Talk:Cygnus Orb-3

Time of explosion

The article currently says the explosion was 20 seconds after launch, cited to Slate that (at least as I write this) says 14 seconds. Earlier reports I saw said 6 seconds, and 6, 20, and 24 seconds were mentioned in the press conference. The only official statement that mentions anything about the time just says "shortly" - would it be better to use that phrasing or just "seconds" (leaving the precise number unspecified) until there is an official chronology posted? Thryduulf (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"Shortly" would be highly preferential. My own count from video replay is that the initial in-flight explosion occurred ~15 seconds after liftoff, and ground impact occurred ~24 seconds after launch. So, obviously, the numbers being thrown around are all over the place and reference different points of flight from different points of view. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking frame by frame at the video that everyone's showing, I see the suspicious flame spike at 11.3 seconds and the actual aft-end explosion at 12.3 seconds, with the ground hit at 20.3 seconds and the ground explosion at 21.0 seconds. But there's a cut between the first view (from south of the pad on the island, probably on Pad 0B) to the second view (lower on 0B) to the third (across the marsh, probably at Arbuckle Neck) so that's an unreliable source and also OR. Shortly sounds like a good choice until anything official comes up. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. As I said, those times are highly POV, based on when you begin the count (T-0, ignition, actual liftoff, etc). I'm sure very specific times will be provided at some point. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

From the NASA / Orbital CRS-3 Press Conference from the Wallops Flight Facility shortly following the failed launch, Frank L. Culbertson, Jr. (General Manager) speculated at around 10-12 seconds was the first time they noticed an anomaly (during the rocket thrust spiking orange). (From my experience, orange is significant with a spike in burning oxygen.) At around 20 seconds he speculated the range safety officer(s) initiated the self destruct. During 20-21 seconds is when the rocket appears to have touched the ground. I've seen launch failures before; and it's very likely when the self destruct is initiated, there's likely enough explosives to destroy all fuel payloads at once to likely prevent inadvertent consequences of misguided or uncontrolled rockets causing further damage. (ie. Rocket touches ground, and spins-off into the wild blue yonder if it's not destroyed.) Thought this was pretty evident and no expert here, but figured this might help clear-up the questions within this topic. --roger (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

As I still haven't seen any definitive statement, I've gone ahead and changed it to "shortly" per this section. Once official timings are published, then we should obviously change it again to reflect that, making sure to cite the source. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the Slate article is misquoting what has been said. Other sources like [1] which mention 14 seconds do not say it was 14 seconds after launch. They say it began to experience problems at 6 seconds after launch, and 14 seconds after this the Range Safety Officer initated the termination. That said, I agree we need clearer sourcing. Nil Einne (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Flight number?

There seems to be a contradiction: The intro states: "This flight, which would have been its fourth to the International Space Station and the fifth of an Antares launch vehicle..."

Then in the following section it states: "This would have been the third of eight flights by Orbital Sciences under the Commercial Resupply Services contract with NASA." Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think both are correct: 4th mission to the ISS, but 3rd under this specific contract. The first Cygnus flight to the ISS (Cygnus Orb-D1) was mainly a demonstration of the technology and didn't count as part of the Resupply contract. --Brian the Editor (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly right. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Then then article should say it like that to prevent future confusion. --JorisvS (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional Video from Press Area

Found an additional video from the press area for the launch. --roger (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"ANTARES EXPLODES!!! Panic at the press site! Orbital's rocket blows up" http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MZ0SgAU9LXI

Add it

Flashgordon512 (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Without an acceptable license, we cannot upload the video to Commons, sorry. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"Exploded"

   Well, that's not a lie, but it's far too small a part of the truth. It is known, but not stated in our article, that the rocket's exhaust was out of specs and some kind of range safety officer did their job of exploding it, presumably in part by turning a key and/or pushing a red button.
   An explosion is a sudden, violent release of energy. One certainly occurred when the range safety officer acted, reportedly after observing the wrong color in the exhaust, but readers want to know whether that observation meant

1. that an unplanned sudden, violent release had already occurred or
2. that an unplanned sudden, violent release should be presumed to be inevitable if the button were not pushed, or
3. that the pre-planned sudden, violent release mediated by the button pre-empted the possibility of various other unwelcome outcomes.

I'm rewording and tagging for needing a ref, which will presumably which of 1-3 is/are true.
--Jerzy•t 16:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The apparent order of events is:

1. Issue in the aft end of the rocket, begins to lose thrust
2. Explosion in back end of rocket, about one second later
3. Rocket falls back towards the pad
4. FTS activated just before rocket impact on the beach
5. Rocket impact; fuel/oxidizer explosion from impact

I'll see if I can dig up a citation that specifies such. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Starting the blame game TGCP (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Why NASA Blew Up a Rocket Just After LaunchVipero00 (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced claims?

"seven miles away, a large store window broken by the shock wave of the explosion was shown on network television"

It would be really nice to have sources for such sensational and implausible claims. Seven miles is way too much for an explosion of this (comparatively small) size. Gngeal (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced statements in that section. Thanks. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That article is definitely wrong about the distance to Pocomoke City. I measure 16.7 miles as the crow flies from Pad 0A to the center of Pocomoke. I suspect the author used the driving distance of 20 miles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but we use what the sources provide. Otherwise, original research. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cygnus CRS Orb-3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911172414/http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html to http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cygnus CRS Orb-3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Tj4mG4Wp?url=https://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/MissionUpdates/Orb-3/default.aspx to https://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/MissionUpdates/Orb-3/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Antares Orb-3 launch failure (201410280009HQ).jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Antares Orb-3 launch failure (201410280009HQ).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 28, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-10-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Cygnus CRS Orb-3 was an attempted flight of Cygnus, an automated cargo spacecraft developed by United States-based company Orbital Sciences, on 28 October 2014. This flight, which would have been its fourth to the International Space Station and the fifth of an Antares launch vehicle, resulted in the Antares rocket exploding seconds after liftoff.Photograph: NASA/Joel Kowsky

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cygnus CRS Orb-3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150111011904/http://www.spaceflight101.com/cygnus-orb-3-cargo-manifest.html to http://www.spaceflight101.com/cygnus-orb-3-cargo-manifest.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)