A supply rocket carrying cargo and experiments to the ISS exploded shortly after liftoff. NASA and Orbital Sciences (the company operating the rocket) have not released any information about what may have caused the incident, pending further investigation.
The mission was unmanned, and all personnel are safe and accounted for. The extent of the damage to the launch facility has not yet been determined.
Phil Plait, author of the Bad Astronomy blog speculates that the 60s-70s era refurbished Russian engines the vehicle used will come under heavy scrutiny.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
ISS Resupply Rocket Explodes Shortly after Launch
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 37 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday October 29 2014, @11:15AM
That's an expensive setback for space exploration and a real shame... but it sure was pretty.
(Score: 1) by Ryan on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:41PM
Hey, no injuries. What more can we ask for?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Kilo110 on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:47PM
A successful launch?
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:30PM
Propellant that blows up green or blue.
Michael Bay is probably working on it already.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cmn32480 on Wednesday October 29 2014, @11:55AM
The next question is where does this leave Orbital Sciences? Will they get another shot at it, or will the entire contract now go to SpaceX?
If the refurb engines are to blame, will they be able to redesign quickly enough to stay in it? Does this become a one corporation show for American resupply to the ISS?
Are there even any new rocket designs or are we recycling old stuff from the "golden Age of Space Exploration"? Is there even anybody left that was part of the design teams in the 50's and 60's that remembers how the darn things worked?
I guess I'm long on questions and don't know enough to have an informed opinion on the answers, not that it usually stops me.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 5, Informative) by VLM on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:30PM
Are there even any new rocket designs or are we recycling old stuff from the "golden Age of Space Exploration"?
From a non-technical non-mechanic non-engineer point of view, cars have either not changed since the 50s or are unimaginably different. So your question has no real answer, or rephrased you can pick an answer and get plenty of anecdotal evidence.
From being a space fan since before the shuttle (barely), engine chamber pressures never went above 1000 psi pre-SSME and post-SSME its still unusual but hardly the brick wall it once was. Another interesting aspect of the SSME program was it basically pushed technology to and beyond the limits at the time, which was highly unusual. maybe a first. Ever since the V-2 simplicity and reliability were the key metrics while the SSME was a pure performance hot rod, never really been tried as a dev strategy before for engines. Unsurprisingly it was an expensive PITA that took decades to optimize. Its still a hell of a hot rod engine today, just turns out that "commuter cars" don't want or need hot rod engines. Although the R+D done for the hot rod is slightly useful for the commuter car engine.
Materials sciences have improved. Basic metallurgy with alloys like Li-Al that were not out of the lab until at least the 80s (at least not in public, anyway) and composites and adhesive tech (again, what went on in area 51 with the F117 and stuff that's still classified doesn't really matter).
Machining technology has gone thru a bit of a revolution. I would imagine some poor SOB made each turbopump impeller by hand on a manual milling machine in the 60s. Now you just download gcode from the CAM program and the machining center roars for a couple hours and assuming no misteaks, magically a pump impeller appears.
This kind of stuff is where general public quotes like "we couldn't build a Saturn 5 F1 main engine today, even if we wanted to". Its Exactly like telling a 2014 combine harvester factory to churn out a couple horse powered threshing machines. They'll be all like "WTF we don't even have woodworking tools in this factory anymore, and todays crop of engineers have no idea how to design horse powered machinery". It would be a hell of a lot cheaper to build a modern engine than to redevelop all the antique tools and techniques to make a F1. Here's another example... believe it or not, technology was so crude in the 60s that the best way to make lunar lander crew cabin parts as light was possible was chemically etching sheets of metal. Holy F. Now a days you'd make something out of a composite thats lighter and stronger and stiffer and cheaper. So yeah we can't make a 1969 model lunar lander, but why you'd want to is a mystery when even a half ass attempt at a 2014 lander would outperform it and be safer and be more reliable and be cheaper.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:10PM
You would be surprised how far back machining automation goes. In the 1800's they used mechanical automation using cams, gers, chains and belts. Here is a chain making machine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q18V5oq5b-g [youtube.com]. That design is easily a hundred years old, perhaps even older. I remember seeing one on how its made and it is awesome to see nothing but a spinning shaft will all sorts of cams gears and chains all timed together to orchestrate the simple operation of making chain. This was done for many other operations including turning(lathe) and milling. I grew up in a machine shop and my grandfather was a master tool and die maker who did a lot of press work and my father ran a machine shop with 5 CNC centers (3 turning, 2 vertical mill). Both businesses under the same roof. My grandfather always disliked CNC as it was his belief that the precision and repeatability was less than that of a proper mechanical cam programmed machining center. He came from a time when machine programs were a bunch of cams and gears hung on the wall in groups according to the job.
CNC started back in the 40's/50's too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_numerical_control#Earlier_forms_of_automation [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by WillAdams on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:14PM
I began a timeline for CNC when researching a presentation at the local library:
http://www.shapeoko.com/wiki/index.php/CNC_History [shapeoko.com]
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:14PM
You know I forgot that the loom was one of the first truly automated machines. Funny how the punch card lasted as long as it did in terms of a storage medium for programs.
I remember the old CNC machines we had had punch tape readers. My father would hand write the programs and send them out to be punched onto tape. We used to have a carousel in the main office with dozens of square plastic tubes each with a program tape inside. The tubes had a job name, number and manufacturer. Then by the late 80's he moved to all serial lines for DNC. He had a switch box in his office next to his PC that he could select one of four machines, two sharing a serial line since they were right next to eachother. Long serial cables ran to the shop floor from his desk and he could upload a program right from his desk. During that phase he moved to CAD/CAM.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mcgrew on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:45PM
I guess I'm not moderating in this thread, because I must point out that you're dead wrong about cars. You were apparently not alive in the 1950s and also know little about automotive technology.
In the 1950s, production automobiles had no seat belts, air bags, disk brakes, electronic ignition, or fuel injectors. There were no front wheel drive vehicles. Cars had a quarter or less the mileage, and usually lasted less than five years without falling apart. Windows had cranks rather than motors. Cars had no air conditioning. Their radios had vacuum tubes. There was no such thing as cruise control or remote locking and unlocking.
The fact is, little about today's cars is anything at all like a 1950s car. The rest of your comment was accurate, and it applies to cars as well as spacecraft.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:37PM
Yeah but those are all detail / tech / mechanic / under the hood / economic things. The right pedal is still the accelerator, the steering wheel does its thing, most cars still use physical keys, they burn gas from a gas pump, oil lube, anti-freeze cooled, two seats in front and two in back and a trunk behind that and an engine in the front. Mostly made out of good old steel. Radios are still the highest tech most complicated user interface in the car. They still leak weird fluids on your garage floor occasionally. Its not really all that different.
You do have a point with popularity of manual transmission. I have maybe 50 miles experience with a manual and that puts me ahead of maybe 95% of the driving population.
I could contrast cars with bigger UI changes... phones, computers, TVs and attached devices (cable boxes, video games, streaming boxes)... Conceptually a late 1950s dude introduced to a OTA TV could probably tune in channel 4 just like the old days, but good luck getting him set up with netflix and a streaming box, that would be entertaining to watch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 15 2014, @07:43PM
YL7IV3 xuupbzhabdnb [xuupbzhabdnb.com], [url=http://osklymnioeqy.com/]osklymnioeqy[/url], [link=http://afyhwxcmkyva.com/]afyhwxcmkyva[/link], http://ehmowilckfqc.com/ [ehmowilckfqc.com]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:00PM
Windows had cranks rather than motors. Cars had no air conditioning. Their radios had vacuum tubes. There was no such thing as cruise control or remote locking and unlocking.
Hey, I have a 2009 Corolla with only one of those things (A/C). (Okay, the radio probably doesn't have vacuum tubes either.)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by Darth Turbogeek on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:47PM
Just being a bit pedantic here - the Mini came out in 1959 and Citroen have had FWD since the at least the 30's. FWD was very much a thing in the 1950's,
Actually, the things that didn't exist in the 50's was computer powered EFI, and remote locking. The rest actually did, just not in say your average GM car - absolutely everything else did exist. What has happened is that all of the various tech has merged into one design. Point to something on a car that is not ECU controlled, I can almost certainly point to it's existence and even beginning to get into mainstream. So to be honest, you arent right.
Now if you said Body control computers, ECU's and the like, I'd agree. But the mechanicals? Not by a long shot.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Kymation on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:17PM
When I started on a new job back in 1975, I was shown the company's first CNC machine. It was being sold as scrap. The controlling "computer" was two racks full of relays and delay lines.
They had a whole row of newer CNC machines, most of them with DEC PDP controllers. Other than the electronics, they were pretty much indistinguishable from modern machines.
Oh, and turbopump impellers were not made by hand. Each impeller blade was individually manufactured and tested, then the pump assembled and tested. Three-quarters of the impeller blades failed the test. The margin of safety was zero. It took us forever to build a turbopump that didn't blow up during testing.
I should probably have mentioned that my new job was at Rocketdyne, where they were building the SSME. Or trying to; as I mentioned, they blew up a lot. I am still amazed that we didn't blow up any engines in a live shuttle launch.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by WillAdams on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:41PM
Actually, we've been studying all the old stuff and reaching a much better understanding: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/ [arstechnica.com]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:41PM
The technique with closed cycle rocket engine is very efficient but comes with some some hard engineering issues. America in the 1960s seemed to have conclude that this was "impossible" solve. But obviously the Russian engineers succeeded to make it work. So this rocket failure could be a problem with the implementation of this technique rather than the technique itself. So good luck next time.
The story behind the rocket engine NK-33 [wikipedia.org] and the staged combustion [wikipedia.org] technique is fascinating.
How is production of closed cycle rocket engines these days?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Leebert on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:22PM
When rockets blow up or payloads fail to be delivered, rocket companies don't necessarily go out of business. My expectation is that Orbital will continue to provide launches if they can conclusively determine what went wrong and implement a fix that is convincing.
As you note, it's not even certain yet that the NK-33 was at fault. If this were a Falcon 9, I think the general reaction would have been much more along the lines of: "Well, that's rocket science; new designs have flaws sometimes. They'll just have to fix it."
And also as you observed, it is in NASA's best interest to not be beholden to one contractor. As such, I fully expect that they will make every effort to get Orbital back on its feet. And, of course, there's more than just NASA and Orbital who are interested; the states of Virginia and Maryland have a good bit of investment at stake in the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport.
Anyway, the point being that I don't think it's all doom and gloom. An unfortunate setback? Yes. But not at all the end of the line for Orbital.
OBDisclaimer: NASA contractor with no specific knowledge of anything related to this incident.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:30PM
To your point. OS will probably 'be fine'.
Now if OS is a 'bet the farm' on every launch. Then yeah they have a big financial problem. If not then they will fix it and move on with a somewhat higher cost of running the show.
(Score: 4, Informative) by TK on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:38PM
Last night (9pm EST) there was a NASA interview panel answering questions from the press. This came up, and the short answer was that they plan for things like this, and they won't be cancelling the contract based on what they knew at that moment (very little). Unless the inspectors find evidence of gross negligence, of course.
Also keep in mind that this was the third resupply launch of eight through 2015. I'm not certain that SpaceX could move fast enough to cover the difference, and I am certain that I don't want them to. Hurrying causes mistakes: expensive mistakes.
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
(Score: 4, Interesting) by gman003 on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:18PM
OSC was already in the process of moving from warehoused Soviet NK-33s to American-made NK-33 clones, since Russia cut off their supply due to politics (Ukraine). If it was an engine design problem, they can fix it pretty cheaply at the same time. They can minimize political damage to the company by scapegoating Russia, and saying "this is why we're building American from now on!".
I don't think the entire contract will be dropped from them just from this. Things do go wrong from time to time. However, OSC is going to have a harder time getting future customers, because the insurance rates are going to go up (launch customers almost always insure their payload).
There are relatively few new engines that are flying.
The Russians have the RD-0124 flying on the new Soyuz. The Proton main engine was upgraded in the 90s. Other than that, they're just reusing old engines in new vehicles (including, surprisingly, a lot of Energia engines).
The Europeans are fairly new, with Ariane 5 using 90s-era engines. Same with Japan and India. They aren't doing anything really exotic, and they're mostly following the 70s-NASA school of design (solid boosters and LH2 engines).
As for America, I'll break it down by company:
Orbital Sciences uses literal leftovers. They've been turning Minuteman and Peacekeeper missiles into launch vehicles in the Minotaur series, and the Antares has already been discussed. Pegasus is technically new, but it only launches tiny satellites.
Lockheed Martin uses old engines, both Russian (the RD-180 is derived from the Energia's boosters) and American (the RL10 is from the Saturn I upper stage). They aren't really a bad design, but they are old.
Boeing uses a derivative of the Space Shuttle engines. It's heavily modified, but actually worse than the SSMEs because they focused on cost, not performance.
SpaceX does use a truly new design. The Merlin is a very by-the-book design, but they use modern manufacturing and design tools to make a very good by-the-book engine. Their specific impulse is unremarkable (and downright shoddy compared to the LH2/LOX rockets popular in America right now), but their thrust-to-weight ratio is first-class. Their next design, Raptor, is much more ambitious, and actually kind of revolutionary. It hasn't actually been built yet, but if they pull it off, it's gonna be amazing.
There are some other new American designs in the works. The J-2X is the only really new one, and even that one started out as an upgrade of the Apollo-era J-2 before they decided to make it a completely new engine.
Nope. We don't even have blueprints for some of it anymore - we recently had to reverse-engineer the F-1 (Saturn V first-stage main engines) when it was considered as a booster for SLS.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:07PM
What's the status of closed cycle (staged combustion) type of rockets? is such ones manufactured currently?
Is there any company besides SpaceX that tries to move the technology forward? otoh, cost is an important factor.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:12PM
Most of them are staged combustion now. Russia's big on it (they figured out the metallurgy for hot oxidizer-heavy flows before we did), and most of the LH2 engines are staged combustion (because if you're going to use such an expensive fuel, you aren't going to waste it).
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday October 29 2014, @07:25PM
Are there even any new rocket designs or are we recycling old stuff from the "golden Age of Space Exploration"?
My understanding is that SpaceX's rockets are new designs, not just recycled old designs. (They draw on older designs the same way a brand-new car engine draws on engine technology of the past century, but it's still a new design.)
(Score: 1) by SDRefugee on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:42AM
Maybe Orbital Sciences needs to see about buying Falcon9 boosters from SpaceX. :-) Using old recycled designs from the 60s is just asking for fireworks like this... I was just surprised it took this long for a "fireworks show" from these guys.. SpaceX has the ISS commercial resupply in the bag!!!
America should be proud of Edward Snowden, the hero, whether they know it or not..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:42PM
I watched a couple crude youtube videos, a couple observations:
Looked normal until it didn't. Not like thrust slowly dropped or navigation went nuts.
When it didn't look normal there was no side thrust, or at least not enough to matter. Stack didn't crumple/buckle in midair or deviate much at all. Just like flipping a switch off it fell right back down.
When it went weird the flame went dark and long so obviously the fuel turbopumps were still running. First impression, massive oxidizer pump failure. So the flame changes from cutting torch to flame thrower and you end up with about zero thrust.
The announcer muttered something about peak engine thrust of a hundred and something percent has been achieved right about as it blew up. My guess is peak oxidizer turbopump RPM was achieved an instant before it blew apart. Random FOD stuff in the tanks or oil contamination of the oxidizer system would blow the thing up much later or earlier in the launch. So I'm pretty confident an oxidizer pump popped.
The cruddy audio on the cruddy youtube videos are notoriously bad, but it sounds like the engine suddenly changed around the time oxidizer flow stopped, got a little quieter, until the "landing" which nearly knocked some viewers off their feet when the sound reached them.
They aren't going to be launching from that pad for awhile. Maybe ever. Probably cheaper to build another pad than to patch that thing up and safety rate it. I suppose more pix will be released, but last night it was looking pretty bad.
Anyone else observe anything interesting?
(Score: 5, Funny) by Marneus68 on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:48PM
With Kerbal Space Program, everyone's a Rocket expert now.
I can tell you what went wrong: needs moar boosters !
(Score: 2) by sudo rm -rf on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:23PM
Nah, looks like physical time acceleration went nuts again. This, or staging was set up wrongly. Again. Arrggh!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:45PM
With Kerbal Space Program, everyone's a Rocket expert now.
Well, I gather the point of KSP is not just to have fun, but also educate people about how rockets work. A KSP player isn't a "Rocket expert", but they probably have as a result a better idea of how rockets work than most people who haven't played the game. As to the grandparent post, his opinions were backed by observation.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:03PM
Right on! I use Dwarf Fortress to as model for how to interact with other people.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:37PM
Actually, I'm pretty sure Toady is planning to put rocket physics and materials into DF, just in case anyone wants to build a Dorf-crewed, lava-powered spaceship.
He will then go on and hand-craft an entire galaxy of planets, moons, stars and such to explore.
(Score: 2) by clone141166 on Wednesday October 29 2014, @10:29PM
If KSP has taught us anything then it is that the spontaneous combustion of rockets is caused by the Space Kraken!
(Score: 4, Informative) by Bill, Shooter Of Bul on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:25PM
As far as I could tell, the Rocket was supposed to go to space. But instead, it exploded. I think that's where they went wrong.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Leebert on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:52PM
You would be amazing at "color commentary" for American football television broadcasts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:22PM
They shouldn't have gone with the rockets expert who listed "4th of July" on his resume.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:03PM
Yeah, I learned long ago not to buy refurbished electronic gear, even if it was a brand name. Good money after bad.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Wednesday October 29 2014, @07:22PM
This might be of interest (emphasis in the original):