Explosion During Vulcan Rocket Test - Weeks Before Maiden Flight!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- A few weeks ago a test of the Vulcan Centaur at the Marshal Space Flight Center ended in a fiery explosion as leaking hydrogen gas found an ignition source. Meanwhile ULA are preparing a Vulcan rocket for flight with a debut 3 weeks from now, while this is not the outcome engineers would hope for I expect that this launch will continue.
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley
Back in the day, the Saturn V first stages were tested at Marshall Space Flight Center, which resulted in some consternation when windows were broken around Huntsville. That issue led to the creation of Stennis Space Center in southern Mississippi, which has their own test stands.
They tested the upper stage near Rancho Cordova in NorCal when I was little. It would rattle your teeth.
@@ronjones-6977 Wow that is interesting, I had no idea there was a rocket industry in NorCal.
Current resident of Huntsville. My great aunt who moved here in the 50s told me that the F1 engine tests would shake the snakes out of the ground near her house 😂
Stennis hasn't been managed by MSFC since it became Stennis. It was originally managed by MSFC and was known as the Mississippi Test Facility. At some point the name was changed to NSTL (National Space Technologies Laboratory if I remember correctly) before becoming Stennis. Some might argue that it should have never become a center and should still be a field center of MSFC.
@@roberson644 It was a test facility for S-IVB stages built in Huntington Beach (Southern California)... or maybe Santa Monica as well if its use went all the way back to the predecessor S-IV (six RL-10s instead of a single J-2).
In related news, Eric Berger suspects that the buyer for ULA is likely to be Lockheed. Since they're just taking full ownership by acquiring Boeing's stake, they're unlikely to be dissuaded by this little kerfuffle.
They're certainly the most reasonable candidate, since they'd basically just be taking over the half they don't own, and continuing operations. For any other potential buyer, the benefits are less clear... e.g. it wouldn't make sense for BO to do so if they still claim New Glenn will fly in the next year or so.
Given Boeing’s financial situation (SLS, 737Max, new AirForceOne, etc.),
Reducing expenses through layoffs and 747 production line shutdown helps,
BUT they need CASH. Lockheed buying them out provides that.
The Delta IV Heavy was a McDonnell Douglas program (Boeing lost during 1990s EELV),
so when the final launch occurs 2025 - their history ends.
I wonder if Tory will survive the transition
@@jasonmead8475 I suspect he'd take it as a cue to retire (he's early sixties), or if not ready to retire yet, as a cue for a change. He's CEO right now, so any new position will technically be a demotion...
That would be great lockheed doesnt play games
Liquid hydrogen has never been a friendly fuel, as it tests your test setups fully and thoroughly.
Thank you Mr. Manley for the updates.
Greetings,
Anthony
When I was a kid I used to make hydrogen using the household items, lye and aluminum foil in water. I'd have the mixture in a large bottle sitting in a pan of water to keep the reaction cool to not produce too much steam. I'd fill balloons with it. Helium was just too expensive, and making hydrogen was free. At the time "Jack In The Box" hamburger joints gave away very large balloons. So I could get a decent sized balloon that could lift a little weight. I'd usually let the balloons fly.
One time I wanted to see what happened if one blew up. So I had the balloon in my back yard and made a rudimentary fuse. I lit the fuze and stepped back. Oh, man it was quite the explosion.
Out of curiosity: did you fill the balloons with pure hydrogen somehow or was it a mixture of hydrogen+oxygen (or hydrogen+air) instead?
how'd you fill the balloon with the hydrogen?
@@michaelotoole1807 Probably put the materials to create the gas in a soda bottle. Then he simply put the balloon over the entire neck of the bottle.
Then carefully twisted open the cap of the bottle to fill the balloon. Then twist the cap closed.
You'd then Pinch the balloon with your fingers and pull it back off the neck of the bottle without releasing any of the gas. 😉
Thankfully doing it that way he had plenty of oxygen mixed in with the hydrogen when he lit it with his makeshift fuse!
That had to be LOUD! LOL
@@LordTimelord Well, thanks for your precise instructions, now we are going to have a lot of backyard experimenters try this out. Just remember kids, extinguish your cigs before loading/transferring your makeshift hydrogen!
@@mskiptr You get pure hydrogen (assuming the purity of your ingredients!) The other products are left in the goo in the bottle.
I think it depends on how the initial failure occurred. If it was a relatively minor leak that just caused a build up in the sealed test stand then it wouldn't be a problem at all. It would not be ideal for you rocket to spring a leak in flight, but you are not going to get the same build up of gasses when flying hypersonic in near vacuum. If there was a sudden catastrophic failure of something that they were not expecting they might have more headaches. I expect there is a lot of data available that they are not disclosing, so we will see.
Also, one thing worth noting is that it was not a detonation. It was a gas deflagration causing a large fireball, and an overpressure blowing out the panels. It was the sort of conditions that Hollywood do deliberately when they want an explosion that is impressive but relatively safe. The SpaceX detonation under a booster was a far more significant event. in terms of possible damage.
yeah, in the scale from harmless fireball to SN4 detonation, this is closer to the middle.
It's still a confined space tho, and a confined explosion is still gonna do damage no matter what
It’s a balloon style ultra thin tank. Any leaks are going to scare engineers. If this was any other type of tank or stage such a leak would be a lot more minor. It has a lot less margin of error than other flight hardware to get that sweet delta V.
@@mattmichael2441 In the tank itself, yes, but the fittings have much greater tolerances. As SLS showed us, getting hydrogen sealed is a massive headache, because it will escape through the tiniest imperfection. Hydrogen actually has a greater margin of error, because it tends to run very fuel rich. Losing a little bit of hydrogen will increase the temperatures in the engine a little, and reduce the ISP a bit. While this is a problem, it is not the same sort of problem as an engine becoming oxidiser rich. The propellant mass mostly being oxygen as well means little overall propellant fraction is lost. If a centaur were to leak 1% of it's hydrogen that would only translate to maybe a 0.3% drop in performance, and it would probably still work.
0:58 on the map I can see "Lanier Cemetery #2" Did they say "Cemetery" ? Are they suggesting that space travel can be bad for your health?
HYDROGEN?? BUT THE TESTING FLIER SAYS NITEOGEN! 🤔 ... 😂😂
It's honestly a good thing they don't use nitrogen. Or at least not solely nitrogen..
I think that ULA, with a 100% launch success record to protect, will probably not want to take any further risks with a new rocket system supporting a mission that is already complicated. Is there any validity to the rumors about ULA potentially being for sale? If so, ULA's reputation probably translates to real money, and this has got to be on Tory Bruno's mind. I'm a big SpaceX fan, but I really hope that Vulcan Centaur will continue ULA's perfect success rate.
I think the 100% is just Atlas by itself. I don't think they care about records specifically, more so reputation more broadly
No RUDs, but they've had 2 partial failures and one near failure.
@@1224chrisng it includes delta 4 and delta 2 also
Somehow watching the tank explode reminded me of a Star Trek episode. Scotty tells La Forge to increase the pressure in a tank, La Forge refuses due to the specifications and Scotty asks " who do you think wrote the specifications?". That goes to your point in the video that the company could have gone to ' near destructive testing ' and not expect it to have failed.
Yeah, I think testing to destruction is the safest thing.
Why "rocket science" is so hard is because most everything is operating near to the actual limits without much safety margin included.
@@travcollier Are you sure it is not THAT plus the multiple vector mathematics involved to see if you are going where you want as the rocket is not exploding?😁
FYA Centaur V is usually not called "Centaur Vee" but "Centaur Five"
I always enjoy a Scott Manley synopsis.
Thanks for the update on this incident, Scott. I haven't been on Twitter much lately and I would have missed this for a decent amount of time. I should probably turn notifications on for Tory as he does post great content.
Just make sure that you don’t miss the starship orbital launch. It’s either April 17 or 20, the internet has been saying both, I’m not sure which, but I will be ready for both days.
Regarding the ignition source, I've seen reports where a pressurized Natural Gas line leaked and the static electricity caused by the pressurized leak was enough to ignite it.
Paulo you are correct. There have been several papers on high velocity jets of hydrogen, and other gases, creating electrostatic sparks resulting in auto ignition. I conducted some experiments in 1979 that convinced myself that hydrogen self ignition was a fact.
@@Spacedog49 I never experienced ignition by static, there was a HSE briefing at work, after the event happened at one of our installations. Hydrogens looks scary. Well, explosives were, until I went through some training...
I appreciate the well-timed wait on this video until actual footage of the explosion came out. Some earlier videos I saw were not as detailed on the background and cared more about the drama of space company transparency and "what Elon thought" (which annoys me). Also one video I saw would talk about the MSFC and show b-roll or the ULA Decatur factory or show the wrong test article stand. This video is by far the most informative on RUclips as of its release. 10/10
A lot of people would run around like headless chickens after an event like this, you Scott just calmly evaluate and clearly explain your reasoning, you are a exemplary human, thank you.
what?
Not surprising as being an outside observer, he doesn’t have to deal with the aftermath.
@@georgejones3526 Ouch!
Lack of transparency and hand waving concerns is not conducive to a "trusting" atmosphere.
Old Space was the "safe and certain" choice... once upon a time....
They have not ACTUALLY performed for quite some time.
Remember the "100% success rate" was on hardware that has had DECADES of experience.
This is new stuff, new techniques and new equipment. Their track record on that is... well.... not so good to non-extant at this point.
@@phlogistanjones2722 It might help if you don't RANDOMLY capitalise words, or use insinuation and "scare quotes" to try and spread FUD when there's an interesting discussion to be had instead.
Let's not descend into TRIBALISM and mean-spirited rivalry - this is about spaceflight where we should be "celebrating" human ingenuity as we explore and learn about our place in the universe. The mentality that MY SIDE can only win if "your side" loses has poisoned political discourse and so many other aspects of culture and society, and the last thing spaceflight needs is to become more like politics.
Some comments suggested using Helium instead of Hydrogen for a pressure-test. But Helium isn't a great choice for at least two reasons.
One problem with using Helium is, that it has no fluid state at the temperature and pressure at which the liquid hydrogen would be kept in the tank. Helium's critical point is at 5,2 K and 2,27 Bar, i.e at a higher temperature it is a supercritical fluid, if its pressure is above 2,27 Bar (but not high enough to solidify Helium).
Just cooling to a lower temperature and to use liquid Helium also isn't very attractive, as the tank might e.g. be more brittle at 5 K, so a failure wouldn't say much about its quality at higher temperatures.
What might be the bigger issue is that Hydrogen is very reactive and able to creep into a solid through lattice defects, and it can damage metals by "Hydrogen corrosion", e.g. cause embrittlement. In contrast Helium just isn't chemically reactive and causes no such corrosion.
A more practical way to avoid such explosions is a sealed room with a nitrogen atmosphere. Without any oxidizer in the atmosphere and in the tanks, there's just nothing to violently react with the hydrogen. It's not even complicated to build, as it doesn't need to be perfectly sealed, and could be operated at room temperature and at a pressure just slightly higher than that of the ambient air.
Helium being monoatomic also is much smaller than hydrogen molecules and leaks readily through everything. Helium costs more than 10 times more than hydrogen and is a non-renewable resource.
On the one hand - that's not good.
On the other hand - this is what test stands are for.
Generally one tests things PRIOR to actually incorporating them into flight hardware.
Unless you are the military. Or Old Space with "new projects".
@@phlogistanjones2722 I believe they test every piece of hardware before it gets mounted. In case things like this happen.
Very well-stated Scott Manley. Test, Test, and Test another time. I am amazed how SpaceX has succeeded with Falcon this far. This is a risky business. There will be failures.
It’s called being a closeted white nationalist and global quantitative easing. It’s pretty easy be a rocket company when money when European banks literally had negative interest rates and elites around the world got free $$ to invest.
the SLS interstate being inserted rly puts some perspective on its size😂 thing is massive
I definitely recognize the test stand used for the F1 engines. Looking at the Google Maps view of it was very unexpected though haha. It looks like it could just be the middle of any random part of suburbia or an RV park haha. The immediate surroundings definitely don't betray the fact that it's actually a major rocket test stand haha.
"Jeff, where's my engines ? "
Ha ha ha ha ha
It's like I always say: rocket SCIENCE is easy. Rocket ENGINEERING is hard! Just remember: Murphy is lurking around every design station, every manufacturing stage, and every launch pad!
Big forces, high accelerations, insane noise levels, temperatures hot enough to melt any metal not far away from deeply cryogenic propellants, and the whole thing has to be incredibly light to stay within the available dry mass fraction so there's hardly any capacity to build in safety margins. It's a testament to the amazing design and manufacturing that goes into these rockets that any of this stuff works at all and we don't see tanks failing and engines exploding all the time.
@@trolleriffic, there's some absolutely AWESOME footage of early Thor, Redstone, Atlas and Titan missiles that show just how hard missile engineering is.
@@johndemeritt3460 The sequence which was used in Koyaanisqatsi and discussed in another of Scott's recent videos is a fantastic example. Thank goodness for high speed cameras, long lenses and stable tracking mounts!
@@trolleriffic, yeah! Can you imagine a flat Earther trying to get that footage?
Raises the temperature, hydrogen is more pernicious, and leaks that happens with hydrogen, may not happen with nitrogen.
Excellent assessment, Scott.
So this really was a R.U.D. then... 😁😇🤟
As to the impact on the mission, I think it would depend on the point of failure. If it failed after it had already reached or exceeded expected point of failure, no problem. If it failed well before that point then you have a problem. It looks like it began to peel back at the top of the horizontal seam. That doesn't bode well to me.
@@ddt6352 - You're right. I meant to say vertical seam. Looking at the container laying on its side on the ground you can see what appears to be a seam that would be vertical when lifted to its normal position. Actually the "rocket" has graduated vertical marking along both sides running up and down that essentially divide it in half. You can follow those markings as it is lifted into place. In the video in the upright position it is turned so that the seam is just on the left edge of the video. However, when it explodes you can see the left edge of the panel open up vertically in a straight line then a second vertical opening occurs to the right of it creating a flap. You can pause the video at the point of explosion and use your keyboard keys to watch it open up. Different keys control the frame rate. I use the , and . keys to slow down or speed up (parse) within each frame. If you watch the time number and hit the , repeatedly you will eventually see a full second pass. Other keys will adjust the frame movement by seconds rather than parse each frame. Thanks for letting me know about the problem :-)
Thanks for the update Scott.
It was a deflagration not a detonation. Not enough speed to shatter the steel of the structures. Still concerning even if it is due to excessive cycle fatigue. Would like to see them successful and hope the launch is able to move foreward.
Shoutout to my hometown it’s always cool to see it in the spotlight. Saw a lot of FB posts about people hearing the detonation. I think most people didn’t really take notice sound wise as they regularly have blasting at nearby Redstone Arsenal.
What are they doing at Redstone that causes so much ruckus?
I was just over a mile from 4699 when it went boom and it rattled my bldg harder than any of the Army booms from TA1. But then again 4699 is closer to my office than TA1.
@@fensoxx All kinds of stuff. ATF plays with explosives out there, and the FBI has a huge complex there now as well. Plus, the Army.
I live about 5 miles from that test stand, and I think I heard that thing pop the other day. There's always booms coming from Redstone Aresenal, but that one was a little different.
Was it about 2:30-3:00 in the afternoon? I think I heard it too.
Rocket failures are good! You learn more science that way, and it just that fun to watch!
So, they've been cycling that Centaur stage over and over and it finally failed? Were they intentionally testing it to failure? Finally, since I don't doubt they must have had H2 leak detectors, this must have been a sudden, major leak and not a gradual buildup.
Not intentionally testing to failure, as I understand it, but doing extra testing where failure was a reasonable possiblity.
ULA is *avoiding* Rapid Iteration ala NASA . . . "That is why you fail." - Yoda
Why did ULA decide to develop new Centaur V upper stage for Vulcan Centaur rocket instead of using existing Delta Cryogenic Second Stage DCSS already in use on Delta 4 and SLS? Both are the same diameter and use same fuel and RL-10 engines. The only external difference seems to be shared tank dome instead of separate tanks.
Well, I guess we shall see.
Thanks, Scott! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
"It's not that bad." A delightfully Kerbal attitude!
2:55 That's an awesome shot of the failure point(s) as they develop prior to the flame front coming through.
The info I have access to lists the date of construction of 4699 as being 1968. However, my understanding is that the stand wasn't originally built as a cryo-structural test facility. I think I heard that it was originally some sort of thermal test facility maybe? The stand was used for the Aluminum Lithium Test Article (ALTA) test that provided test data to support the adoption of the Super Lightweight Tank by SSP. I don't know if it was used for structural testing prior to then.
So many things happening in the space industry, I'm way too excited!!!! Great post
To me Scott's explaination is reasonable referred to the impact on the upcoming maiden launch of the Vulcan launch vehicle. In the end need to wait and see ... ;-)
Even though it's still standing, that historic test stand most certainly took noticable damage.
You can see the walls bending during the blast.
Hey Scott can you explain the thinking behind ULA not having tested this section earlier? Something doesn't make sense because ULA seem to be suggesting everything was ready to go, just waiting for engines???
thats cuz its a lie...
Interesting that they were testing with liquid hydrogen in a structural test. Likely they needed to reproduce the very low temperature of boiling hydrogen. Strange there weren't sensors which picked up gaseous hydrogen from the leak before it built up to a hazardous level. Scott's comments about the risk of SpaceX StarShip-Booster launch just a week before it failed seem amazingly prescient.
Careful Scott that fireball might be art 😂
The V is a roman numeral 5, just like Atlas V (even though with both Atlas and Centaur they skipped IV/4)
No! You fly safe!
An Uncle, of mine, Helped Build Many of the Original Test Stands at MSFC
Saturn S-IV test in the 60s: Boom
Vulcan Centaur 2023: Hold my thermos bottle.
Well, that must have waken-up the neighbors 😁
6:14 and often its SpaceX. Great video Scott.
It's better this happens on the ground than in a full launch.
Insurance companies get involved in rocket-companies?! That seems nuts to me. The monthly payments for those must be astronomical.
Of course they do. Who do you think sells launch insurance?
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom I was thinking nobody. It doesn't make sense considering the amount of money involved and the failure-rate.
Oh wow they finally released the video huh? That was nuts to see internally as we were prepping to roll for tanking tests at the pad
There's video in here showing tanking tests on the pad.
This reminded me of the scene between Maserati xxx and Lexington Steele... that was a substantial explosion!!!
4:47 - "Its integration" sounded very much like "disintegration" 😀
2:20 *watches the near-side of the test stand undergo R.U.D*
Scott: It wasn’t that bad. The major structural elements of the test stand remained intact.
Wot? 🤣
rapid unplanned disassembly.
surprise recycling opportunity.
I was surprised that the camera managed to catch a frame of the structure bulging before the fireball. Good thing no one was harmed!
High speed cameras are a useful tool in places like test stands...
Scott…Jeff’s scent is residue on your lips.
I don’t think the red arrow in the thumbnail is necessary to communicate that it’s that stage which blew up.
Ahh nothing better than a good old rapid disassembly.
Scott manley on Friday must be my lucky day. Keep it up scott much appreciated.
I honestly hope you're right, Scott. ULA could use some good news right now, and a success on this mission could be just what they need.
Hydrogen powered cars would certainly make an impression out on the highway when they explode.
Yeah, hydrogen powered cars are a fools notion and always have been.
Boom - ULA says All is Good
Hydrogen ignites at large range of concentration to air.
I bet the time between the leak and the explosion was very short - perhaps within few minutes, even within one.
Also, if it was small leek - crack on tube or valve or similar (low flow) we would not see this at all.
Hydrogen disperses fast. I bet a pressure test failed with rupturing the reservoir, part of the hydrogen got mixed enough with air and met a spark.
If this was well mixed with air it could have been much more spectacular.
You can see the water vapor, which is cool :D
Second look - the initial blow to the housing, blew out with no flame - consistent with big rupture of the tank. Then it caught fire and went hot...
Thanks for the update, Scott.
"You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!"
You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
Couldn't they use helium as a test substitute for hydrogen? From a technical point of view, not a cost or "helium is too rare to risk wasting this much of it" point of view.
Will Centaur V always have two RL-10s or are there variants with only one?
Propably just the 2-engine variant, Centaur V is over double the mass of the previous largest Centaur(Centaur G Prime) so it might not have enough thrust with just one.
Also, this is almost certainly Starliners future launch vehicle, so they will want a proven 2-engine second stage regardless.
I'm sure somebody is saying "but we've run that test like 10 times already..." (as a side note, i'm sure some engineers are also quite interested over what the force measurements and stuff were showing as the failure occured)
New motto? "I'm Scott Manley - fly save, test dangerous."
Tank: explodes
Elon:tis but a scratch
Liquid Hydrogen is at 20° Kelvin? Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, that's cold! I've routinely worked with liquid Nitrogen (63° - 77° K) although Helium is a liquid at 2.4° - 4° K.
Ohhh that's what that large boom was the other day...
Of course any launch is a calculated risk, but given ULA seems to be having it's problems both technically and financially, what if there's a subsequent launch failure?
So funny, I literally just read about test stand 4670 the other day in Across the Airless Wilds!
Scott, aren't there times where you run a test to the point of destroying the test article in order to see not just will the article survive the expected stresses but to see how far past it will survive?
You make sure it is done in a controlled manner. This didn't seem to be the case here.
Ofc you do but first your PR team usually gets out in front of that so it doesn't look like you fucked up and it also seems weird to do it with explosive gases without proper venting. I mean the explosion blows up the failure you want to gather data about.
Qualification testing will often include failure mode analysis to find limits.
Also of note - for pressure vessels it's almost always done with water😂
Not in this case. If you pressure testing you use nitrogen, or some other intert gases so you only have to worry about the overpressure bursting the tank. As the flames indicate, this tank was being filled with hydrogen. They would most assuredly not tested it to failure with hydrogen. This was categorically an unintended explosion. As Scott mentionned, it was most likely caused by a leak.
Layman's projection, more failure points in the peripheral systems, the explosion wasn't due to failure of the tank. It'll hold up, no problems.
Remember how everyone freaked out about SpaceX and the explosion under the booster? People were sure it was a big deal, but they didn’t realize it happens a lot during initial testing and builds
Great timing on Tank Test. Starship has beefed up containment of it's launch blast and I suggest that puts more load on the Rocket itself. No?
Igor, pull the switch !
Somehow that initial picture looked like it came out of a version of KSP with better graphics.
Hydrogen *always* leaks. The molecule is so small it can leak *through* solid metal. That is one of its fundamental problems, along with its obscenely low boiling point.
Dear Customer - we just blew up the test and the stand and a few small mammals in the nearby woods - but eh, sure load up your very expensive payload and lets give it a shot!
Just an FYI, the V in Centaur V is a Roman numeral, and not Centaur Vee!
I think the take home point from this is to not do this test in an enclosed space that could collect hydrogen.
As much fun as it would be to talk about big Vulcan explosions, it's good to know that the failure is less catastrophic and more easily addressed. Given the failures and delays of the spacefaring entities not run by authoritarian governments or James Bond villain wannabes, that's comforting.
Let's hope the launch is a big Vulcan success!
It really does feel like ULA is going balls to the wall and throwing caution to the wind just to make sure they fly before Starship
No
Did ULA says that final test article for testing until destruction? They do that for aircraft as one of several production test will used to test until destruction.
We kept saying that Boeing Starliner takes so long due to testing and rigorous design… but at this point crew 8 will fly on spacex vehicle before starliner flies with a crew and this does not even take into account commercial crewed flight by spacex. So, while they might get lucky, I won’t count on rigorous design and testing as a guarantee of success
Watching the hard-structure during the explosion, to me, indicates that structural damage to the hard-structure was incurred and large repairs will be forthcoming. But that's my observation of what is presented here.
Doesn't delay the project? Unless they decided to say something along the lines of "this is a multi million dollar just for fun," or "we know the vessel has been compromised but let's see what happens anyway," this absolutely delays the project. They spent how much money to confirm that this may not work? Unless they repeat this exact scenario, this test only confirms that there are going to be some engineering positions opening up....
I don't know, man. When you intentionally test these to failure, do you also blow up the testing facility?
Big fan of hydrogen in general, but yeah hydrogen explosions are always spectacular.
Hydrogen has to be the best fuel around but the biggest PIA to work with as well.
Hydrogen is too troublesome.
Oh, the humanity! Hindenberg jr.
Speaking of ULA, any word on when Star Liner may fly again?
Been involved in many a R&D gas turbine engine test.
Glad I'll not be the target of the " relentless root cause analysis " for this failure. There were always more man hours and manpower available hunt done the person or cause of the failure then there were to design, build the test subject in the first place.
Rocket goes kaboom
Just to keep it real, this will set back their efforts by months. The top brass will want absolute assurances that such a thing will not happen again. No wishful thinking.
better to have it happen at testing than in-flight
I'd certainly expect a big delay. The NRO/their insurers will likely want ULA to demonstrate passing this test before putting their satellite onboard. If the test isn't necessary for the launch, why would they run it? It ain't free, and they're running a business.
@@737smartin I might be wrong but I don't think government payloads can be insured - effectively the US Gov insures itself. Some of those NRO satellites are very big and complex with pricetags in the billions of dollars so a loss would be a massive setback in both financial terms and lost capability while a replacement was built.
Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs
or astronauts