Author Topic: LIVE: Delta II - Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - July 2, 2014  (Read 50124 times)

Offline marsman2020

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • Liked: 0
Re: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - Feb, 2013
« Reply #30 on: 02/12/2012 11:45 PM »
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).

Quote
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?
« Last Edit: 02/12/2012 11:51 PM by marsman2020 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22668
  • Liked: 1328
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
Re: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - Feb, 2013
« Reply #31 on: 02/13/2012 12:52 AM »
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.

Offline Antares

  • ABO
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5023
  • Liked: 171
  • Done arguing with amateurs
Re: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - Feb, 2013
« Reply #32 on: 02/13/2012 01:06 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: 02/13/2012 01:06 AM by Antares »
USAF's approach to buying rocket launches is like moving to the Canadian border and buying a $300K house because the $100K house doesn't have an air conditioner.

Offline marsman2020

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • Liked: 0
Re: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - Feb, 2013
« Reply #33 on: 02/13/2012 01:20 AM »
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.

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1288
  • Liked: 69
  • Change in velocity
Re: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - Feb, 2013
« Reply #34 on: 02/13/2012 03:56 AM »
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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22668
  • Liked: 1328
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
Re: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - Feb, 2013
« Reply #35 on: 02/13/2012 11:27 AM »
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?"

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
  • Liked: 205
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
Re: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - July, 2014
« Reply #36 on: 08/06/2013 03:45 PM »
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2013/august/nasa-administrator-views-atmospheric-science-satellite-meets-media-in-arizona/#.UgEZHI1JOAg

NASA Administrator Views Atmospheric Science Satellite, Meets Media in Arizona

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden will visit an Orbital Sciences Corp. facility in Gilbert, Ariz. on Friday, Aug. 9, to view progress on the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) satellite.

At 8:15 a.m. MST, Bolden and Orbital CEO David Thompson will tour the company’s satellite manufacturing and clean room facility where the OCO-2 satellite is under construction. They will speak with reporters at 9:15 a.m., following the tour.

Their remarks and media availability will not be broadcast live on NASA Television or the agency's website. Media interested in participating must contact Barron Beneski at beneski.barron@orbital.com or 703-406-5228 for credentialing information no later than 5 p.m. EDT (3 p.m. MST) Thursday, Aug. 8.

OCO-2 will be NASA’s first dedicated Earth remote sensing satellite to study atmospheric carbon dioxide from space. OCO-2 will collect global measurements of carbon dioxide with the precision, resolution, and coverage needed to characterize sources and sinks on regional scales, and quantify carbon dioxide variability over the seasonal cycles annually. OCO-2 is targeted to launch next year.

For more information about Orbital Sciences Corporation, visit:
http://www.orbital.com

For more information about OCO-2, visit:
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/
Are trampolines safe?

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
  • Liked: 205
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
Re: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - July, 2014
« Reply #37 on: 08/06/2013 04:13 PM »
https://twitter.com/OrbitalSciences/statuses/364771746546589696
Quote
#OCO-2 is next Earth Science spacecraft for @NASA to come out of #Gilbert plant following successful #Landsat8 deployment for @NASA_Landsat

https://twitter.com/OrbitalSciences/statuses/364770758515367937
Quote
More information on #OCO-2 spacecraft that we are designing, building and testing in #Gilbert, AZ for @NASAJPL http://www.orbital.com/SatellitesSpace/ScienceTechnology/OCO/

btw. Does anyone have an easy way to convert twitter tweets to posts here. Using the embed options results in garbly gook, and copy and paste loses the formatting.
Are trampolines safe?

Online LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
  • Liked: 157
Re: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - Feb, 2013
« Reply #38 on: 08/06/2013 08:17 PM »
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 the launch providers would simply purchase insurance, and pass the cost on to NASA.  If that is the intention, it would be better for NASA to purchase insurance directly.

In many ways this makes a lot of sense.  High reliability launchers would be able to get cheaper insurance, quantifying the advantage of reliability.  Also there would then be a clear path to a replacement spacecraft in case of a loss.   It's not even much more expensive in some large scale view - say insurance for a $400M mission on a 90% rocket costs $60M ( http://www.casact.org/pubs/forum/00fforum/00ff047.pdf says the premiums range from 7% to 15%).  Then for $460M you get a working mission.  As of now you get 9/10 of a mission for $400M, or $444M per working mission, with no assurance of getting the replacement funded if the first one crashes.

On the other hand, self-insurance is usually cheaper than regular insurance, in the long run and if you can afford the losses.  (After all, the insurance company's profit comes from the difference.)  And although the US government can afford the losses, it's not clear NASA can.  So it might make sense for the military to self-insure, but NASA to buy insurance.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22668
  • Liked: 1328
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
Re: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - Feb, 2013
« Reply #39 on: 08/06/2013 09:55 PM »
And although the US government can afford the losses, it's not clear NASA can.  So it might make sense for the military to self-insure, but NASA to buy insurance.

The other way around.  NASA flies mostly one of a kind spacecraft vs constellations of satellites.  It makes more sense in self insuring.

Online LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
  • Liked: 157
Re: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - Feb, 2013
« Reply #40 on: 08/07/2013 02:22 AM »
And although the US government can afford the losses, it's not clear NASA can.  So it might make sense for the military to self-insure, but NASA to buy insurance.

The other way around.  NASA flies mostly one of a kind spacecraft vs constellations of satellites.  It makes more sense in self insuring.

I think this is backwards.  If a GPS or Wide-band gap filler drops into the  ocean, there's another one right behind it in the short term, and long term the military can decide whether to make do with one less, or fund another.  Furthermore, since they are built in batches, it's pretty straightforward for the contractor to build another. 

If NASA loses a scientific satellite, and it's not insured, they need to either go back to Congress to fund a replacement, or screw up their science program for a few years to pay for it.  A loss, IMO, is much more disruptive to NASA than to the military, and hence purchasing insurance makes more sense.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22668
  • Liked: 1328
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
Re: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - Feb, 2013
« Reply #41 on: 08/07/2013 02:32 AM »
And although the US government can afford the losses, it's not clear NASA can.  So it might make sense for the military to self-insure, but NASA to buy insurance.

The other way around.  NASA flies mostly one of a kind spacecraft vs constellations of satellites.  It makes more sense in self insuring.

I think this is backwards.  If a GPS or Wide-band gap filler drops into the  ocean, there's another one right behind it in the short term, and long term the military can decide whether to make do with one less, or fund another.  Furthermore, since they are built in batches, it's pretty straightforward for the contractor to build another. 

If NASA loses a scientific satellite, and it's not insured, they need to either go back to Congress to fund a replacement, or screw up their science program for a few years to pay for it.  A loss, IMO, is much more disruptive to NASA than to the military, and hence purchasing insurance makes more sense.

One of a kind spacecraft can't be replaced, even if there is money.  Design teams are long gone, I&T people move on to other projects.   

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1910
  • Liked: 36
Re: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - July, 2014
« Reply #42 on: 08/07/2013 02:57 AM »
It NEVER makes sense for governments to insure, it just adds cost.

I don't know about budgeting in the US, but at least over here any insurance being paid would go straight to the general budget, not the entity that had the loss so it doesn't make sense to insure for the entity, too.

Usually, governments prohibit insurance for government run agencies and institutions.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
  • Liked: 205
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
Re: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - July, 2014
« Reply #43 on: 08/07/2013 03:09 AM »
In industry we call that self insured.
Are trampolines safe?

Online LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
  • Liked: 157
Re: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) - Feb, 2013
« Reply #44 on: 08/07/2013 01:07 PM »

One of a kind spacecraft can't be replaced, even if there is money.  Design teams are long gone, I&T people move on to other projects.   

This seems a weird conclusion.  Building another years later is surely more expensive then building a second while building the first, for the reasons you mention.  On the other hand, if you could build the first one at all, there is no reason you can't build another, and it should be cheaper.  You obviously need new hardware, but a lot of the analysis work should not need to be redone.

Historically, there are several examples of this.  For example, OCO (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) was intended to be one of kind.  It cost $280M.  When it died due to Taurus fairing failure, NASA requested and got $170M to build a replacement.  It was describes as a "carbon copy" of the first design.

I suspect JPL, or Ball Aerospace, or JHU, would be more than happy to get a contract to build another of what they built before, even if they cannot assign the exact same people to the tasks.  The only reason I can see that would prevent this is if the satellite had some really hard to acquire parts, such as plutonium for RTGs.

Tags: