NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => ULA - Delta, Atlas, Vulcan => Topic started by: Salo on 01/10/2011 08:29 pm
-
Live thread for NRO L-49 launch on the ULA Delta IV-H from Vandenberg SLC-6
Updated on launch day:
The launch of the ULA Delta IV Heavy with a National Reconnaissance Office payload is scheduled for Jan. 20, 1:08 p.m. PST from Space Launch Complex-6, Vandenberg AFB, Calif. The weather forecast is still 90 percent acceptable for launch.
-
The last of the venerable KH-11/12 "Crystal" birds? The mission patch says "better the devil you know" in Latin and has a phoenix rising from the ashes theme. It's amazing we're still launching spy satellites with 1970s heritage!
-
ULA:
The launch of the ULA Delta IV Heavy with a National Reconnaissance Office payload is now rescheduled for Jan. 20, 1:08 p.m. PST from Space Launch Complex-6, Vandenberg AFB, Calif.
This will be the largest rocket ever launched from the West Coast of the U.S. Keep in mind the Delta IV Heavy is America’s largest liquid fueled rocket with nearly 2 million pounds of thrust at launch at liftoff, but it is not America’s most powerful rocket. That would be the Space Shuttle with nearly 7 million pounds of thrust. But it is the largest physically standing approximately 235 feet tall.
-
I assume, LVOS on 1-29-2010 means that the vehicle arrived on site on that date.
So it took close to a year to go from LVOS to launch. Interesting.
btw. This line in the .pdf says much...
Flag was painted by Lockheed-Martin when the MAS was constructed for the shuttle
program. Each star on the flag is 6’ tall. Lockheed-Martin paid the Italian painter in
advance for the work. He took the money and flew back to Italy without performing any
work. The employees working on the shuttle program took up a collection among
themselves and painted the flag
-
If I recall correctly AC-141 arrived at SLC-3E in September 1997 and flew in December 1999. Not sure if the complete vehicle was there all that time.
-
LVOS - Launch Vehicle on Stand.
Part of the standardization process within ULA, was previously VOS and BOS
-
Wish I could go watch it, but I don't think Vandenburg lets you as close as Kennedy. (I'm not too far away, but it's on a school day)
-
If I recall correctly AC-141 arrived at SLC-3E in September 1997 and flew in December 1999. Not sure if the complete vehicle was there all that time.
There was some fleet issue or spacecraft issue with that one, concluding with the RL10 on Delta 269. Processing didn't take that long.
-
If I recall correctly AC-141 arrived at SLC-3E in September 1997 and flew in December 1999. Not sure if the complete vehicle was there all that time.
There was some fleet issue or spacecraft issue with that one, concluding with the RL10 on Delta 269. Processing didn't take that long.
Thanks for that information. It was also a revamped launch complex. Hard to believe an Atlas-Centaur was there among the low hills of VAFB after 37 years of flight.
-
If I recall correctly AC-141 arrived at SLC-3E in September 1997 and flew in December 1999. Not sure if the complete vehicle was there all that time.
I watched AC-141 Launch on Dec18, 1999. I was in Lompoc after work (I worked @ SLC-6) and saw the Atlas 2AS lifting off. It was one heck of a launch as it cleared the hills near South Base. I had a vested interest in the rocket since I was the Engineer in charge of both the Equipment Module and the Payload Adapter. The EOS PA was a one off design, a custom built high tech design specifically for the EOS program, that my friends means it cost big bucks! The PA was the first ever LockMart PA to use Al-Li in its construction. We (Lockheed Martin) built both in Harlingen, TX at the Lockheed Martin Facility where I worked from 1996-1998. VAFB did have an issue with the Payload Adapter though. After we shipped VAFB the Payload Adapter and during a test lift at VAFB's launch pad SLC-3E the GSE attach bolts galled in the Flt half's attach points. The Payload Adapter's lift points were drilled through the Al-Li Longerons (each at 120 deg intervals) around the PA. When it was determined that the GSE bolts had galled it was a VERY big deal. Their very first assumption pointed to Harlingen! Since my techs in Harlingen had built and drilled those Longeron attach points using tooling I had built for the job it was the obvious first choice. Since I was the engineer who oversaw the build of that PA and the drilling of those attach points the Harlingen build process and build paper was investigated. Strangely I had left Harlingen for a job at SLC-6 at VAFB in 1998. So by shear chance I was now at VAFB (1999) when the incident occurred. They asked me some questions about the build we had done back in 1998 and after they couldn't pin the issue on anything we did they had to look at how they (SLC-3E VAFB) processed and lifted the EOS-Payload Adapter. Yep, it was nice to be exonerated! The problem turned out to be a common one. Due to the extremely tight tolerances between the GSE and Flt hardware the GSE bolts galled up after the high loads were applied during the torquing and PA lift operation. By not using a fine coat of lubricant on the bolt's interface with the Flt half holes the bolts galled inside the flt Longerons. It was a huge deal at the time because it was NASA's premiere satellite the EOS Terra, which was to be mated to the Payload Adapter. The EOS satellite was a massively large satellite and massively expensive! It is still in its operational Polar Orbit doing excellent Earth Observation activity.
-
Thanks for the insights to that one issue, Steve. Do you remember how T-0 was moved to within 10 seconds of the end of the launch window because of high winds? Beautiful launch.
-
This will be the largest rocket ever launched from the West Coast of the U.S.
Largest as in tallest, perhaps, or widest, or heaviest payload, but far from the heaviest launch vehicle. Titan 4B weighed 940-ish tonnes, well more than Delta 4 Heavy's 730-ish tonnes. Titan 4 produced a lot more thrust (1.7 times more at 1,542 tonnes thrust versus Delta's 900 tonnes thrust), made the ground shake more, and made a lot more noise than Delta 4 Heavy.
- Ed Kyle
-
Does anybody familiar with Vandenberg AFB know of a line-of-sight viewing spot to SLC-6? I've watched numerous launches from SLC-3E, and SLC-4 (E and W), but I have yet to find a spot where I can physically see a SLC-6 liftoff. I'm really looking forward to this launch...should be a doozy. Also, anybody getting any "subliminal messages" off of that NRO mission patch aside from what's been noted above? :)
-
This will be the largest rocket ever launched from the West Coast of the U.S.
Largest as in tallest, perhaps, or widest, or heaviest payload, but far from the heaviest launch vehicle. Titan 4B weighed 940-ish tonnes, well more than Delta 4 Heavy's 730-ish tonnes. Titan 4 produced a lot more thrust (1.7 times more at 1,542 tonnes thrust versus Delta's 900 tonnes thrust), made the ground shake more, and made a lot more noise than Delta 4 Heavy.
- Ed Kyle
Thanks for that information, it helps to provide perspective.
-
Does anybody familiar with Vandenberg AFB know of a line-of-sight viewing spot to SLC-6? I've watched numerous launches from SLC-3E, and SLC-4 (E and W), but I have yet to find a spot where I can physically see a SLC-6 liftoff. I'm really looking forward to this launch...should be a doozy. Also, anybody getting any "subliminal messages" off of that NRO mission patch aside from what's been noted above? :)
Due to the hills on south Vandenberg, there are no direct line-of-sight viewing points off base. In fact, you would have to go south of SLC-4 on the base to even see SLC-6 and that is in the launch danger area. So there really isn't going to be a direct view from anywhere on the ground. You may want to head to Harris Grade, so you will see it as soon as it clears the hills. It should be spectacular in any case.
Doug
-
The 30th Space Wing suggests Skyscreen Road
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.767634,-120.528753&spn=0.009818,0.024054&z=16
-
Due to the hills on south Vandenberg, there are no direct line-of-sight viewing points off base. In fact, you would have to go south of SLC-4 on the base to even see SLC-6 and that is in the launch danger area. So there really isn't going to be a direct view from anywhere on the ground. You may want to head to Harris Grade, so you will see it as soon as it clears the hills. It should be spectacular in any case.
Doug
Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. I've been out to South Vandenberg a few times, and knew that SLC-6 was tucked in the hills pretty good out there, but I figured maybe there was a spot I missed.
The 30th Space Wing suggests Skyscreen Road
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.767634,-120.528753&spn=0.009818,0.024054&z=16
Yeah, that's the off base viewing sites, which is on the opposite side of the base from SLC-6. Skyscreen road is actually the viewing spot for SLC-2 (Delta) and 576E (Taurus) launches, which are on North Vandenberg. I'm surprised they didn't find a better off-base viewing area. I found out yesterday, that according to the 30th SW Facebook page, Surf beach is going to be open (surprising to me...never known Surf to be open for a launch from SLC-6), so that's where I'm thinking about heading.
Thanks for the help, guys :)
-
How do the Delta IV's get to VAFB ? Shipped through the Panama Canal?
-
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d352/padmods/
The rocket was constructed at ULA's factory in Decatur, Alabama. In mid-August 2009, the three booster cores and upper stage were loaded into ocean-going Delta Mariner vessel for a month-long, 4,000+ mile trip through the Panama Canal and around to Vandenberg.
After arriving late-September 2009 at the harbor once envisioned for receiving the space shuttle fuel tank barge, the first West Coast Heavy rolled onto California soil and moved up the road to SLC-6 over a three-day period.
-
Arrival of the 'Heavy':
http://spaceflightnow.com/delta/d352/arrival/
Evidently, It embarks from Decatur Al and navigates a circuitous route on the Tennessee River to the Mississippi River. It finally emerges at the Gulf of Mexico.
I'll be happy to book passage on the next delivery cruise.
--- CHAS
-
Hmmm....nothing on the ULA website, and I was out trying to see it from here in Long Beach, and....NADA!
-
OOOPS!
Just looked carefully at the website, and it's the 20th.
Could have sworn it was today....
Oh, well, at least my camera is ready.
-
Dose anybody know what satellite ULA will use for there launch broadcast?
-
OK, with a daylight launch of this big beast, is it worth trying to taking pictures of? I'm going to be about 3-4 miles away from SLC-6 (Surf Beach), waiting for it to pop up over the mountains. But with this thing being liquid fueled, how bright will the flame be?
-
How scattered the sunlight might be could a major concern also. Best to be south of SLC-6 if you can.
-
OK, with a daylight launch of this big beast, is it worth trying to taking pictures of? I'm going to be about 3-4 miles away from SLC-6 (Surf Beach), waiting for it to pop up over the mountains. But with this thing being liquid fueled, how bright will the flame be?
The RS-68 is a bright orange fiery engine (hydrogen-rich gas-generator cycle), and the Heavy has three of them spaced nicely apart. It also doesn't climb off the launch pad exceptionally fast, and it's a physically large rocket with bright orange foam. The DIVH is a very impressive looking launch vehicle if nothing else.
And a quick check of the weather forecast shows clear skies and 70F at T-0.
-
The RS-68 is a bright orange fiery engine (hydrogen-rich gas-generator cycle), and the Heavy has three of them spaced nicely apart. It also doesn't climb off the launch pad exceptionally fast, and it's a physically large rocket with bright orange foam. The DIVH is a very impressive looking launch vehicle if nothing else.
And a quick check of the weather forecast shows clear skies and 70F at T-0.
Hopefully that forecast holds up. I was roving around downtown Lompoc today around launch time, and it was foggy as you-know-what out toward the SLC's. Couldn't even see 3E and 4E from the end of my street like I usually can.
E D I T: Since this thing is slower off the pad than, say, a Titan IVB, will that make it a more noisy then the big Titan, or should it be about the same or less (since the Titan generated more thrust from the SRMU's)?
-
Satellite Coordinates:
ALL TIMES PACIFIC STANDARD TIME
JANUARY 20, 2011
BEGIN TRANSMISSION (BARS AND TONE) – 12:15 P.M.
BROADCAST START – 12:43 P.M.
LAUNCH TIME – 1:08 P.M.
SATELLITE – AMC 1
TRANSPONDER – C9
BAND – C-BAND ANALOG
ORBITAL POSITION – 103 DEGREES W
CARRIER – SES AMERICOM
BANDWIDTH – 36 MHz
UPLINK FREQ – 6105 MHz (Vertical)
DOWNLINK FREQ – 3880 MHz (Horizontal)
Launch Webcast: A simulcast of the launch can be viewed on the ULA website at http://www.ulalaunch.com/index_webcast.html Keep in mind, the broadcast will end approximately 6 minutes and 30 seconds after launch with the confirmation of spacecraft fairing separation and all external audio and video feeds will end at this time.
-
Vandenberg AFB, Calif., (Jan. 20, 2011) – With the Moon beaming above, a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy sits poised on its launch pad with a National Reconnaissance Office payload at Space Launch Complex-6. Today’s launch is scheduled to blast off at 1:08 p.m. PST. The Delta IV Heavy, standing 235 feet tall, will be the largest rocket to ever launch from the west coast of the U.S. With its nearly 2 millions pounds of thrust, the Delta IV Heavy is America’s most powerful liquid fueled rocket. Photos by Pat Corkery, United Launch Alliance.
-
Great photos!
-
In the second photo there is a banner/emblem on the tower.
Would anyone have a clearer image of it? Thanks.
-
Not much cleared, but if you go to view the webcast now, they have a nice "intro graphic" that shows the mission patch(es).
As well, note the webcast is at:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/Multimedia_Webcast.shtml
Best to all today!
In the second photo there is a banner/emblem on the tower.
Would anyone have a clearer image of it? Thanks.
-
Moved for live coverage
-
Vandenberg AFB, Calif., (Jan. 20, 2011) – With the Moon beaming above, a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy sits poised on its launch pad ....
I apologize for venting here, inappropriately I'm sure, but "Moon with Rocket" photos like these, taken also by NASA photographers with Shuttle on the pad, etc., just make me miserable! It is only a mocking Moon now.
Grump .... and out.
- Ed Kyle
-
Things are going well with tanking
-
Things are going well with tanking
Very good! Thanks Jim.
-
Will anybody be recording the webcast?
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/Multimedia_Webcast.shtml
Windows Media:
http://mfile.akamai.com/29730/live/reflector:58048.asx?bkup=58227
Flash Player:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/Flash_Webcast.shtml
-
I'll start recording it about 2105 UTC or so.
Jim
-
Is there any ground track information yet? I live in San Francisco and occasionally if the trajectory is right we get a glimpse?
-
Is there any ground track information yet? I live in San Francisco and occasionally if the trajectory is right we get a glimpse?
I heard (and is usually the case) that it will be heading Southward over the Pacific Ocean.
-
Excellent launch preview by William Graham:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/01/live-delta-iv-heavy-launch-nro-l-49/
-
New T-0 of 1:10:30.
-
Live video available from this page
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/Multimedia_Webcast.shtml
-
New T-0 of 1:10:30.
GMT?
-
New T-0 of 1:10:30.
Nice update, thanks!
ULA just confirmed, noting the two minute slip is due to a conjuction issue.
-
New T-0 of 1:10:30.
GMT?
+8 hours for GMT, Jim. So 9:10:30 pm.
-
New T-0 of 1:10:30.
Nice update, thanks!
ULA just confirmed, noting the two minute slip is due to a conjuction issue.
No problem Chris...can't wait to see this one go up.
-
Excellent launch preview by William Graham:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/01/live-delta-iv-heavy-launch-nro-l-49/
Yes, that was an excellent preview.
-
New T-0 of 1:10:30.
GMT?
PST, Its habitual I guess being out here in CA. Sorry about that.
-
can't wait to see this one go up.
Yeah, after 6 years finally a daytime launch of the Heavy...
-
What's the weather like at VAFB? Will we get a good view all the way up or will it be another "switch to the simulation after it punches through the clouds" flight?
-
The first Delta Heavy was a day time launch
-
The first Delta Heavy was a day time launch
... and that was how many years ago?
-
6 or 7 years ago!
-
What's the weather like at VAFB? Will we get a good view all the way up or will it be another "switch to the simulation after it punches through the clouds" flight?
Clear blue skies
http://www.goes.noaa.gov/browsw2.html (http://www.goes.noaa.gov/browsw2.html)
Don't know about winds, though.We have some strong gusts further south
-
The first Delta Heavy was a day time launch
... and that was how many years ago?
Kinda tangential -- has the 5m fairing, big upper stage, single core version of the Delta IV flown? I should be able to remember but the memory is the first thing to go.
--N
-
The first Delta Heavy was a day time launch
... and that was how many years ago?
Kinda tangential -- has the 5m fairing, big upper stage, single core version of the Delta IV flown? I should be able to remember but the memory is the first thing to go.
--N
WGS-3 was launched by a Delta IV-M+(5,4) in December 2009.
-
L-45 minutes.
Still 20 mins to the webcast.
-
Post launch search elements from Ted Molczan.
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2011/0173.html
Updated to include the 2.5 minute launch delay.
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2011/0175.html
-
Five minutes to the webcast. Note the main page people will be asking for is this one:
http://ulalaunch.com/site/pages/Multimedia_Webcast.shtml
-
-
Webcast has started.
Pictures are really dark...
-
L-25 mintues.
-
Webcast will end after fairing separation.
-
Thanks for being around Nick :)
As per usual for this kind of launch, ULA note the webcast will end at payload fairing sep. We'll get to see a CGI version of that, but it won't be representative of the spacecraft.
-
-
T-5 minutes and holding for 15 minutes.
-
-
Processing:
-
-
MAS and MST rollback.
-
If anyone from ULA is reading this - turn up the brightness!
50 years of NRO.
-
L-15 minutes.
Betty has no issues in work.
-
-
-
If anyone from ULA is reading this - turn up the brightness!
In VLC, hit control-E, video adjust and adjust the brightness and contrast to taste.
-
If anyone from ULA is reading this - turn up the brightness!
In VLC, hit control-E, video adjust and adjust the brightness and contrast to taste.
Wow, thanks for the tip! ;)
-
If anyone from ULA is reading this - turn up the brightness!
In VLC, hit control-E, video adjust and adjust the brightness and contrast to taste.
Good settings added. Example shown second.
-
Logo designed by an elementary school student from Chantilly, VA.
-
L-10 minutes.
-
Second and third place logos:
-
Polling to come out of the hold.
-
Polling underway to come out of the hold.
-
Fiddling is good. ;)
View - enhancements - video settings for the same thing in Windows Media Player 12.
-
Does anyone have a direct link for the stream? I can't get onto the ULA website.
-
Polling is go to proceed out of the BIH the count at T-5 minutes. One of the controllers got a bit carried away with his "READY!!" ;D
-
Does anyone have a direct link for the stream? I can't get onto the ULA website.
http://mfile.akamai.com/29730/live/reflector:58048.asx?bkup=58227
-
Does anyone have a direct link for the stream? I can't get onto the ULA website.
Same here any other streams???
-
T-5 minute master script running.
-
L-6 minutes.
T-5 minutes and holding for 60 more seconds..
-
Does anyone have a direct link for the stream? I can't get onto the ULA website.
http://mfile.akamai.com/29730/live/reflector:58048.asx?bkup=58227
Cool thanks Chris!
-
Does anyone have a direct link for the stream? I can't get onto the ULA website.
http://mfile.akamai.com/29730/live/reflector:58048.asx?bkup=58227
I've got:
mms://a49.l2973058048.c29730.g.lm.akamaistream.net/D/49/29730/v0001/reflector:58048
-
S/C configured for launch.
LD has permission to launch.
-
T-5 minutes and counting.
-
T-5 minutes and counting.
-
Vehicle going to internal power.
-
-
First stage on internal.
-
Vehicle on internal power. Ordnance arming.
-
Ordnance armed.
-
CBC propellant tanks securing.
-
CBCs into pre-press.
-
I guess this is when we find out if the legends about the shock waves bouncing back from that nearby hill are true.
-
-
T-2 minutes. HTPA spin up, hydraulic pressure to 4000 psi.
-
Finally have the feed. T-90 seconds. Go Betty!
-
CBC LH2 ready for flight.
-
CBC's pressed to flight level.
-
Range is go.
-
Range go for launch.
-
-
Minus 60 seconds. Go Betty!
-
Green board, flight lock-in.
-
Green board! God Speed Betty!
-
Liftoff!
-
LAUNCH!!
-
-
Wow..heck of an H2 fireball at ignition. Very visible.
-
Look at that!
-
Betty's not hanging around!
-
-
Good control in first stage flight.
-
-
Vehicle transonic.
-
MaxQ - now transonic.
7.8 miles alt.
-
Awesome contrail!
-
Wow!
Core in partial thrust.
-
Engine steering good.
-
20 miles
3,200 feet per second.
-
Vehicle weighs only 1/2 what it did at liftoff.
-
Big chunks coming off the vehicle, probably very explainable.
-
Lot of debris falling away.
-
-
Some more chunks. See shot:
-
Strap-on CBC separation!
-
Staging!
-
Core CBC to full power.
-
T+5 minutes.
-
MECO!
-
Core CBC MECO!
-
1-2 sep!
-
Staging 1-2 Sep.
Second stage ignition.
-
NEDS deploy and second stage start.
-
Fairing sep.
-
Fairing separation!
-
And that ends ULA's coverage for obvious security reasons.
-
So, debris = ice?
-
So, debris = ice?
nozzle particles
-
So, debris = ice?
nozzle particles
Is that nominal?
-
Webcast ended.
-
So, debris = ice?
nozzle particles
Thanks, Jim - gotta remember ablative nozzles.
-
Only saw a rather short contrail here in Long Beach.
-
Wow, congrats to all--what a spectacular launch/vehicle. Nice to see the RS-68 and Delta IV working consistently!
To echo Lee Jay: there appeared to be a considerable amount of "stuff" falling away from the vehicle--ice?
-
Were the 3 cores oriented vertically after the pitch maneuver? It appeared that way on the video but I might have expected the vehicle to roll 90 degrees so they were horizontal. To an amateur that would seem more stable.
-
Fairing sep was significantly later than the baseline mission profile.
-
Saw Betty from here! :)
-
I stuck my head out to see what it looked like here in the OC, just a vertical contrail, due to the launch azimuth heading away from here. The contrail probably got up to about 15 degrees or so from the horizon, and the angle of the departing launcher pretty much obscured staging and everything after that.
-
Lots of charring this time - almost like the first Heavy launch. I think the burning insulation was even leaving a smoke trail...
-
Wow, that initial rise from the pad was freaking *majestic*. Subsequent video coverage sucked though. VAFB sure ain't CCAFS when it comes to that...
-
A few people asking why we're calling the vehicle "Betty" :)
Read William's great overview:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/01/live-delta-iv-heavy-launch-nro-l-49/
-
Wow, that initial rise from the pad was freaking *majestic*
Yep! Lots of awesomeness involved there. Seemed to ascend faster than the Cape heavies, probably because of the VAB roof shot compared to the ground shot at VAFB.
-
Wow, that initial rise from the pad was freaking *majestic*. Subsequent video coverage sucked though. VAFB sure ain't CCAFS when it comes to that...
Probably has to do with no manned flights from Vandenberg. Post Columbia also added HD cameras to the Cape...
Still better than coverage from any other launch site in the world except for the Cape--see the launch pad only view from today from Russia.
A rocketcam shot would have been awesome...
-
Only saw a rather short contrail here in Long Beach.
Yeah, it was short here from the SFV. At first I thought there wouldn't be anything then it crept up behind trees that unfortunately block my view (depending on the launch pad used). Either way, awesome job to all involved!
-
So, debris = ice?
nozzle particles
Caught me out too. Thanks for explaining Jim :)
-
A few people asking why we're calling the vehicle "Betty" :)
Read William's great overview:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/01/live-delta-iv-heavy-launch-nro-l-49/
Amazing work! Thanks William!!!
-
Probably has to do with no manned flights from Vandenberg. Post Columbia also added HD cameras to the Cape...
Still better than coverage from any other launch site in the world except for the Cape--see the launch pad only view from today from Baikanour.
A spacecam shot would have been awesome...
Yep, I realize Cape would not be that good if it wasn't for manned launches and the upgrades Columbia caused.
Heh, I don't think anything would have helped at Baikonur today with the clouds and all ;)
I don't know about you, but for me there's nothing like a clean burning rocket launching. Although, I was surprised at the brownish trail the vehicle left behind it. Could the ablation of nozzle explain all of that? Looked more like a RP-1 than a H2 rocket.
-
I guess this is when we find out if the legends about the shock waves bouncing back from that nearby hill are true.
Was only because of the Shuttle's SRBs.
-
Yep, I realize Cape would not be that good if it wasn't for manned launches and the upgrades Columbia caused.
Heh, I don't think anything would have helped at Baikonur today with the clouds and all ;)
Columbia didn't increase the coverage that much
-
I didn't mean increase the number of sites as much as some upgrades to certain stations - HD cameras etc.
-
Yep, I realize Cape would not be that good if it wasn't for manned launches and the upgrades Columbia caused.
Heh, I don't think anything would have helped at Baikonur today with the clouds and all ;)
Columbia didn't increase the coverage that much
If I remember correctly, the number of TV cameras didn't change much but most were changed into HD--weren't they?
-
Speaking to the ablative nozzles--it seemed there was more material on this launch--at least more "chunkiness". Beyond that, and perhaps because of the other RS-68 powered launches we've seen, I envisioned that the ablation would be more uniform, as opposed to what we saw. Then again, this was a day launch, and the launch profile did appear a bit different.
Gotta' see a D-IVH live--so impressive! Again, congrats to all the teams, the systems are maturing nicely...
-
ULA release. Congrats to them and all involved for the success (of what we've been able to follow).
United Launch Alliance Successfully Launches First West Coast Delta IV Heavy Mission
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., (Jan. 20, 2011) – A United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket carrying a payload for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) successfully lifted off today from Space Launch Complex-6 here at 1:10 p.m. PST. The Delta IV Heavy, at 235 feet or approximately 23 stories tall, is the largest rocket ever to launch from the West Coast of the United States. The mission is in support of national defense.
"Today’s launch was the second Delta IV Heavy launch for the NRO in two months and was also the largest rocket ever launched from the west coast,” said Jim Sponnick, ULA vice president, Mission Operations. “Most important is the critical NRO payload launched today which will significantly enhance the effectiveness and safety of the brave men and women defending our nation every day. Today’s successful launch represents the culmination of five years of hard work and exceptional skill in modifying the launch system to establish the west coast heavy lift capability for the nation and to integrate this important mission. I congratulate the combined NRO, Air Force, supplier and ULA team on this impressive accomplishment and successful launch.”
The ULA Delta IV Heavy vehicle featured a center common booster core with two strap-on common booster cores. Each common booster core was powered by the RS-68 cryogenic engine producing 660,000 pounds of thrust. An RL10B-2 cryogenic engine powered the second stage. Both engines are built by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne. The payload was encased by a five-meter diameter (16.7-foot diameter), 63-foot composite bi-sector payload fairing. ULA constructed the Delta IV Heavy launch vehicle in Decatur, Ala.
The launch occurred after a multi-year construction effort to upgrade SLC-6 to accommodate the Delta IV Heavy. The last SLC-6 launch occurred Nov. 4, 2006, and was a Delta IV Medium, which launches one common core booster. This was the fifth launch of a Delta IV Heavy in program history, with the four previous launches occurring at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla.
ULA's next launch is the Atlas V Orbital Test Vehicle-2 (OTV FLT 2) launch in support of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) currently scheduled for Mar. 4, from Space Launch Complex-41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla.
ULA program management, engineering, test and mission support functions are headquartered in Denver, Colo. Manufacturing, assembly, and integration operations are located at Decatur, Ala., Harlingen, Texas, and San Diego, Calif. Launch operations are located at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.
For more information on the ULA joint venture, visit the ULA Web site at www.ulalaunch.com, or call the ULA Launch Hotline at 1-877-ULA-4321 (852-4321).
-
Speaking to the ablative nozzles--it seemed there was more material on this launch--at least more "chunkiness".
Previous nighttime Delta IV launches which had onboard cameras showed many sparks as well. The tracker that covered the LV for the largest portion of the flight is an IR one so hot particles will be bright, even if they're not particularly bright in visible light.
-
Can I just say a big thank you to ULA for finally, finally letting me see footage of the MST retract from the fully enclosed to launch position.
It was always one of the most intriguing parts of the shuttle programme for me.
-
Thanks ugordan--nice call on the IR camera (I noticed it but didn't even consider it wrt ablation).
-
Yep, I realize Cape would not be that good if it wasn't for manned launches and the upgrades Columbia caused.
Heh, I don't think anything would have helped at Baikonur today with the clouds and all ;)
Columbia didn't increase the coverage that much
If I remember correctly, the number of TV cameras didn't change much but most were changed into HD--weren't they?
RTG launches help drive the Kennedy coverage too. Remember how spectacular the footage of the New Horizons launch was? They kept waiting for a cloud hole so they could track wreckage coming down in case something went boom -- to go find/recover the RTG bits.
--N
-
I missed the launch - Are there any Youtube links yet?
-
I missed the launch - Are there any Youtube links yet?
Seconded.
Congrats though to ULA for what looks to have been a spectacular (and successful) launch.
And thanks for the coverage who posted!
-
I missed the launch - Are there any Youtube links yet?
here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5-Z5yTVlLPU
-
Speaking to the ablative nozzles--it seemed there was more material on this launch--at least more "chunkiness". Beyond that, and perhaps because of the other RS-68 powered launches we've seen, I envisioned that the ablation would be more uniform, as opposed to what we saw. Then again, this was a day launch, and the launch profile did appear a bit different.
Gotta' see a D-IVH live--so impressive! Again, congrats to all the teams, the systems are maturing nicely...
This was an IR camera, wasn't it?
Hot stuff falling away is _much_ more visible in the IR range than visual.
-
I'll start recording it about 2105 UTC or so.
Jim
Great. Will you be uploading the webcast on filefront.com?
-
WELL.....I was going to capture it with DownloadHelper, but it couldn't grab the stream, so no joy.
-
I guess this is when we find out if the legends about the shock waves bouncing back from that nearby hill are true.
Was only because of the Shuttle's SRBs.
Would have been amazing if there had been shuttle launches from both KSC and VAFB.
-
Would have been amazing if there had been shuttle launches from both KSC and VAFB.
Just caught the YouTube of today's Delta IV Heavy launch. I was imagining hearing GLS milestones during the countdown, with the hills in the background.
Someone said "majestic" earlier, and I can't improve on that description of a Heavy rising from the pad. Wow!
-
For those who are curious, here is what it looked like about 200mi south of the launch. Completely horizontal trail, but obviously much faster than a jet.
Easily visible with the naked eye, about equivalent to 4" long object at arm's length.
-
A few shots from Surf Beach. The sun couldn't have picked a worse spot in the sky to be at T-0...
-
A few people asking why we're calling the vehicle "Betty" :)
Read William's great overview:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/01/live-delta-iv-heavy-launch-nro-l-49/
Great summary article by Mr. Graham.
-
Nice, very nice!
Vandenberg AFB, Calif., (Jan. 21, 2011) - A United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy launches with a National Reconnaissance Office payload at Space Launch Complex-6 at 1:10 p.m. PST. The Delta IV Heavy is the largest rocket ever launched from the west coast of the U.S. standing 235 feet tall and producing nearly 2 millions pounds of thrust at liftoff. The Delta IV Heavy is America’s most powerful liquid fueled rocket. This was the fifth launch of a Delta IV heavy in program history. Photo by Pat Corkery, United Launch Alliance.
-
Looks like a great manned booster to me ! Lets get on with it... in 6 months we will have.... nothing !!!!
:(
-
Wow...is the insulation actually on fire in that wide shot?
-
Looks like a great manned booster to me ! Lets get on with it... in 6 months we will have.... nothing !!!!
:(
And we'd still have nothing with Delta IV. ULA says a man-rated Delta would take 5-6 years. Atlas would be 3 years.
-
Wow...is the insulation actually on fire in that wide shot?
I was about to post a similar enlargement. With the flame on the nearest strap-on and the black smoke coming off it, it certainly looks like the insulation on that booster is burning. I don't recall seeing that on the other Delta IV launches, just the normal H2 ignition scorching. It would be interesting to see the other photos in that sequence to see how long it was burning.
-
Wow...is the insulation actually on fire in that wide shot?
I suppose that's one way to shed a few Kg...
To my eyes, the left hand booster as seen in the image is burning and trailing smoke in a "U" shape along the body of the booster as well as the active flame between that booster and the core.
I can't believe they intended or want the vehicle in flames like that... ignition fireball not withstanding.
-
YOUCH!
Man, that's *scary*!
Is the big "burp" of flame at the engine ignition normal with a Delta-IV Heavy?
Jim
-
YOUCH!
Man, that's *scary*!
Is the big "burp" of flame at the engine ignition normal with a Delta-IV Heavy?
Jim
It's normal with an RS-68. What I don't understand is why the ROFIs don't keep it under control at the bottom of the booster.
-
Wow...is the insulation actually on fire in that wide shot?
I suppose that's one way to shed a few Kg...
To my eyes, the left hand booster as seen in the image is burning and trailing smoke in a "U" shape along the body of the booster as well as the active flame between that booster and the core.
I can't believe they intended or want the vehicle in flames like that... ignition fireball not withstanding.
This reminds me of one of the technical issues with SLC-6 back in the Shuttle days, the accumulation of hydrogen gas at the base of the pad. They installed a turbine near the pad to help vent the gas, but its possible that the turbine is either gone, or not 100% effective.
-
OK....I'm a real rookie here when it comes to launching a Delta-IV Heavy at VAFB, so bear with me!
Isn't there a water deluge system, or is that what "ROFI" stands for? Is this related to the "Hydrogen Build Up" that they were so worried about when launching a Shuttle from SLC-6?
-
This reminds me of one of the technical issues with SLC-6 back in the Shuttle days, the accumulation of hydrogen gas at the base of the pad. They installed a turbine near the pad to help vent the gas, but its possible that the turbine is either gone, or not 100% effective.
I thought that the turbine engine was long gone, and that only ROFI was used for Delta IV (plus beefing up the aft end of the vehicle)
(ROFI is the radially outward flame ignitor- AKA the "Sparklers")
-
YOUCH!
Man, that's *scary*!
Is the big "burp" of flame at the engine ignition normal with a Delta-IV Heavy?
Jim
It's normal with an RS-68. What I don't understand is why the ROFIs don't keep it under control at the bottom of the booster.
The ROFIs actually did their job here, which was to burn off the excess hydrogen (producing the fireball). Otherwise it would have built up and exploded when the engines ignited. Probably the pad layout caused the hydrogen to collect closer to the vehicle than it does at the Cape resulting in the scorching.
The first Heavy was almost as badly burned when it launched. I think they made some modifications to reduce the charring but the differences between the pads probably negated those.
-
Insider's view from NASA Mission Director Center (MDC) on south Vandenberg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5jpRWUauEQ
-
What I don't understand is why the ROFIs don't keep it under control at the bottom of the booster.
The ROFIs are not the issue, it's the vast quantity of hydrogen and helium that's dumped out. Since this mixture isn't well-mixed with air (better not be unless you want a detonation!), it takes quite some time for it to burn off. In the meantime the buoyancy just does its job.
Someone said after the last Delta IV launch that the BBQ thing was sorted out ages ago. Apparently not ;D
-
Launch highlights video is up: http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/Video/videos/DIV/divh_nrol49_lh.wmv
-
That's pretty cool! Delta IV-H is one heck of a Bird. Quick; get an Orion capsule on top of one of those things A.S.A.P!!
-
Post launch search elements from Ted Molczan.
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2011/0173.html
Updated to include the 2.5 minute launch delay.
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2011/0175.html
updated after observer radio collections
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2011/0184.html
-
Wow...is the insulation actually on fire in that wide shot?
I suppose that's one way to shed a few Kg...
To my eyes, the left hand booster as seen in the image is burning and trailing smoke in a "U" shape along the body of the booster as well as the active flame between that booster and the core.
I can't believe they intended or want the vehicle in flames like that... ignition fireball not withstanding.
This reminds me of one of the technical issues with SLC-6 back in the Shuttle days, the accumulation of hydrogen gas at the base of the pad. They installed a turbine near the pad to help vent the gas, but its possible that the turbine is either gone, or not 100% effective.
The jet engines (turbines) were to keep ice off the ET. It was steam injection that was added for the H2 problem and that was to prevent detonation which it is a Delta IV issue. Anyways, one can see that the SSME duct has been filled in.
-
If you look at the highlight video of ULA, you will see in the first few seconds a few burning spots on the 3 CBC and one near the rocket engine... looks not really reliable, but I think, the engineers know what's allowed and what not.
-
That's pretty cool! Delta IV-H is one heck of a Bird. Quick; get an Orion capsule on top of one of those things A.S.A.P!!
2013 is the date. Unmanned, but still.
-
Two things come to mind from watching Marsavian's video:
1) There was definately fires on all the LOX tank insulation of all three CBCs after lift-off. I'm sure that wasn't a serious problem, though;
2) Watching the contrail as the rocket went supersonic, I see why there was so much confusion about that contrail seen over the Pacific recently. It was impossible to tell what direction the rocket was turning, either towards the camera or away or even to either side.
-
Just realized those pictures were taken by Pat Corkery. We hired Pat to take aerials of our site last year, and I took pictures of him taking pictures of us. Hi Pat! Bet you didn't know I took this shot!
-
I suppose that's one way to shed a few Kg...
How much of an impact does a char'd booster have on the boosters drag during atmospheric flight? You no longer have a nice "smooth" surface. It might fully negate the few kg you burned off ;)
-
That foam is not terribly smooth in the first place.
-
It's not the amount of hydrogen. It's only 25% more than the SSME. It's the lack of pad water and the pad geometry. At LC-39, the SSWS both retards combustion and entrains the hydrogen below the MLP.
-
Launch highlights video is up: http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/Video/videos/DIV/divh_nrol49_lh.wmv
I liked the camera shots/angles at:
:54
1:15
1:41
Majestic & very impressive.
-
Was there any satellite broadcast of the launch? My satellite TV picture went black when the telecast started. I could not watch the launch because the web was jamed.
-
Photo from AP.
(Has to be linked, as it's copyrighted. Can you hard link it? - Chris)
-
Insider's view from NASA Mission Director Center (MDC) on south Vandenberg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5jpRWUauEQ
HA! Check out the "OH NO!" during ignition.
-
HA! Check out the "OH NO!" during ignition.
Funny indeed! ;D
I really thought ULA had resolved this excessive flame/charring issue after the 1st 'heavy' launch - but perhaps it was pad mods instead of vehicle mods?
Congrats on the launch!
-
HA! Check out the "OH NO!" during ignition.
made my heart skip a couple of beats, too.
obviously somebody didn't think the 'phoenix rising out of the flames' mission patch might be a bad idea?
-
HA! Check out the "OH NO!" during ignition.
made my heart skip a couple of beats, too.
obviously somebody didn't think the 'phoenix rising out of the flames' mission patch might be a bad idea?
some "interesting" liftoff pics:
http://dailynews.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=1156182&CategoryID=26369&ListSubAlbums=0
And
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d352/launch/
By Gene Blevins/LA Daily News
I don't think anybody thought that it would try that hard to barbecue itself.
-
I'm more inclined to think that the debris releases were insulating foam, given the way it released and dispersed. Nozzle ablatives would remain entrained in the plume.
-
Really nice pictures that LA Daily News have up. It really shows how much charring took place. Especially on the outside core booster. Thing sure did BBQ on the way up.
-
Yep, those SFN pictures are quite amazing.
Now imagine the outrage & criticism if 'blind squirrels' charred their rockets as much. ;)
-
Yep, those SFN pictures are quite amazing.
Now imagine the outrage & criticism if 'blind squirrels' charred their rockets as much. ;)
Here, here.
EDIT: Note that the launch still appears to be a complete success in spite of this. I would still think it's safe to say, though, that having your rocket tanks on fire is probably a bigger issue than the Falcon 9 COTS demo 1 fireball (and damaged strongarm). I'm glad the DIVH was robust enough that it was able to survive burning for a while!
-
HA! Check out the "OH NO!" during ignition.
Video isn't available any more. Did anyone has copy?? PM me.
-
Actual burning appears to be confined to intertank areas on each CBC. The tanks per se aren't burning. Looks like Delta IV needs to use different paint for that area.
-
Corrected the link, as only the original source should be linked.
http://dailynews.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=1156182&CategoryID=26369&ListSubAlbums=0
looking at the pictures, in (36) and (44) which look to be about the same time in the launch, the center booster has a much brighter, orangier (sp?) flame than the two strap on boosters (and the mach diamonds much less visible). it's gone in the next frames.
problem? or just trick of the light?
-
Yep, those SFN pictures are quite amazing.
Now imagine the outrage & criticism if 'blind squirrels' charred their rockets as much. ;)
It was there. The forum didn't exist for the first delta IV launch and you should have heard the Atlas comments
So touché
-
Corrected the link, as only the original source should be linked.
http://dailynews.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=1156182&CategoryID=26369&ListSubAlbums=0
looking at the pictures, in (36) and (44) which look to be about the same time in the launch, the center booster has a much brighter, orangier (sp?) flame than the two strap on boosters (and the mach diamonds much less visible). it's gone in the next frames.
problem? or just trick of the light?
I've never understood what an SSME "flare" is, and I wonder if this isn't one of the same.
-
It was a beautiful day, so I drove out from Los Angeles to see this launch. I watched from Gaviota, about 24 miles ESE from SLC-6. It would be nice to be closer, but a Southern trajectory does cross the sky nicely. The afternoon sun did eventually obscure the view. The sound from that distance is a just low rumble, but it lasts for a very long time.
Congratulations to all involved with the successful launch.
-Tim
-
Corrected the link, as only the original source should be linked.
http://dailynews.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=1156182&CategoryID=26369&ListSubAlbums=0
looking at the pictures, in (36) and (44) which look to be about the same time in the launch, the center booster has a much brighter, orangier (sp?) flame than the two strap on boosters (and the mach diamonds much less visible). it's gone in the next frames.
problem? or just trick of the light?
They're all like that. See this for example:
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4-Heavy_DSP-23.html
Note how the CBC closest to the camera doesn't have visible Mach diamonds like the other two.
-
Launch highlights video is up: http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/Video/videos/DIV/divh_nrol49_lh.wmv
Many thanks to ULA for a great launch and a great highlight video.
My 5, 4, and 2 year old children have asked many times today to watch this with me -- especially the 2 year old.
The 5 year old had the most pointed questions:
"Daddy, does that rocket carry people?"
"No buddy, just satellites."
"Why not?"
I'm am still trying to come up with a good answer for him. :-[
-
I'm am still trying to come up with a good answer for him. :-[
Time & money.
-
I'm am still trying to come up with a good answer for him. :-[
Time & money.
If that were the problem, then DIVH would have been a much better solution than Ares I if not arguably the best overall solution for the CLV given the launch assets which existed when the VSE was authorized.
The better answer is institutional culture and political patronage.
Is it ever too early to teach children about how flawed institutions create incentives for good people to make poor decisions?
"Son, remember what I told you about peer pressure? Well, a similar kind of this affects adults, too. Even rocket scientists."
-
I'm am still trying to come up with a good answer for him. :-[
Time & money.
If that were the problem, then DIVH would have been a much better solution than Ares I if not arguably the best overall solution for the CLV given the launch assets which existed when the VSE was authorized.
The better answer is institutional culture and political patronage.
Is it ever too early to teach children about how flawed institutions create incentives for good people to make poor decisions?
"Son, remember what I told you about peer pressure? Well, a similar kind of this affects adults, too. Even rocket scientists."
His children are 5, 4, and 2. Give them a break! It's hard enough just trying to explain WHAT 'time & money' represents ;)
Better yet, just say "one day, hopefully" :)
-
I'm am still trying to come up with a good answer for him. :-[
"Because you're not grown up enough to be an astronaut yet."
-
HA! Check out the "OH NO!" during ignition.
Video isn't available any more. Did anyone has copy?? PM me.
I was a little surprised that it was up for as long as it was. "Do we have to go back to work? Let's drink some wine!" I think the launch was awesome too, but if you are going to be ummm, less than tip-top professional, don't make a movie as you do it and then post it on YouTube...
-
HA! Check out the "OH NO!" during ignition.
Video isn't available any more. Did anyone has copy?? PM me.
I was a little surprised that it was up for as long as it was. "Do we have to go back to work? Let's drink some wine!" I think the launch was awesome too, but if you are going to be ummm, less than tip-top professional, don't make a movie as you do it and then post it on YouTube...
Suggested title: "Grandma Valley Girls Go to Space Camp."
-
Actual burning appears to be confined to intertank areas on each CBC. The tanks per se aren't burning. Looks like Delta IV needs to use different paint for that area.
The first vulnerability to this type of burning would, I suspect, be the integrity of electrical cables routed between the CBCs. I'm not sure where such connections are made. Remember, though, that this rocket was designed to set itself on fire!
- Ed Kyle
-
HA! Check out the "OH NO!" during ignition.
Video isn't available any more. Did anyone has copy?? PM me.
I was a little surprised that it was up for as long as it was. "Do we have to go back to work? Let's drink some wine!" I think the launch was awesome too, but if you are going to be ummm, less than tip-top professional, don't make a movie as you do it and then post it on YouTube...
Considering the sensitive nature of the payload, my jaw dropped that someone would actually make a video like that. Much less post it. May not have been the actual control room and only an outside group that was monitoring the launch, but still they had insight ... I only hope someone doesn't get taken to woodshed too badly over it.
-
Actual burning appears to be confined to intertank areas on each CBC. The tanks per se aren't burning. Looks like Delta IV needs to use different paint for that area.
The first vulnerability to this type of burning would, I suspect, be the integrity of electrical cables routed between the CBCs. I'm not sure where such connections are made. Remember, though, that this rocket was designed to set itself on fire!
As always Ed's hyperbole is effective! To be persnickety, though, the vehicle is designed to tolerate being set on fire by the GH2 vented from its engines.
Setting itself on fire is not a design requirement!
EDIT: to offer congratulations to the Delta technical and engineering teams! Successfully launching the first ever heavy from the west coast shows how solidly they understand their vehicle and total launch system. Not to say Atlas is any less; just saying thanks to Delta for their competency today.
-
EDIT: to offer congratulations to the Delta technical and engineering teams! Successfully launching the first ever heavy from the west coast shows how solidly they understand their vehicle and total launch system. Not to say Atlas is any less; just saying thanks to Delta for their competency today.
Hear, hear. Not a great fan of Delta IV Heavy, but they do deserve credit for making it work, work right first time when it absolutely had to, and do so at the beleaguered slick-6.
Now let's hope that whatever replaces the FIA that Boeing botched so badly for high-resolution work is well-managed, 'cause I guess we're all outta Keyholes.
-Alex
-
HA! Check out the "OH NO!" during ignition.
Video isn't available any more. Did anyone has copy?? PM me.
I was a little surprised that it was up for as long as it was. "Do we have to go back to work? Let's drink some wine!" I think the launch was awesome too, but if you are going to be ummm, less than tip-top professional, don't make a movie as you do it and then post it on YouTube...
Considering the sensitive nature of the payload, my jaw dropped that someone would actually make a video like that. Much less post it. May not have been the actual control room and only an outside group that was monitoring the launch, but still they had insight ... I only hope someone doesn't get taken to woodshed too badly over it.
It was the NASA MDC, it had no data, no more than us
-
Now let's hope that whatever replaces the FIA that Boeing botched so badly for high-resolution work is well-managed, 'cause I guess we're all outta Keyholes.
It is interesting that in Chris's write-up this launch went from an Atlas-501 to a Delta IV Heavy. I assume this is part of the FIA botch. Makes one wonder if what ever replaces the last of the Keyholes will even require a West Coast Heavy. Sounds like FIA payloads where lighter.
Has the rumor mill turned out if NRO L-37 will fly from the East or West Coast.
-
Now let's hope that whatever replaces the FIA that Boeing botched so badly for high-resolution work is well-managed, 'cause I guess we're all outta Keyholes.
The rumours from last year are that the KH-11 will be put back into production, although there is some political discussion over the need for high-res imaging. I don't know what the outcome of the debate was.
-
Now let's hope that whatever replaces the FIA that Boeing botched so badly for high-resolution work is well-managed, 'cause I guess we're all outta Keyholes.
The rumours from last year are that the KH-11 will be put back into production, although there is some political discussion over the need for high-res imaging. I don't know what the outcome of the debate was.
Why the 11 and not the 12?
-
Now let's hope that whatever replaces the FIA that Boeing botched so badly for high-resolution work is well-managed, 'cause I guess we're all outta Keyholes.
The rumours from last year are that the KH-11 will be put back into production, although there is some political discussion over the need for high-res imaging. I don't know what the outcome of the debate was.
Why the 11 and not the 12?
Blackstar can chime in here (hey! we're actually /not/ talking about launch vehicles!), but I have the impression that KH-11 is often used as a shorthand for the entire post-MOL Keyhole fleet. Presumably they've gone through a lot of sensor changes over the past four decades as CCDs have change immensely, plus avionics, plus taking advantage of modern TDRS, etc., even if the basic optical chassis and propulsion has remained similar. I'm not sure what difference -12 really indicates as a particular subclass within a larger family of multiple variants.
GW, where did you hear those rumors? One would think it wouldn't be easy to put the Keyholes back into full production, having been so long since the major components were manufactured and tooling perhaps gone. The story of the resurrection of NROL-49 will be interesting to read (hiring folks out of retirement?) in, oh, 30 years. Presumably, would also mean a major commitment to SLC-6 DIVH. Perhaps we'll be able to tell by the order book.
-Alex
-
Why the 11 and not the 12?
Because there is no such thing. To cut a long story short, "KH-12" is not a real designation, but an unofficial one applied to Block III and IV KH-11 satellites.
GW, where did you hear those rumors? One would think it wouldn't be easy to put the Keyholes back into full production, having been so long since the major components were manufactured and tooling perhaps gone. The story of the resurrection of NROL-49 will be interesting to read (hiring folks out of retirement?) in, oh, 30 years. Presumably, would also mean a major commitment to SLC-6 DIVH. Perhaps we'll be able to tell by the order book.
Sorry, it was 2009, not last year. The new KH-11s were mentioned in one of Blackstar's articles at TSR: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1400/1 There were also a few articles on other websites, but I can't remember where.
-
Just caught the video and wow the rocket was on fire, could have been worse. I just find it funny that the Spacex Falcon 9 launch gets 5 pages about a fuel hose leak and this gets nearly a mention when the dang rocket is on fire.
-
Just caught the video and wow the rocket was on fire, could have been worse. I just find it funny that the Spacex Falcon 9 launch gets 5 pages about a fuel hose leak and this gets nearly a mention when the dang rocket is on fire.
Except the rocket is designed to handle being on fire.
(And by my reckoning there has been at least five pages, not continuously though, of discussions about this.)
-
No TDRSS used, see SDS
-
Just caught the video and wow the rocket was on fire, could have been worse. I just find it funny that the Spacex Falcon 9 launch gets 5 pages about a fuel hose leak and this gets nearly a mention when the dang rocket is on fire.
More Spacex amazing people snarky comments
D-IV and H2 fires have been known since static firings at Stennis and CCAFS
-
Yes, It's all a plot...not sure what to make of your comment. Please, I'm not a Spacex fan boy and while I do support both Spacex and ULA as well as all launch companies, it's unfair to single me out for just observing something.
-
Just caught the video and wow the rocket was on fire, could have been worse. I just find it funny that the Spacex Falcon 9 launch gets 5 pages about a fuel hose leak and this gets nearly a mention when the dang rocket is on fire.
More Spacex amazing people snarky comments
D-IV and H2 fires have been known since static firings at Stennis and CCAFS
Yes, but it seemed like ULA had gotten the issue under more control since the first heavy launch. (the latter ones having far less flames and insulation charring)
Presumably the dispersion of H2 had been addressed by pad mods (?, correct me if I am wrong here), so I am surprised that ULA did not apply the lessons learned to this pad/launch.
-
Interesting parallel: data vs video in public perception of rockets vs engineering reality and data vs tv news in politics vs reality.
-
By all means, Antares, if you have some data on this subject, feel free to share it.
-
It's just that people conjecture based on what we see on the internet and TV when in reality we have no clue what is in the actual telemetry. Worse, we don't just conjecture, we conclude. When it comes to rockets, everything but Shuttle is eye-tar and proprietary and thus couldn't be shared even if one had access to proof of what is really going on.
-
Please don't scold me for this but, if you want to human rate a launcher such as the Delta IV Heavy the last thing you want to see is the rocket on fire at launch no matter what the reason or excuse. It's just not a seling point visually, especially to a public that is evenly split on HSF and is looking for budget cuts. So I agree that public perception versus data is far apart.
-
Please don't scold me for this but, if you want to human rate a launcher such as the Delta IV Heavy the last thing you want to see is the rocket on fire at launch no matter what the reason or excuse. It's just not a seling point visually, especially to a public that is evenly split on HSF and is looking for budget cuts. So I agree that public perception versus data is far apart.
Two of the changes for man-rating would eliminate this
-
It's just that people conjecture based on what we see on the internet and TV when in reality we have no clue what is in the actual telemetry. Worse, we don't just conjecture, we conclude. When it comes to rockets, everything but Shuttle is eye-tar and proprietary and thus couldn't be shared even if one had access to proof of what is really going on.
I agree, and that applies to us all when we comment on things that we don't have hard data on ourselves. But hey, this is an open internet forum, so conjecture (and many erroneous conclusions) are par for the course. And to be expected, at least in the non-L2 areas.
Just one addendum... videos/photos are data elements as well. Even if they have to be evaluated in their proper context to be able to draw accurate conclusions from them. But they are a piece of the puzzle, and the most accessible piece for us outside observers. And as far as my point of it "applying to everyone", we have on these forums a few people with access to ULA data that have not been shy about drawing conclusions about launches from other commercial (& foreign) providers based on just visual data.
-
It's just that people conjecture based on what we see on the internet and TV when in reality we have no clue what is in the actual telemetry. Worse, we don't just conjecture, we conclude. When it comes to rockets, everything but Shuttle is eye-tar and proprietary and thus couldn't be shared even if one had access to proof of what is really going on.
I agree, and that applies to us all when we comment on things that we don't have hard data on ourselves. But hey, this is an open internet forum, so conjecture (and many erroneous conclusions) are par for the course. And to be expected, at least in the non-L2 areas.
Just one addendum... videos/photos are data elements as well. Even if they have to be evaluated in their proper context to be able to draw accurate conclusions from them. But they are a piece of the puzzle, and the most accessible piece for us outside observers. And as far as my point of it "applying to everyone", we have on these forums a few people with access to ULA data that have not been shy about drawing conclusions about launches from other commercial (& foreign) providers based on just visual data.
Those that have access to ULA data, have access to Spacex's too
-
Spock: "If I let go of a hammer on a planet that has a positive gravity, I need not see it fall to know that it has in fact fallen."
If USAF launches an NRO payload on a Delta-IV Heavy, I need not see the telemetry to know that it has in fact no chance of being damaged by gaseous H2 burn-off.
-
These are Hydrogen/Oxygen engines. The vehicle is NOT on fire !! This is normal.
-
The vehicle is NOT on fire !!
How would you describe the situation at the CBC intertank areas then?
It sure as hell looked like fire to me.
-
The vehicle is NOT on fire !!
How would you describe the situation at the CBC intertank areas then?
It sure as hell looked like fire to me.
It's just a bit of trapped GH2. The airflow took care of it in no-time at all.
-
It's just a bit of trapped GH2. The airflow took care of it in no-time at all.
Take a look at the highlights video again and tell me you really believe it's trapped GH2. Burning with a thick black smoke.
-
It's just a bit of trapped GH2. The airflow took care of it in no-time at all.
Take a look at the highlights video again and tell me you really believe it's trapped GH2. Burning with a thick black smoke.
The black color comes from the soot. The soot generation comes from burning insulation. The Delta IV is designed from the outset to deal with this.
Why don't you complain and worry about similar a phenonoma occuring on the Saturn V? There the S-1C exhaust crawled up the entire length of the stage!
Just like the Delta IV, the Saturn V was designed to handle it safely.
-
The black color comes from the soot. The soot generation comes from burning insulation. The Delta IV is designed from the outset to deal with this.
Why don't you complain and worry about similar a phenonoma occuring on the Saturn V?
<emphasis mine>
I'm not complaining about anything. You said the vehicle's wasn't on fire and now you back out of that by saying the insulation is burning. Insulation on the vehicle. Hence the vehicle is on fire. For a short period.
-
The black color comes from the soot. The soot generation comes from burning insulation. The Delta IV is designed from the outset to deal with this.
Why don't you complain and worry about similar a phenonoma occuring on the Saturn V?
<emphasis mine>
I'm not complaining about anything. You said the vehicle's wasn't on fire and now you back out of that by saying the insulation is burning. Insulation on the vehicle. Hence the vehicle is on fire. For a short period.
I don't see what the big deal is about anyway. If this is a problem, ULA will have a fix in place before the next launch.
-
To what extent can we know that this is not a new case of "normalisation of deviance", this time with Delta IV?
-
To what extent can we know that this is not a new case of "normalisation of deviance", this time with Delta IV?
Because there is no issue. The vehicle was designed with this condition in mind.
Go watch the FRF of the first vehicle.
-
To what extent can we know that this is not a new case of "normalisation of deviance", this time with Delta IV?
Because there is no issue. The vehicle was designed with this condition in mind.
Go watch the FRF of the first vehicle.
I have the video of maiden DIVH and it definitely did not burn. It was only charred.
-
The black color comes from the soot. The soot generation comes from burning insulation. The Delta IV is designed from the outset to deal with this.
Why don't you complain and worry about similar a phenonoma occuring on the Saturn V?
<emphasis mine>
I'm not complaining about anything. You said the vehicle's wasn't on fire and now you back out of that by saying the insulation is burning. Insulation on the vehicle. Hence the vehicle is on fire. For a short period.
It wasn't insulation. All fires were on formerly-white intertank areas.
-
Because there is no issue. The vehicle was designed with this condition in mind.
I am reminded of this quote from Antares in the Delta IV Q&A thread
They actually had a significant redesign of the vents after Heavy Demo to prevent ingestion of free H2 and combustion products.
-
Delta 4 Heavy isn't unique. If memory serves, Minuteman missiles exit their silos on fire too.
I think its pretty neat to see a big fire-breathing rocket lift off *on-fire* while rising out of a fireball - and I am *not* a pyromaniac. ;)
- Ed Kyle
-
...and I am *not* a pyromaniac. ;)
- Ed Kyle
Denial is the first sign, you know. ;)
-
The black color comes from the soot. The soot generation comes from burning insulation. The Delta IV is designed from the outset to deal with this.
Why don't you complain and worry about similar a phenonoma occuring on the Saturn V?
<emphasis mine>
I'm not complaining about anything. You said the vehicle's wasn't on fire and now you back out of that by saying the insulation is burning. Insulation on the vehicle. Hence the vehicle is on fire. For a short period.
It wasn't insulation. All fires were on formerly-white intertank areas.
The intertank areas have insulation I think, just not foam (I think it's cork - same as around the thrust structure at the bottom).
-
These are Hydrogen/Oxygen engines. The vehicle is NOT on fire !! This is normal.
It may be relatively normal for the Delta IV, but it does not apply to all LV's with ground started Hydrogen/Oxygen engines.
-
The last couple pages seem to be focused on whether or not the ignition flare was acceptable.
How about a less contentious question:
Is the scale of the flare comparable to past launches?
My impression from watching a few videos of both Heavy and Medium configurations to compare to this launch is that the flare-up was larger than typical.
The pad and flame trench is not identical at SLC-6 to SLC-37, correct?
BTW, someone has added a fantastic image of this launch to the wikipedia article on SLC-6. I'm sure it's in other galleries, too, but I like it enough to single it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_Delta_IV_Heavy_launch_from_SLC-6_at_Vandenberg_AFB.jpg
I really like the translucent flame that hydrogen makes. I might make myself a print of that shot.
-
These are Hydrogen/Oxygen engines. The vehicle is NOT on fire !! This is normal.
It may be relatively normal for the Delta IV, but it does not apply to all LV's with ground started Hydrogen/Oxygen engines.
The Delta IV Heavy has been touted as a LV for the Boeing and Orion spacecrafts. I don't think I'd want to be on a vehical that has burning isulation no matter how "Normal" it is.
-
These are Hydrogen/Oxygen engines. The vehicle is NOT on fire !! This is normal.
It may be relatively normal for the Delta IV, but it does not apply to all LV's with ground started Hydrogen/Oxygen engines.
The Delta IV Heavy has been touted as a LV for the Boeing and Orion spacecrafts. I don't think I'd want to be on a vehical that has burning isulation no matter how "Normal" it is.
If you read the document ULA published on the changes needed for operating Delta IV for manned flight, addressing this is in there.
-
I don't think I'd want to be on a vehical that has burning isulation no matter how "Normal" it is.
But on the other hand you'd have no problem riding on a (to use a cliché) controlled explosion into orbit?
-
I don't think I'd want to be on a vehical that has burning isulation no matter how "Normal" it is.
But on the other hand you'd have no problem riding on a (to use a cliché) controlled explosion into orbit?
As long as the controlled explosion is being directed in the proper direction from the proper ehxaust/chamber(s), everything is A-OK. ;D ;D
-
About the fire or so called fire. If this had lifted off in full view of the press with astronauts, it would have been all over the press and most regular folk would say it was unsafe to fly on (whether it was or not). You have to remember to the public they would not get on an airliner that was flying on fire and they sure as heck don't want astronauts flying on a rocket on fire. This would be a very hard sell. ULA needs to overcome this area when the vehicle is ever human rated.
-
The last couple pages seem to be focused on whether or not the ignition flare was acceptable.
How about a less contentious question:
Is the scale of the flare comparable to past launches?
My impression from watching a few videos of both Heavy and Medium configurations to compare to this launch is that the flare-up was larger than typical.
The pad and flame trench is not identical at SLC-6 to SLC-37, correct?
BTW, someone has added a fantastic image of this launch to the wikipedia article on SLC-6. I'm sure it's in other galleries, too, but I like it enough to single it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_Delta_IV_Heavy_launch_from_SLC-6_at_Vandenberg_AFB.jpg
I really like the translucent flame that hydrogen makes. I might make myself a print of that shot.
It looks similar in size to the other Heavy launches. I think it just stuck closer to the vehicle than before causing more of the insulation to ignite.
-
It looks similar in size to the other Heavy launches. I think it just stuck closer to the vehicle than before causing more of the insulation to ignite.
Do you have an image of a prior launch which shows an example of actual flames on the vehicle (as opposed to charring) anywhere except aft (engine) end?
(Aft end was showing some hydrogen recirculation and burning on many flights)
-
To what extent can we know that this is not a new case of "normalisation of deviance", this time with Delta IV?
That seems like a reasonable question.
As regards the combustion of gaseous hydrogen, in general it appears to me that it was once again easily tolerated by the vehicle and ground equipment. Scorch marks aren't a hazard, or even a sign of one.
The deviation on this launch was the bright spot apparently caused by combustion of something on the vehicle, subsequent to the hydrogen flare coming into contact with it. This secondary combustion appeared to have generated a visible amount of black smoke.
As Jim points out it did not last long, but I don't think it was expected, and I don't think any member of the general public knows what fueled that secondary flame or what extinguished it. As DaveS suggests we can safely assume ULA will investigate and take any appropriate corrective action.
My guess is that some product (perhaps a lubricant or adhesive) had been applied at that location, and that a small amount was inadvertently allowed to remain exposed on the vehicle exterior.
Either that, or some bird had started to build a nest.
-
Either that, or some bird had started to build a nest.
Nah, it had been up long enough for that nest to have been from last year. The chicks had grown and already flown the nest ;)
-
It looks similar in size to the other Heavy launches. I think it just stuck closer to the vehicle than before causing more of the insulation to ignite.
Do you have an image of a prior launch which shows an example of actual flames on the vehicle (as opposed to charring) anywhere except aft (engine) end?
(Aft end was showing some hydrogen recirculation and burning on many flights)
Well, I was talking about the size of the fireball itself (which is what the person in the quote asked about). Of course the flames' behavior relative to the vehicle is a little different (probably due to the pad layout causing the H2 to be closer to the rocket). But the intertank area is likely covered with the same material as the aft end, which burns on every flight as you said, so it is not unexpected to see that burn in the presence of a closer-than-usual flame.
Pictures 10 and 11 on this page show the size of the fireball and the insulation on fire (as opposed to charred) on the demo flight:
http://www.ktb.net/~billmeco/delta4H.html
But I think the most important point of this whole discussion was stated just above by sdsds - if this was not expected, then they will figure out why it happened and whether it is acceptable. If it is not, then they will fix it. I can't imagine this would require an enormous modification to fix. Post-flight data analysis is routine for all launch vehicles and that is where this will be dealt with. And let us remember that the launch was successful in spite of this - and that is surely the most important thing.
-
Of course the fireball and charring were expected... but relatively prolonged burning of the outside of the rocket? I have a hard time those were either expected or desirable.
I do concur that it is kind of an impressive show, though!
-
I really don't know what all this fluff is about. The rocket lifted off, did its job, and we have a happy customer.
Too many people are making a mound out of a molehill. It's a minor non-issue, and they'll make it better next flight. Moving along...
-
You can see residual flames on the demo flight as it cleared the tower as well, though lower down:
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4-Heavy.html
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4-Heavy_8.jpg
-
I don't think I'd want to be on a vehical that has burning isulation no matter how "Normal" it is.
But on the other hand you'd have no problem riding on a (to use a cliché) controlled explosion into orbit?
The operative word here is CONTROLLED as opposed to "char-broiled" as we see in the pics.
-
I really don't know what all this fluff is about. The rocket lifted off, did its job, and we have a happy customer.
Too many people are making a mound out of a molehill. It's a minor non-issue, and they'll make it better next flight. Moving along...
There were a couple of SRB field joint blowbys before the Challenger accident and numerous foam strikes before the Columbia accident.
I don't know what the fix is but like someone else posted, this will have to be addressed before it could be man-rated.
-
Of course the fireball and charring were expected... but relatively prolonged burning of the outside of the rocket? I have a hard time those were either expected or desirable.
I do concur that it is kind of an impressive show, though!
That's the thing - most of us outsiders don't know what is expected and what is not for a rocket launch, unless it is clearly wrong (like the rocket self-destructing). Maybe it isn't desirable but is expected - I'm sure having a 100+ foot fireball engulf your rocket before it lifts off makes life harder for some engineers, but it is expected for this particular vehicle. We just don't know.
If this website had been around during the first D-IV flight in 2002, I am sure lots of people would have been arguing about whether it was normal for the bottom part of the rocket to be on fire as it went up. Of course we know now that it is normal - but at the time most of us probably wouldn't have known. (Unless they mentioned it in the webcast - I didn't see it)
We will find out for sure whether this was expected or not when the next Heavy flies from VAFB. If we see intertank burning, then it was expected or wasn't important enough to fix (like the aft part of the rocket burning in flight). If not, we know that they felt it was a problem and fixed it. I say we let the people who have the experience and do this for a living decide whether it is important and worth fixing or not.
-
From an arm chair review of the pad camera video:
1. Flame deflected upward to the level of the top of the boosters
2. No steam from water suppersion system early on
It appears there was late water suppession activation and the flame trench design didn't compensate for additional thurst volume of the vehicle. The Delta 4 Heavy launches at Canaveral don't exhibit the upward thurst discharge. SLC6 VAFB flame trench may need to be looked at for modifications. The booster insulation was clearly on fire.
-
The operative word here is CONTROLLED as opposed to "char-broiled" as we see in the pics.
If anyone ever thought that burning on the rocket was uncontrolled, the rocket would never have left the ground in the first place before said burning was assured to be "controlled".
So yes, I find all the fuss about it funny, especially considering all the other, more violent ways a flight can go bad.
For all we know, the interstage sections could have been painted with a similar paint to the one used on the Saturn V platform and mentioned in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uVYM7KodDQ
Speaking of which... Almost the entire 1st stage of Saturn V used to get engulfed in flames at one point in flight and for a longer period than this, but I guess that never bothered anyone because it happened far from expert eyes.
-
Some more photos:
http://www.wghartenstein.com/Aerospace/First-Delta-4-Heavy-Launch/15560785_FrmPq#1165678812_47Vex
Wow. :o
-
From an arm chair review of the pad camera video:
1. Flame deflected upward to the level of the top of the boosters
2. No steam from water suppersion system early on
It appears there was late water suppession activation and the flame trench design didn't compensate for additional thurst volume of the vehicle. The Delta 4 Heavy launches at Canaveral don't exhibit the upward thurst discharge. SLC6 VAFB flame trench may need to be looked at for modifications. The booster insulation was clearly on fire.
It is a dry flame trench, no water suppression.
Extra thrust? The ducts were designed for shuttle SRB's, no mods needed.
-
Some more photos:
http://www.wghartenstein.com/Aerospace/First-Delta-4-Heavy-Launch/15560785_FrmPq#1165678812_47Vex
Wow. :o
More pics of interest:
http://www.wghartenstein.com/Aerospace/First-Delta-4-Heavy-Launch/15560785_FrmPq#1165774702_hF5zD (burning closeup)
http://www.wghartenstein.com/Aerospace/First-Delta-4-Heavy-Launch/15560785_FrmPq#1165774222_5GkwK
-
Some more photos:
http://www.wghartenstein.com/Aerospace/First-Delta-4-Heavy-Launch/15560785_FrmPq#1165678812_47Vex
Wow. :o
http://www.wghartenstein.com/Aerospace/First-Delta-4-Heavy-Launch/15560785_FrmPq#1165774222_5GkwK
On that picture above, the large long welt on the skin of the CBC, left after the fire ball disappears, is quite interesting. To see that in more detail, be sure to select large version and then use your scrolling wheel to zoom up. It's like a scar left after a lightening strike on a tree.
Tony.
-
Then in the next frame, you see that it dissipates as the breeze moves the momentary smoke tornado past the tank. Shhh, this is how Mars conspiracists manage to see glass tubes where everyone one else sees sand dunes.
-
All the combustion that occurs while the vehicle is still essentially on the pad is quite dramatic, but that really is more or less what was seen during previous launches. On the other hand, check out image 38 in the set. The vehicle is well clear of the towers, thus well clear of the GH2 which has in any case long since been consumed, and yet the bird nest (or whatever) near the inter-tank is still visibly aflame.
http://www.wghartenstein.com/Aerospace/First-Delta-4-Heavy-Launch/15560785_FrmPq#1165906126_eeMrv-L-LB
I wonder what it would take (in the way of public outcry or perhaps a Congressional expression of concern) to get USAF/ULA to make some sort of statement about this?
-
I wonder what it would take (in the way of public outcry or perhaps a Congressional expression of concern) to get USAF/ULA to make some sort of statement about this?
Why do they? Unless the soot penetrated to the payload and damaged it, I don't see a need.
If ULA needs to explain this, SpaceX needs to fully and properly explain the Falcon-9 Flight Two fireball.
-
my only question is, if they were to manrate the DIVH would this tank burning need to be resolved prior?
-
Well, if you're going to make the naughty astronauts ride on the outside of the spacecraft...
-
my only question is, if they were to manrate the DIVH would this tank burning need to be resolved prior?
The man-rating mods would reduce/eliminate the fireball altogether.
-
my only question is, if they were to manrate the DIVH would this tank burning need to be resolved prior?
At the very least, they'll have to make sure the TV news announcers make it clear "There will be a big fireball that engulfs the vehicle, don't panic!" or they'll have hundreds of TV viewers keeling over with heart attacks.
-
The fireball has been expected - c.f. the mission patch!
-
The fireball has been expected - c.f. the mission patch!
nice pic
Let me be more clear, is there anything in the manrating rules that would make this type of tank burn something that would have to be addressed/corrected?
-
The public and orbital tourists will look at it this way, Look at the Taurus 2, Falcon 9 and Atlas launchers, they are not on fire. Why should I launch on a rocket that's on fire. It really is that simple. Look at the way people or companies choose the airlines that they fly. We are entering a whole new age when companies and tourists will more than ever fly into space. They will insist on the cleaner option. In business the consumer is always right.
-
The fireball has been expected - c.f. the mission patch!
nice pic
Let me be more clear, is there anything in the manrating rules that would make this type of tank burn something that would have to be addressed/corrected?
In ULA's man rating doc it is listed as a preferred modification if the existing EELV pads are used. If LC-39 is chosen instead, the issue is already addressed.
-
The fireball is expected, the extent of burning after the fireball probably wasn't. It's not a good thing to have that much burning of the outside of your rocket. This is worse than the SpaceX fireball on Falcon 9 flight 2, from the looks of it.
Still, there's no reason for ULA to issue a public statement. The payload reached its intended orbit, from what we can tell. I expect ULA is going to address it for future launches from the West coast.
-
It's only normalization of deviance if objective data is showing something and the acceptable limits and family of data is expanded. If there's no objective data showing something changing on the rocket as a result of the external combustion, no deviance is being made normal - photonic/video evidence notwithstanding. This is different from blowby and foam damage.
-
Can we start a "fireball" thread for people to discuss "fireballs" after every Delta 4 Heavy launch? :)
- Ed Kyle
-
Can we start a "fireball" thread for people to discuss "fireballs" after every Delta 4 Heavy launch? :)
- Ed Kyle
Only if you include Falcon 9's ;)
-
Last time I checked, no Falcon 9's have been on fire, insulation or otherwise. The only fire which you refer to was a fuel hose valve that did not shut off properly and thus caught fire. That is not part of the rocket itself, just to clarify. And yes, I do know when I am being baited, I just couldn't help myself.
-
It's only normalization of deviance if objective data is showing something and the acceptable limits and family of data is expanded. If there's no objective data showing something changing on the rocket as a result of the external combustion, no deviance is being made normal - photonic/video evidence notwithstanding. This is different from blowby and foam damage.
On the other hand, what is the objective evidence that something isn't changing on the rocket as a result of the external combustion? Clearly we can see there's a chemical change to parts of the rocket. Conservation of mass says that something that was on the rocket has now turned to smoke. Is the rocket really engineered to burn, or is this coming out of the factor-of-safety?
These are questions that I am confident that ULA can answer themselves. They have an excellent launch record which they will definitely want to maintain, especially for big missions like this. It will be addressed.
-
Conservation of mass says that something that was on the rocket has now turned to smoke.
Think of it as Delta's OMS assist burn...
-
On the other hand, what is the objective evidence that something isn't changing on the rocket as a result of the external combustion?
If there is objective evidence, it would be eye-tar restricted and unavailable to an internet forum.
-
Yep. Somebody went there. And you thought your pickup truck had power! 8)
Dodge Ram 3500 vs. Delta IV Heavy (http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/delta-iv-heavy-rocket-vs-2011-ram-3500-heavy-duty-diesel.html)
-
Yep. Somebody went there. And you thought your pickup truck had power! 8)
Dodge Ram 3500 vs. Delta IV Heavy (http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/delta-iv-heavy-rocket-vs-2011-ram-3500-heavy-duty-diesel.html)
I dunno, the 0-60 of the DIV is lacking a bit.....
-
Yep. Somebody went there. And you thought your pickup truck had power! 8)
Dodge Ram 3500 vs. Delta IV Heavy (http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/delta-iv-heavy-rocket-vs-2011-ram-3500-heavy-duty-diesel.html)
I dunno, the 0-60 of the DIV is lacking a bit.....
Yeah, but its passing acceleration blows away the Ram...it will pull 4.5 G's fully loaded.
Does anyone know the approximate shaft horsepower of the RS-68 turbine? That's always been one of the figures that's amazed me...the idea of a machine roughly the size of a garbage can generating as much power as several locomotives.
-
Yeah but can you get a Dodge Ram in burn orange and white?
-
Yep. Somebody went there. And you thought your pickup truck had power! 8)
Dodge Ram 3500 vs. Delta IV Heavy (http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/delta-iv-heavy-rocket-vs-2011-ram-3500-heavy-duty-diesel.html)
I dunno, the 0-60 of the DIV is lacking a bit.....
That is comparing horizontal speed with vertical velocity.
Straight up the Dodge would do something like 2 mph if a winch was attached.
-
the SOFI is supposed to burn like that. it's not a problem, except when it comes to public perception. boeing did numerous burn tests on the foam before ever launching a delta iv and determined there was no safety issue. as far as man-rating goes, modifications would be made to eliminate the ball of flame. the RS-68B variant will not cause the SOFI to burn like that.
-
Last time I compared Delta IV with Energia, someone at forums asked me if I knew what Energia did to prevent the flame-up. It turned out that Energiya had a rather tricky system of burners that took a significant effort to develop. They considered solid-fuel burners like on Shuttle, but those were not sufficient for Energiya. So, they went with bi-component torches. The main problem was the stability of the flame in all sorts of atmosphere. Gubanov mentions this:
Его особенностью является то, что внутри зажигательного устройства происходит только образование высокотемпературной водородной плазмы - инициатора воспламенения, а образование смеси, ее поджиг и стабилизация пламени происходят вне устройства в спутном потоке, чем обеспечивается устойчивость факела и его большая дальнобойность и исключается влияние факела на сопло.
E.g. the issue was the reach for the torch's flame across the flame duct, so that free hydrogen cannot escape. (by http://buran.ru/htm/13-3.htm)
Probably the daunting task and associated expense was the reason why Boeing decided not to bother with effective burners and just put some insulation on the rocket instead.
-
Now let's hope that whatever replaces the FIA that Boeing botched so badly for high-resolution work is well-managed, 'cause I guess we're all outta Keyholes.
The rumours from last year are that the KH-11 will be put back into production, although there is some political discussion over the need for high-res imaging. I don't know what the outcome of the debate was.
Why the 11 and not the 12?
Blackstar can chime in here (hey! we're actually /not/ talking about launch vehicles!), but I have the impression that KH-11 is often used as a shorthand for the entire post-MOL Keyhole fleet. Presumably they've gone through a lot of sensor changes over the past four decades as CCDs have change immensely, plus avionics, plus taking advantage of modern TDRS, etc., even if the basic optical chassis and propulsion has remained similar. I'm not sure what difference -12 really indicates as a particular subclass within a larger family of multiple variants.
GW, where did you hear those rumors? One would think it wouldn't be easy to put the Keyholes back into full production, having been so long since the major components were manufactured and tooling perhaps gone. The story of the resurrection of NROL-49 will be interesting to read (hiring folks out of retirement?) in, oh, 30 years. Presumably, would also mean a major commitment to SLC-6 DIVH. Perhaps we'll be able to tell by the order book.
-Alex
Seems like the satellite is working - and some folks must be quite happy and proud (image is from NRO's web site)