DocM Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 NK-33 is derived from N1's NK-15, and was to replace it before N1 was cancelled. These engines have been in storage since. Musk in 2012, http://www.wired.com/2012/10/ff-elon-musk-qa/all/ One of our competitors, Orbital Sciences, has a contract to resupply the International Space Station, and their rocket honestly sounds like the punch line to a joke. It uses Russian rocket engines that were made in the ?60s. I don?t mean their design is from the ?60s?I mean they start with engines that were literally made in the ?60s and, like, packed away in Siberia somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louisifer Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 That quote sounds like it was written by someone young who doesnt realise back then they made stuff to last forever unlike todays hardware thats designed to not last longer than its warranty. :P Crisp 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 Not really. Time does weird things to the VERY complex metallurgy used in rocket engines, especially the secret sauce used in Russian engines. They go through complex heat treatments, have special coatings etc. that time is no friend of. This complicates trying to build them under license (ex: RD-180) or refurbishing them. Even of you have the plans to a Russian engine you don't have the rest of the processes. Steven P. 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SALSN Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 That quote sounds like it was written by someone young who doesnt realise back then they made stuff to last forever unlike todays hardware thats designed to not last longer than its warranty. :p Well designed to last forever doesn't really matter if the success rate is only 75 %. Also it seems less than optimal not to take advantage of the development of the last 50 years, even of the design of the rocket engines is basically the same, they could probably take advantage of new materials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 Let's not get too far ahead on this. We know an engine went wonky, the plume changed color (yellowish) in a way that indicated fuel rich so probably the liquid oxygen flow, but that could have also been a LOX valve or other LOX system part. OTOH, it also could have been the engines LOX turbopump coming unglued. Or it could have been a Charlie Foxtrot. Well know soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Maybe someone hammered a part in upside down... :p watkinsx2 and Tews 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 The first stage tanks, wiring etc. are built in Ukraine :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 Run reporter, run! Antares rocket explosion seen from press site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I agree with DocM. They rehab those engines, but there's only so much that can be done .. and they were stored for a long time in non-optimal conditions. Even Apollo-era engines, stored under pristine conditions, would be considered "unsafe" because of the same issues with metal degradation and chemical changes. A 75% success rate would be deemed "no-go" by NASA, and non-certifiable for flight. Back to the drawing board for Orbital. Find another engine for your vehicle, people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 2 launcher towers out 4 down, the Transporter-Erector and pad are pretty crispy, and who knows how much infrastructure damage. They have $50m of insurance to cover a $200m launch and missed NASA milestones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 2 launcher towers out 4 down, the Transporter-Erector and pad are pretty crispy, and who knows how much infrastructure damage. They have $50m of insurance to cover a $200m launch and missed NASA milestones. I get the feeling someone will get fired over that particular decision... Praetor 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 Yeah, I thought that sounded weird too. There's already a growing backlash about the Russian engines, though to be fair when that decision was made relations hadn't been soured (though the signs were all there.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beittil Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 On the plus side, they can now tell the environmentalists they created a nice new pond for the local wildlife next to their launchpad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 Bigger version of that pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenser.d Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Apparently they initiated a self-destruct sequence themselves after noticing something wrong and figuring it wouldn't make it to space... http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/30/us/antares-rocket-explosion/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 Yup, but that close to ground it was probably academic. Going forward the pad is the short pole. Convincing ATK to go through with their merger, and everyone else that Antares can safely fly until the engine swap & upgrade, are the long ones. Energomash has reportedly offered them RD-180/RD-181 or RD-191/RD-193, the latter being closer to a drop-in replacement for NK-33. The 181 and 193 variants are export models. 191 is the Angara engine. RD-180/181 is the engine they really want. Its added performance will allow them to fly the Enhanced and Super Cygnus variants for ISS CRS round 2, and possibly as a habitation module for Orion, CST-100 or Dragon 2. None of this will matter for government launches if Congress goes through with barring Russian engines for its launches once a US made engine is available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 A great view from 3,000 feet spenser.d 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 2, 2014 Author Share Posted November 2, 2014 Non-Loren Thompson article in Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2014/10/30/antares-failure-casts-doubt-on-u-s-commercial-launch-strategy/ > Speaking on condition of anonymity, a launcher engineer and industry expert told Forbes that before the Antares vehicle lost thrust it was evident that there was a lot of unburned kerosene going into the exhaust stream which he says suggests that it also lost engine pressurization. It wasnt a failure in the fuel tanks, avionics, or navigation, but definitely with an engine, said the launcher engineer. Seven seconds into the flight everything is fine and then suddenly the exhaust stream brightens noticeably. > > Those NK-33/AJ-26 engines had been stored in 1975 in a non climate-controlled warehouse, said Dennis Wingo, an engineering physicist and CEO of Skycorp Incorporated at Moffet Field, Ca. No one wanted them, until Orbital Sciences came along with their Antares vehicle. Wingo says the most likely culprit in Tuesday?s launch failure is hardware stress, corrosion and cracking leading to engine failure, but he notes it could have also been a fuel line crack or rupture. These modified engines have a history of trouble, with Orbital Sciences having had two more of these engines fail on the test stand. > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingskippy Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Footage from multiple cameras on the launch pad. The shockwave is ridiculously powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 Ouch. Really highlights the shockwaves and how the solid upper stage continued to burn on the ground. Several reports that Orbital will fly the next 2 Cygnus missions on Falcon 9. In favor of this is that SpaceX has flown an Orbital built bird before using a similar mount (SES-8) and they have fairly good relations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 26, 2014 Author Share Posted November 26, 2014 Orbital Science will receive partial payment for its failed Cygnus mission under its $1.9 billion NASA Commercial Resupply Service contract. Apparently the "intentional ignition" of the Antares launcher counts as a payable milestone. Doesn't matter if it underwent a rapid unscheduled disassembly a few seconds later. http://www.spacenews.com/article/financial-report/42658orbital-sciences-entitled-to-partial-nasa-payment-for-antares-failure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherITguy Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 and now they are doing two trips two the ISS on a DELTA vehicle from ULA. Hey docm do these guys have some sort of beef with Spacex? I mean wouldn't a launch aboard a falcon 9 be cheaper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted December 10, 2014 Author Share Posted December 10, 2014 Not a Delta IV, an Atlas V 401, which is a major surprise because everyone expected Falcon 9 even insiders. My bet is that ULA is giving them a PR deal. http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-signs-contract-with-orbital-sciences.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherITguy Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 So... question... How are they going to purchase RD-180s if the Russians have embargoed all sales to western countries? and by them I mean the folks that make CYGNUS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted December 10, 2014 Author Share Posted December 10, 2014 The price of oil is dropping like a stone because of US and Canadian oil shale production, Russian Ruble is tanking vs the US Dollar and Putin addressed the nation warning of dark times ahead. Russia needs every foreign sale they can get, especially US dollars. They'll bluster, but money talks and the sanctions are hurting.. AnotherITguy 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts