Still seems incredible to me that there is oxidizer leaking, above the engines, into the engine exhaust, and that all of the above is okay and normal.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;429485]Still seems incredible to me that there is oxidizer leaking, above the engines, into the engine exhaust, and that all of the above is okay and normal.[/QUOTE]
The reason I didn't reply directly to this specific point of above the engines was at first I didn't notice what you were contending in the video. I think I see it now. One thing though is the second stage uses the same fuel. Maybe it came from there.
[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-M[/url]
[QUOTE]Second Stage - 8S811K
Length 14 m (46 ft)
Diameter 4.15 m (13.6 ft)
Empty mass 11,715 kg (25,827 lb)
Gross mass 167,828 kg (369,997 lb)
Engines 4 RD-0210
Thrust 2,399 kN (539,000 lbf)
Specific impulse 327 sec
Burn time 206 sec
Fuel N2O4/UDMH[/QUOTE]
Edit: I still am not sure that I see any red/brown above the engines.
Edit: Oh, you mean above the rocket stage exhaust but still alongside that stages's tubes, right? There is something there I see at video point 15 seconds.

[QUOTE=only_human;429486]The reason I didn't reply directly to this specific point of above the engines was at first I didn't notice what you were contending in the video. I think I see it now. One thing though is the second stage uses the same fuel. Maybe it came from there.
[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-M[/url]

Edit: I still am not sure that I see any red/brown above the engines.
Edit: Oh, you mean above the rocket stage exhaust but still alongside that stages's tubes, right? There is something there I see at video point 15 seconds.[/QUOTE]

It's pretty clear to me.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSyvBICfGc&t=22s[/url]

Starts within a ~second of the timestamp on the link above (and similar for other launches)

ISS hatch opening for new guests
[url]http://www.ustream.tv/nasahdtv[/url]
5 minutes to open

edit:

Everyone aboard. A few more minutes until communication is reestablished. Over 8 hours since launch. Friends and family waiting to talk to astronauts.

[QUOTE]ULA Atlas V Rocket Launch: Orbital ATK Cygnus Spacecraft | OA-6
Watch Orbital ATK’s Cygnus cargo ship launch to International Space Station at 11:05pm ET. NASA TV: [url]www.nasa.gov/ntv[/url]
To ensure research aboard the International Space Station continues uninterrupted, NASA at the Kennedy Space Center is preparing to launch a Cygnus spacecraft to provide needed supplies to the orbiting outpost.

The United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket and Orbital ATK Cygnus spacecraft stack is on the launch pad at Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Launch time is 11:05 p.m. EDT on March 22, 2016 at the start of a 30-minute window. The mission calls for the Cygnus to deliver more than 3 1/2 tons of experiments and supplies to the International Space Station where astronauts will help conduct research to improve life on Earth and prep NASA for a journey to Mars by future astronauts. [/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.ustream.tv/nasahdtv[/url]

I watched it from the Charleston, SC area an hour ago, roughly 300 miles out from the pad, and relatively well positioned along the inclination of the orbit. The sky was totally clear of clouds, but the moon was exceedingly full and bright (the horizon seriously looked like it was still dusk). We saw roughly the last 60-90 seconds of the stage 1 burn, as well as the "explosions" of stage 1 cutoff, stage separation, and fairing separation (or possibly stage 2 ignition). We looked for the stage 2 burning but couldn't find it, since at that point it was positioned directly under the moon.

[URL="http://www.universetoday.com/128091/atlas-v-engine-anomaly-forces-upper-stage-thrust-makeup-during-cygnus-launch-next-flight-delayed/"]ATLAS V ENGINE ANOMALY FORCES THRUST MAKEUP DURING CYGNUS LAUNCH, NEXT FLIGHT DELAYED[/URL][QUOTE]The stunningly beautiful nighttime blastoff of the United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V from the Florida space coast on Tuesday, March 22, was not quite as flawless as initially thought and marred by the early engine shutdown which has now forced a postponement of the next planned Atlas V launch as company engineers painstakingly evaluate the data.

“The Centaur [upper stage] burned for longer than planned,” Lyn Chassagne, spokesperson for rocket maker ULA, told Universe Today.

“The ULA engineering team is reviewing the data to determine the root cause of the occurrence.”

The Centaur RL10C-1 powerplant had to make up for a thrust and velocity deficiency resulting from a 6 second shorter than planned firing of the Atlas V’s first stage RD-180 engines.

Indeed the Centaur had to fire for a minute longer than planned to inject Cygnus into its target orbit.

“The first stage cut-off occurred approximately 6 seconds early, however the Centaur was able to burn an additional approximately 60 seconds longer and achieve mission success, delivering Cygnus to its required orbit.”[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][/QUOTE][QUOTE=only_human;430092][URL="http://www.universetoday.com/128091/atlas-v-engine-anomaly-forces-upper-stage-thrust-makeup-during-cygnus-launch-next-flight-delayed/"]ATLAS V ENGINE ANOMALY FORCES THRUST MAKEUP DURING CYGNUS LAUNCH, NEXT FLIGHT DELAYED[/URL][/QUOTE]

Man, Orbital and Russian engines just don't get along, do they?

[URL="http://www.houstonpress.com/news/nasa-is-going-green-with-a-new-rocket-fuel-in-2017-8280020"]NASA is Going Green With a New Rocket Fuel in 2017[/URL]
[QUOTE]The result is the AF-M315E, a hydroxyl ammonium nitrate fuel oxidizer blend that was originally developed at the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory at Edwards Air Force Base in California. If it works this fuel change will be a win for NASA on all fronts. The stuff is actually less toxic and easier to handle than the regular hydrazine-based propellants, according to NASA. It comes with fewer handling restrictions which helps cut down on cost. Plus, it's more efficient than hydrazine, giving a spacecraft more thrust for less fuel, and more dense, which means more of it fits into a smaller space in a fuel container.

In other words, NASA has every reason to continue running tests to see if AF-M315E will work as a cheaper, better "green" rocket fuel that both NASA and commercial space companies could use in launches in the coming years, according to NASA.

NASA just finished up the functional and environmental hardware and systems tests that were the first big step toward the fuel actually being put into use for rocket launches. Now, they just have to pull off the next part of the process and actually test the fuel. The first test is slated to take place in 2017, according to NASA. A compact small satellite (known around NASA as a "smallsat") will be launched into space loaded with AF-M315E. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;430293][URL="http://www.houstonpress.com/news/nasa-is-going-green-with-a-new-rocket-fuel-in-2017-8280020"]NASA is Going Green With a New Rocket Fuel in 2017[/URL][/QUOTE]
That article shows that the writer does not clearly understand the issues that they are talking about. The new "green" fuel is not for the main engines that are generation the soot referenced. It is for the maneuvering thrusters, 3rd stages, PAM's, and apogee kick motors. All of those are mainly used above the 25 mile zone that is being talked about for soot.

Also:
[QUOTE]If it doesn't, well, NASA will have to possibly find some other way to decrease its environmental footprint. There's always recycling.[/QUOTE]Oh, recycling will fix the carbon black up in the atmosphere. :max:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;430302]That article shows that the writer does not clearly understand the issues that they are talking about. The new "green" fuel is not for the main engines that are generation the soot referenced. It is for the maneuvering thrusters, 3rd stages, PAM's, and apogee kick motors. All of those are mainly used above the 25 mile zone that is being talked about for soot.

Also:
Oh, recycling will fix the carbon black up in the atmosphere. :max:[/QUOTE]
Well local reporting will always get the science wrong. I partially blame Nasa for characterizing the using of less hazardous chemicals as a green change. Carrying a folded knife in your pocket is safer than an unsheathed steak knife but not necessarily a green change.

So the reporting went off into the weeds by looking at how nasty chemicals are and assumed that Nasa's "green" change meant some of the several negatives must have been improved instead of recognizing that this was positive spin on a safer to handle fuel.

The other two errors as you mentioned were failing to understand where the fuel would be used and closing with the insipid and useless recycling comment after having been spun in the green direction by Nasa's shallow green pandering.