|
Author
|
Topic: [Discuss] Orbital's Cygus Orb-3 flight (mishap)
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-28-2014 05:30 PM
   
Editor's note: To keep the topic Orbital Sciences Antares-Cygus Orb-3 CRS flight focused on status updates, feedback and opinions are directed to this thread. Please use this topic to discuss the inflight loss of Orbital Sciences' Antares-Cygnus Commercial Resupply Services-3 flight. |
Headshot
Member Posts: 864
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 10-28-2014 05:31 PM
The Antares vehicle was destroyed in an explosion about six seconds after launch. There has been damage to the Wallops Island facility too. |
Headshot
Member Posts: 864
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 10-28-2014 05:38 PM
To me, the Antares vehicle seemed to lose acceleration after it left the pad until it slowed to a stop and then fell back a bit before an explosion consumed the vehicle.Did anyone else watch the launch? |
nasamad
Member Posts: 2121
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 10-28-2014 05:39 PM
Yeah, watched it live on NASA TV, looked to me like there was an engine failure or something at its peak before it dropped back onto the launch pad. Gutted for the crew who worked so hard. |
Apollo14LMP
Member Posts: 291
From: UK
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 10-28-2014 05:44 PM
Glad no one was hurt. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 10-28-2014 05:45 PM
Very unfortunate as it appears the Antares launch pad was destroyed. Thank goodness NASA has SpaceX as a backup for ISS resupply. |
mikej
Member Posts: 481
From: Germantown, WI USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 10-28-2014 05:53 PM
The only place I've found that's reporting the launch failure at this time is NBC News, which has NASA TV footage.After the Antares settles back down on the pad and explodes, I imagine that it's the solid propellant from the second stage that's the cause of the "fireworks." |
alanh_7
Member Posts: 1252
From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 10-28-2014 05:54 PM
NASA TV cut away for a long shot but the rocket seemed to lift slowly and then their seemed to be a brighter than usual glow just as the camera cut to the long shot and then it blew. |
GACspaceguy
Member Posts: 2476
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 10-28-2014 05:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by nasamad:
...looked to me like there was an engine failure or something.
We were watching live as well and it sure looked like an engine type failure. |
Headshot
Member Posts: 864
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 10-28-2014 05:59 PM
There was a "call" or something just as the Antares stopped climbing, but I could not understand what was said, nor do I know who said it.I have not yet seen any reruns of the launch. Has any media outlet posted the launch online? |
mikej
Member Posts: 481
From: Germantown, WI USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 10-28-2014 06:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Headshot:
There was a "call" or something just as the Antares stopped climbing, but I could not understand what was said, nor do I know who said it.
"Engines at 108%". |
hoorenz
Member Posts: 1031
From: The Netherlands
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 10-28-2014 06:08 PM
Space Multimedia has video. |
dom
Member Posts: 855
From:
Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted 10-28-2014 06:13 PM
Looks like one of those refurbished Russian NK-33 engines exploded? The curse of the N1 moon rocket is alive and well... |
Headshot
Member Posts: 864
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 10-28-2014 06:19 PM
The call was right after the 108% remark, just as the explosion began, and I thought I heard the word "starboard." |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 10-28-2014 06:42 PM
What is range safety's role in an accident like this? From viewing the video, it appears the Antares was allowed to fall back onto the pad and explode on its own, instead of being purposely destroyed while still in the air. (There were several seconds between the first sign of failure and the rocket returning to the pad.) Is this done to minimize the horizontal spread of burning debris over the pad area? Does range safety only detonate rockets after they have performed a roll and pitch maneuver (and they are no longer directly over the launch pad)? |
p51
Member Posts: 1642
From: Olympia, WA
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted 10-28-2014 06:52 PM
RSO wouldn't need to blow it up if it doesn't pose a safety risk to anyone. It's not like there's anyone at the pad to be harmed by it falling right back there. I'd say as far as the RSO is concerned, this was the best type of destruction of the vehicle possible; one that only damages the pad. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 10-28-2014 07:02 PM
I was wondering if an explosion in the air would cause less overall damage than an explosion on the ground. The force of the explosion would do less damage while in the air... but there is the possibility that burning debris could be spread a greater distance from the pad.I would also argue that an explosion over water, with the vehicle falling safely into the ocean is probably the "best" type of destruction, since it leaves the pad undamaged. But that was obviously not an option here. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-28-2014 07:07 PM
From internal video feeds here at Wallops, we can see that the erector, water tower and other pad structures are still standing. It appears that the rocket did not fall directly back onto the pad, but was already somewhat downrange and fell closer to the water. |
COR482932
Member Posts: 212
From: Cork, Ireland
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted 10-28-2014 07:33 PM
Really got to feel for the Orbital team. You could hear the disappointment in their voices.Luckily, no one was hurt and everyone is accounted for. |
jasonelam
Member Posts: 691
From: Monticello, KY USA
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 10-28-2014 08:09 PM
Glad to hear there were no casualties, but that was unreal. I watched the video, and I noticed the launch was a little slower than the previous launches. It looked almost as if the issues started at liftoff and progressed rapidly until the initial explosion. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-28-2014 08:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jasonelam:
I watched the video, and I noticed the launch was a little slower than the previous launches.
Orbital had said prior to flight to expect a slower ascent as a result of the larger Castor 30XL second stage solid rocket motor. This Antares was taller and heavier than the four previously launched. |
mikej
Member Posts: 481
From: Germantown, WI USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 10-28-2014 08:59 PM
Was watching part of press conference and a reporter's question raises another question:Since this is a commerical supply mission, at what point does NASA (the taxpayers) pay for the flight? Do we pay up front (and assume the risk of a failure such as this) or do we only pay when the payload is actually delivered? |
Headshot
Member Posts: 864
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 10-28-2014 09:13 PM
Great question. I assume that Orbital and NASA had some sort of insurance, but whether or not it covered everything will probably depend on the results of the accident investigation. |
Dave_Johnson
Member Posts: 106
From:
Registered: Feb 2014
|
posted 10-28-2014 09:35 PM
SpaceNews tweeted a video that a private pilot posted on YouTube of the failure from 3000 feet: |
Ronpur
Member Posts: 1211
From: Brandon, Fl
Registered: May 2012
|
posted 10-28-2014 11:29 PM
Wow, that looked like a super nova! Thanks to Robert in the news conference asking the question I wanted to know. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-29-2014 02:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by mikej:
...at what point does NASA (the taxpayers) pay for the flight?
I believe, but may be mistaken, that the payments are broken into installments based on milestones, with the final payment being made on mission complete. |
SpaceAngel
Member Posts: 307
From: Maryland
Registered: May 2010
|
posted 10-29-2014 05:01 AM
What are there odds of some of the supplies for the ISS might survived the explosion? |
COR482932
Member Posts: 212
From: Cork, Ireland
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted 10-29-2014 05:37 AM
I think the general attitude that I got from the press conference was that everything can be assumed to have been destroyed. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-29-2014 07:24 AM
The Cygnus was sitting directly atop the Castor 30XL solid rocket motor, which is what we saw explode into that tremendous fireball when the rocket hit the ground. Most of the Cygnus cargo was soft goods and small hardware. I suspect fragments are all that remain. |
dabolton
Member Posts: 419
From: Seneca, IL, US
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 10-29-2014 08:52 AM
Is this the first American post-pad explosion since the flurry before Alan Shepard flew on Freedom 7? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-29-2014 09:00 AM
Do you mean the rocket settling back/falling back onto the pad and then exploding? |
Headshot
Member Posts: 864
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 10-29-2014 09:07 AM
On 2 March 1965 Atlas-Centaur LV-3C severely damaged Pad 36A. The fully-fueled vehicle exploded when it crashed back into the launch pad after a two-second flight. It was supposed to send a Surveyor dynamic test spacecraft into orbit. A valve had failed and cut off fuel to two of the Atlas' engines. |
dabolton
Member Posts: 419
From: Seneca, IL, US
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 10-29-2014 09:22 AM
Yes Robert. I was thinking before any significant altitude gain/pad strike. |
Michael Davis
Member Posts: 528
From: Houston, Texas
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 10-29-2014 09:25 AM
In the words of Alan Shepard: I sure hope they fix that. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 10-29-2014 09:37 AM
Any particular reason why the word "mishap" is used in the thread's title as opposed to failure? |
dabolton
Member Posts: 419
From: Seneca, IL, US
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 10-29-2014 09:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Headshot:
On 2 March 1965 Atlas-Centaur LV-3C severely damaged Pad 36A.
I found this one. Quite spectacular. |
Cozmosis22
Member Posts: 968
From: Texas * Earth
Registered: Apr 2011
|
posted 10-29-2014 09:49 AM
Apparently there were also some small satellites onboard; well, at least one built by students at the University of Texas. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-29-2014 10:07 AM
There were some 30 nanosatellites aboard, including Planet Labs' next "Flock" of 26 Earth observation cubesats, Planetary Resources' Arkyd-3, and the aforementioned NASA RACE (Radiometer Atmospheric CubeSat Experiment) built with the University of Texas at Austin. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-29-2014 10:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
Any particular reason why the word "mishap" is used in the thread's title as opposed to failure?
No particular reason; it was just the word being used in discussion at the time I was creating the thread. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 10-29-2014 10:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Thank goodness NASA has SpaceX as a backup for ISS resupply.
And the Russians launched Progress M-25M today... |
advertisement