Talk-Polywell.org

Here is a youtube video of launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYsVqayNSZE

Yes, so sorry for Antares and support. Rockets are amazing when they work, the power delivered by the rocket motors is like riding a controlled bomb, so when there is a failure, well... it is a horrible but dazzling spectacle.

What a disappointment.. Was anxious to see how the Arkyd prototypes went.

Here is the aerial footage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zarWT7H9t54

well... that's what happens when you use rocket engines built in the 60s and stored for 40 years in Siberia.

no wonder Elon Musk was already mocking Orbital Science's approach in his Wired Mag interview back in 2012... saying it was like a punchline of a joke.

IIRC, Orbital Sciences originally planned to use decommissioned ICBM's for launch but that wouldn't work so they went to this. I think they've been stumbling about for a long time now and I'll be surprised if they recover from this. It is very late in the game for this kind of mishap.

Looked like the rocket motor failed to me. So what do you say to the Russians about a $50 Million "ooops!"?

I thought it was standard to have launch insurance. If you can't afford to fail, hedge.

mvanwink5 wrote:I thought it was standard to have launch insurance. If you can't afford to fail, hedge.

Yepp, there is launch insurance. I think the biggest issue arising from this for Orbital could be that the Antares could be grounded for a lengthy time until the investigation into the cause is over. There is also significant damage to their pad, from what I could see. It is a good thing that NASA chose to have two completely different competitors provide the CRS service. That means that SpaceX can take over some of the resupply until Orbital is back on track and the ISS is not left to rely on the Russians alone.
This is the same reason why NASA insists on having two completely different commercial crew providers, even though congress resists it and does not want to fund it. If an accident like this happened on a crewed transport, US astronauts could be grounded for months, if not years. With two (or more) providers, another one can step in.

I am waiting for the barge landing.

mvanwink5 wrote:I am waiting for the barge landing.

Yeah, that will be in December, if the barge is ready by then. Mind you that Musk gives it a 50:50 chance to succeed at the first try. The barge is a much smaller target than a landing pad on land, plus it will be moving slightly, so this should be interesting.

Skipjack wrote:

mvanwink5 wrote:I thought it was standard to have launch insurance. If you can't afford to fail, hedge.

Yepp, there is launch insurance. I think the biggest issue arising from this for Orbital could be that the Antares could be grounded for a lengthy time until the investigation into the cause is over. There is also significant damage to their pad, from what I could see. It is a good thing that NASA chose to have two completely different competitors provide the CRS service. That means that SpaceX can take over some of the resupply until Orbital is back on track and the ISS is not left to rely on the Russians alone.
This is the same reason why NASA insists on having two completely different commercial crew providers, even though congress resists it and does not want to fund it. If an accident like this happened on a crewed transport, US astronauts could be grounded for months, if not years. With two (or more) providers, another one can step in.

I think the bigger issue is, who is going to want to pony up for future flights on Antares with this sort of problem so late? I think their market share just ended. Its not as if they have a dozen successful flights to point to--this was the 5th launch. Even those who have early, cheap contracts can likely get out of them now and move to Falcon. I would not want to be their accountant right now.

I hope they survive this, but this is a major setback. It's not like if a nation blows something up. Nations don't have a bottom line to worry about.

I haven't seen anything concrete, but I read that there was a change to one of the stages that made it heavier, which may have contributed to the failure. I haven't seen more about that, however, so I'm not sure how accurate that is.

Da! Is good to have American geniuses willink to use Russian NK-33 engines for supply launchink to ISS.

Is also good to have American geniuses usink Russian RD-180 engines for launchink of expensive spy satellites.

Muwaahhahhahhhaahhhhahhhhaaa!

That's an interesting question--what outcome here might affect ULA's purchase of old Russian engines and the deal that SpaceX has challenged in court?