NASA rocket explodes after lift off

Why can't they shut off the engines if there's a problem or because it happened to fast they can't?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trippy's guesses are certainly reasonable and reflect more knowledge about the rocket's design than I have,* but I not only noted the brief (less than 0.5 second) pre-explosion luminosity change (great intensity increase) but also that it seemed from that camera angle, at least, to be perfectly directed along the desired thrust line and at least twice the normal length.

That suggests to me than there was too much well mixed (stoicmetrically correct) fuel being released - more pressure than the nozzle could withstand, ** rather than lack of O2 to burn, letting the fuel accumulate; but as has been noted we are just guessing and must wait for some analysis of films and stuff they recover to be done.

* I don't even know what an NK-33 is or how many of them they use.

** If the nozzle was the first structure to fail, then very briefly an even greater volume of correct fuel mix would be dumped out the rear end - I think that is want I saw also - but frame-by-frame high speed camera records must be reviewed to see it that is true and supports the idea than too much properly mixed fuel quickly ruptured the nozzle POV.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A few answers to that.
One, the Antares uses two engines. Shut down one and there is insufficient thrust to keep the rocket accelerating, so it still crashes. (The Dragon uses nine engines and has enough thrust to survive the loss of one.)
Two, when two engines are used, you can gimbal them to provide roll control. With a single engine firing you cannot. Thus even if you lose the second engine high enough that you can continue accelerating, you lose attitude control and the vehicle quickly becomes uncontrollable.
Three, to continue accelerating, you have to gimbal the engine sufficiently so that the thrust is still applied through the vehicle's center of gravity. Often with two engine designs the gimbal does not have enough authority to move that much.

Interestingly, a similar failure occurred on one of SpaceX's first launches (engine explosion, loss of engine) but the booster continued on its remaining 8 engines and the payload reached orbit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I also heard they had classified material onboard. They even sealed off the area because of it.

 

at least some was able to view a rocket blowing up.
that's not an everyday thing to occur.
i know that's a horrible thing to say, but how often can one see such a thing.

 

Pretty often back in the 1960's. We saw more failures than we saw successes when we were trying to get the Mercury and Gemini programs off the ground.

 

In this case, Billvon's answer is right on the money.

In the case of "heavy lift" like what they did with the Space Shuttle orbiters... well, they also had Solid Rocket Boosters... you can't shut those puppies off once they light

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What I found weird is that puff of ... something... from the coupling between the first and second stages moments before the "rapid sudden dis-assembly" occured. It almost looked like the second stage ignited while still coupled... but that seems unfathomable to me...

 

I had the same thought, but wasn't sure enough to comment. Too much guess work...

 

Are you talking about the venting at 22:45? If so, launch vehicles are often venting gases just before (and even during) launch. It could (for example) be a liquid oxygen overpressure valve releasing some pressure. I think if the second stage engine had actually attempted to start up you would have seen a lot more fireworks than that puff.

 

No, this was just after liftoff itself had started - I'll have to re-watch the video to see the exact moment (I think about 5 seconds into the liftoff?)

 

that had to be awesome , in a sense.

 

This was a few seconds after takeoff. The 22:45 refers to the real time clock in the lower left hand corner (i.e. time of day.)

 

Makes sense - like a car with an incomplete burn that starts to suffer from detonation, just on a much larger scale

 

According to these guys they blew up the rocket on purpose after it failed: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...tfirstperson&utm_campaign=Content&sf5511773=1

 

Yeah, range safety is still a big issue with rocket launches, even as the vehicles have gotten more reliable. And that is one job I do NOT envy. As hard as it would be to decide to blow up someone's hundred million dollar launch vehicle, imagine making that decision with three people on board.

 

NASA Rocket Failed To Take-Off And Explodes On October 28 2014


Moments after lifting off at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia, the unmanned Antares rocket meant to bring cargo to the International Space Station exploded. This was to be the third commercial resupply mission by Orbital Sciences. The explosion occurred at 6:22 pm EDT on October 28, six seconds after launching.


No injuries or deaths are believed to have occurred because of this failed launch, with all personnel at Wallops safe and accounted for.

 

They detected a problem at lift off and hit the self destruct button.