LIVE: Atlas V 501 - X-37B OTV-3 - Dec 11, 2012

[Jim]

A policy that as we saw with the recent GPS launch seems to be highly sensible. It must be the case that all such launches have similar performance margins? 

It is not a policy but just a happenstance.  X-37 can't fly on any other vehicle.  Read the GPS thread.  GPS can't fly on a plain Medium DIV and when it flies on M+ (4,2)

[Star One]

A policy that as we saw with the recent GPS launch seems to be highly sensible. It must be the case that all such launches have similar performance margins? 

It is not a policy but just a happenstance.

So a performance margin isn't a factor here then when it comes to picking a launcher for a particular military payload?

[hoku]

Not to sound Snarky, but the X-37 at one point was baselined to fly on the Delta II, so I wonder if flying on a larger Atlas-401 provides it with enough margin to overcome a similar issue.

Fingers crossed they find a root cause, and resume operations soon.

I seem to remember that X-37B should have launched on the Delta II w/o a protective shroud, but cross-wind analysis deduced a too high risk during launch for this configuration. This at least seems to be the official narrative providing a plausible explanation for moving X-37B from Delta II to Atlas V.

The fact that the Air Force had contracted a certain number of Atlas V launch vehicles, and thus had to put them to use might also have contributed to this decision. Launching the X-37B definitely ain't "cheap" (unless someone else has already paid for your launch vehicle).

[Jim]

A policy that as we saw with the recent GPS launch seems to be highly sensible. It must be the case that all such launches have similar performance margins? 

It is not a policy but just a happenstance.

So a performance margin isn't a factor here then when it comes to picking a launcher for a particular military payload?

Not an excessive one like GPS had.  All that is required is a positive margin

[Star One]

A policy that as we saw with the recent GPS launch seems to be highly sensible. It must be the case that all such launches have similar performance margins? 

It is not a policy but just a happenstance.

So a performance margin isn't a factor here then when it comes to picking a launcher for a particular military payload?

Not an excessive one like GPS had.  All that is required is a positive margin

Thanks for that insight. Why did the GPS end up on the Delta if there is no need for such an excess in performance as I would have thought the Delta would have been the more expensive option to launch it on?

[Prober]

any updates on the schedule?

[Galactic Penguin SST]

any updates on the schedule?

It was actually known on L2 about 10 days ago that a new launch date in early December was set, but it seems this was dropped too, as ULA's site was finally updated today with a launch date of NET December 11: http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/Launch.shtml#/33/

[jacqmans]

Latest news is (from L2) that there is no launch date anymore.......

[Ben the Space Brit]

Latest news is (from L2) that there is no launch date anymore.......

Is this due to problems with schedule conflicts, the launch vehicle or payload?

[edkyle99]

Latest news is (from L2) that there is no launch date anymore.......

Is this due to problems with schedule conflicts, the launch vehicle or payload?

I believe that it is due to the RL10 failure investigation.

 - Ed Kyle

[Chris Bergin]

ULA:
The new OTV-3 planning date for launch is Dec. 11 pending approval from the range.

[ugordan]

I believe that it is due to the RL10 failure investigation.

Your definitions of failure are getting more and more interesting, Ed.

[Star One]

Lengthy article on Space.com about the delay, also including details of a statement from the Union of Concerned Scientists about the whole X-37B concept.

http://www.space.com/18592-secretive-x37b-space-plane-delay.html

[edkyle99]

I believe that it is due to the RL10 failure investigation.

Your definitions of failure are getting more and more interesting, Ed.

RL10B-2 suffered some type of failure during the GPS 2F-3 mission that resulted in low thrust and extended burn times.  A propellant leak is one possible explanation, among others.  The Delta IV managed to score a success only due to substantial margin on the mission, but the engine or some part of the propulsion system failed to do its job as designed.  That's why ULA, NASA, the Air Force, etc., are performing an investigation right now, why ULA is grounded right now, etc.. 

 - Ed Kyle

[steveb23]

Hi,

Is there any update on this launch date? Travelling to Florida next week so wondering if I can watch it...

Steve

[robertross]

Hi,

Is there any update on this launch date? Travelling to Florida next week so wondering if I can watch it...

Steve

Looks like no range approval as yet...

[WHAP]

Hi,

Is there any update on this launch date? Travelling to Florida next week so wondering if I can watch it...

Steve

Don't give up just yet...

[Targeteer]

Since there are dates waiting for range approval, does that mean a root cause on the low thrust has been determined?  Have the details been released?  Because an accident board was convened, they probably will/should be.

[russianhalo117]

Range Approval for date 11 December 2012 appears to have gone through as Launch is no longer listed as pending approval on ULA website.

[Prober]

Range Approval for date 11 December 2012 appears to have gone through as Launch is no longer listed as pending approval on ULA website.

I hope to see better confirmation thurs.