-
#940 by Satori on 12 Mar, 2013 17:07
-
Took place on March 11th from Wallops Island...
Rocket Launch Completed from Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia
03.11.13
A launch of Terrier-Lynx suborbital rocket was completed this morning for the Department of Defense from NASA's launch range at the Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia.
The next launch currently scheduled from Wallops is Orbital Sciences Corporation's Antares rocket in April. -
#941 by jcm on 14 Mar, 2013 04:03
-
Where are the sounding rockets produced?
NASA's sounding rocket program office (SRPO) is located at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on the Eastern Shore of VA (the little penisula part of VA that most people don't think about, the VA in DELMARVA).
The vehicles (rocket motors) come from several sources. The Black Brant and Nihka rockets are produced by Bristol Aerospace in Canada. The Oriole rocket motor is produced by ATK and the booster as supplied to NASA is "built up" by Kratos Defense. All other motors come from the military in some way or another. Some are former Navy hardware (Terrier, Talos). Some are former Army hardware (Improved Malemute [Patriot of some flavor], Improved Orion [Hawk], Taurus [Honest John]).
SRPO contracts out essentially 100% of the engineering and manufacturing functions of the program via the NSROC II contract. NSROC II is located on base at WFF. Orbital Sciences Corp is the prime on this contract with several sub contractors forming the rest of the team. NSROC makes, or subs out to other shops (prob ~10% of all hardware is made at outside shops), all vehicle AND payload hardware. This includes but is not limited to nose-cones (actually, many of them are subed out), skins, structures, igniter safe and arm components, mechanisms, electrical components, Telemetry systems, power systems, etc. All of the hardware that NSROC makes is made on base at WFF. Sometimes experimenters will build their own structure for supporting their experiments and sometimes NSROC has to build most of it.
Very interesting summary, thanks. So to summarize, the NASA sounding rockets are all assembled and integrated at WFF, for both WFF and White Sands launches - and Poker Flat too?
I'm assuming that some of the suborbital rockets used by DoD and MDA
are produced by Orbital in Arizona, and the ARAVs by Kratos somewhere.
I believe the sounding rockets managed by the German DLR are integrated at the Swedish and Norwegian launch sites in Kiruna and Andoya, but maybe some of the work is done at Oberpfaffenhofen.
And of course there's the Brazilian rockets launched from Natal and Alcantara which are probably produced at Sao Jose de Campos.
All of those use surplus US military motors too, in addition to the Brazilian-built Sonda-class motors. -
#942 by block51 on 14 Mar, 2013 10:32
-
Very interesting summary, thanks. So to summarize, the NASA sounding rockets are all assembled and integrated at WFF, for both WFF and White Sands launches - and Poker Flat too?
I'm assuming that some of the suborbital rockets used by DoD and MDA
are produced by Orbital in Arizona, and the ARAVs by Kratos somewhere.
I believe the sounding rockets managed by the German DLR are integrated at the Swedish and Norwegian launch sites in Kiruna and Andoya, but maybe some of the work is done at Oberpfaffenhofen.
And of course there's the Brazilian rockets launched from Natal and Alcantara which are probably produced at Sao Jose de Campos.
All of those use surplus US military motors too, in addition to the Brazilian-built Sonda-class motors.
For WSMR the answer is that it depends. For new missions we fully integrate and test they payloads at WFF. They are then disassembled and shipped to WSMR, reassembled, put through a shorter round of electrical checkouts, a check balance (spin stabilized, balance is a good thing, mass models are used for several things at WFF so balance is normally out of spec), and then they go to the rail for integration with the motors.
For refly missions out of WSMR, there is almost always no WFF integration and testing. The payloads are put through full I&T at WSMR though. They have the facilities to do the vibration, bend, balance, and mass properties measurement at WSMR. New payloads usually have more problems though and WFF is a much better place to deal with these issues, thus I&T on new payloads is conducted at WFF. The exception to this rule is SPARCS (sun pointing ACS) shots. Even if it is a brand new payload it go through I&T at WSMR. WFF doesn't have the correct facilities to support I&T for a SPARCS mission.
For a remote misson (Poker, Andøya, Esrange, etc) all I&T is conducted at WFF, payload is disassembled, crated up, shipped to the location, reassembled, electrically tested, and taken to the rail.
DOD and MDA stuff also get's made elsewhere. There is an operation right up the road (40 minutes) from WFF that does only DOD type stuff (with sounding rockets). The first NSROC contract did a lot of work on DOD type projects but that hasn't been the case on NSROC II. The folks up the road also support ARAV stuff as the first NSROC contract did.
I know the Germans use old Patriot (Improved Malemute) and Hawk (Improved Orion). NASA used to use Nike's but for various reason those are not used any more. I think the Germans might still use them? -
#943 by jcm on 14 Mar, 2013 13:29
-
For WSMR the answer is that it depends. For new missions we fully integrate and test they payloads at WFF. [....] then they go to the rail for integration with the motors.
[...]
Here you are talking mostly about payload I&T, rather than assembling the motors into a sounding rocket.
What I mean is, if you think of orbital rockets there are three levels
of 'manufacture' that I care about: who built the motors or engines, who
built the 'stage' (motor/engine + avionics+other packaging), and who built the 'launch vehicle' which integrates the stages. And that final step,
integrating the stages, is always done at the launch site, but it's done in general by the launch vehicle contractor.
But for sounding rockets one has somewhat the impression that you don't really have stages or launch vehicles, you just have a bunch of motors that you get out of the stockpile, balance one atop the other with a payload on top and light the blue touch paper.... I exaggerate of course.
I'm wondering what is involved in turning a Terrier motor and an Oriole motor into a Terrier-Oriole sounding rocket that is ready to receive a payload, I assume that that work is done for NASA sounding rockets by NSROC at the launch pad, or do you assemble the full rocket at WFF, (not just payload) then disassemble, ship and reassemble.Quote
I know the Germans use old Patriot (Improved Malemute) and Hawk (Improved Orion). NASA used to use Nike's but for various reason those are not used any more. I think the Germans might still use them?
Yes, most recent Nike-Improved Orion launch was a German microgravity mission 2012 Nov 25 from Sweden. They are starting to phase them out and use the Brazilian motors instead though. The last non-German Nike was in 2005 from White Sands, there have been 14 German Nike flights since then, all with the Improved Orion (M112 motor)
-
#944 by baldusi on 14 Mar, 2013 14:42
-
I'm assuming that some of the suborbital rockets used by DoD and MDA
Only the VS-30/Orion uses the American built Orion as second stage. The Sonda, the VS-30, the VSB-40, the VS-40 and the future VS-15/43/50 are all made in Brazil by IAE. And if you look it would seem that DLR is basing all their strategy on the Bazilian rockets.
are produced by Orbital in Arizona, and the ARAVs by Kratos somewhere.
I believe the sounding rockets managed by the German DLR are integrated at the Swedish and Norwegian launch sites in Kiruna and Andoya, but maybe some of the work is done at Oberpfaffenhofen.
And of course there's the Brazilian rockets launched from Natal and Alcantara which are probably produced at Sao Jose de Campos.
All of those use surplus US military motors too, in addition to the Brazilian-built Sonda-class motors. -
#945 by block51 on 14 Mar, 2013 16:08
-
Quote from: jcm
Here you are talking mostly about payload I&T, rather than assembling the motors into a sounding rocket.
….
100% correct sir. Payload I&T. There is a certain amount (of course) of processing that goes on with the motors, though that isn’t referred to as I&T. They do a pressure test (checking for leaks anywhere), lots of other inspections, some degree of modification (removal of tactical hardware in the case of former military rockets), etc. Then they have to put them on the rail (this is called staging the vehicle). The electronics in charge of igniting second stage and great motors are called CDI’s (Capacitive Discharge Initiation system) or Ignitor housings, or motor adapters (all used interchangeably to help confuse new engineers I think… ha) go through the same vibration qual tests that the payloads do, though if they aren’t attaching directly to the payload they go through it separately. Same goes for the spin motor initiation decks (basically they are CDIs).Quote from: jcmBut for sounding rockets one has somewhat the impression that you don't really have stages or launch vehicles, you just have a bunch of motors that you get out of the stockpile, balance one atop the other with a payload on top and light the blue touch paper.... I exaggerate of course.
Watch it now!
Quote from: jcmI'm wondering what is involved in turning a Terrier motor and an Oriole motor into a Terrier-Oriole sounding rocket that is ready to receive a payload, I assume that that work is done for NASA sounding rockets by NSROC at the launch pad, or do you assemble the full rocket at WFF, (not just payload) then disassemble, ship and reassemble.
The terrier is either pulled out of the local stock at WFF or received from Indian Head at WFF (they have a crap load of them there / they do x-ray inspections there). Tactical hardware is removed. It goes through various and numerous inspection procedures. Fins are installed and the specified fin cant is set (for spin up). Drag plates (if necessary for first stage sep) are installed. At this point the motor is ready. The second stage (be it an Oriole or Brant or Orion or Malemute) basically goes through the same steps. One step I missed is that the ignitor is usually pulled and inspected as well.
I'm not directly involved with the motor stuff so I'm not 100% on all of this, but it is definitely very close to mostly correct.
-
#946 by Satori on 14 Mar, 2013 18:48
-
On March 13th, Brazil launched the first Foguete de Treinamento Básico (FTB) - Basic Training Rocket - of 2013. Four launches of the FTB are planned for 2013.
The floght time was 2m 53s. The rocket traveled a distance of 18 km and reached 34 km high.
The launch was from Centro de Lançamento da Barreira do Inferno (CLBI), Parnamirim, - Barreira do Inferno Launch Center. -
#947 by jcm on 15 Mar, 2013 03:39
-
Quote from: jcm
But for sounding rockets one has somewhat the impression that you don't really have stages or launch vehicles, you just have a bunch of motors that you get out of the stockpile, balance one atop the other with a payload on top and light the blue touch paper.... I exaggerate of course.
Watch it now!Quote from: jcmI'm wondering what is involved in turning a Terrier motor and an Oriole motor into a Terrier-Oriole sounding rocket that is ready to receive a payload, I assume that that work is done for NASA sounding rockets by NSROC at the launch pad, or do you assemble the full rocket at WFF, (not just payload) then disassemble, ship and reassemble.
The terrier is either pulled out of the local stock at WFF or received from Indian Head at WFF (they have a crap load of them there / they do x-ray inspections there). Tactical hardware is removed. It goes through various and numerous inspection procedures. Fins are installed and the specified fin cant is set (for spin up). Drag plates (if necessary for first stage sep) are installed. At this point the motor is ready. The second stage (be it an Oriole or Brant or Orion or Malemute) basically goes through the same steps. One step I missed is that the ignitor is usually pulled and inspected as well.
So basically, your answer is 'yes' :-) (ducks)
The impression I'm getting is that, notwithstanding the fact that I'm sure your (super interesting) summary above actually involves a lot of careful work by very expert people, in the main for a sounding rocket the payload
preparation is the thing that involves most of the work and care (because so much of the propulsion work was done decades ago when the motors were built) - not even counting the years of work by the grad student to build the experiment (as many of my friends have done)
- in contrast to a satellite launch where, complicated as the payload is, preparing the launch vehicle is a fabulously expensive, complicated and personnel-intensive exercise.
Given the relatively low cost of these vehicles, I'm impressed they are so reliable these days. If you go back through the old mid-1960s documents, the fraction of sounding rockets that actually returned decent data was, er, not so impressive. So much kudos to your team at Wallops. (The Hi-C/36.272 mission folks down the corridor from me are still gushing over their data..)
-
#948 by jcm on 15 Mar, 2013 03:46
-
I'm assuming that some of the suborbital rockets used by DoD and MDA
Only the VS-30/Orion uses the American built Orion as second stage. The Sonda, the VS-30, the VSB-40, the VS-40 and the future VS-15/43/50 are all made in Brazil by IAE. And if you look it would seem that DLR is basing all their strategy on the Bazilian rockets.
are produced by Orbital in Arizona, and the ARAVs by Kratos somewhere.
I believe the sounding rockets managed by the German DLR are integrated at the Swedish and Norwegian launch sites in Kiruna and Andoya, but maybe some of the work is done at Oberpfaffenhofen.
And of course there's the Brazilian rockets launched from Natal and Alcantara which are probably produced at Sao Jose de Campos.
All of those use surplus US military motors too, in addition to the Brazilian-built Sonda-class motors.
Yes, sorry for not being clear, by "all of those" I meant "all of those programs, German/Swedish/Norwegian/Brazilian" - which use Orion single-stage rockets and in some cases Nike-Orion and VS-30/Orion. But I agree there does seem to be a Brazil strategy by the Germans now - wonder if it is a reaction to ITAR issues, making it easier to get the VS-30 than, say, Orioles.
I should of course have given a shout out to the Japanese, whose home grown S-310 and S-520 rockets have a great record, and the Indians, who have RH-200 weather rockets but rarely launch the larger RH-560 class sounding rockets which are derived from old French motor technology. -
#949 by block51 on 15 Mar, 2013 11:35
-
So basically, your answer is 'yes' :-) (ducks)
The impression I'm getting is that, notwithstanding the fact that I'm sure your (super interesting) summary above actually involves a lot of careful work by very expert people, in the main for a sounding rocket the payload
preparation is the thing that involves most of the work and care (because so much of the propulsion work was done decades ago when the motors were built) - not even counting the years of work by the grad student to build the experiment (as many of my friends have done)
- in contrast to a satellite launch where, complicated as the payload is, preparing the launch vehicle is a fabulously expensive, complicated and personnel-intensive exercise.
Given the relatively low cost of these vehicles, I'm impressed they are so reliable these days. If you go back through the old mid-1960s documents, the fraction of sounding rockets that actually returned decent data was, er, not so impressive. So much kudos to your team at Wallops. (The Hi-C/36.272 mission folks down the corridor from me are still gushing over their data..)
Though I don't have any direct experience outside of sounding rockets, I think that compared to liquid vehicles and orbital stuff I'd say that sounding rockets are much simpler. That is definitely the point too. "High risk" / low cost is the program mantra for sure.
That being said, sounding rockets aren't a completely static and non-evolving thing. New vehicles are always evolving. As new surplus become available, they are put to use. The improved malamute is a perfect example of new surplus becoming available. Also, as motors run out or become obsolete, new ideas are concocted. The Taurus (old Honest John motors... really really old) is being completely phased out because it is a beast when it comes to handling. It is a higher grade of explosive classification which means it takes more time and money to handle. Also, given it's age it requires more inspection. The Terrier is being used in it's place.
Quick fun fact: not all sounding rockets are solids (or at least not all have been). The Aerobee's had a second stage (that was ground lit) that used fuming red nitric acid and aniline. That was some NASTY stuff. I've heard a few stories from WSMR folks about how dangerous it was. No way they would ever use it in sounding rockets today. More sidebar: The 350 tower (Aerobee 350 launcher) is still intact at WSMR and (they used to have one at WFF too) is home to a very protective mother owl that may or may not have pooped on me a few month ago. Also, just to show how long lived some experiments can be, we just launch a payload who's main detectors were last flown on an Aerobee 350 and have flown many times in the past during the 70's and 80's. Same electronics on the experiment side. If it ain't broke, don't fix it I guess!
-
#950 by baldusi on 15 Mar, 2013 14:30
-
Keeping on the fun fact. The Brazilians are working on a single stage liquid sounding rocket. The VS-15 will use a 15kN CH4/LOX pressure fed L15 engine. And they plan not only to make it recoverable but having a standardize payload accommodation. If you are interesting most of the technology is in development by Orbital Engenharia.
And the reason DLR is using so many Brazilian sounding rockets is that they are actually developing them together. Even the VLM is a joint development. Between the Swedes and Norway launch ranges and the Brazilian ones they cover poles and equator pretty well. -
#951 by jcm on 15 Mar, 2013 18:59
-
The Aerobee's had a second stage (that was ground lit) that used fuming red nitric acid and aniline. That was some NASTY stuff. I've heard a few stories from WSMR folks about how dangerous it was. No way they would ever use it in sounding rockets today. More sidebar: The 350 tower (Aerobee 350 launcher) is still intact at WSMR and (they used to have one at WFF too) is home to a very protective mother owl that may or may not have pooped on me a few month ago. Also, just to show how long lived some experiments can be, we just launch a payload who's main detectors were last flown on an Aerobee 350 and have flown many times in the past during the 70's and 80's. Same electronics on the experiment side. If it ain't broke, don't fix it I guess!
Yes, the Wisconsin Aerobee IV payload on 36.283, I heard about that! Very cool. We also have a lot of ex-Wisconsin folks here at SAO
The French Veronique-61 used white-fuming nitric acid and turpentine,
I think that's the most off-the-wall prop combo I've come across for a sounding rocket. (I'm not entirely sure if they mean organic turpentine or white spirit/WD-40...)
-
#952 by block51 on 16 Mar, 2013 13:40
-
Yes, the Wisconsin Aerobee IV payload on 36.283, I heard about that! Very cool. We also have a lot of ex-Wisconsin folks here at SAO
Ha, small world. We have, at best, 2 degrees of separation right now with people that we know.
From what I've heard, the DXL team has been very happy with their data. Not sure about the STORM folks, but I've not heard anything negative so that's always a good sign! -
#953 by jcm on 21 Mar, 2013 00:34
-
Yes, the Wisconsin Aerobee IV payload on 36.283, I heard about that! Very cool. We also have a lot of ex-Wisconsin folks here at SAO
Ha, small world. We have, at best, 2 degrees of separation right now with people that we know.
Yeah, maybe less than 2 if you were involved Hi-C (Jonathan C, Kelly K) or IMAGER (Tim C, Meredith D) or SUMI or XQC (Dan McM.) ... the astronomers tend not to make it out to Wallops that much though. -
#954 by block51 on 21 Mar, 2013 10:28
-
Yeah, maybe less than 2 if you were involved Hi-C (Jonathan C, Kelly K) or IMAGER (Tim C, Meredith D) or SUMI or XQC (Dan McM.) ... the astronomers tend not to make it out to Wallops that much though.
I've not worked directly on any of those payloads, though I've meet Dan on more than one occasion. I am / have working/worked with Tali Figueroa and Max Galeazzi though.
Enough de-rail! Sounding rockets!
Here is the NASA SRPO schedule which is of course subject to daily change.
4-9 36.269 -Rabin WSMR
4-21 36.271 - Beasley WSMR
4-27 46.001 - Kudeki Kwajalein
4-27 45.005 - Kudeki Kwajalein
4-27 41.100 - Caton Kwajalein
4-27 41.102 - Caton wajalein
5-10 36.268 - McCandliss WSMR
5-29 36.239 - Korendyke WSMR
6-4 40.030 - Bock WFF
6-20 41.106 - Koehler WFF
6-27 21.140 - Pfaff WFF
6-27 41.090 - Pfaff WFF
Here are some pictures of the 41.104 - Rosonova test flight that just flew at WSMR. It was a technology demonstration mission that flew a bunch of new electronic systems to qualify them for flight on operational missions.
-
#955 by Galactic Penguin SST on 05 Apr, 2013 08:33
-
China made another sub-orbital sounding rocket launch earlier today. The Tianying-3E rocket was launched from a base on Hainan island (*) at 21:55 UTC on April 4 and reached an altitude of 191 km. The rocket carried 1 kg of solid barium particles that were released at apogee, and the resulting barium clouds were observed by 3 ground observing sites and equipment on the rocket (a Langmuir probe and an electric field probe).
This is the first Chinese active release sounding rocket mission launched, and is part of the Meridian ionosphere monitoring program managed by the National Space Science Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Other participants of the launch includes the CAS Xian Optical Machinery Institute and Austria's University of Graz for the "Kunpeng-1" payload package and the Chinese Academy of Aerospace Propulsion Technology for the sounding rocket.
(*) The launch site has been reported as the "Chinese Academy of Sciences Hainan Sounding Rocket Launch Site", and is apparently located near the village of Fuke, Yaxing Town, Danzhou City, Hainan Island, at 19.52 deg. North and 109.14 deg. East.
Sources:
news.xinhuanet.com/2013-04/05/c_115276269.htm
http://bbs.9ifly.cn/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=2200&pid=61732
-
#956 by Salo on 09 Apr, 2013 18:18
-
#957 by Lewis007 on 11 Apr, 2013 06:24
-
Preparations are underway at the Kiruna base for the Texus-50 & 51 launches.
See: http://www.ssc.se/texus-5051 -
#958 by Satori on 11 Apr, 2013 10:38
-
#959 by Lewis007 on 13 Apr, 2013 06:29
-
The Texus-50 launch from Kiruna was successful. The flight lasted 20 minutes, reached an altitude of 261 km with six minutes of microgravity. A parachute then returned the scientific payload to the ground.
Next up: Texus-51, planned for April 19.
http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10081/151_read-6722/year-all/#gallery/9349
