- \n
- LIVE ORB-3 FAILURE UPDATES<\/li>\n
- Orbital Forum Section<\/li>\n
- L2 Antares\/Cygnus Special<\/li>\n
- Click here to Join L2<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The rocket made a nominal ascent off the pad, as Antares conducted her designed \u201cBaumgartner Maneuver\u201d \u2013 a subtle sideways step to ease the vehicle away from the close proximity of the Transporter\/Erector\/Launcher (TEL) \u2013 and ascended into the night sky.<\/p>\n
Once clear of the pad, the first sign of trouble was a distinct change to the appearance of the plume generated by her AJ-26 engines at T+14 seconds \u2013 suggesting oxidizer starvation in at least one engine \u2013 prior to the aft of the vehicle exploding a second later.<\/p>\n
![\"Antares-ORB-3-A\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/11\/Antares-ORB-3-A.gif\")
Additional videos of varying quality showed a \u201cghost image\u201d or visual artifact on the footage, which may provide extra insight into what transpired.<\/p>\nAn enhanced and cropped view, as seen in this .gif, was created on L2. This imagery was subsequently requested \u2013 and handed over \u2013 to Orbital managers to be used in their investigation.<\/p>\n
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});<\/p>\n
The next event was sadly obvious, as propulsion was lost and the vehicle fell in flames, exploding near the pad from where she had just departed.<\/p>\n
The Flight Termination System (FTS) was activated just moments prior to the vehicle impacting the ground.<\/p>\n
It is understood the FTS command was successfully sent via the Range Safety system that employs fully steerable antennas, which track the rocket, as well as omni antennas which radiate in all directions. This ensures the rocket receives the command.<\/p>\n
![\"2014-11-05](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/11\/2014-11-05-12_24_05-Antares-Launch-Failure-YouTube-350x235.jpg\")
This command results in the puncturing of the tank domes on the first stage and the motor dome on the second stage, causing the depressurization on each stage and rendering the vehicle non-propulsive.<\/p>\nThe root cause is being worked by the Antares launch failure Accident Investigation Board (AIB), which is being led by Orbital under the oversight of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The board includes former Space Shuttle Program manager Wayne Hale and other industry experts.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Investigation Board (AIB) is making good progress in determining the primary cause of last week\u2019s failure. A preliminary review of telemetry and video data has been conducted and substantial debris from the Antares rocket and its Cygnus payload has been collected and examined,\u201d noted Orbital on Wednesday.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile the work of the AIB continues, preliminary evidence and analysis conducted to date points to a probable turbopump-related failure in one of the two Aerojet Rocketdyne AJ26 stage one main engines. As a result, the use of these engines for the Antares vehicle likely will be discontinued.\u201d<\/p>\n
It was later noted that the AJ-26 could still be used if they were proven to be completely flight-worthy.<\/p>\n
The Engines:<\/p>\n
Clearly, a failure of this type was always going to place focus on the AJ-26 engines, although the investigation has also been looking at all first stage propulsion items, such as the feedlines that supply the AJ-26\u2019s with their lifeblood.<\/p>\n
![\"Z4\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/Z46.jpg\")
The AJ-26-22 main engine is a rebuilt version of Soviet NK-33, originally intended for the massive Soviet N-1 launch vehicle. The engine is fed with a LOX\/RP combination, producing 3,265kN of thrust at Sea Level.<\/p>\nAround 40 of these engines were purchased by American company Aerojet in the mid-1990s, before refurbishing and modifying the engines under contract with Orbital. In total, 200 NK-33 engines were built and 575 engine tests conducted, totalling more than 100,000 seconds of test time.<\/p>\n
Additional media focus on the engines is likely related to a couple of undesirable events on the test stand.<\/p>\n
A previous failure of an AJ-26 occurred in June, 2011 \u2013 when the fourth Antares engine caught fire on the E-1 Test Stand. The fire was believed to have been caused by a kerosene fuel leak in an engine manifold, with the root cause was subsequently determined to be stress corrosion cracking of the 40-year old metal.<\/p>\n
Additional information acquired via L2
![\"Z3\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/05\/Z33.jpg\")
adds that the first Stennis failure occurred in the highest pressure part of the fuel system just downstream of the turbopump. The pump over-sped and the chamber was starved of coolant in the ~170ms between the event and shutdown.<\/p>\nThe most recent failure occured in May of this year, when an AJ-26 \u2013 set to fly on a future Antares mission \u2013 failed on the Stennis test stand mid-way through its burn.<\/p>\n
Orbital conducted a complete review of the failure and deemed the current engine stock as safe to use.<\/p>\n
The company never released any specific information into the test stand failure, although a turbopump was also believed to be the root cause.<\/p>\n
Orbital has been looking to change the engines for the first stage of their Antares rocket for some time, with evaluations into a range of RD- engines ongoing, at least since August when the company was believed to be looking at the RD-181 (L2). <\/p>\n
A switch to the RD-193 now appears to be favored \u2013 although Orbital officials 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 Falcon 9 \u2013 among other options.<\/p>\n
Orbital management noted they are talking to three launch providers, two in the US and one in Europe. There are 15 configurations of the vehicles they are in discussion with, for Cygnus launches next year.<\/p>\n
\u201cOrbital plans an early introduction of its previously selected Antares propulsion system upgrade in 2016,\u201d added the company. \u201cThis will be preceded by one or two non-Antares launches of the company\u2019s Cygnus cargo spacecraft to the ISS in 2015-2016, employing the spacecraft\u2019s compatibility with various launch vehicles and its flexibility to accommodate heavier cargo loads as launcher capacity permits.\u201d<\/p>\n
Damage to the Pad:<\/p>\n
Although the TV coverage of the failure showed a large explosion and multiple fires at the pad complex, the critical hardware appears to have endured the unscheduled return of Antares relatively well.<\/p>\n
![\"2014-11-05](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/11\/2014-11-05-12_05_58-Aerial-Survey-of-Mid-Atlantic-Regional-Spaceport-_-Flickr-Photo-Sharing-350x232.jpg\")
A photo taken of the impact site \u2013 after most of the critical Antares hardware had been removed \u2013 showed most of the infrastructure to be intact.<\/p>\nAlthough a lot of work will be required to bring the pad back up to launch operations, it is unlikely to be the main schedule driver for any hopeful return of Antares to the pad.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe overall findings indicate the major elements of the launch complex infrastructure, such as the pad and fuel tanks, avoided serious damage, although some repairs will be necessary,\u201d noted Orbital after an initial assessment.<\/p>\n
![\"2014-11-05](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/11\/2014-11-05-12_10_53-Antares-Pad-failure-Google-Search-350x226.jpg\")
\u201cAfter up close visual inspections by the safety team, it still appears the launch site itself avoided major damage. There is some evidence of damage to piping that runs between the fuel and commodity storage vessels and the launch mount, but no evidence of significant damage to either the storage vessels or launch mount.\u201d<\/p>\nSome rocket hardware remains at the site, which is being collected and sent for secure storage at Wallops for the investigation team to take a closer look.<\/p>\n
\u201cBased on initial sweeps conducted by an Orbital safety team, it appears a significant amount of debris remains on the site and it is likely substantial hardware evidence will be available to aid in determining root cause of the Antares launch failure,\u201d added Orbital.<\/p>\n
\u201cSome of the Cygnus cargo has also been found and will be retrieved as soon as we have clearance to do so to see if any survived intact.\u201d<\/p>\n
Antares Return:<\/p>\n
With Cygnus now expected to ride on an different launch vehicle next year, her return to an upgraded Antares won\u2019t be until 2016.<\/p>\n
The immediate requirements of Orbital\u2019s CRS obligations resulted in the development of a comprehensive plan to maintain the cargo supply line between Earth and the International Space Station, fulfilling Orbital\u2019s commitment to NASA for the delivery of supplies.<\/p>\n
![\"Z3A\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/02\/Z3A.jpg\")
The CRS-3 Cygnus was carrying 2,215 kilograms (4,883 lb) of cargo \u2013 with an additional 81 kilograms (179 lb) of packaging.<\/p>\nThis cargo included 727 kilograms (1600 lb) of scientific equipment and 748 kilograms (1650 lb) of food and supplies for the crew. Around 637 kilograms (1400 lb) of the mass was spares and hardware for the station; mostly for the US segment but including around 30 kilograms (66 lb) for Japan\u2019s modules.<\/p>\n
A further 66 kilograms (146 lb) of hardware was being carried for the astronauts\u2019 EVA equipment. The remaining 37 kilograms (82 lb) of cargo was computer equipment.<\/p>\n
\u201cOrbital is taking decisive action to fulfill our commitments to NASA in support of safe and productive operations of the Space Station. While last week\u2019s Antares failure was very disappointing to all of us, the company is already implementing a contingency plan to overcome this setback,\u201d noted Mr. David W. Thompson, Orbital\u2019s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe intend to move forward safely but also expeditiously to put our CRS cargo program back on track and to accelerate the introduction of our upgraded Antares rocket.\u201d<\/p>\n
On the NASA side, work to change some of SpaceX\u2019s SpX-5\/CRS-5 Dragon cargo \u2013 which is deemed as time-sensitive for the Station \u2013 is also being evaluated.<\/p>\n
The changes may impact on the December 9 launch date for Dragon\u2019s ride on the Falcon 9 v1.1 \u2013 however, schedule information shows no change to NET (No Earlier Than) target at this time.<\/p>\n
(Images: via L2\u2019s Antares\/Cygnus Section \u2013 Containing presentations, videos, a vast set of unreleased hi-res images, interactive high level updates and more, with additional images via Orbital and NASA).<\/p>\n
(Click here: http:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/l2\/ \u2013 to view how you can support NSF and access the best space flight content on the entire internet).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Engineers are methodically working through stacks of data related to last week\u2019s 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\u2019 AJ-26 engines as the leading reason the rocket failed just seconds after launch. The company are now working towards […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":30006,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[1871,2304,7577,4255],"class_list":["post-39466","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-antares","tag-crs","tag-orbital","tag-wallops"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39466"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39466"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39466\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/30006"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}