Oof. What, a, clusterf**k. (Mods don't like even that swearing. )

And to remember that Boeing was supposed to be the reliable pair of hands compared to the brash risky young kids at SpaceX.

On the upside for ULA, they might get another Atlas V launch out of this mess.

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.

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.

Since they’ve already charged the money I assume an OFT repeat is a foregone conclusion, which makes me think NASA has made it clear to Boeing OFT2 is happening. Now I agree the lobbyists are hard at work which is why NASA has been so kid-gloved since the first breath of an error, but they’re going to fly another OFT unmanned.

No full, entire-mission test performed? That is shocking if true. And very unprofessional.

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

How the mighty have fallen!

What happended to Test Methodology at Boeing?

Well, some goods news: The AEHF 6 satellite launch yesterday was successful and the US Space Force has opened for business!
https://videos.space.com/m/1my8wsAQ/bla ... t=9wzCTV4g

Nice launch.

Tugg

Boeing opts for OFT reflight.

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2020-04-06 ... ext-Flight

zanl188 wrote:

Boeing opts for OFT reflight.

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2020-04-06 ... ext-Flight

'Opts'...

Francoflier wrote:

zanl188 wrote:

Boeing opts for OFT reflight.

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2020-04-06 ... ext-Flight

'Opts'...

We’ve “opted” to “meet our contractual obligations” and avoid a “devastating” “contractor performance review”.


Also we need a “bailout.”

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.

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.

ULA is really good at those uncommon / specialized launches with unusual orbits and payloads. I think this is an area where SpaceX can't really compete with them (yet).

I still find it funny that a US Space Force mission is being put into orbit by a Soviet-era engine, even though its days are counted.

I have to wonder if Tim Dodd is human. I've seen him talk for two hours without taking a breath.

Nomadd wrote:

I have to wonder if Tim Dodd is human. I've seen him talk for two hours without taking a breath.

Each time is see one of his launch live-streams check in at 4+ hours I ask myself “isn’t he married?”.

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;
10 recommendations involve assessing software requirements to ensure the spacecraft is sufficiently tested to meet them;
35 recommendations call for process and operational improvements, including an increased number of participants in reviews;
and 7 recommendations or updates to the spacecraft’s software in order to correct the MET, service module disposal, and communications link anomalies, and to add a new radio frequency filter to narrow the range of communications frequencies Starliner receives and prevent interference

Finally, there were 6 more recommendations for NASA Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to incorporate into future programs:

Require that the systems engineering management plan delivered by each contractor contain specific requirements related to the contractor’s management approach.
Ensure that NASA reviews and approves the contractor’s hazard verification test plans prior to test execution.
Ensure NASA independent validation and verification (IV&V) teams provide insight to contractor IV&V agents.
Implement an approach that ensures alternate standards are reviewed and approved prior to beginning development work.
Develop a best practices document for use by future programs that implement the shared accountability model used in NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.
Evaluate Boeing’s actions developed by the joint independent review team for applicability post-certification.

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.

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.

No inside information here, but it sounds like another symptom of management making engineering decisions and engineers without the cajones to object, the same problem that seems to be facing a lot of companies now.
I don't now if we'll ever see another Joe Sutter, willing to walk out of meetings and get fired (He thought more than once) by refusing to go along with decisions made by people who didn't know a slide rule from a hole in the ground. I don't know if it's old companies started by people, who understood the technical aspects of their visions, being replaced by business majors, or something more basic changing in the world.
Getting to space isn't easy, but so many issues have been ones that part time garage mechanics would have spotted, and legions of engineers and QA experts missed.

T - a few hours for the launch of Mars 2020 on an Atlas 5 (541 config) today.

Who's excited?

Nasa's livestream here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIB3JbIIbPU

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.

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

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...

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

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?

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.

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?

I agree, I’m just not sure how ULA especially can take blame. Their part of the project worked flawlessly as it was supposed to. NASA I suppose can be blamed more, as they're supposed to have oversight, but the whole point of this project is to take some of that responsibility away from them so why bother outsourcing if they're going to have to do everything but build it anyway?

I think this sort of disconnect is why I like the spacex approach. Everything top to bottom is their work. One of the problems NASA has experienced in the past is having every part of a spacecraft designed by a different bidder. It worked Before when they needed the true culmination of knowledge and resources, but now it seems like it just adds more complication and potential for missteps.

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?

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.

The anomaly that led to the mission abort occurred 31 minutes into the flight. By that point ULA's Atlas V was long since out of the equation. Starliner had its own internal error that caused a burn (by starliner itself) to be mistimed.

The booster usually gets the spacecraft to a predetermined orbit, and then the craft gets itself to the mission required orbit. So ULA did their part

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?

The rides on Soyuz are a long ways from "simply" purchasing a ticket. NASA probably knows more about the workings of the modern Soyuz system than they guys who designed the originals.

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.

ULA delivered Starliner to the exact spot and orbit they were contracted to. The fact that Starliner's following burn utterly failed has no bearing on ULA. ULA bare no blame for Boeing's stuff up.

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.

No, this was a TEST flight. Starliner is EXPERIMENTAL and thus, no guarantees of safety, explicit or otherwise, are part of the deal until test flights are complete. With zero non-drop-test in-flight telemetry to base any calculations off of prior to this test, would you trust NASA if they said Starliner was safe? I wouldn't. I'd think NASA showed me a bunch of pencil-whipped numbers.

As for ULA, the reason Starliner did not reach the correct orbit to rendezvous with ISS was due to Atlas placing Starliner in the correct initial orbit, then Starliner made a series of incorrect burns due to the mission clock issue.

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.

Cool stuff. It must be great to see the fruit of years of hard work finally on its way.
The guys at ULA apparently did do a magnificent job punting it dead on. That's what makes ULA special and still hard to beat on these specialized and tricky missions.

I'm guessing your friend will be a wreck when it's landing time. I have nothing to do with this thing and I'll be nervous enough...

Delta IV Heavy - NROL-44 is live now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx5GjjCtcgo


Launch aborted after ignition and burping some fire.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Confirmation from SpaceX that they are go for a pair of launches tomorrow:

https://twitter.com/gleesonjm/status/12 ... 7580520448

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

And SAOCOM has also gone vertical:

https://twitter.com/ken_kremer/status/1 ... 2911773696

#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.

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.

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.

Ok, that sort of makes sense I suppose. I believe SAOCOM still heads out east initially and then makes a hard right so it should clear pad 37 as long as it stays in one piece. I guess if ULA, and especially USAF are happy with it launching then they should be good to go.

At least we got a nice Delta IV fireball ® freebie.

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...

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...

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.

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.

Is Vulcan still planned to be reusable?

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.

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.

They're going to have to do it using really inventive methods. Vulcan first stage is said to go higher and faster (more than 2x the speed of F9) at its peak phase and gets a downrange distance of 3600+ km. I could well be wrong but it is difficult to see how full reusability can be achieved on that.

https://spacenews.com/atlas-5-to-fly-no ... 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.

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.

Yeah, one can understand why Musk is so pissed... and he does static fires before all his launches.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Issues 1 and 2 are being tackled otherwise SpaceX would have got none of the new launch contracts.

The 3rd issue is the one that Delta IV and Vulcan will continue to beat Falcon on. Especially as a lot of the NROL launches require direct injection orbits. No coasting allowed. SpaceX may be able to handle this with a cargo Starship in the future. But that is likely years away at best. SpaceX will probably get there. But there's still time for groups like ULA to react.

This vid is a little old but the points still largely stand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoUtgWQk-Y0

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.

FH can take 27 tons to GTO with an expended core. DH can't even touch it. And part of the new government contract is development of the longer fairing for some of the missions.
The Parker solar probe also required a Star-48 kick stage with the DH. Falcon Heavy was never an option because it wasn't approved yet and the probe wasn't designed with it in mind.

I bet you're relying on the NASA published FH capabilities which were way off reality and hadn't been updated in years. FH capabiltes came out much higher than the original sandbagged estimates.