http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29812139

I guess that's a new launch pad needed too.

I wonder if it will be traced to the 40+ year old engines?

On Wednesday, 29 October 2014 07:52:34 UTC, Vortex11 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29812139

I guess that's a new launch pad needed too.

I wonder if it will be traced to the 40+ year old engines?

The videos on YouTube support that; an asymmetrical fault low on the first stage.

It is amusing to note that many written reports say that it failed seven seconds after lift-off, whereas the first sign of trouble that I have seen in the videos is at about fourteen seconds.

--
SL

Exactly, but the telemetry might have indicated something earlier than it
was visible or audible.

Bear in mind that these engines have flown on this rocket before and have
also worked in test firings, so if it were an engine fault, it might be
something that was done when it was actually put into the vehicle.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 29 October 2014 07:52:34 UTC, Vortex11 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29812139

I guess that's a new launch pad needed too.

I wonder if it will be traced to the 40+ year old engines?

The videos on YouTube support that; an asymmetrical fault low on the first
stage.

It is amusing to note that many written reports say that it failed seven
seconds after lift-off, whereas the first sign of trouble that I have seen
in the videos is at about fourteen seconds.

--
SL

On 29/10/2014 07:51, Vortex11 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29812139

I guess that's a new launch pad needed too.

I wonder if it will be traced to the 40+ year old engines?

It was an impressive failure mode. The engine was at full nominal output
power but the vertical thrust clearly failed completely.

You actually see a donut sheet of yellow flame down the outside of the
main engine exhaust so looks to me like the main fuel tank ruptured (38s
into BBC video stream). It then stalls and explodes.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wednesday, 29 October 2014 09:34:51 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 29/10/2014 07:51, Vortex11 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29812139

I guess that's a new launch pad needed too.

I wonder if it will be traced to the 40+ year old engines?

It was an impressive failure mode. The engine was at full nominal output
power but the vertical thrust clearly failed completely.

You actually see a donut sheet of yellow flame down the outside of the
main engine exhaust so looks to me like the main fuel tank ruptured (38s
into BBC video stream). It then stalls and explodes.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I think this has 2 engines side by side, so clearly any single engine failure will have an asymmetric and catastrophic result.

SpaceX has 9 engines (designed by them in the 21st century) and claims system can tolerate up to 2 engines out. Seems rather more robust to me.

Yes Orbital have a track record of poor fault tolerance. Remember all the
Pegasus failures?
They also of course tend to use bits and pieces from all sorts of sources,
like when they were using decommissioned Minuteman missiles as Taurus
launchers with a modified Pegasus on top of it.

I'm not saying they are wrong, but it is what happens if you do not have the
whole thing as an integrated in house design.
Often its the critical interfacing of items due to poorly understood modes
of vibration or g forces that causes the problems.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 29 October 2014 09:34:51 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 29/10/2014 07:51, Vortex11 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29812139

I guess that's a new launch pad needed too.

I wonder if it will be traced to the 40+ year old engines?

It was an impressive failure mode. The engine was at full nominal output
power but the vertical thrust clearly failed completely.

You actually see a donut sheet of yellow flame down the outside of the
main engine exhaust so looks to me like the main fuel tank ruptured (38s
into BBC video stream). It then stalls and explodes.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I think this has 2 engines side by side, so clearly any single engine
failure will have an asymmetric and catastrophic result.

SpaceX has 9 engines (designed by them in the 21st century) and claims
system can tolerate up to 2 engines out. Seems rather more robust to me.

Just cannot get a reliable plumber when you need one, obviously!
200 million dollars of rocket gone in less than 20 seconds. Sure has
bonfire night beat.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 29/10/2014 07:51, Vortex11 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29812139

I guess that's a new launch pad needed too.

I wonder if it will be traced to the 40+ year old engines?

It was an impressive failure mode. The engine was at full nominal output
power but the vertical thrust clearly failed completely.

You actually see a donut sheet of yellow flame down the outside of the
main engine exhaust so looks to me like the main fuel tank ruptured (38s
into BBC video stream). It then stalls and explodes.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Well its too early to tell, I'd suggest. Nobody has even ventured into the
zone yet. Considered too dangerous at night of cours.

The engines may well be old, but they will have been put through the same
tests as new engines. They should not really deteriorate after all.
Being Russian I think you can be fairly confident they are over engineered.
For those who don't know they were intended for the Russian Moon missions
that never flew as the launcher kept blowing up, not due to engines though,
due to the sheer size of the rocket and mainly the vibration etc, of all
the plumbing.
I think they found out there are major issues with upscaling rockets beyond
a certain size.

Now I did not see the pictures, but listening to the sound there were two
distinct explosions. the second one was probably the range safety destruct
explosion, which under the circumstances, was probably not needed. the first
seems to have been about 10 seconds after ignition, and apparently damaged
some internal structures and put a hole in one side.
Looks like some problem with plumbing maybe, but I'm sure we will know
eventually.
as for the pad, as I say, at least at the press conference the folk did not
know themselves how bad the damage was. They are warning the public to
report any debris and not touch it. I think they are mainly worried about
any solid fuel or hypergolic fuels that might have been hurled outside of
the fireball and hence still be in a dangerous state.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Vortex11" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29812139

I guess that's a new launch pad needed too.

I wonder if it will be traced to the 40+ year old engines?

On 29/10/2014 10:29, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well its too early to tell, I'd suggest. Nobody has even ventured into the
zone yet. Considered too dangerous at night of cours.

The engines may well be old, but they will have been put through the same
tests as new engines. They should not really deteriorate after all.
Being Russian I think you can be fairly confident they are over engineered.
For those who don't know they were intended for the Russian Moon missions
that never flew as the launcher kept blowing up, not due to engines though,
due to the sheer size of the rocket and mainly the vibration etc, of all
the plumbing.
I think they found out there are major issues with upscaling rockets beyond
a certain size.

Now I did not see the pictures, but listening to the sound there were two
distinct explosions. the second one was probably the range safety destruct
explosion, which under the circumstances, was probably not needed. the first
seems to have been about 10 seconds after ignition, and apparently damaged
some internal structures and put a hole in one side.

Since you can't see the video I will describe it. Lift off looks normal
and then after clearing the pad there is a sudden change in the flame
plume behind the rocket (from a normal engine exhaust to something 3x
fatter). A small flash bang at the base of the rocket and it stops
rising. It was two maybe three times higher than a water tower by then.

The final bang is as the entire thing drops back in free fall onto the
launch pad and the fuel released detonates in a major explosion. I don't
think the range safety officer had any time to react at all.

A few small bits fly high into the air classic shell burst style.

Looks like some problem with plumbing maybe, but I'm sure we will know
eventually.
as for the pad, as I say, at least at the press conference the folk did not
know themselves how bad the damage was. They are warning the public to
report any debris and not touch it. I think they are mainly worried about
any solid fuel or hypergolic fuels that might have been hurled outside of
the fireball and hence still be in a dangerous state.
Brian


All in all a very expensive firework!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wednesday, 29 October 2014 10:55:49 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 29/10/2014 10:29, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well its too early to tell, I'd suggest. Nobody has even ventured into the
zone yet. Considered too dangerous at night of cours.

The engines may well be old, but they will have been put through the same
tests as new engines. They should not really deteriorate after all.
Being Russian I think you can be fairly confident they are over engineered.
For those who don't know they were intended for the Russian Moon missions
that never flew as the launcher kept blowing up, not due to engines though,
due to the sheer size of the rocket and mainly the vibration etc, of all
the plumbing.
I think they found out there are major issues with upscaling rockets beyond
a certain size.

Now I did not see the pictures, but listening to the sound there were two
distinct explosions. the second one was probably the range safety destruct
explosion, which under the circumstances, was probably not needed. the first
seems to have been about 10 seconds after ignition, and apparently damaged
some internal structures and put a hole in one side.

Since you can't see the video I will describe it. Lift off looks normal
and then after clearing the pad there is a sudden change in the flame
plume behind the rocket (from a normal engine exhaust to something 3x
fatter). A small flash bang at the base of the rocket and it stops
rising. It was two maybe three times higher than a water tower by then.

The final bang is as the entire thing drops back in free fall onto the
launch pad and the fuel released detonates in a major explosion. I don't
think the range safety officer had any time to react at all.

A few small bits fly high into the air classic shell burst style.

Looks like some problem with plumbing maybe, but I'm sure we will know
eventually.
as for the pad, as I say, at least at the press conference the folk did not
know themselves how bad the damage was. They are warning the public to
report any debris and not touch it. I think they are mainly worried about
any solid fuel or hypergolic fuels that might have been hurled outside of
the fireball and hence still be in a dangerous state.
Brian


All in all a very expensive firework!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Nice info on the original Russian N1 rocket he http://www.starbase1.co.uk/pages/n-1.html

This used the engines now evolved and used by Orbital. 30 of them on the first stage alone!

4 launches and 4 failures. All catastrophic!

On 29/10/2014 07:51, Vortex11 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29812139

I guess that's a new launch pad needed too.

I wonder if it will be traced to the 40+ year old engines?

I was initially puzzled by the relatively prolonged fire on the
launchpad after the initial Whoomf from the kerosene and the LOX, until
I looked it up and found it had a solid fuel second stage.

Also of course there were two explosions, one for the initial problem and a
second from the self destruction system operated by range safety.

There are now some aerial pictures and a press release about the first
inspection of the pad on the web sites I understand.
Most damage looks relatively light according to those who have looked, but
of course its not a large area in the shot apparently.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 29/10/2014 07:51, Vortex11 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29812139

I guess that's a new launch pad needed too.

I wonder if it will be traced to the 40+ year old engines?

I was initially puzzled by the relatively prolonged fire on the launchpad
after the initial Whoomf from the kerosene and the LOX, until I looked it
up and found it had a solid fuel second stage.

In message , Brian Gaff
writes
Also of course there were two explosions, one for the initial problem and a
second from the self destruction system operated by range safety.

There are now some aerial pictures and a press release about the first
inspection of the pad on the web sites I understand.
Most damage looks relatively light according to those who have looked, but
of course its not a large area in the shot apparently.
Brian

A bit of description to, I hope, assist Brian. The BBC video shows the
launch from one perspective with the rocket moving (slowly) away from
the camera as it ascends. The only photo I've seen from the NASA press
release earlier is taken from almost the opposite direction. In that,
the ocean is to the left with some blast marks and no obvious debris
around the sea wall area. Most damage is presumably either behind the
camera position, in the water or on other bits of land further to the
left (the first press release did mention extensive property and
vehicular damage).

HTH,
--
Nick (=----)

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 07:51:05 +0000, Vortex11 wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29812139

I guess that's a new launch pad needed too.

I wonder if it will be traced to the 40+ year old engines?

Whatever. Let's just blame the Russians.