Unmanned NASA-contracted rocket explodes; damage is 'significant'

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I don't think you understand what refurb means, or else you think that these engines had previously been used.  They were never used.  They were in excellent like-new shape.  Building new engines is expensive, and all the mods to meet USG standards conducted on the existing engines would have had to be added to new engines, as well.

I know what refurb means.  You can't take an item with age-controlled parts and slap it into a system.  All those parts need to be replaced, and the rest of the parts inspected to verify their condition.  It may well be that this process creates a product that is equivalent to a newly-manufactured engine; I don't know enough about the design to say.

And, yes, engines do sometimes "blow up" when you test them.  SpaceOne's engines sometimes do that as well; that's why you test them.

I understand that, but test failures require failure analysis to determine why the failure occurred.  Five months is an awful short time to complete a failure analysis on something as catastrophic as what happened at Stennis five months ago.

[grumbler]

I know what refurb means.  You can't take an item with age-controlled parts and slap it into a system.  All those parts need to be replaced, and the rest of the parts inspected to verify their condition.  It may well be that this process creates a product that is equivalent to a newly-manufactured engine; I don't know enough about the design to say.

What "age-controlled parts" were installed on these engines at manufacture, and why?  It would make no sense to install such parts in an engine that is going to go into indefinite storage.

I understand that, but test failures require failure analysis to determine why the failure occurred.  Five months is an awful short time to complete a failure analysis on something as catastrophic as what happened at Stennis five months ago.

You only need to do the failure analysis when you are doing developmental testing.  Acceptance testing will have failures.  That's why you do them.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

What "age-controlled parts" were installed on these engines at manufacture, and why?  It would make no sense to install such parts in an engine that is going to go into indefinite storage.

Seals, gaskets, hoses, and parts such as that.  Also chemicals like Loctite that are used for holding parts in place, making thermal bonds, or insulating electrical connections.

Furthermore, these engines were not designed for long-term storage.  They were designed for the cancelled Soviet moon rocket program, so they would have been used within 15 - 20 years of manufacture.  They were stuffed in a warehouse after the program was cancelled because the Soviets never threw out anything.

You only need to do the failure analysis when you are doing developmental testing.  Acceptance testing will have failures.  That's why you do them.

Failure analysis is done any time there is a failure.  It might be as simple as finding a loose washer in the unit and giving assemblers remedial training on Foreign Object Debris so they don't do it again again. It might be as complex as trying to find the right combination of environmental conditions to make a capacitor bank burn up.

Maybe Aerojet's problem was in the former category and they found and fixed the issue quickly or determined that it was a failure in the test setup.  My experience, though, is that problems like they had at Stennis are not usually easy ones to find.

[CountDeMoney]

What you fail to understand is that in a free market, when your product blows up in your customers' faces, you tend to lose market share.

Yeah, they're cratering, alright.

Orbital Sciences Corporation
NYSE: ORB - Oct 30 2:02 PM ET
25.310.04 (0.16%)

Wow.    Did you just confess that you have no clue as to what "market share" means?  Hint:  the market involved isn't the stock market.

Who gives a royal rat fuck about their share of the market?  What share of NASA's market are they going to lose with a 2 billion, 10 year contract? 
The only thing that matters is their stock price.  So fuck you and your Beef Wellington.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Who gives a royal rat fuck about their share of the market?  What share of NASA's market are they going to lose with a 2 billion, 10 year contract? 
The only thing that matters is their stock price.  So fuck you and your Beef Wellington.

Then respond to Beeb's point about you ignoring the 15% drop the day before.

Also, the failed lift had a lot more than just a NASA resupply pod on board.  It was also carrying Planetary Resources' first satellite, for instance.

[grumbler]

Seals, gaskets, hoses, and parts such as that.  Also chemicals like Loctite that are used for holding parts in place, making thermal bonds, or insulating electrical connections.

Furthermore, these engines were not designed for long-term storage.  They were designed for the cancelled Soviet moon rocket program, so they would have been used within 15 - 20 years of manufacture.  They were stuffed in a warehouse after the program was cancelled because the Soviets never threw out anything.

The engines were produced, in essence, for storage, after the moon rocket was cancelled.  The NK-33s could be produced cheaply at that point, since they were modifications of the NK-15 that was actually used on the moon project - they were not, in fact, produced for any particular rocket at all.  The idea was that the Soviet Space program would find a use for them sometime, because they were such outstanding engines.  They wouldn't have installed seals, gaskets, hoses, and parts like that, as they didn't know when they would actually be used.

Failure analysis is done any time there is a failure.  It might be as simple as finding a loose washer in the unit and giving assemblers remedial training on Foreign Object Debris so they don't do it again again. It might be as complex as trying to find the right combination of environmental conditions to make a capacitor bank burn up.

The engines had been in use for three successful missions before the May 2014 failure, and one since.  It isn't an experimental design.  Sure, you are going to investigate to make sure there isn't a major problem, and then again to try to find out if there were any manufacturing defects, but use of the engines that have already been tested and accepted only wait for the preliminary investigation to be completed.  It's like the army doesn't stop using all 5.56 ammo if a batch of 5.56 fails batch testing during acceptance tests.

[CountDeMoney]

Seedy's attempt to make the point is, however, another fine reason to note that crazy political radicals are fucking useless in normal conversations.

It doesn't take crazy political radicalism to recognize that using 40 year old Soviet hardware is just trying to do things on the cheap.  You fucking asshole.

[Ed Anger]

Call me a name now.

[grumbler]

Who gives a royal rat fuck about their share of the market? 

Apparently you do, because you responded to a comment about market share. 

What share of NASA's market are they going to lose with a 2 billion, 10 year contract?

All of it, if they can't fulfill the contract specs.  And they can't make any money (and have solid share prices) if they fail like this enough to make their insurance unaffordable.  They care very much about being successful at space launches; far more, in all probability, than any NASA administrator.

[CountDeMoney]

Hey look, we were gonna get rid of them anyway!

Orbital's Soviet Rocket Engines Had Already Been Slated for Retirement
By Justin Bachman October 29, 2014
Bloomberg Businessweek

Even before the launch destruction of an Orbital Sciences (ORB) Antares rocket, the commercial space company was planning to retire the half-century-old Russian engines suspected as a potential cause of the failure.

The Soviet-era AJ-26 engine was designed in the 1960s as part of Russia's space race with the U.S., originally envisioned as a way to propel cosmonauts to the moon. The engines are "refurbished and Americanized," Frank Culbertson, the Orbital Sciences executive in charge of the NASA program, said Tuesday night in a news conference, defending the AJ-26 as "very robust and rugged" and with a successful track record.

At least one person in the industry disagrees. Elon Musk, the founder of rival launch company SpaceX, ridiculed the Antares AJ-26 engine in an interview with Wired magazine two years ago. Musk said most commercial space companies seek "to optimize their ass-covering" by avoiding risk and employing antiquated but proven technologies. SpaceX builds an "octaweb" of nine of its own Merlin engines for its Falcon 9 rocket. Here is Musk's riff on the AJ-26:

    "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."

Orbital Sciences had planned to replace the AJ-26 with a new engine system in about two years for its future work shuttling NASA equipment to the International Space Station. "The AJ-26s have presented us with some serious technical and supply challenges in the past," Chief Executive Officer Dave Thompson said Wednesday on a conference call with analysts.

A review of alternatives began last year, and a replacement was recently chosen—work that may be accelerated if the engine is found to be a culprit in the failure. Due to competitive reasons, Orbital is not disclosing which propulsion system it selected, a spokeswoman for the company said in an e-mail.

Orbital Sciences has a $1.9 billion contract to complete eight ISS resupply missions for NASA and plans to bid for more. The Antares mishap could affect the company's next scheduled flight for NASA, in April, and may delay launches for a year or longer. Thompson said the failure will not affect the company's 2014 financial results.

The Antares destruction won't deliver a major financial hit, given that most of the revenue for the launch had been paid and insurance should cover any funds NASA declines to pay, according to a research note by Raymond James analyst Chris Quilty. The bigger troubles could be for the company's reputation among commercial clients. Quilty also predicted that a "protracted accident investigation" would prompt NASA to shift more supply work to SpaceX.
Video: Should NASA Rethink Reliance on Corporate Rockets?

Orbital says it has a 96 percent success rate on 106 launches since 2004, and a 95 percent rate for 284 launches in the last 30 years. The company, based in Dulles, Va., is also planning to merge with the aerospace and defense units of Alliant Techsystems (ATK), a deal that was announced six months ago. In a statement, Alliant said it planned a "thorough evaluation of any potential implications resulting from this incident" including the merger. Orbital shareholders are scheduled to vote Dec. 9 on the $5 billion "merger of equals."

Orbital's stock plummeted more than 15 percent Wednesday. Alliant shares declined 5.5 percent, nearly erasing the gain for the year.

[CountDeMoney]

Who gives a royal rat fuck about their share of the market? 

Apparently you do, because you responded to a comment about market share. 

Don't be Languish Assburger.  Don't be that guy, g.

What share of NASA's market are they going to lose with a 2 billion, 10 year contract?

All of it, if they can't fulfill the contract specs.  And they can't make any money (and have solid share prices) if they fail like this enough to make their insurance unaffordable.  They care very much about being successful at space launches; far more, in all probability, than any NASA administrator.

You've seen the Federal government.  It's easier to impeach the President than it is to client-side cancel a contract.

Oh, and

The Antares destruction won't deliver a major financial hit, given that most of the revenue for the launch had been paid and insurance should cover any funds NASA declines to pay, according to a research note by Raymond James analyst Chris Quilty

No biggie.

LOL, "Quilty"

[CountDeMoney]

Call me a name now.

Peg Leg.

[CountDeMoney]

Who gives a royal rat fuck about their share of the market?  What share of NASA's market are they going to lose with a 2 billion, 10 year contract? 
The only thing that matters is their stock price.  So fuck you and your Beef Wellington.

Then respond to Beeb's point about you ignoring the 15% drop the day before.

15% is peanuts.  It wasn't nearly enough.  Should've distintegrated like its shitty ass product.

Also, the failed lift had a lot more than just a NASA resupply pod on board.  It was also carrying Planetary Resources' first satellite, for instance.

Planetary Resources can rest comfortable in the knowledge that Orbital's shareholders will be OK after all this.

[CountDeMoney]

EARLIER FAILURES: Satellites launches on Orbital Sciences' Taurus XL rocket failed in 2009 and 2011.
In 2009, a NASA mission to monitor global warming from space ended when the satellite plunged into the ocean near Antarctica minutes after launch.
In 2011, a similar global warming satellite powered by the Taurus XL went into the ocean near California.

Now a true crazy political radical would think that Orbital Sciences (and its associated PAC, Orbital Sciences Political Action Committee, ORBPAC) that contributes heavily to the GOP (according to opensecrets.org) would have a vested interest in seeing "global warming" initiatives fail, especially since launches are already paid for and insurance already taken care of.   

[Ed Anger]

Call me a name now.

Peg Leg.

I don't think you tried hard enough.