Author Topic: Vulcan VC2S 1st launch - Peregrine Lander - CCSFS SLC-41 - NET mid-December 2023 (Read 240903 times)

FutureSpaceTourist · « **Reply #580 on:** 05/25/2023 08:03 pm »

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1661825203591061514

Quote

ULA says it's postponing the Vulcan static-fire test planned for later today after "the team observed a delayed response from the booster engine ignition system that needs further review." That requires rolling the vehicle back to the Vertical Integration Facility.

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1661824579013050368

ULA statement:

Quote

Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Fla., May 25, 2023 - United Launch Alliance is standing down from the engine flight readiness testing today. During the countdown, the team observed a delayed response from the booster engine ignition system that needs further review prior to proceeding with the flight readiness firing. We will be rolling the rocket back to the Vertical Integration Facility to gain access to the booster ignition system. The team will continue to review data and determine when Vulcan can roll back to the pad to conduct the flight readiness firing.

Robert_the_Doll · « **Reply #581 on:** 05/25/2023 08:03 pm »

https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1661824360246804480?cxt=HHwWgIDQ-e2c_o8uAAAA
https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1661824363375779846?cxt=HHwWjIDToYWd_o8uAAAA

whitelancer64 · « **Reply #582 on:** 05/25/2023 08:23 pm »

Quote from: cpushack on 05/25/2023 07:01 pm

Tory says they will not static fire at full power, so wonder what power they WILL try to get to?

Per a Tory Bruno Tweet, Vulcan FRF peaks at 60% throttle and will last for about 6 seconds. As part of the FRF they will throttle down and simulate a MECO to end the FRF. The remainder of the test will be to follow on-pad abort protocols, including safing and detanking the rocket.

In this tweet thread Tory also says that firing the engines at full throttle would damage the pad, and then he said "I like my pad the way it is"

"The FRF will target about 60% power and last around 6 seconds. Short for a flight, but long for sitting on a pad."

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1661720817959591936

"I like my pad the way it is"

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1661419552377565184

FutureSpaceTourist · « **Reply #583 on:** 05/25/2023 08:40 pm »

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1661834466032238592

Quote

Standing down for today. We test the BE4 ignition system during the count. Timing and response doesn’t look right. Need to understand it.

Kiwi53 · « **Reply #584 on:** 05/26/2023 04:47 am »

Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/25/2023 08:40 pm

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1661834466032238592

This would be the very first time ever that anybody has tried to start and fire more than one BE-4 at the same time, wouldn't it? Maybe it's not as easy as it should be

ZachS09 · « **Reply #585 on:** 05/26/2023 12:31 pm »

Quote from: Kiwi53 on 05/26/2023 04:47 am

Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/25/2023 08:40 pm
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1661834466032238592

This would be the very first time ever that anybody has tried to start and fire more than one BE-4 at the same time, wouldn't it? Maybe it's not as easy as it should be

As a wise one once said, “This is why we test. We’ll launch when we’re ready.”

Robert_the_Doll · « **Reply #586 on:** 05/26/2023 03:59 pm »

This is rather an interesting situation since we did not see this much earlier during the first propellant loading on this stage and then prior to that two years ago on the pathfinder stage which went through a full simulated countdown with cutoff at T -0.

Rakietwawka2021 · « **Reply #587 on:** 05/26/2023 05:48 pm »

How is possible that Igniters worked with delay? Torch Igniters are quite simple so I can't even imagine what went wrong

Damon Hill · « **Reply #588 on:** 05/27/2023 03:17 am »

Torch igniters may be relatively simple, but staged combustion engine startup is complex, as per SSME/RS-25. Lots of things have to happen correctly in the space of a few seconds.

Vettedrmr · « **Reply #589 on:** 05/27/2023 10:57 am »

Quote from: Robert_the_Doll on 05/26/2023 03:59 pm

This is rather an interesting situation since we did not see this much earlier during the first propellant loading on this stage and then prior to that two years ago on the pathfinder stage which went through a full simulated countdown with cutoff at T -0.

(just a guess) Maybe they didn't go through the startup ignition sequence, since they weren't going to fire the engines?

Robert_the_Doll · « **Reply #590 on:** 05/28/2023 09:32 pm »

Quote from: Vettedrmr on 05/27/2023 10:57 am

Quote from: Robert_the_Doll on 05/26/2023 03:59 pm
This is rather an interesting situation since we did not see this much earlier during the first propellant loading on this stage and then prior to that two years ago on the pathfinder stage which went through a full simulated countdown with cutoff at T -0.

(just a guess) Maybe they didn't go through the startup ignition sequence, since they weren't going to fire the engines?

That makes no sense. If the Pathfinder countdown went through the same test sequence, then it follows that the ignition test sequence was also done. Either it was a different form of torch igniter design for the Pathfinder or something happened during the Certification-1 booster's last full propellant loading a few months ago.

But it is not as if they do not have time to work this problem. There is nothing about the Centaur V test article leak failure as yet. Delaying the test firing until June then is not much of an issue and it is better to understand what is going on rather than push blindly forward.

Steve G · « **Reply #591 on:** 06/03/2023 01:14 am »

The silence from Tory Bruno is deafening. He hasn't made a single tweet since May 25th of the one stating they are standing down.

deadman1204 · « **Reply #592 on:** 06/03/2023 03:27 am »

Quote from: Steve G on 06/03/2023 01:14 am

The silence from Tory Bruno is deafening. He hasn't made a single tweet since May 25th of the one stating they are standing down.

Maybe he doesn't have anything specific to say.
There isn't actually a need to post something each day to belay message board rumors.

Steve G · « **Reply #593 on:** 06/03/2023 05:17 am »

Tory typically tweets every day and often multiple times a day. It's been over a week of silence.

Mdmurphy12 · « **Reply #594 on:** 06/03/2023 02:05 pm »

Hopefully just on vacation.

FutureSpaceTourist · « **Reply #595 on:** 06/06/2023 02:49 pm »

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1666094718978252801

Quote

ULA's Vulcan has decided to roll back to SLC-41. No word from ULA if this is further pad testing or if they are going to try the Flight Readiness Firing again.

nsf.live/spacecoast

TimL · « **Reply #596 on:** 06/06/2023 03:41 pm »

https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1666104391420760065

FutureSpaceTourist · « **Reply #597 on:** 06/07/2023 03:58 pm »

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1666474419408220160

Quote

Does anybody feel like a Flight Readiness Firing today? #VulcanRocket. #CountdowntoVulcan.

FutureSpaceTourist · « **Reply #598 on:** 06/07/2023 04:01 pm »

twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1666475212781789184

Quote

ULA is preparing for the #VulcanRocket Flight Readiness Firing today as a validation of the fully integrated vehicle at SLC-41. The FRF will demonstrate day of launch timelines and procedures, propellant loading operations and the countdown through ignition of the engines.

https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1666475216099495937

Quote

The FRF is a functional test of the ground systems, software, first stage and engines. Learn more about FRF in the blog: https://blog.ulalaunch.com/blog/vulcan-preview-of-the-flight-readiness-firing #CountdowntoVulcan

FutureSpaceTourist · « **Reply #599 on:** 06/07/2023 04:41 pm »

Says Live at 22:00 UTC today