Sea Launch vehicle explodes on launch pad

The above link is a minute by minute account of the countdown at Spaceflight Now

I'm surprised that CNN and BBC are still silent about the failure. Curiously, Russian gazeta.ru and Ukrainian korrespondent.net both report that the launch has been successful.

Thanks gazet.ru and korrespondent.net, but while some debris might be in orbit, I suspect the satellite, and most likely the launch platform, are at the bottom of the Pacific with the squids . . . . .

According to Space.com, "Korn said a helicopter had been dispatched to the launch platform to make a damage assessment."

I think the platform is afloat.

Weird...even Google News isn't picking up on it. Big thanks to EGD for the heads-up.

Hate to sound cynical, but that's probably because nobody got hurt...in this case, no news IS good news!

This event got my husband ("space shmace") interested because he's now very worried about the launch of the second DirecTV HD satellite, which he says was to be a SeaLaunch in June or July. He's asking me if the launch date of that satellite is likely to be delayed significantly. I don't know enough to answer his question -- anybody got any insight?

--Emily

Lovely bureaucratese:

"The Sea Launch Zenit 3SL vehicle, carrying the NSS 8 satellite, experienced an anomaly today during launch operations"

http://s107.photobucket.com/albums/m313/Sm...SSExplosion.flv

I can't imagine Odyssey getting out of that without significant damage...it's got a large hangar, a platform for bringing the LV to the vertical, large fuel tanks etc etc. How long did it take to convert it from an oil-rig into a launch platform...because it might just take that long again.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...nch-Odyssey.jpg

If I had a vehicle to launch this summer, I'd be on the phone to ILS to book a Proton or begging ULA for something in the Autumn. The damn thing looked like instead of launching, it just dropped off the platform - and that was going to be a very large, very hot, very powerfull fireball before the producer ran over to the wall and pulled the plug out.

This is what it should have looked like
http://www.boeing.com/special/sea-launch/m...SAT-wide-lg.jpg


Doug

My impression of the lauch video is that the rocket falls *down* into the platform at about T-1s, some two seconds after ignition (T-3s, aprox.).

Edited: this is an excerpt of Spaceflight Now article on the subject.

"In the final five seconds, the launch team announcer was heard calling out "main engine start command" and then "go inertial" as typically expected. But as the smoke and steam billowed from the Russian RD-171 engine firing to life, the rocket didn't begin its normal quick rise skyward. Instead the three-stage rocket fell out of the camera view as the entire platform was enveloped in the explosion. Whether the rocket tipped over, fell downward from the platform or collapsed was inconclusive from the video seen live."

It looked a bit like those crazy early US launch attempt vids where it just crumpled 'down'.

Doug

Perhaps we should merge with this thread?

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=1871


The rocket certainly doesn't seem to tip over. It just sinks straight down. It only heels over slightly to the left just before the big explosion.

Another one for the launch bloopers reel.

What we'll never hear, I presume, is the control room audio for the un-launch.

The launch platform might not be totally destroyed. That looks like the fireball occured because of rapid propellant mixing, not a detonation. While everything aboard sure is burned to dust, the structures are probably still standing. At least those that don't melt. Unfortunate mishap, it really looks like the rocket fell down or, alternatively, weakened at some lower point and collapsed on itself. I'd go with scenario 1 by the looks of the video.

You can see something of a shockwave heading out to the left ( I think ) - not a detonation, but still fairly destructive. The main structure itself would be fine I would think - but the 'superstructure' of the thing....I don't know.

Doug

Yes, there's definitely something happening to the left of the platform. I'd think if it were a regular shockwave, the water surface would not be disturbed upwards but would turn white, remaining flat. It would also quickly diffuse into other directions. This looks like something fast impacting into the water or maybe even the RD-171 exhaust disturbing the area. Not very nice, whatever it is.

http://www.interfax.com/3/236235/news.aspx

Experts divided over consequences of Zenit rocket failure
MOSCOW. Jan 31 (Interfax-AVN) - Analysis of video footage of the
abortive launch of a Russian-Ukrainian Zenit launch vehicle early on
Wednesday morning has not helped determine the total scope of damage
caused to the floating platform from which rocket blasted off,
spacecraft expert Igor Lisov told Interfax-AVN.
"Video footage of the launch makes us presume the worst
consequences for the floating platform. Judging from the film, instead
of taking off the rocket fell through a hole on the launch pad.
Afterwards, several hundred tonnes of rocket fuel components, including
oxygen and kerosene, most likely exploded under the platform, he said.
However, no fire broke out on the launch pad after the accident. It
means that no fuel was spilt on the platform itself, he said.
Other experts said that the accident had not caused major damage to
the platform and the launch complex could resume operations soon.
"There are no complaints about the performance of the systems of
the launch pad or units responsible for the launch," a source in the
Transport Machine Building Design Bureau, which helped build the Sea
Launch platform, told Interfax-AVN.
"The accident will most likely entail minimal consequences for the
launch complex because no fire broke out after the launch," he said.
The cause of the accident and its consequences will be announced by
a commission of U.S.-based Sea Launch Corporation, which was founded by
the United States, Russia, Ukraine and Norway.

Maritime oil platforms are pretty structurally robust...they have to be just to survive the sea, to say nothing of the risks of explosions/fires inherent to that business. I suspect that Odyssey's superstructure is okay, but the launch complex will need a lot of work to restore.

I hear kerosene is a bit nasty to clean, if there is any of it unburned left after the mishap.

I would have thought there would be left-over fuel and oxidiser in the storage on the platform as well. A hazardous job to clear up.

Doug

My personal opinion about the failure is a pump valve failure.

EDIT: A friend of mine said that when we see a dark smoke during ignition, it surely means bad oxidizing of the fuel. So the engines can't reach maximum trust and the rocket will fall apart ( this is what we saw during launch ).

This photo:
http://www.boeing.com/special/sea-launch/i...r-sealaunch.jpg

Makes me think that the platform probably survived in with most all structure intact as well, since the rocket collapsed in the better direction... but how badly scoured that superstructure and the underside of the platform are will be interesting to see.

But that's where the flight computer or whatever comes in. There is an engine ready (close to T=0) point by which the RD-171 should have attained nominal thrust, so the clamps holding down the rocket can be released. If the engine fails to achieve full thrust by then, it should automatically shut down and safe itself. What you're describing seems a more likely scenario if the vehicle managed to lift off and then lose thrust -- obviously this was not the case.

I'm also curious how the explosion happened. Kerosene can't be ignited easily. I'm sorry If my question is dumb, can somebody answer me?

quoting spdf:"Afterwards, several hundred tonnes of rocket fuel components, including
oxygen and kerosene, most likely exploded "

I think explosion is the wrong word here. More likely rapid mixing of RP-1 and LOX, which obviously burns very well (everything does with LOX!). It probably happened once the tanks ruptured on the way down. The effect would be akin to the Challenger accident. The only really energetic part of the equation is the RD-171 engine, churning gas out at several km/sec it can be regarded as a directed-effect bomb, but it was most likely pointed downward and then abruptly shut down. Personally, I don't believe the engine exploded.

The term "explosion" might come from watching too many Hollywood movies where they always equate to big fireballs.

It's spaceflightnow.com refer to the accident:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/sealaunch/nss8/

"fiery explosion"

Well it is an explosion. What the ordnance people call a FAE (fuel-air explosive). Such explosions cause a massive overpressure within and close to the fireball and are therefore very effective for killing people but it is a rather slow low-grade explosion with little fragmentation effect. I would expect extensive damage to buildings on deck etc, but the basic structure of the platform is probably more or less intact. The fire damage might not be too bad either. With all that LOX around I expect all the kerosene went up in that one big whoosh.

I'm not sure what is being implied here, but LOX and Kerosene are not hypergolic. They do not ignite on contact. Mixing them together cannot do anything unless a source is there to start the explosion in the first place.

Indeed not and a Fuel-Air mixture will only explode when the mixture is just right. FAE bombs therefore usually have several pyrotechnic fuses which go off in succession so at least one will hit the right interval.
However in this case there would be plenty of ignition sources. A red-hot and possibly still firing rocket engine for one thing. Bits of metal hitting each other at high speed. Electric circuits shorting out.
From the result it seems clear that at least one timed it juat right.

Interesting information and thread over at nasaspaceflight.com

They also have an image from a webcam on Odyssey *after* the event (doesn't show much, but shows it's still there!)

They also have a better quality video (you need to be registered)

James

The main media seems to be picking it up now...it's going to be a lead story on one of the Los Angeles local news channels tonight (possibly because of some local connections, though).

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070201/lath054.html?.v=88

Sea Launch Assesses Status and Plans for Next Steps
Thursday February 1, 8:15 am ET


LONG BEACH, Calif., Feb. 1 /PRNewswire/ -- Following the unsuccessful launch of the NSS-8 spacecraft on January 30, and subsequent safing of all systems, Sea Launch is now in the process of securing the Odyssey Launch Platform and taking initial measures to determine the root cause and implement necessary corrective actions. Applications for all necessary permits and licenses required to proceed with these activities are also in process.
ADVERTISEMENT


A preliminary assessment of the Odyssey Launch Platform indicates that, while it has sustained limited damage, the integrity and functionality of essential marine, communications and crew support systems remains intact. The vessel is operating on its own power and is currently manned by the full marine crew. This team is performing a comprehensive assessment of all aspects of the vessel, including its structural integrity and sea-worthiness, in anticipation of identifying and planning the next steps. The team on the Sea Launch Commander is in excellent condition and is supporting these activities. The Commander incurred no damage during yesterday's launch attempt, as it was positioned four miles from the Launch Platform at the time of lift-off.

The Sea Launch partners will be conducting an independent investigation to review relevant data, determine root cause, and develop recommendations for corrective actions. In accordance with established procedures, Sea Launch is establishing a Failure Review Oversight Board (FROB) to review the partners' findings, conclusions and recommendations. Kirk Pysher, vice president and chief systems engineer for Sea Launch, will chair this board. The main activity of the FROB will commence once the partner-led independent investigation is complete.

"We deeply regret the loss of the NSS-8 satellite, which was designed to be a significant part of the SES NEW SKIES fleet. We are receiving consistent expressions of confidence in our system and our team from our customers and the insurance community," said Rob Peckham, president of Sea Launch. "We have begun to discuss a plan for a Return to Flight.

"The safety of our people is our number one priority. The Sea Launch team is the best in the business and will continue to work diligently to understand the anomaly, identify the root cause and determine a corrective course of action. As we move forward, we are maintaining a positive, progressive mind-set and a dedication to excellence."

Sea Launch is an international launch service provider, based in Long Beach, Calif. Using a floating platform, one of two ocean-going vessels, Sea Launch lifts its Zenit-3SL rocket from a position on the equator at 154 degrees West Longitude. The Sea Launch partners include Boeing, RSC Energia, Aker ASA and SDO Yuzhnoye/PO Yuzhmash. For more information, please visit the Sea Launch web site at: www.sea-launch.com. We will continue to post updates on this site, as available.

Wow. If anything the fact that a rocket can fail that spectacularly and not severly disable the non-launch capabilities of the platform is a testament to the viability of this model. Whomever insures the platform is thinking, "An excuse to raise the premiums at the same time as realizing less risk than I might have supposed... sweet!"

It wasn't an explosion, there was no shockwave. It was a deflagration, just like the Hollywood effects. SO no real energy to damage things

Spaceflight Now: Sea Launch vessels set sail for port following explosion.

Well, Odyssey is seaworthy, then, and the article described its condition as "slightly damaged", though the repairs may be beyond the scope of the Long Beach facility. Overall, seems like it could have been much worse. Thanks, James!:)

There was this news item in the February 26, 2007, issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology:

QUOTE

News Breaks
Aviation Week & Space Technology
02/26/2007, page 21

Sea Launch says it hopes to return to service later this year and to begin operating its Land Launch derivative from Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan, in the third quarter of this year, as planned.

In an unusually tense session at the Satellite 2007 conference in Washington last week, customers slammed Sea Launch, Land Launch and the Launch Services Alliance, which is a mutual backup arrangement among Sea Launch, Arianespace and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

James Butterworth, senior vice president of DirecTV Group, which has a satellite on the Sea Launch manifest, said the alliance serves no purpose, because it has not enabled the operator to get a quicker liftoff elsewhere, despite the extra cost to customers. Paul Brown-Kenyon, chief operating officer of Measat Satellite Systems of Malaysia, criticized the company for delays at Land Launch, which is supposed to place its next satellite into orbit. Satellite operators and manufacturers say Land Launch is likely to be delayed a year or more because of manufacturing delays that have affected virtually all Russian launch contractors.

Sea Launch officials were at a loss to explain the irate tone of the session, saying it seemed to be more a question of "personalities," mixed perhaps "with some frustration." They said Land Launch, which has orders for six satellites, is still on schedule for a maiden lifoff in the third quarter, provided Sea Launch is cleared to resume service by then. President/General Manager Robert Peckham said he still had no knowledge of the cause of the January launch pad explosion that took the booster out of service--although some details are beginning to emerge (see p. 17)--or when the inquiry would end. But he predicted the company would be back in time for two or three launches this year.

Arianespace CEO Jean-Yves Le Gall acknowledged that the launch alliance was more or less a "virtual one" for Arianespace--so far it has only benefited Sea Launch--although he said he hopes this will change. Arianespace last week landed an award to launch SES Americom's AMC-21, previously earmarked for Land Launch in the second quarter of next year. The liftoff had been scheduled for Land Launch, but this was not within the context of the alliance. Le Gall said the Ariane 5 might be available to accept a new payload this year, depending on satellite deliveries. He also confirmed that the Ariane 5 launch rate will rise to seven per year in 2008, following an agreement with EADS Astrium earlier this month, and eight in 2009.

Thanks for this update, Alex. My husband's response:What details are "beginning to emerge" about the failure?

--Emily

From the "In Orbit" section of the same issue:

QUOTE

In Orbit
LOX-system Malfunction Eyed in Sea Launch Blast
Aviation Week & Space Technology
02/26/2007, page 17

Edited by Frank Morring, Jr.

Printed headline: Sea Launch Suffocation

Investigators probing the Jan. 30 explosion of a Sea Launch Zenit-3SL booster are focusing on a possible malfunction in the engine's liquid oxygen (LOX) system. The vehicle's LOX/kerosene RD-170 engine, built by Russia's Energomash, burns oxygen-rich, and the blockage of an oxygen line or pressurization failure in the oxygen system is being evaluated as a potential cause of the accident. Also being studied is the timing of the malfunction in relation to the capabilities of the Zenit's fault protection software. The software is designed to shut down a malfunctioning engine safely even if a problem is detected milliseconds before release from the pad. But if the vehicle is released with a malfunctioning engine, it will drop back on the pad and explode. On Jan. 30 the Sea Launch Zenit exploded on liftoff during an attempt to launch the SES New Skies NSS-8 spacecraft from the Sea Launch Odyssey platform in the Pacific (AW&ST Feb. 5, p. 27). Analysis indicates the Sea Launch vehicle may have climbed only a few inches before it fell back and engulfed the platform in flames. In response to the accident, the U.S. Air Force ordered a two-week delay in the Cape Canaveral launch of a Lockheed Martin/United Launch Alliance Atlas V carrying the STP-1 military technology payload. The Atlas V uses an Energomash RD-180 engine, which is a twin-nozzle version of the four-nozzle RD-170, and the service wants to check for suspect hardware or software commonality in the two engine variants. Originally scheduled for Feb. 23, the STP-1 launch is now planned for a 9:37-11:42 p.m. EST window on Mar. 9.

Sorry for resurrecting a dormant thread, but below is a news tidbit from the June 18, 2007, issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology:

QUOTE

Sea Launch has penciled in an October launch date for the Thuraya D3 mobile services satellite for the return to service of the Zenit-3SL booster, following the January launch pad explosion that destroyed the SES New Skies NSS-8 satellite. Sea Launch's Failure Review Oversight Board's final report early this month says metal contaminants in the liquid oxygen turbopump of the first-stage EnergoMash 171M motor caused the explosion. The Sea Launch Commander control ship and Odyssey launch platform were due in Vancouver on June 14 for repairs and maintenance.

See also the related press release from Sea Launch.