariane. Cygnus CRS Orb-4 was scheduled for April 2015 before the accident.

Not impossible... but why?