Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - Feb, 2013

[Chris Bergin]

June 22, 2010

George H. Diller
Kennedy Space Center, Fla.
321-867-2468
george.h.diller@nasa.gov

Michael Curie
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1100
michael.curie@nasa.gov

CONTRACT RELEASE: C10-036

NASA AWARDS LAUNCH SERVICES CONTRACT FOR OCO-2 MISSION

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- NASA has selected Orbital Sciences Corp. of
Dulles, Va., to launch the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2)
mission. The spacecraft will fly in February 2013 aboard a Taurus XL
3110 rocket launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

The total cost of the OCO-2 launch services is approximately $70
million. The estimated cost includes the task-ordered launch service
for a Taurus XL 3110 rocket, plus additional services under other
contracts for payload processing, OCO-2 mission-unique support,
launch vehicle integration, and tracking, data and telemetry support.


OCO-2 is NASA's first mission dedicated to studying atmospheric carbon
dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the leading human-produced greenhouse gas
driving changes in the Earth's climate. OCO-2 will provide the first
complete picture of human and natural carbon dioxide sources and
"sinks," the places where the gas is pulled out of the atmosphere and
stored. It will map the global geographic distribution of these
sources and sinks and study their changes over time. The OCO-2
spacecraft will replace OCO-1, lost during a launch vehicle failure
in 2009.

The OCO-2 project is managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
Pasadena, Calif. NASA's Launch Services Program at the Kennedy Space
Center in Florida is responsible for launch vehicle program
management of the Taurus XL 3110 rocket.

For more information about NASA and agency missions, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov 

[Lee Jay]

This one's going to go better, I trust (and hope).  Best of luck to Orbital!

[Ben the Space Brit]

This one's going to go better, I trust (and hope). 

Shh! Don't jinx it! 

[bolun]

NASA Suspends Payments on Launch Contract with Orbital

Thu, 23 June, 2011

WASHINGTON — NASA is suspending payments on a nearly $70 million contract with Orbital Sciences Corp. for launch of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO)-2 environmental satellite aboard a Taurus XL rocket, which failed in its last two missions.

Dulles, Va.-based Orbital remains under contract to build OCO-2, a duplicate of the $200 million carbon-mapping satellite destroyed in a 2009 Taurus XL launch failure blamed on payload-fairing separation error. However, the $68.1 million NASA had budgeted for a February 2013 Taurus XL launch of OCO-2 has been “temporarily put on hold” as the agency evaluates “launch services options for the OCO-2 mission,” according to NASA’s 2011 initial operating plan.

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110623-nasa-suspends-payments-orbital.html

[sdsds]

NASA Suspends Payments on Launch Contract with Orbital

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110623-nasa-suspends-payments-orbital.html

Ouch.

“I would go more than recertified, personally,” Michael Freilich, director of NASA’s Earth Science Division, told Space News in May. “I would go demonstrated.”

Is there another payload that could be launched by Taurus XL?  What customer would accept the risks (that Freilich apparently won't accept) of riding on a demonstration flight?

[Malderi]

Probably one that gets a substantial discount.

[Antares]

Iridium?

[HMXHMX]

Iridium?

Orbcomm?

[A_M_Swallow]

Possibly a test payload containing recording equipment, cameras and other sensors that permits what the fairing actually does to be seen.

[sdsds]

Does this enable OCO-2?

Thompson also said Orbital has completed a review of the March failure of its smaller Taurus XL rocket, whose fairing malfunctioned for the second consecutive time. In both cases the principal payloads were NASA science satellites whose combined cost is estimated at more than $600 million.

http://www.spacenews.com/launch/110722-taurus-debut-delayed.html

[ugordan]

Enable it in what way?

[Ronsmytheiii]

Enable it in what way?

ORS-1 launch used modified fairing that worked successfully

Thompson also said Orbital has completed a review of the March failure of its smaller Taurus XL rocket, whose fairing malfunctioned for the second consecutive time. In both cases the principal payloads were NASA science satellites whose combined cost is estimated at more than $600 million.

Orbital’s June 29 flight of a Minotaur rocket, a converted ICBM, used a fairing that had been redesigned to account for the two Taurus XL failures. The launch, carrying the U.S. Defense Department’s Operationally Responsive Space-1 satellite into low Earth orbit, was a success

[ugordan]

Wasn't the same fairing previosuly successfully flown on Minotaurs also flown on the first ill-fated Taurus?

In any case, I doubt this "enables" OCO-2. Methinks NASA is still going to go by the old fool me once... saying.

[zaitcev]

According to SFN, OCO-2 was taken off Taurus.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1202/10oco2/

While NASA holds another competition for OCO 2's launch, integration and testing of the satellite will continue, officials said. Orbital Sciences is building the spacecraft in Dulles, Va.

Too bad Falcon-1 is dead.

[William Graham]

According to SFN, OCO-2 was taken off Taurus.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1202/10oco2/

While NASA holds another competition for OCO 2's launch, integration and testing of the satellite will continue, officials said. Orbital Sciences is building the spacecraft in Dulles, Va.

Too bad Falcon-1 is dead.

So, the available candidates:
Atlas V - Too big
Athena I/IIc - Unproven
Delta II
Falcon 1 - Retired, 1e unproven
Falcon 9 - Too big
Minotaur I - Restricted
Pegasus-XL - Too small

Doubt if they can piggy-back it on an Atlas or Falcon launch to SSO, and they'd be paying for a lot of excess capacity if they opt for a dedicated launch. I doubt if F1e could be ready in time even if SpaceX were actively developing it. I'm also not sure if Athena needs to be requalified given that it has been out of service for so long, and now has a different second stage. Pegasus can't carry it, and Minotaur can only be used if NASA can prove that no other rocket is capable of launching it.

ULA do have a few unassembled Delta II rockets in reserve, and OCO has been linked with it in the past. A 7320 would still have plenty of room for secondary payloads, but it does seem the most likely option.

[Skyrocket]

According to SFN, OCO-2 was taken off Taurus.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1202/10oco2/

While NASA holds another competition for OCO 2's launch, integration and testing of the satellite will continue, officials said. Orbital Sciences is building the spacecraft in Dulles, Va.

Too bad Falcon-1 is dead.

So, the available candidates:
Atlas V - Too big
Athena I/IIc - Unproven
Delta II
Falcon 1 - Retired, 1e unproven
Falcon 9 - Too big
Minotaur I - Restricted
Pegasus-XL - Too small

Doubt if they can piggy-back it on an Atlas or Falcon launch to SSO, and they'd be paying for a lot of excess capacity if they opt for a dedicated launch. I doubt if F1e could be ready in time even if SpaceX were actively developing it. I'm also not sure if Athena needs to be requalified given that it has been out of service for so long, and now has a different second stage. Pegasus can't carry it, and Minotaur can only be used if NASA can prove that no other rocket is capable of launching it.

ULA do have a few unassembled Delta II rockets in reserve, and OCO has been linked with it in the past. A 7320 would still have plenty of room for secondary payloads, but it does seem the most likely option.

Minotaur-IV could be an alternative, if no other acceptable launch vehicles are available (e.g. LADEE on Minotaur V). The Minotaur I mentioned above is likely not powerful enough.

[Zed_Noir]

According to SFN, OCO-2 was taken off Taurus.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1202/10oco2/

While NASA holds another competition for OCO 2's launch, integration and testing of the satellite will continue, officials said. Orbital Sciences is building the spacecraft in Dulles, Va.

Too bad Falcon-1 is dead.

So, the available candidates:
Atlas V - Too big
Athena I/IIc - Unproven
Delta II
Falcon 1 - Retired, 1e unproven
Falcon 9 - Too big
Minotaur I - Restricted
Pegasus-XL - Too small

What do you mean by too big? In terms of lift capacity or cost?

[ugordan]

Copied from another thread:

If this happens, is Delta II is only launch vehicle (in this class) certified to launch NASA scientific payloads?

Delta II is in Taurus class as much is Atlas V is in Delta II class

So basically, OCO-2 is going up on a Minotaur IV?

[TheMightyM]

Falcon 1 is also very likely too small. Would take a Falcon 1e, which is unproven.

Another possibility besides a Minotaur IV would be to fly OCO-2 and another payload on a Delta 7320.

[edkyle99]

Does this mean the end of Taurus?

If so, that would be two U.S. small-sat launchers that have bit the dust in recent months.

Could a Delta 2 even be ready to fly by "mid-2014"?

Minotaur 4 really is the right match for this payload in terms of basic capability and proven flight history, but will the Pentagon approve such a launch?  Athena 2c might be a good match too, but it hasn't flown.

 - Ed Kyle

[ugordan]

Could a Delta II even be ready to fly by "mid-2014"?

The article does state that's realistically the earliest date for a launch.

[Antares]

Are there any other spacecraft in line to go into the A-train orbit?  That's would be an excellent opportunity for a dual manifest - and probably the only one likely.

AIUI, OSTP is who has the say on whether a spacecraft can go on a government-furnished launcher, and the mission project has to request it first.  Also AIUI, other commercial providers have the right to protest OSTP's decision with the GAO.

[TheMightyM]

Are there any other spacecraft in line to go into the A-train orbit?  That's would be an excellent opportunity for a dual manifest - and probably the only one likely.

SMAP, scheduled to launch in November 2014, might be a possibility.

[ugordan]

Well, the Soil Moisture Active and Passive mission wants to go to a sun-sync orbit, but a 6 AM/PM one so I don't know if that's doable.

[William Graham]

Minotaur-IV could be an alternative, if no other acceptable launch vehicles are available (e.g. LADEE on Minotaur V). The Minotaur I mentioned above is likely not powerful enough.

I meant IV. Posted that when I was still waking up, and in hindsight it was probably a bad summary.

What do you mean by too big? In terms of lift capacity or cost?

Capacity mostly, but smaller rockets are generally cheaper. That said, the increased fixed costs of a Delta II launch would probably make it more expensive than an F9 - not sure how much a Delta goes for these days. But ULA are still marketing it, so presumably they believe that it is still competitive.

[kevin-rf]

I think this issue with an F-9 or even an Antares is they have not yet flown often enough.

I wonder if the Taurus XL issues where part of the reason for Orbital's Taurus II name change.

[kevin-rf]

If OCO-2 flies on a Delta II, would it be a three solid Delta 7320, or would it use three Delta II heavy solids and have a different designation?

[Antares]

I think the only certified version with big GEMs is the 79xx.

[kevin-rf]

The reason I asked on that, is I thought in all the Delta II discussions the only remaining GEM's where the large GEM-46's.

[William Graham]

The reason I asked on that, is I thought in all the Delta II discussions the only remaining GEM's where the large GEM-46's.

Delta IIH can't fly from Vandenberg, and I believe ULA is no longer offering Delta II launches from Canaveral (in any case, OCO-2 would have to fly from Vandenberg*). They have said that GEM-40s can be produced if necessary.


*Actually there have been a few SSO launches from Canaveral in the past (using early Thor-Delta configurations), and although I haven't done the maths, a 7920H could probably (theoretically) put OCO-2 up from Canaveral if necessary, but that's beside the point

[marsman2020]

They should have pulled the Glory contract and dual-manifested Glory and OCO-2 on a Delta II after the original OCO failure.

Especially when it became clear that Orbital had no intent to actually address all of the issues that came out of the OCO MIB report (no change was made to the flawed design of the frangible joints on the payload fairing).

Does this mean the end of Taurus?

9 launches in 18 years with a 33% failure rate.  Who in their right mind would manifest their payload on that?

[Jim]

They should have pulled the Glory contract and dual-manifested Glory and OCO-2 on a Delta II after the original OCO failure.

Yeah, right.  You have all the hindsight.  There were no more Delta II's at the time nor a DPAF available, which is still not available even though Delta II is.

[Antares]

They should have pulled the Glory contract and dual-manifested Glory and OCO-2 on a Delta II after the original OCO failure.

Especially when it became clear that Orbital had no intent to actually address all of the issues that came out of the OCO MIB report (no change was made to the flawed design of the frangible joints on the payload fairing).

All 4 NASA MIB recommendations were mitigated, and hundreds of people participated in RTF reviews and decisions.

Your statements are somewhere between FUD and lies.

[marsman2020]

They should have pulled the Glory contract and dual-manifested Glory and OCO-2 on a Delta II after the original OCO failure.

Especially when it became clear that Orbital had no intent to actually address all of the issues that came out of the OCO MIB report (no change was made to the flawed design of the frangible joints on the payload fairing).

All 4 NASA MIB recommendations were mitigated, and hundreds of people participated in RTF reviews and decisions.

Your statements are somewhere between FUD and lies.

The NASA Engineering Safety Center flagged the failure of the frangible joints to completely separate as a red risk - probability of occurrence 11-50%, impact - loss of mission in NESC-RP-10-00630, "Assess Qualification of the Taurus Fairing Frangible Joint System", dated May 27, 2010.

As far as I am aware the redesign from hot gas to cold gas on the separation system did not include changes to the frangible joints. 

Per the NESC report, qualification of the frangible joint *prior to* the OCO failure was based on a total of *3* firings, which yields a statistical reliability of 36% on a 95% confidence interval (!!).  Typical qualification programs for launch vehicle pyrotechnic devices include 10s of firings.

That's what the taxpayers got for their money when they paid Orbital ~$50 million for the OCO launch services contact.

[deltaV]

Why doesn't NASA charge launch providers (or their insurers) for the value of the payloads it loses to launch failures? I would think charging for failure would be a simpler and more effective way to ensure reliability than mountains of paperwork.

[Jim]

Why doesn't NASA charge launch providers (or their insurers) for the value of the payloads it loses to launch failures? I would think charging for failure would be a simpler and more effective way to ensure reliability than mountains of paperwork.

Then nobody would fly several hundred million dollar spacecraft.

Also, do you know that it is actually "mountains of paperwork?"