PDA

View Full Version : ORB 3 blew UP!



Garrison
2014-Oct-28, 10:23 PM
Orb3 Antares blew up on launch!

Didn't look quite right as it left the ground and in about 5 secs flame just seemed to creep up the first stage before it dropped and hit pretty much on top of the pad by the look of it.

LookingSkyward
2014-Oct-28, 10:33 PM
link to the video:
http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/live-video/watch-live-nasa-launches-the-orbital-sciences-antares-rocket-322484291648

:(

LookingSkyward
2014-Oct-28, 10:36 PM
Dang - looks like that is a live feed, currently showing the aftermath... I'll try to find a better link

KaiYeves
2014-Oct-28, 10:45 PM
Holy cake! I saw some of the photos after 6:24 came and went at my viewing position here in Boston without seeing anything. I hope everyone at the spaceport is safe!

LookingSkyward
2014-Oct-28, 10:50 PM
The NASA news feed is reporting no injuries, thankfully.

LookingSkyward
2014-Oct-28, 10:52 PM
Link to the CNN story, with a photo

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/us/nasa-rocket-explodes/index.html

Garrison
2014-Oct-28, 10:53 PM
Holy cake! I saw some of the photos after 6:24 came and went at my viewing position here in Boston without seeing anything. I hope everyone at the spaceport is safe!


Yeah last images I saw were from cameras round the pad, looks like it really did come practically straight down with no damage except at the pad so everyone at the site is safe.

KaiYeves
2014-Oct-28, 11:01 PM
Yeah last images I saw were from cameras round the pad, looks like it really did come practically straight down with no damage except at the pad so everyone at the site is safe.

That's lucky, but still very unfortunate for the team.

baskerbosse
2014-Oct-28, 11:05 PM
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCWunnJXdm0

schlaugh
2014-Oct-28, 11:05 PM
Which makes me wonder if they might have had a successful launch yesterday if not for that boat?

Does NASA have a backup plan for delivering the supplies to ISS? What is the impact (of delay) on the ISS crew or systems?

baskerbosse
2014-Oct-28, 11:12 PM
Looks like brightness went up quite a bit just before the first explosion..
Some extra fuel from somewhere entering the exhaust jet?

baskerbosse
2014-Oct-28, 11:13 PM
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Orbital_CRS3_press_kit.pdf
Cargo on pg 2

John Mendenhall
2014-Oct-28, 11:41 PM
Very discouraging. My guess after watching the videos is improper explosive main engine ignition followed by main engine explosion seconds later.

Garrison
2014-Oct-28, 11:54 PM
Very discouraging. My guess after watching the videos is improper explosive main engine ignition followed by main engine explosion seconds later.

Yeah watching something didnt look right during ignition but then it seemed to clear up as it left the ground and then the flames just seemed to spill out all along the first stage.

baskerbosse
2014-Oct-29, 12:02 AM
As far as I understand it, these are old refurbished engines from the Soviet N1 moon rocket program.

They have had some issues with failures during testing in the past..
One for example determined to be caused by "kerosene fuel leak in engine manifold due to stress corrosion cracking of the 40 year old metal"

Cougar
2014-Oct-29, 01:37 AM
Whoa! That got quite a ways into the air before blowing. :eek:

jokergirl
2014-Oct-29, 11:52 AM
Just saw the video. That has to be hard for the company.

schlaugh
2014-Oct-29, 01:09 PM
What is the impact (of delay) on the ISS crew or systems?

Found the answer, courtesy of the Associated Press:


By coincidence, the Russian Space Agency was proceeding with its own supply run on Wednesday, planned well before the U.S. mishap. And SpaceX is scheduled to launch another Dragon supply ship from Cape Canaveral in December; some items may be changed out to replace what was lost on the Cygnus.

So basically little impact from a supply standpoint. Of course a tremendous loss in the scientific payload and experiments.

Spacedude
2014-Oct-29, 01:13 PM
Just too Surreal!
My wife and I were upstairs all ready prepping for the launch view looking out the east facing window with the local TV channel on Wallops live feed. KaBoom!

NEOWatcher
2014-Oct-29, 01:43 PM
By coincidence, the Russian Space Agency was proceeding with its own supply run on Wednesday, planned well before the U.S. mishap. And SpaceX is scheduled to launch another Dragon supply ship from Cape Canaveral in December; some items may be changed out to replace what was lost on the Cygnus.
Hey... the American's rocket blew up early this morning. Let's launch a replacement today. :lol:

schlaugh
2014-Oct-29, 03:29 PM
A pretty scathing assessment in today's Washington Post related to using 40-something-year-old engines:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/29/antares-rocket-explosion-the-question-of-using-decades-old-soviet-engines/


The tale of the engines that propelled the Antares rocket, which exploded in a spectacular ball of flame (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/rocket-blows-up-seconds-after-launching/2014/10/28/92ca8c62-5ef1-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html?hpid=z1) in Virginia Tuesday night, begins four decades ago, thousands of miles away, in the land of communism and Sputnik. There, in the Soviet Union, rocket scientists conceived and built dozens of rocket engines meant to power Russian astronauts into the cosmos. But it didn’t work out that way.

Instead, all four launches of the mighty N1 Soviet rocket, which used an earlier iteration of the first-stage engines used in Thursday’s launch, failed between 1969 and 1972. And as the Soviet Union abandoned the idea of putting cosmonauts on the moon, those engines languished in Russia “without a purpose,” reported (http://spaceflightnow.com/antares/demo/130416aj26/#.VFCi2vk7syo) Space Lift Now.

Trebuchet
2014-Oct-29, 03:48 PM
Hey... the American's rocket blew up early this morning. Let's launch a replacement today. :lol:

Different rocket.

Gotta wonder if a turbopump swallowed a bolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)#Problems)....

NEOWatcher
2014-Oct-29, 04:59 PM
Different rocket.
What's different?
We tried to launch one, the Russians launched one today that has now docked (apparently not at the time of the article). The comment made it sound to me like the Russian launch could have been misinterpreted as a replacement. It's a joke on the wording. Are you not laughing?

BTW:
View of the explosion from an airplane (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/watch-video-antares-rocket-explosion-air-n236146).


And an Atlas launch in a half hour.
It is certainly a busy launch day.

NEOWatcher
2014-Oct-29, 05:58 PM
Of course, this issue is bigger than it is.

NASA down to one commercial supplier to ISS (http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/10/28/nasa-down-to-one-commercial-provider/18093545/)
http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/konfus/a010.gif (http://www.cosgan.de/smilie.php)
First of all, we still have the supplier, the entire company didn't blow up. This is currently a delay in there services.
Second: So what?
With Challenger, Columbia, and the retirement of STS we were down to NONE. And with no replacement in sight.

Trebuchet
2014-Oct-29, 06:03 PM
What's different?
We tried to launch one, the Russians launched one today that has now docked (apparently not at the time of the article). The comment made it sound to me like the Russian launch could have been misinterpreted as a replacement. It's a joke on the wording. Are you not laughing?


Sorry, misunderstood you.

NEOWatcher
2014-Oct-29, 06:20 PM
Sorry, misunderstood you.
I hope you're the only one. I'd hate to think my humor is that bad.

JayUtah
2014-Oct-29, 08:20 PM
Orbital Sciences was my client until 2006. ATK (second-stage contractor) remains my client. Dollars to donuts it's a turbopump failure on those POS NK-33s. I was skeptical at the time of the plan to use old Russian engines kept for decades in a warehouse. The metallurgy on the NK-33 has to be spot-on. In staged combustion engines, we typically run them fuel-rich in order to keep down the combustion temperatures in the preburner. In American engines this results in sooting after about 15 minutes of continuous operations. The Russian design burns the preburner fuel-lean to reduce temperature, leading to oxygen species in the preburner exhaust. This is unsafe, in my opinion. You have to specially engineer the turbine casings and powerhead to deal with oxygen-rich first-stage products.

Yesterday's failure looks very much to me like a turbine failure, or possibly a thrust-chamber breach.

I'm very disappointed, since I worked with these people and I want to see them succeed. But I think this accident is directly a result of an unwise decision to use cheap equipment subjected to conditions beyond the designers' expectations.

Space Chimp
2014-Oct-29, 08:47 PM
Orbital Sciences was my client until 2006. ATK (second-stage contractor) remains my client. Dollars to donuts it's a turbopump failure on those POS NK-33s. I was skeptical at the time of the plan to use old Russian engines kept for decades in a warehouse. The metallurgy on the NK-33 has to be spot-on. In staged combustion engines, we typically run them fuel-rich in order to keep down the combustion temperatures in the preburner. In American engines this results in sooting after about 15 minutes of continuous operations. The Russian design burns the preburner fuel-lean to reduce temperature, leading to oxygen species in the preburner exhaust. This is unsafe, in my opinion. You have to specially engineer the turbine casings and powerhead to deal with oxygen-rich first-stage products.

Yesterday's failure looks very much to me like a turbine failure, or possibly a thrust-chamber breach.

I'm very disappointed, since I worked with these people and I want to see them succeed. But I think this accident is directly a result of an unwise decision to use cheap equipment subjected to conditions beyond the designers' expectations.

Good to get the perspective of an engineer in the relevant field.

I've been seeing posts in other forums by Russians claiming these rocket motors passed through Ukrainian hands during their refurbishing. Without getting the least bit political is there any truth to that?

Doodler
2014-Oct-29, 09:04 PM
Just saw the video. That has to be hard for the company.

Their stock took a wicked hit, down about 9%. I took the long view and saw it as a nice entry to buy some. Silver linings behind every burning cloud. :)

CJSF
2014-Oct-29, 09:13 PM
Jay, is there any *sort of* uncomplicated way to explain why "oxygen species in the preburner exhaust" is bad and if that's related to either the metallurgy or the speculated turbopump failure? I feel like you have all the information in your post up above, but non rocket engineers might not see the whole picture.

CJSF

Amber Robot
2014-Oct-29, 09:29 PM
Orbital Sciences was my client until 2006. ATK (second-stage contractor) remains my client. Dollars to donuts it's a turbopump failure on those POS NK-33s. I was skeptical at the time of the plan to use old Russian engines kept for decades in a warehouse. The metallurgy on the NK-33 has to be spot-on. In staged combustion engines, we typically run them fuel-rich in order to keep down the combustion temperatures in the preburner. In American engines this results in sooting after about 15 minutes of continuous operations. The Russian design burns the preburner fuel-lean to reduce temperature, leading to oxygen species in the preburner exhaust. This is unsafe, in my opinion. You have to specially engineer the turbine casings and powerhead to deal with oxygen-rich first-stage products.

Yesterday's failure looks very much to me like a turbine failure, or possibly a thrust-chamber breach.

I'm very disappointed, since I worked with these people and I want to see them succeed. But I think this accident is directly a result of an unwise decision to use cheap equipment subjected to conditions beyond the designers' expectations.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that this was the fifth mission to use these motors. So would your opinion be that they were used differently in this launch or maybe they were used in an unsafe manner for each launch but only this one had all the conditions necessary for a failure?

KaiYeves
2014-Oct-29, 09:31 PM
Of course, this issue is bigger than it is.

NASA down to one commercial supplier to ISS (http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/10/28/nasa-down-to-one-commercial-provider/18093545/)
http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/konfus/a010.gif (http://www.cosgan.de/smilie.php)
First of all, we still have the supplier, the entire company didn't blow up. This is currently a delay in there services.
Second: So what?
With Challenger, Columbia, and the retirement of STS we were down to NONE. And with no replacement in sight.
Really, USA Today? You're usually better than that. Tut tut.

GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter
2014-Oct-29, 10:33 PM
I've been seeing posts in other forums by Russians claiming these rocket motors passed through Ukrainian hands during their refurbishing. Without getting the least bit political is there any truth to that?

Probably not. The core of the first stage is built by KB Yuzhnoye (formerly OKB-586, the leading builder of Soviet ICBMs) in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine, but the engines were refurbished by Aerojet in the US.

Space Chimp
2014-Oct-29, 10:39 PM
Probably not. The core of the first stage is built by KB Yuzhnoye (formerly OKB-586, the leading builder of Soviet ICBMs) in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine, but the engines were refurbished by Aerojet in the US.

Thanks for the info. :)

Jens
2014-Oct-29, 10:57 PM
I hope you're the only one. I'd hate to think my humor is that bad.

I understood, but it took a good reading to figure out what you meant. Incidentally, I don't think it was your humor, but the (unintentional) humor of the writer. :)

Garrison
2014-Oct-29, 11:16 PM
I'd forgotten about this engine test until I read the Spaceflight Now (http://spaceflightnow.com/2014/10/29/orbital-sciences-rocket-station-cargo-ship-lost-in-spectacular-launch-mishap/) article:


An AJ26 engine being test fired last May for an Antares flight next year suffered a catastrophic failure 30 seconds into a planned 54-second burn. After a detailed failure investigation, Orbital managers cleared the powerplants for use in downstream missions based on corrective actions implemented in the wake of the failure.

No way of knowing if there's a common factor at this point.

cjameshuff
2014-Oct-30, 12:26 AM
The entire oxygen supply for the engine goes through a preburner and turbine that powers both the RP-1 and LOX pumps. The preburner and turbine contain a high temperature, high pressure (exhaust flows from it into the lower pressure environment of the main combustion chamber) oxidizing environment that's extremely corrosive.

http://gravityloss.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/nk33_2.png

The exhaust went bright candle-flame yellow before the final destructive failure, as it would if it became a sooty, cool, fuel-rich mixture due to oxygen venting from somewhere ahead of the combustion chamber. My guess is a rupture of the turbine/preburner or the associated plumbing vented oxygen before it could enter the combustion chamber, leaving the RP-1 pump going but causing a very fuel-rich mixture, and either the ruptured component blew all the way open after a short time or the venting oxygen caused additional damage.

After the first explosion, while there's a lot of flame coming out of the rocket, it doesn't look like the directional exhaust from a working rocket engine. I'm guessing the explosion either tore the neighboring engine apart and left the turbine/pumps intact, or tank pressure was feeding the fire through damaged plumbing.

schlaugh
2014-Oct-30, 12:31 AM
Wonder when the RSO signaled for the destruct, and can that be seen in the videos?

Jens
2014-Oct-30, 03:54 AM
Wonder when the RSO signaled for the destruct, and can that be seen in the videos?

To my untrained eye, it looks like the rocket exploded when it hit the ground.

cjameshuff
2014-Oct-30, 11:47 AM
Wonder when the RSO signaled for the destruct, and can that be seen in the videos?

I've heard T+20 seconds given. My guess is that the answer to your second question is "no", as any surviving range safety charges going off would be difficult to see in the midst of the fireball. I'm pretty sure it hit the ground first, as there's a big crater next to the pad that wasn't there before.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/launch-pad-looking-south-after-failure.jpg

Hornblower
2014-Oct-30, 12:57 PM
The chain of events looks strikingly like that of the first Vanguard attempt back in 1957, except for starting later with the vehicle well up in the air. That one, as I understand it, happened when a liquid oxygen line ruptured just above the motor assembly.

It appears to me that the second stage may have been intact after the first stage blew up, and that the second big fireball happened when it fell to the ground. I suppose it could have been the range safety demolition charge just as easily.

joema
2014-Oct-30, 04:55 PM
...Dollars to donuts it's a turbopump failure on those POS NK-33s. I was skeptical at the time of the plan to use old Russian engines kept for decades in a warehouse. The metallurgy on the NK-33 has to be spot-on. In staged combustion engines, we typically run them fuel-rich in order to keep down the combustion temperatures in the preburner....This is unsafe, in my opinion....

These concerns were widespread when the NK-33 was first developed and they re-emerged during Aerojet's acquisition of the engines. This is discussed at length in the documentary "The Engines That Came In From The Cold": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMbl_ofF3AM

See especially 14:00 to 16:00 and 40:30 to about 44:00.

NEOWatcher
2014-Oct-30, 05:20 PM
I'm pretty sure it hit the ground first, as there's a big crater next to the pad that wasn't there before.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/launch-pad-looking-south-after-failure.jpg
That picture doesn't look as bad as I expected it to be.
Yes, the crater is prominent, but looking at things like the poles, handrails and other stuff, it looks more like some fire damage. I was expecting to see at least some twisted metal or toppled towers near the explosion.

Squink
2014-Oct-30, 05:37 PM
Initial crash likely spewed kerosine LOX in all directions rather than detonated it.
They don't design the rockets for efficient detonation.

Trebuchet
2014-Oct-30, 07:50 PM
Photos here (https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/) show the initial explosion in the air, well above the height of the water tower. As NEOWatcher says, the pad damage doesn't look as bad as I'd have expected. The TEL is probably toast, however.
(Link found from Fraser's post in the UT forum.)

DaveC426913
2014-Oct-31, 02:05 AM
My bet is on water in the diesel rocket fuel. They should have installed a water trap right before the nozzle. :D

schlaugh
2014-Oct-31, 02:49 AM
Duplicate post.

schlaugh
2014-Oct-31, 02:51 AM
I've heard T+20 seconds given [for the destruct command].
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/launch-pad-looking-south-after-failure.jpg

My brackets [ ] above.

Looks like they did hit the big red button...


CNN - (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/30/us/antares-rocket-explosion/index.html)The flight termination system (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/30/us/antares-rocket-explosion/index.html) was engaged, confirmed Barron Beneski, vice president of corporate communications at Orbital Sciences Corp., in an email.

Trebuchet
2014-Oct-31, 03:33 PM
Another excellent post (http://www.universetoday.com/115826/antares-launch-calamity-unfolds-dramatic-photo-sequence/) on Universe Today.

publiusr
2014-Nov-01, 08:26 PM
It used N-1 type engines on a stage that used a MX/Peacekeeter style first stage as an upper stage if memory serves. Looked a bit like N-1 coming back down. This made folks forget about the grasshopper failure.

I think the solid exploded on the ground causing the debris

Some chatter and tech here
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35939.660
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35939.msg1280152#msg1280152

Nicolas
2014-Nov-02, 08:44 AM
While these engines were made for the N1 project, they were never used in an N1. The N1 that -briefly- flew used an older engine design.

docmordrid
2014-Nov-02, 12:31 PM
While these engines were made for the N1 project, they were never used in an N1. The N1 that -briefly- flew used an older engine design.
The N1 used NK-15, from which NK-33 was derived. If N1 had continued to fly NK-33 would have been used.

This is very similar to the upgraded F1 for Saturn V never flying in it, but being intended for it.

Nicolas
2014-Nov-02, 02:59 PM
Indeed. Luckily for the people onboard Saturn V, the F1 turned out more reliable to fulfill its job than the NK-15 did.

JayUtah
2014-Nov-02, 04:52 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that this was the fifth mission to use these motors. So would your opinion be that they were used differently in this launch or maybe they were used in an unsafe manner for each launch but only this one had all the conditions necessary for a failure?

It's my opinion that the design safety margin on these engines is much narrower than for other closed-cycle, staged-combustion engines, so the latter is more likely to be the case. I don't believe Aerojet has sufficient experience in this design. Since the safety in the design is achieved by exotic metallurgy, I don't believe anyone can fully know the effect of 40 years' storage (e.g., thermal cycling, ambient chemical erosion/leaching) on it.

JayUtah
2014-Nov-02, 05:21 PM
Jay, is there any *sort of* uncomplicated way to explain why "oxygen species in the preburner exhaust" is bad and if that's related to either the metallurgy or the speculated turbopump failure? I feel like you have all the information in your post up above, but non rocket engineers might not see the whole picture.

CJSF

Yes, it's quite possible to explain it simply. Iron and oxygen have a cornucopia of possible reactions. In ambient conditions, rusting is the most common. At higher temperatures (i.e., above a few hundred degrees C), other, much more energetic and much more rapid reactions become possible. In these reactions the iron combusts as fuel. Turbine casings and exhaust lines into the powerhead are made from stainless steel alloys that are susceptible to these reactions. The hot casings literally catch fire and, in the presence of high-temperature, high-pressure oxygen it can proceed at an extremely fast rate.

This principle is used every day in gas-torch cutting of steel. The steel is preheated to several hundred degrees, whereupon a jet of pure oxygen is fired down the center of the torch nozzle. The steel itself combusts and/or melts. It's actually very fun. With an ordinary oxyacetylene torch you can burn through a half-inch steel plate as if it were butter.


The Russians proposed to solve this problem using exotic alloying techniques that kept the iron chemically unattractive to the oxygen. In American designs, which are less efficient, the preburner is run fuel-rich such that all the oxygen in the turbine exhaust is in the form of carbon dioxide that does not react with the casings. There is reason to believe that modern engines with oxygen-rich preburners can be made safe enough for unmanned, non-critical flight. But I'm skeptical that the NK-33 got it right enough, and that the special alloys required have a 40-plus-year shelf life.

cjameshuff
2014-Nov-02, 06:31 PM
Another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_lance

The engines were built and thrown into storage long ago without establishing any record of performance or problems that needed to be corrected, and the original designers and fabricators, formulators of the alloys, etc are dead or retired. If there's design or manufacturing issues, or material aging or other storage issues (diffusion/precipitation processes might have compromised the properties of some of those special alloys, for example), we can only find out about them now, and there's little that can be done about them. Then there's issues like lost records, mistranslations, differences in terminology, etc. With a bit of experience, we might be able to learn what needs to be done to use them reliably, but even if nothing went wrong, there's a hard limit on the number of engines available.

I really think they'd have been better off developing their own engines. There'd have been failures and learning experiences, as SpaceX had with the various engines they built up to the current Merlin 1D, but they'd have had the opportunity to correct the problems and make improvements, and Antares would have a bit more of a future.

CJSF
2014-Nov-03, 01:07 PM
Thanks, Jay, I appreciate the time you took for that explanation. I guess all we can do now is wait for the investigation to finish to see what most probably happened.

CJSF

Van Rijn
2014-Nov-06, 07:22 PM
This could get amusing. Orbital is accelerating the move to a new rocket engine, from 2017 to 2016, but in the meantime, they'll use somebody else's rocket. No more NK-33/AJ26.

And they may use Falcons! See:

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/fedbiz_daily/2014/11/might-elon-musks-spacex-save-the-day-for-orbital.html

They would have to eat more crow though (Musk already put down their use of the Soviet-era Russian engine). After the kerfuffle about that engine, it's interesting to see it go away just like that.

Nicolas
2014-Nov-06, 07:38 PM
Soon in a museum near you: brand new NK-33 engines!

Trebuchet
2014-Nov-06, 10:56 PM
Soon in a museum near you: brand new NK-33 engines!

More like what antique collectors call "New Old Stock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_old_stock)".

docmordrid
2014-Nov-10, 04:10 AM
Apparently one lost bit of hardware was a badly needed large, high pressure N2 tank. It'll be shoehorned into Dragon CRS-5, slated for early December. Not sure if it'll move Dragon's date yet.

Swift
2015-Oct-30, 08:29 PM
NASA releases official report

From R&D magazine (http://www.rdmag.com/news/2015/10/fire-engine-doomed-orbital-rocket-space-station-flight?et_cid=4913587&et_rid=54636800&type=cta)


A fire and explosion in a rocket engine are being blamed for a botched commercial space station shipment last October.

NASA released an investigation report this week, a full year after the Virginia launch accidentNASA's independent review team said the initial fire was caused by friction from rubbing parts in a liquid oxygen turbopump. The pump was in one of the old Russian-built engines of Orbital Sciences Corp.'s unmanned Antares rocket.

The pump exploded seconds after liftoff on Oct. 28, 2014, damaging a second engine, according to the report issued Thursday. The rocket lost thrust and fell toward the ground. Launch controllers sent a destruct signal just before impact to minimize damage. Even so, the Wallops Island launch complex was ruined. Repairs continue, and the Antares remains grounded.

...

NASA said it's unclear why the turbopump failed, but identified three possible causes: poor design; manufacturing or workmanship defect; or debris that somehow got inside. It could have been any one or a combination of factors, the report stated.

LookingSkyward
2015-Oct-30, 08:44 PM
thanks for posting this, Swift!