-
#1060 by jcm on 02 Aug, 2013 19:18
-
I missed this earlier, it's mentioned (without a date) in the latest AvWeek: Israeli Jericho-3 (prob. not real name) missile launch from Palmachim on July 12.
-
#1061 by jcm on 09 Aug, 2013 20:00
-
NASA 36.239DS VERIS, an NRL solar physics telescope, was launched from White Sands Aug 8 by Black Brant IX (Terrier Mk 70/BB Mk I)
http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/news/story152.html
No launch time given yet. [Edit: I believe planned time was 1800 UTC]
Planned apogee was 280 km
Payload mass about 550 kg
Side note: (in case Block51 is reading) - the current Black Brant sustainer seems to be called Black Brant Mk I. It's really a new version of the Black Brant Mk V (VB/VC)
- the original Mk I went out of use in the early 1960s; Mk II, III, VI and VII
are also history (and IV and 8 to 12 were combos of the Mk V with other stages)
So this one should really be the Black Brant Mk VD or Mk VC Mod I or something like that. It messes up my databases to have two types of rocket motor both called Black Brant Mk I !!
Comments from anyone in the know? -
#1062 by Lewis007 on 10 Aug, 2013 07:27
-
VERIS launch from White Sands: the launch time was 18:10 (14:10 EDT). Apogee reached was 282 km (175 miles).
Source: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/veris-sounding-rocket-to-study-active-regions-on-sun/#.UgXop387sYI
PS: sorry, no answer to the BB question. -
#1063 by DaveS on 12 Aug, 2013 23:37
-
A Terrier-Improved Malemute is scheduled to launch the RockSat-X tomorrow in a window that extends from 6 am EDT to 11 am EDT. The launch will be streamed here: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nasa-tv-wallops and will begin at 5 am EDT.
-
#1064 by jcm on 13 Aug, 2013 14:45
-
VERIS launch from White Sands: the launch time was 18:10 (14:10 EDT). Apogee reached was 282 km (175 miles).
Source: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/veris-sounding-rocket-to-study-active-regions-on-sun/#.UgXop387sYI
PS: sorry, no answer to the BB question.
Thanks! -
#1065 by jcm on 13 Aug, 2013 14:46
-
A Terrier-Improved Malemute is scheduled to launch the RockSat-X tomorrow in a window that extends from 6 am EDT to 11 am EDT. The launch will be streamed here: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nasa-tv-wallops and will begin at 5 am EDT.
46.004UO RockSat-X successfully launched at 1000 UTC to 151 km.
-
#1066 by block51 on 13 Aug, 2013 20:28
-
NASA 36.239DS VERIS, an NRL solar physics telescope, was launched from White Sands Aug 8 by Black Brant IX (Terrier Mk 70/BB Mk I)
http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/news/story152.html
No launch time given yet. [Edit: I believe planned time was 1800 UTC]
Planned apogee was 280 km
Payload mass about 550 kg
Side note: (in case Block51 is reading) - the current Black Brant sustainer seems to be called Black Brant Mk I. It's really a new version of the Black Brant Mk V (VB/VC)
- the original Mk I went out of use in the early 1960s; Mk II, III, VI and VII
are also history (and IV and 8 to 12 were combos of the Mk V with other stages)
So this one should really be the Black Brant Mk VD or Mk VC Mod I or something like that. It messes up my databases to have two types of rocket motor both called Black Brant Mk I !!
Comments from anyone in the know?
I really wish I could post our mision milestone meeting deliverables (MIC [Mission Initiation Conference], RDM [Requirements definition meeting], DR [Design Review], MRR [Mission Readiness Review], MCR [Mission Closeout Report]), but there are vast sections of it stamped with ITAR warnings. As to whether or not they are really ITAR sensitive or not (certainly the Flight Performance and trajectory guidance stuff is) isn't for me to decide. My place is to follow the rules. I like my job after all...
On to stuff I can answer though:
I don't work in the launch vehicles department so I'm just going off documentation. That being said, this work is being done for NASA so they tend to be sticklers on getting documentation correct!
The sustainer (second stage) that was used on 36.239's Black Brant IX is a Black Brant V, Mk.3 Ver. 0. SN Mk3-001. That *is* without any doubt, the nomenclature that is currently used.
The Mk. 3 is what Bristols production has moved to. I think we *might* have some Mk. 2 motors around still around. For instance, 36.283 Galeazzi (launched November 2012) was a Black Brant V Mk. 2. SN Mk2-009 to be exact.
Also, looking at some documents, 36.271 France flew a Black Brant V Mk.1 Ver. 4.
So it seems that we (let's say NASA or the contractors working for NASA) seem to use the "mark" number as a major revision denotation with "version" number being reserved for smaller changes within that major revision. -
#1067 by block51 on 13 Aug, 2013 20:33
-
A Terrier-Improved Malemute is scheduled to launch the RockSat-X tomorrow in a window that extends from 6 am EDT to 11 am EDT. The launch will be streamed here: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nasa-tv-wallops and will begin at 5 am EDT.
46.004UO RockSat-X successfully launched at 1000 UTC to 151 km.
I was on the "backup" recovery team slated to go out for the backup launch date. Since it was an ~13 hour work day for the recovery team (long boat ride out there!) it was decided to have two complete recovery teams. As I didn't go out today I didn't get any nice recovery pictures. Oh well.
Also, I've been too busy with this silly thing called work today to get any good pictures once we got it back here. I'd just try Wallop's FB page, their main webpage, and the various RockSatX 2013 university team webpages for more pictures that you'll ever be able to shake a stick at.
Feel free to ask me questions related to this or most any other sounding rocket flight. I'll answer within the limits of ITAR of course. -
#1068 by jcm on 13 Aug, 2013 21:48
-
NASA 36.239DS VERIS, an NRL solar physics telescope, was launched from White Sands Aug 8 by Black Brant IX (Terrier Mk 70/BB Mk I)
http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/news/story152.html
No launch time given yet. [Edit: I believe planned time was 1800 UTC]
Planned apogee was 280 km
Payload mass about 550 kg
Side note: (in case Block51 is reading) - the current Black Brant sustainer seems to be called Black Brant Mk I. It's really a new version of the Black Brant Mk V (VB/VC)
- the original Mk I went out of use in the early 1960s; Mk II, III, VI and VII
are also history (and IV and 8 to 12 were combos of the Mk V with other stages)
So this one should really be the Black Brant Mk VD or Mk VC Mod I or something like that. It messes up my databases to have two types of rocket motor both called Black Brant Mk I !!
Comments from anyone in the know?
I really wish I could post our mision milestone meeting deliverables (MIC [Mission Initiation Conference], RDM [Requirements definition meeting], DR [Design Review], MRR [Mission Readiness Review], MCR [Mission Closeout Report]), but there are vast sections of it stamped with ITAR warnings. As to whether or not they are really ITAR sensitive or not (certainly the Flight Performance and trajectory guidance stuff is) isn't for me to decide. My place is to follow the rules. I like my job after all...
On to stuff I can answer though:
I don't work in the launch vehicles department so I'm just going off documentation. That being said, this work is being done for NASA so they tend to be sticklers on getting documentation correct!
The sustainer (second stage) that was used on 36.239's Black Brant IX is a Black Brant V, Mk.3 Ver. 0. SN Mk3-001. That *is* without any doubt, the nomenclature that is currently used.
The Mk. 3 is what Bristols production has moved to. I think we *might* have some Mk. 2 motors around still around. For instance, 36.283 Galeazzi (launched November 2012) was a Black Brant V Mk. 2. SN Mk2-009 to be exact.
Also, looking at some documents, 36.271 France flew a Black Brant V Mk.1 Ver. 4.
So it seems that we (let's say NASA or the contractors working for NASA) seem to use the "mark" number as a major revision denotation with "version" number being reserved for smaller changes within that major revision.
Ahh, ok - so the "Black Brant Mk 1" (with no "V") is just sloppy PAO reporting. I'm perfectly happy for them to call it "Black Brant V Mk 1" (Mk 2, etc) even though that's a bit ugly (and why they couldn't stick with the 50 year tradition of letters to distinguish variants, just change for sake of change, but whatever)
Thanks for the clarification!!
- Jonathan -
#1069 by Steven Pietrobon on 14 Aug, 2013 07:26
-
46.004UO RockSat-X successfully launched at 1000 UTC to 151 km.
The WFF website says the vehicle number is 46.005UO. -
#1070 by Lewis007 on 14 Aug, 2013 08:16
-
India test-launched a Prithvi II missile on Aug 12.
More info:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-12/india/41331286_1_prithvi-ii-guided-missile-development-programme-sleek-missile
and
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-13/india/41372826_1_test-fires-surface-to-surface-missile-chandipur
-
#1071 by Lewis007 on 14 Aug, 2013 09:10
-
Some Rocksat-X videos
-
#1072 by Artyom. on 14 Aug, 2013 10:26
-
Suborbital Rocket Launches From NASA's Wallops Flight Facility
http://www.nasa.gov/content/suborbital-rocket-launches-from-nasas-wallops-flight-facility/
-
#1073 by block51 on 15 Aug, 2013 11:40
-
Ahh, ok - so the "Black Brant Mk 1" (with no "V") is just sloppy PAO reporting. I'm perfectly happy for them to call it "Black Brant V Mk 1" (Mk 2, etc) even though that's a bit ugly (and why they couldn't stick with the 50 year tradition of letters to distinguish variants, just change for sake of change, but whatever)
Thanks for the clarification!!
- Jonathan
Sounds about right. I must say though, with regards to "sloppy PAO reporting", the outreach and social media interaction of the Wallops PAO has become infinitely better than it was just 4 years ago. They have a ways to come still, sure, but they are definitely trending in the right direction. Thank heavens for that. We can't all work here and have the inside scoop, and the more people outside of wallops that know we even exist, the better my job prospects look in the long run.
Also, here's a picture of 46.005 coming in on the recovery boat (stolen from a co-worker's Facebook):
-
#1074 by baldusi on 15 Aug, 2013 20:10
-
block51, how's your relationship to the rest of the international sounding rocket community. Do you colaborate with JAXA, DLR/Brazil, etc.?
Do you help the recoverable suborbital market (Virgin, Masten, etc.) Do you perceive them as a danger to your job or as a great opportunity? -
#1075 by block51 on 16 Aug, 2013 12:03
-
block51, how's your relationship to the rest of the international sounding rocket community. Do you colaborate with JAXA, DLR/Brazil, etc.?
Do you help the recoverable suborbital market (Virgin, Masten, etc.) Do you perceive them as a danger to your job or as a great opportunity?
As far as I know the most we do in terms of collaboration is use their ranges. The Nasa sounding rocket program launches out of Andøya Rocket Range with a fair amount of regularity. Due to lots of complicated ITAR stuff it would be VERY difficult nowadays to help design a payload that then launches on a, say German, sounding rocket. Very difficult for NASA (or their contractors) that is. Even launching US payloads on a US rocket from a foreign range takes a lot of paperwork coordinated (I think) through the department of state.
Now, that being said, American citizen principle investigators (PIs) very often bring in international collaborators. Often times we are flying foreign designed / made instruments and working with foreign co-PIs. This is a bit of a pain in terms of the whole ITAR thing. We have to establish a technical assistance agreement (TAA) that is coordinated (I think) through the department of state. You can imagine that taking a month or so for something simple.
All that being said, it isn't uncommon for US researchers to fly their instruments on foreign rockets. I think companies tend to be a bit on the extreme side of deciding what needs a TAA whereas university types tend to say "Eh... whatever". Of course I don't really know what all the rules are with respect to ITAR. An example of a US researcher flying on forgien vehicles would be (and he's not the only one... just one that I happen to know of off the top of my head) is Dr. Miguel Larsen. He was the PI on ATREX last year, anything with TMA, and is someway involved with most any chemical trace release that is done across the world it seems. I know he has launched many of his payloads (same design as launched with us) on Japanese suborbital vehicles.
As far as commercial stuff goes, the NASA sounding rocket program seems to stay very far away from them. I, however, have been watching them with great interest. I don't see them as a threat to my career so much as I see them as an opportunity to further expand suborbital access to space which would do nothing but further the opportunity for people to fly the things we already fly. I think the NASA sounding rocket program is going to be around in some form for quite a while, but I don't think I'll be here forever. I am very excited, personally, for the development of the reusable suborbital vehicle market because I think it means the possibility of more job opportunities for me!
Finally, any growth in the space industry can be turned into a good thing for Wallops because there is a great launch range here. If we can get more things launching from here it means more jobs, and more high paying jobs. The county that wallops is located in (Accomack) has a per capita income that is 28.7% lower than the VA average ($23,556 vs $33,040) and a median household income that is 34.3% lower than the VA average ($41,595 vs $63,302). More well paying technical jobs in this area can only help, and if the community and NASA play it smart I see no reason they can't leverage an increase in the number of suborbital launches in the world into something that is good for this area. There is a HUGE amount of experience in this area in all aspects of space flight (well perhaps not manned spaceflight) that can be tapped.
So short answer... more flights is good for the industry which is good for everyone which is good for me.
Sorry for the giant de-rail in the suborbital thread! -
#1076 by baldusi on 16 Aug, 2013 13:35
-
Oh no! Please, I super appreciate your answer. One thing that made me think is about the processing infrastructure (and experience). You must have some world class (for sub orbital) payload processing flow. And quite a lot of experience. I'm wondering how will Virgin, Masten et all tap on that potential. How many missed steps could be avoided by talking to people like you.
BTW, another place where ITAR seems to complicate even basic science. -
#1077 by block51 on 16 Aug, 2013 13:56
-
Oh no! Please, I super appreciate your answer. One thing that made me think is about the processing infrastructure (and experience). You must have some world class (for sub orbital) payload processing flow. And quite a lot of experience. I'm wondering how will Virgin, Masten et all tap on that potential. How many missed steps could be avoided by talking to people like you.
BTW, another place where ITAR seems to complicate even basic science.
I'd say that an engineer generally has 4 to 5 missions (at various places in the mission life cycle of course) on the books at any time. In the 4 years I've been here I've supported 5 payloads launching (3 of which I was assigned to from day 1 of the project). That's a pretty brisk pace for projects that are flying in space. The other really awesome aspect of our missions is that we are THE engineer on them for our discipline. We do conceptual design, detailed design, analysis, submit and track things through manufacturing, support assembly, integration, and environmental testing as well as launch (where and when it's needed, which for mech engr isn't every launch). The same pace goes for all of our engineering departments, our technicians. Then you have all the other groups that support launches from wallops. -
#1078 by jcm on 17 Aug, 2013 14:29
-
Sounds about right. I must say though, with regards to "sloppy PAO reporting", the outreach and social media interaction of the Wallops PAO has become infinitely better than it was just 4 years ago. They have a ways to come still, sure, but they are definitely trending in the right direction. Thank heavens for that. We can't all work here and have the inside scoop, and the more people outside of wallops that know we even exist, the better my job prospects look in the long run.
Yes, I completely agree - very noticeable improvement! -
#1079 by jcm on 18 Aug, 2013 16:06
-
46.004UO RockSat-X successfully launched at 1000 UTC to 151 km.
The WFF website says the vehicle number is 46.005UO.
Sorry - I meant 46.005 but typed a 4! Thanks for the catch
