Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Tugger wrote:
Also Boeing has set aside/took a charge of $410M to cover a potential second full-up test launch if required.
Tugg
Francoflier wrote:Tugger wrote:
Also Boeing has set aside/took a charge of $410M to cover a potential second full-up test launch if required.
Tugg
If I was an astronaut slated to fly this thing, I certainly would want them to... I hope NASA makes them do another test, though I suspect Boeing's lobbyist are working against that already in DC.
Tugger wrote:Apparently NASA has 61 items for Boeing to address:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/nasa-fi ... craft.html
Also Boeing has set aside/took a charge of $410M to cover a potential second full-up test launch if required.
Tugg
zanl188 wrote:
Francoflier wrote:zanl188 wrote:
'Opts'...
DarkKnight5 wrote:Atlas V launched US Air or Space Force’s X-37B spaceplane. Can’t confirm the prograM has been transferred to the Space Force officially or not. Media outlets divided in that point.
Errrrrday’s coverage here:
http://youtu.be/NIfyAd06lII
It is amazing how slowly it left the pad. It had to have been at 1.1x thrust to weight at liftoff. It looked so slow I was worried the engine wasn’t providing full power. It was also one of the most vertical launches I’ve seen lately, very little pitch over, it’s especially apparent on views from the rocket. Obviously they didn’t need it, but it seems like an SRM would have helped their performance margin. Maybe the X-37B has so much Delta-V that it doesn’t need any help beyond getting to LEO.
Nomadd wrote:I have to wonder if Tim Dodd is human. I've seen him talk for two hours without taking a breath.
ThePointblank wrote:Independent review of Boeing's Starliner complete, with a total of 80 recommendations:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-and-b ... t-reviews/
21 of these recommendations pertain to improving testing and ground simulations, including the notable addition of an end-to-end test prior to every Starliner flight
(...)
hilram wrote:ThePointblank wrote:Independent review of Boeing's Starliner complete, with a total of 80 recommendations:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-and-b ... t-reviews/
21 of these recommendations pertain to improving testing and ground simulations, including the notable addition of an end-to-end test prior to every Starliner flight
(...)
It is truly beyond belief that this wasn't always in place! What happened to "if it ain't Boeing I'm not going"? You could almost turn that around at this point.
FGITD wrote:hilram wrote:ThePointblank wrote:Independent review of Boeing's Starliner complete, with a total of 80 recommendations:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-and-b ... t-reviews/
21 of these recommendations pertain to improving testing and ground simulations, including the notable addition of an end-to-end test prior to every Starliner flight
(...)
It is truly beyond belief that this wasn't always in place! What happened to "if it ain't Boeing I'm not going"? You could almost turn that around at this point.
It is a fascinating and slightly concerning insight that “make sure the spacecraft actually works” somehow wasn’t on the preflight checklist.
I'm sure Boeing will get it right, and I certainly hope they do...but if I was one of those crews I'd certainly feel much better going up on spacex equipment.
FGITD wrote:hilram wrote:ThePointblank wrote:Independent review of Boeing's Starliner complete, with a total of 80 recommendations:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-and-b ... t-reviews/
21 of these recommendations pertain to improving testing and ground simulations, including the notable addition of an end-to-end test prior to every Starliner flight
(...)
It is truly beyond belief that this wasn't always in place! What happened to "if it ain't Boeing I'm not going"? You could almost turn that around at this point.
It is a fascinating and slightly concerning insight that “make sure the spacecraft actually works” somehow wasn’t on the preflight checklist.
I'm sure Boeing will get it right, and I certainly hope they do...but if I was one of those crews I'd certainly feel much better going up on spacex equipment.
LTEN11 wrote:FGITD wrote:hilram wrote:It is truly beyond belief that this wasn't always in place! What happened to "if it ain't Boeing I'm not going"? You could almost turn that around at this point.
It is a fascinating and slightly concerning insight that “make sure the spacecraft actually works” somehow wasn’t on the preflight checklist.
I'm sure Boeing will get it right, and I certainly hope they do...but if I was one of those crews I'd certainly feel much better going up on spacex equipment.
While I agree with the consensus that Boeing didn't do their job properly here, surely ULA and NASA must also share some responsibility as well. ULA as it was their launch vehicle and you would have thought that it's as much their responsibility that everything is integrated properly and testing done and NASA, well ultimately they are the prime customer and should be overseeing the project more diligently.
Or is this a case of NASA being giddy of the new boy doing really well and concentrating on them and leaving the old timer to their own devices
Francoflier wrote:Good launch for Atlas V and good insertion into orbit by the Centaur upper stage.
Mars 2020 now completes the trio of probes enroute to Mars during this launch opportunity, following Tianwen-1 and the UAE Mars mission.. Rendez vous February 18th next year for the landing on the Jezero crater.
Bon voyage...
meecrob wrote:LTEN11 wrote:FGITD wrote:
It is a fascinating and slightly concerning insight that “make sure the spacecraft actually works” somehow wasn’t on the preflight checklist.
I'm sure Boeing will get it right, and I certainly hope they do...but if I was one of those crews I'd certainly feel much better going up on spacex equipment.
While I agree with the consensus that Boeing didn't do their job properly here, surely ULA and NASA must also share some responsibility as well. ULA as it was their launch vehicle and you would have thought that it's as much their responsibility that everything is integrated properly and testing done and NASA, well ultimately they are the prime customer and should be overseeing the project more diligently.
Or is this a case of NASA being giddy of the new boy doing really well and concentrating on them and leaving the old timer to their own devices
ULA was contracted to place the Starliner Capsule in a specified orbit which it did. Not sure what else they could have done really. Same with NASA. The whole point of the Commercial Crew Program is so NASA can offload the burden of developing flight hardware to a private sector company and "rent" its services to transport crew to the ISS, etc similar to how Soyuz capsules used to be "rented" by NASA. If there was a Soyuz failure with US astronauts aboard, would you say that NASA should take some blame for simply having purchased a ticket to ride?
meecrob wrote:LTEN11 wrote:FGITD wrote:
It is a fascinating and slightly concerning insight that “make sure the spacecraft actually works” somehow wasn’t on the preflight checklist.
I'm sure Boeing will get it right, and I certainly hope they do...but if I was one of those crews I'd certainly feel much better going up on spacex equipment.
While I agree with the consensus that Boeing didn't do their job properly here, surely ULA and NASA must also share some responsibility as well. ULA as it was their launch vehicle and you would have thought that it's as much their responsibility that everything is integrated properly and testing done and NASA, well ultimately they are the prime customer and should be overseeing the project more diligently.
Or is this a case of NASA being giddy of the new boy doing really well and concentrating on them and leaving the old timer to their own devices
ULA was contracted to place the Starliner Capsule in a specified orbit which it did. Not sure what else they could have done really. Same with NASA. The whole point of the Commercial Crew Program is so NASA can offload the burden of developing flight hardware to a private sector company and "rent" its services to transport crew to the ISS, etc similar to how Soyuz capsules used to be "rented" by NASA. If there was a Soyuz failure with US astronauts aboard, would you say that NASA should take some blame for simply having purchased a ticket to ride?
meecrob wrote:LTEN11 wrote:FGITD wrote:
It is a fascinating and slightly concerning insight that “make sure the spacecraft actually works” somehow wasn’t on the preflight checklist.
I'm sure Boeing will get it right, and I certainly hope they do...but if I was one of those crews I'd certainly feel much better going up on spacex equipment.
While I agree with the consensus that Boeing didn't do their job properly here, surely ULA and NASA must also share some responsibility as well. ULA as it was their launch vehicle and you would have thought that it's as much their responsibility that everything is integrated properly and testing done and NASA, well ultimately they are the prime customer and should be overseeing the project more diligently.
Or is this a case of NASA being giddy of the new boy doing really well and concentrating on them and leaving the old timer to their own devices
ULA was contracted to place the Starliner Capsule in a specified orbit which it did. Not sure what else they could have done really. Same with NASA. The whole point of the Commercial Crew Program is so NASA can offload the burden of developing flight hardware to a private sector company and "rent" its services to transport crew to the ISS, etc similar to how Soyuz capsules used to be "rented" by NASA. If there was a Soyuz failure with US astronauts aboard, would you say that NASA should take some blame for simply having purchased a ticket to ride?
LTEN11 wrote:meecrob wrote:LTEN11 wrote:
While I agree with the consensus that Boeing didn't do their job properly here, surely ULA and NASA must also share some responsibility as well. ULA as it was their launch vehicle and you would have thought that it's as much their responsibility that everything is integrated properly and testing done and NASA, well ultimately they are the prime customer and should be overseeing the project more diligently.
Or is this a case of NASA being giddy of the new boy doing really well and concentrating on them and leaving the old timer to their own devices
ULA was contracted to place the Starliner Capsule in a specified orbit which it did. Not sure what else they could have done really. Same with NASA. The whole point of the Commercial Crew Program is so NASA can offload the burden of developing flight hardware to a private sector company and "rent" its services to transport crew to the ISS, etc similar to how Soyuz capsules used to be "rented" by NASA. If there was a Soyuz failure with US astronauts aboard, would you say that NASA should take some blame for simply having purchased a ticket to ride?
There is a slight difference to renting a capsule from a foreign entity to take people to the space station and return, than setting a standard of requirements and putting them out to tender, but yes they should be held partially accountable, they chose to use that system and if it fails it falls on them as to why they used it. Yes, I do realise that is out of necessity, but it's still NASA's choice to send people to the station, they could've chosen not too. Ultimately with the Commercial Crew Program, NASA has the final say whether they use the system or not and bear a responsibility that the system is safe to use. If that was not the case, they would have no right to pass judgement on the test outcome.
As for ULA, the Starliner didn't reach the specified orbit. Whether that was ultimately their fault is debatable, but their system didn't get their customer to where it should've been.
LTEN11 wrote:... they chose to use that system and if it fails it falls on them as to why they used it. Yes, I do realise that is out of necessity, but it's still NASA's choice to send people to the station, they could've chosen not too. Ultimately with the Commercial Crew Program, NASA has the final say whether they use the system or not and bear a responsibility that the system is safe to use. If that was not the case, they would have no right to pass judgement on the test outcome.
As for ULA, the Starliner didn't reach the specified orbit. Whether that was ultimately their fault is debatable, but their system didn't get their customer to where it should've been.
flybaurlax wrote:Francoflier wrote:Good launch for Atlas V and good insertion into orbit by the Centaur upper stage.
Mars 2020 now completes the trio of probes enroute to Mars during this launch opportunity, following Tianwen-1 and the UAE Mars mission.. Rendez vous February 18th next year for the landing on the Jezero crater.
Bon voyage...
It was a flawless launch! Super exciting. My best friend since kindergarten has worked on that rover since it's inception. He was there assembling it and attaching it to the various stages (cruise stage, aeroshell, heat shield), and mating it to the ULA platform. It's incredible what we can do when we put money into the right hands for peaceful purposes.
Go Perseverance!
As a side note, I was supposed to be there watching alongside him at Banana Creek, alas, FL couldn't get their act together and everything was canceled due to Covid. He couldn't even take his family on base, so had to watch it on the beach. I still should have joined him for that but felt hesitant flying from SEA-MCO into the cesspool of Covid.
flyingturtle wrote:Delta IV Heavy - NROL-44 is live now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx5GjjCtcgo
Launch aborted after ignition and burping some fire.
Nomadd wrote:flyingturtle wrote:Delta IV Heavy - NROL-44 is live now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx5GjjCtcgo
Launch aborted after ignition and burping some fire.
Going to irk Argentina and everybody who wanted to see three SpaceX liftoffs in one day. SAOCOM 1B can't launch as long as NROL-44 is on the pad.
Francoflier wrote:Nomadd wrote:flyingturtle wrote:Delta IV Heavy - NROL-44 is live now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx5GjjCtcgo
Launch aborted after ignition and burping some fire.
Going to irk Argentina and everybody who wanted to see three SpaceX liftoffs in one day. SAOCOM 1B can't launch as long as NROL-44 is on the pad.
Interesting.
Is that just for SLC-40, which is closer to SLC-37B where Delta IV is stuck, or does that apply to SLC-39 as well where the Starlink booster is supposed to launch from?
Also, what would have been the 3rd SpaceX launch? SN6 hop?
Nomadd wrote:Maybe I was wrong. The SAOCOM mission is still scheduled for tomorrow. They could just be waiting for a firm decision on the NROL launch or SpaceX might have a little more credibility than in the early days.
SpaceX is targeting Sunday, August 30th for two Falcon 9 launches – a Starlink mission in the morning and the SAOCOM 1B mission in the evening
#Falcon9 has gone vertical this afternoon for #SpaceX #SAOCOM1B launch slated as the 2nd F9 on Sun Aug 30 at 718 PM ET at pad 40 heading south ! 1st stage to land at LZ-1. So Shiny - and simply Amazing!
flyingturtle wrote:Well, just tape NROL-44 on the Falcon 9 and it's good to go...
You do space flight either the Musk way or no way.
Nomadd wrote:Francoflier wrote:Nomadd wrote:Going to irk Argentina and everybody who wanted to see three SpaceX liftoffs in one day. SAOCOM 1B can't launch as long as NROL-44 is on the pad.
Interesting.
Is that just for SLC-40, which is closer to SLC-37B where Delta IV is stuck, or does that apply to SLC-39 as well where the Starlink booster is supposed to launch from?
Also, what would have been the 3rd SpaceX launch? SN6 hop?
Not just closer. SAOCOM will go right over the top of the really expensive NROL. (Because it's a polar launch) And the DH takes a week to recycle. 39a is further away and launching in the other direction, so Starlink should be OK.
SN6 counts for me.
I just hope all the parts go in the same direction with this one. Not that I couldn't use a new roof, but I'll be standing on it.
Nomadd wrote:Maybe I was wrong. The SAOCOM mission is still scheduled for tomorrow. They could just be waiting for a firm decision on the NROL launch or SpaceX might have a little more credibility than in the early days.
ThePointblank wrote:flyingturtle wrote:Well, just tape NROL-44 on the Falcon 9 and it's good to go...
You do space flight either the Musk way or no way.
Delta-IV is the only rocket that can take NROL-44, because the Delta-IV has a enlarged payload fairing, and can currently be integrated vertically. The upper stage of the Delta-IV is also extremely efficient for interplanetary or high Earth orbit missions due to it's hydrolox upper stage.
flyingturtle wrote:ThePointblank wrote:flyingturtle wrote:Well, just tape NROL-44 on the Falcon 9 and it's good to go...
You do space flight either the Musk way or no way.
Delta-IV is the only rocket that can take NROL-44, because the Delta-IV has a enlarged payload fairing, and can currently be integrated vertically. The upper stage of the Delta-IV is also extremely efficient for interplanetary or high Earth orbit missions due to it's hydrolox upper stage.
Oof, sad... so, Delta IV Heavy can take large payloads, and Falcon Heavy the heavier ones...
Nomadd wrote:SpaceX is finally developing the longer fairing as part of the latest Pentagon contract. It'll be pretty hard to justify a $400 million DH after that.
I'm still wondering how long it will take people to notice that the great Boeing Made in America manned spacecraft is getting there on Russian engines. They have no plans to use Vulcan for manned flights.
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:At first it will be fully expendable. After a few launches they'll work towards recovery of the engine block as that's the most expensive bit, and the BE-4 engine is designed for reuse so it's even more a waste to throw it away. After that it's unknown, they might go for full reusability or decide that partial suits them fine.
Francoflier wrote:https://spacenews.com/atlas-5-to-fly-northrop-grummans-solid-boosters-in-upcoming-launch-of-nro-satellite/
A little more is known about Delta IV's failure to launch a few weeks ago.
It appeared to have come from a pad side high pressure helium regulator which suffered from a torn diaphragm... This would have prevented the core engine from starting properly. Upon detecting low He pressure, the computer aborted the launch.
It seems the pad side hardware is surprisingly not subject to that much inspection and replacement and these particular controllers have apparently been in use since the pad was converted for ULA's use in the late 90's.
It strikes me as odd that crucial bits of ground hardware with parts that wear out over time would get so little attention when they are used for launching disposable rockets worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
It must have been an interesting 'What have we learned?' staff meeting at ULA...
NROL-44 is now schedule to launch not before September 18th.
Nomadd wrote:Francoflier wrote:https://spacenews.com/atlas-5-to-fly-northrop-grummans-solid-boosters-in-upcoming-launch-of-nro-satellite/
A little more is known about Delta IV's failure to launch a few weeks ago.
It appeared to have come from a pad side high pressure helium regulator which suffered from a torn diaphragm... This would have prevented the core engine from starting properly. Upon detecting low He pressure, the computer aborted the launch.
It seems the pad side hardware is surprisingly not subject to that much inspection and replacement and these particular controllers have apparently been in use since the pad was converted for ULA's use in the late 90's.
It strikes me as odd that crucial bits of ground hardware with parts that wear out over time would get so little attention when they are used for launching disposable rockets worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
It must have been an interesting 'What have we learned?' staff meeting at ULA...
NROL-44 is now schedule to launch not before September 18th.
They're not being specific, but since the issue didn't show up until the engines cranked, a wet dress rehearsal, or anything that didn't fire the engines, probably wouldn't have caught it.
It's very unlikely to launch on the 18th. You can bet they'll decide to check out more than a few sensors on the pad.
With the increasing likelihood that Vulcan will be delayed because of engines and Delta Heavy retiring, I have to think a lot of people are going to wonder how ULA snagged most of the new Government contract.
Nomadd wrote:Francoflier wrote:https://spacenews.com/atlas-5-to-fly-northrop-grummans-solid-boosters-in-upcoming-launch-of-nro-satellite/
A little more is known about Delta IV's failure to launch a few weeks ago.
It appeared to have come from a pad side high pressure helium regulator which suffered from a torn diaphragm... This would have prevented the core engine from starting properly. Upon detecting low He pressure, the computer aborted the launch.
It seems the pad side hardware is surprisingly not subject to that much inspection and replacement and these particular controllers have apparently been in use since the pad was converted for ULA's use in the late 90's.
It strikes me as odd that crucial bits of ground hardware with parts that wear out over time would get so little attention when they are used for launching disposable rockets worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
It must have been an interesting 'What have we learned?' staff meeting at ULA...
NROL-44 is now schedule to launch not before September 18th.
They're not being specific, but since the issue didn't show up until the engines cranked, a wet dress rehearsal, or anything that didn't fire the engines, probably wouldn't have caught it.
It's very unlikely to launch on the 18th. You can bet they'll decide to check out more than a few sensors on the pad.
With the increasing likelihood that Vulcan will be delayed because of engines and Delta Heavy retiring, I have to think a lot of people are going to wonder how ULA snagged most of the new Government contract.
ThePointblank wrote:Nomadd wrote:Francoflier wrote:https://spacenews.com/atlas-5-to-fly-northrop-grummans-solid-boosters-in-upcoming-launch-of-nro-satellite/
A little more is known about Delta IV's failure to launch a few weeks ago.
It appeared to have come from a pad side high pressure helium regulator which suffered from a torn diaphragm... This would have prevented the core engine from starting properly. Upon detecting low He pressure, the computer aborted the launch.
It seems the pad side hardware is surprisingly not subject to that much inspection and replacement and these particular controllers have apparently been in use since the pad was converted for ULA's use in the late 90's.
It strikes me as odd that crucial bits of ground hardware with parts that wear out over time would get so little attention when they are used for launching disposable rockets worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
It must have been an interesting 'What have we learned?' staff meeting at ULA...
NROL-44 is now schedule to launch not before September 18th.
They're not being specific, but since the issue didn't show up until the engines cranked, a wet dress rehearsal, or anything that didn't fire the engines, probably wouldn't have caught it.
It's very unlikely to launch on the 18th. You can bet they'll decide to check out more than a few sensors on the pad.
With the increasing likelihood that Vulcan will be delayed because of engines and Delta Heavy retiring, I have to think a lot of people are going to wonder how ULA snagged most of the new Government contract.
Mostly because ULA can hit all the reference orbits with extreme reliability (they've never lost a payload). Their hydrolox upper stage using the RL-10 engine is also extremely efficient, so they can place a satellite in some of the higher orbits (such as the geostationary and beyond orbits) while giving the satellite more service life as the payload doesn't need to use it's own engines to achieve the required orbit as much.
Nomadd wrote:ThePointblank wrote:Nomadd wrote:They're not being specific, but since the issue didn't show up until the engines cranked, a wet dress rehearsal, or anything that didn't fire the engines, probably wouldn't have caught it.
It's very unlikely to launch on the 18th. You can bet they'll decide to check out more than a few sensors on the pad.
With the increasing likelihood that Vulcan will be delayed because of engines and Delta Heavy retiring, I have to think a lot of people are going to wonder how ULA snagged most of the new Government contract.
Mostly because ULA can hit all the reference orbits with extreme reliability (they've never lost a payload). Their hydrolox upper stage using the RL-10 engine is also extremely efficient, so they can place a satellite in some of the higher orbits (such as the geostationary and beyond orbits) while giving the satellite more service life as the payload doesn't need to use it's own engines to achieve the required orbit as much.
The Falcon Heavy can outperform the DH in every orbit by quite a bit. They'd have to expend the core for some, but it would still be half the price. Not that it matters' since the DH is already discontinued. The remaining NROL launches are all it will do. The biggest Atlas V can't touch the FH.
ThePointblank wrote:Nomadd wrote:ThePointblank wrote:Mostly because ULA can hit all the reference orbits with extreme reliability (they've never lost a payload). Their hydrolox upper stage using the RL-10 engine is also extremely efficient, so they can place a satellite in some of the higher orbits (such as the geostationary and beyond orbits) while giving the satellite more service life as the payload doesn't need to use it's own engines to achieve the required orbit as much.
The Falcon Heavy can outperform the DH in every orbit by quite a bit. They'd have to expend the core for some, but it would still be half the price. Not that it matters' since the DH is already discontinued. The remaining NROL launches are all it will do. The biggest Atlas V can't touch the FH.
Difference is that the Delta IV Heavy has a larger payload fairing, and since NROL payloads are large and heavy, they are the only rocket that can take NROL payloads.
Also, NROL payloads require vertical integration; SpaceX currently doesn't have that capability.
Also, the Delta IV Heavy has better performance for payloads heading to Geostationary transfer orbits; again, the hydrolox stage with the Delta series rockets is the winner there, because of it's greater efficiency, which permits greater acceleration. This was the reason why a Delta IV Heavy launched the Parker Solar Probe; a Falcon Heavy would have required an additional kick stage attached to the Probe, along with the rocket being flown in fully expendable mode.
ThePointblank wrote:Nomadd wrote:ThePointblank wrote:Mostly because ULA can hit all the reference orbits with extreme reliability (they've never lost a payload). Their hydrolox upper stage using the RL-10 engine is also extremely efficient, so they can place a satellite in some of the higher orbits (such as the geostationary and beyond orbits) while giving the satellite more service life as the payload doesn't need to use it's own engines to achieve the required orbit as much.
The Falcon Heavy can outperform the DH in every orbit by quite a bit. They'd have to expend the core for some, but it would still be half the price. Not that it matters' since the DH is already discontinued. The remaining NROL launches are all it will do. The biggest Atlas V can't touch the FH.
Difference is that the Delta IV Heavy has a larger payload fairing, and since NROL payloads are large and heavy, they are the only rocket that can take NROL payloads.
Also, NROL payloads require vertical integration; SpaceX currently doesn't have that capability.
Also, the Delta IV Heavy has better performance for payloads heading to Geostationary transfer orbits; again, the hydrolox stage with the Delta series rockets is the winner there, because of it's greater efficiency, which permits greater acceleration. This was the reason why a Delta IV Heavy launched the Parker Solar Probe; a Falcon Heavy would have required an additional kick stage attached to the Probe, along with the rocket being flown in fully expendable mode.