Minotaur IV/SBSS delayed

Minotaur IV/SBSS delayed by Removed Account on 05 Oct, 2009 16:18
"A final design solution has not been identified, resulting in an indefinite delay of the SBSS launch." (Aerospace Daily)
#1 by AlexInOklahoma on 05 Oct, 2009 17:36
Huh? There is something that was not designed to a 'final degree' (unsure of proper term - PD maybe?) and a launch date had been targeted ~less than a month prior. That is not very typical, is it? Seems hugely last-minute to me...unless keeping things moving along without meeting obvious objectives is the norm nowadays (not mentioning a different system for now).

I did find this -> http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sbss.htm and saw this part: "In late 2005, an independent review team found that the program's baseline was not executable; that the assembly, integration, and test plan was risky; and that the requirements were overstated. The SBSS program was restructured in early 2006 due to cost growth and schedule delays. The restructuring increased funding and schedule margin; streamlined the assembly, integration, and test plan; and relaxed requirements. The launch of the initial satellite was delayed to April 2009 -- a delay of about 18 months. Cost growth due to the restructure is about $130 million over initial estimates."

This is the 'Pathfinder' spoken of, right? I do not have time at the moment to read more, but this seems par for the course of late. I hope it ain't so ? Final design not agreed on, yet just a month before liftoff...HUH?! Am I missing something really obvious here? Or maybe related to the change of 'systems' concerning European protection, per se? Is the the 'design' mentioned? If so, makes sense then, I guess...

Alex
#2 by jimvela on 05 Oct, 2009 20:15
What a shame.

I had really hoped that the end of the year would see three of the spacecraft that I've supported- WV2, SBSS, and WISE- get to orbit. Hopefully WV2 and WISE get out of there close to on time...

Delays and slips at this stage can make it really difficult for the long-term crew that stays at the launch base, be good to them if you see any of them out and about...
#3 by AlexInOklahoma on 05 Oct, 2009 23:54
I found a lot more, and not the first delay by any means - seems that all the Minotaur IV's have an issue with third stage (or some-such) and all the MIV's are down for 'awhile'. Just needs more money. Of course. I did realize that the issue was with the launcher portion - but they were worked out together from what I could tell (right?). I just place too much on the logical aspect. Does not apply Not the best thing for Orbital, is it?

Thanks (!),
Alex
#4 by MKremer on 06 Oct, 2009 00:56
Is there any clue about what the delay is concerning the 3rd stage? Is it specific hardware or a subsystem within the stage, or rather something about the flight plans and trajectory that the 3rd stage is involved with?
#5 by yinzer on 06 Oct, 2009 04:12
The third stage is a Peacekeeper part. The language about "a part that supports the third stage government furnished equipment" is odd.
#6 by kevin-rf on 06 Oct, 2009 12:41
Someone loose traceability on a part?
#7 by Jim on 06 Oct, 2009 13:59
Quote from: yinzer on 06 Oct, 2009 04:12
The third stage is a Peacekeeper part. The language about "a part that supports the third stage government furnished equipment" is odd.

Since it is a Peacekeeper part, it is GFE and hence the gov't (and its contractor) has to fix it vs OSC
#8 by yinzer on 06 Oct, 2009 18:34
The "supports" part, not the GFE. Supports as in holds up, or supports as in allows to work.
#9 by AlexInOklahoma on 06 Oct, 2009 21:06
Seeing that MKremer (and others!) is/are asking about this makes me feel a bit 'better' about not knowing/finding out more about the 'whats-up with the delay' thing, LOL. A lot of money already spent in/on this, it seems, to have the payload just sit there 'indefinitely'.... (shrugs...)

Thanks,
Alex
#10 by AlexInOklahoma on 07 Oct, 2009 17:40
Just seeing if I understand it somewhat (bear with me *please* guys) - lots of interconnected dots in all this (obviously)

ATK picked up/bought the Peacekeeper's motors, right? At least for the 3rd-stage of this launch?

Is it possible, not *probable*, but simply possible, that the mentioned GFE is the motor (and related responsibility and/or costs of such)? I am not saying it is, nor looking for/suggesting 'conspiracy' of any sort, just so you folks know I am not trying to go *there*. Merely asking out of ignorance as most links I come across lead to ATK for 3rd stage's GFE, though I am aware I could likely be ignorant of other 'systems' (*IF* I am defining things correctly, though I am likely wrong, I admit). And its a part common to all the M IV's as well.

Appreciate the tolerance for me and my attempting-to-remedy ignorance! In a nutshell, I am really just wondering if it *might* be the ATK-responsible motor. And nothing 'deeper' than that... (trying not to be asinine, Jim, LOL - I assume nothing, or try not to)

Alex
#11 by Jim on 07 Oct, 2009 17:52
Quote from: AlexInOklahoma on 07 Oct, 2009 17:40

1. ATK picked up/bought the Peacekeeper's motors, right? At least for the 3rd-stage of this launch?

2. Is it possible, not *probable*, but simply possible, that the mentioned GFE is the motor (and related responsibility and/or costs of such)?

1. ATK (Hercules) supplied the third stage motor of the Peacekeeper.
2. The motor as well as everything else on the third stage is GFE. Also any GSE for the third stage would be GFE.

Basically all the Peacekeeper hardware (flight and GSE) is GFE. Being GFE means the gov't and its agents (ATK, NG, etc) are responsible for resolving any issues with the hardware and not OSC.