-
ULA to Launch NASA's InSight Mission
by
moonrabbit
on 20 Dec, 2013 01:51
-
NASA Selects United Launch Alliance Atlas V for 2016 Mission to Mars
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/News.shtml#/164/"NASA's Launch Services Program announced today that it selected United Launch Alliance's (ULA's) proven Atlas V vehicle to launch the Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport (InSight) mission, which will place a geophysical lander on the surface of Mars."[/font][/size]
-
#1
by
Targeteer
on 20 Dec, 2013 02:04
-
A mission to Mars from Vandenberg? What I thought I knew about orbital mechanics just vanished...
-
#2
by
russianhalo117
on 20 Dec, 2013 02:53
-
A mission to Mars from Vandenberg? What I thought I knew about orbital mechanics just vanished...
could that be due to CCAFS upgrades??
-
#3
by
Lars_J
on 20 Dec, 2013 03:24
-
A mission to Mars from Vandenberg? What I thought I knew about orbital mechanics just vanished...
It really isn't difficult... you lose the ~4-500m/s eastwards launch boost, but once in orbit it is just as easy to inject into a Mars transfer orbit from a polar orbit as it is from CCAFS. You just have tighter launch windows to deal with.
-
#4
by
sdsds
on 20 Dec, 2013 03:46
-
A mission to Mars from Vandenberg? What I thought I knew about orbital mechanics just vanished...
It'll be interesting to see how this is accomplished. Centaur could put the payload into a highly elliptical orbit, and then the spacecraft's own propulsion could do the inclination change and TMI. (That puts the trans-Mars cruise more or less in the plane of the ecliptic.) But maybe Centaur can provide enough delta-v to send the spacecraft from a more polar launch inclination onto a trajectory that goes well above or below the ecliptic on its way to Mars.
-
#5
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 20 Dec, 2013 04:09
-
Well I would tend to believe that this is merely a typo, left over from using a previous press release as a template......
-
#6
by
edkyle99
on 20 Dec, 2013 04:13
-
Does this represent a miss/loss for SpaceX, or for one of ULA's remaining Delta 2 rockets?
- Ed Kyle
-
#7
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 20 Dec, 2013 06:08
-
Well I would tend to believe that this is merely a typo, left over from using a previous press release as a template......
Scratch that, the InSight Twitter account actually confirms this.....
Maybe it has something to do with this? (quoting from the InSight mission thread)
I remember that pre-MCO and pre-MPL, Mars Odyssey was supposed to launch from Vandenberg on a Delta II. it had something to do with the declination of the launch asymptote (DLA) which required a relatively high-inclination parking orbit (45-50 degrees) and Vandenberg was better suited. I wonder if it is the case for Insight also
-
#8
by
STS-200
on 20 Dec, 2013 11:39
-
A mission to Mars from Vandenberg? What I thought I knew about orbital mechanics just vanished...
It'll be interesting to see how this is accomplished. Centaur could put the payload into a highly elliptical orbit, and then the spacecraft's own propulsion could do the inclination change and TMI. (That puts the trans-Mars cruise more or less in the plane of the ecliptic.) But maybe Centaur can provide enough delta-v to send the spacecraft from a more polar launch inclination onto a trajectory that goes well above or below the ecliptic on its way to Mars.
Centaur will do the TMI. InSight is a Phoenix derived vehicle, but is launching on an Atlas V which is more powerful than the Delta II used previously.
As LarsJ said, the only difference is in the ~400m/s to reach a polar earth orbit.
-
#9
by
Jim
on 20 Dec, 2013 11:44
-
The launch queue on the east coast for Atlas is full and hence the move to the west coast. Read all you want into this.
-
#10
by
kevin-rf
on 20 Dec, 2013 12:08
-
While not common, it has occurred once before with the Clementine lunar orbiter launch.
My first reaction was basically Jim's post. Eastern range is busy, I wonder if this is a way to squeeze more launches in. Thanks for confirming that Jim. So are you working this, or is it to early to tell?
I assume, if it was originally baselined for a Delta II, will go on an Atlas v401 with performance to spare.
-
#11
by
Jim
on 20 Dec, 2013 13:20
-
So are you working this, or is it to early to tell?
In my current job, I only do Cape missions. We have a resident office at VAFB who will handle this one. In previous jobs, I had to be bicoastal.
-
#12
by
Lurker Steve
on 20 Dec, 2013 13:28
-
Does this represent a miss/loss for SpaceX, or for one of ULA's remaining Delta 2 rockets?
- Ed Kyle
This is an Atlas, but I thought there is only 1 remaining Delta II not spoken for...
-
#13
by
edkyle99
on 20 Dec, 2013 14:27
-
Does this represent a miss/loss for SpaceX, or for one of ULA's remaining Delta 2 rockets?
- Ed Kyle
This is an Atlas, but I thought there is only 1 remaining Delta II not spoken for...
I was just wondering if SpaceX might have bid and lost on this launch service. Falcon 9 v1.1 should be able to boost more payload than Delta 2 toward Mars from the Cape, and this payload was originally designed for Delta 2. Atlas 5 is overkill, performance-wise and, presumably, price-wise.
- Ed Kyle
-
#14
by
Lurker Steve
on 20 Dec, 2013 14:34
-
I was just wondering if SpaceX might have bid and lost on this launch service. Falcon 9 v1.1 should be able to boost more payload than Delta 2 toward Mars from the Cape, and this payload was originally designed for Delta 2. Atlas 5 is overkill, performance-wise and, presumably, price-wise.
- Ed Kyle
But at least there is an actual chance of the mission launching in 2016 on a Atlas 5.
-
#15
by
edkyle99
on 20 Dec, 2013 14:42
-
I was just wondering if SpaceX might have bid and lost on this launch service. Falcon 9 v1.1 should be able to boost more payload than Delta 2 toward Mars from the Cape, and this payload was originally designed for Delta 2. Atlas 5 is overkill, performance-wise and, presumably, price-wise.
- Ed Kyle
But at least there is an actual chance of the mission launching in 2016 on a Atlas 5.
Why wouldn't there be a chance with Falcon 9 v1.1?
- Ed Kyle
-
#16
by
William Graham
on 20 Dec, 2013 15:23
-
Does this represent a miss/loss for SpaceX, or for one of ULA's remaining Delta 2 rockets?
- Ed Kyle
This is an Atlas, but I thought there is only 1 remaining Delta II not spoken for...
Delta II can only launch from VAFB; SLC-17 is no longer in use.
-
#17
by
baldusi
on 20 Dec, 2013 18:24
-
Does this represent a miss/loss for SpaceX, or for one of ULA's remaining Delta 2 rockets?
- Ed Kyle
This is an Atlas, but I thought there is only 1 remaining Delta II not spoken for...
I was just wondering if SpaceX might have bid and lost on this launch service. Falcon 9 v1.1 should be able to boost more payload than Delta 2 toward Mars from the Cape, and this payload was originally designed for Delta 2. Atlas 5 is overkill, performance-wise and, presumably, price-wise.
- Ed Kyle
What's the risk category of this payload? Cat three certification can only be started after six successful flights. I suspect F9v1.1 didn't had the required number of flights to get to the point where they can say on the contract that they can be reasonably sure that it will be certified by the payload's launch. This is a planetary mission, after all.
-
#18
by
LouScheffer
on 20 Dec, 2013 18:54
-
A mission to Mars from Vandenberg? What I thought I knew about orbital mechanics just vanished...
It'll be interesting to see how this is accomplished. Centaur could put the payload into a highly elliptical orbit, and then the spacecraft's own propulsion could do the inclination change and TMI. (That puts the trans-Mars cruise more or less in the plane of the ecliptic.) But maybe Centaur can provide enough delta-v to send the spacecraft from a more polar launch inclination onto a trajectory that goes well above or below the ecliptic on its way to Mars.
No need to do anything tricky. Imagine a LEO polar orbit just above the dawn/dusk line. As the satellite passes over the North/South pole, the velocity vector is lined up with the Earth's motion around the sun. At this point you can do a perfectly traditional, in-the-ecliptic Hohlmann transfer orbit, same delta-v as usual.
If this argument is correct (I'm not an expert on this) then launch will happen just about sunset, it will coast for about 1/3 of an orbit, then fire again in the far south.
EDIT: According to
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/nssrm/initiatives/westrang.htm, Vandenburg can launch at least somewhat eastward (azimuth 147 degrees). This would cut the deficit by about 200 m/sec, and require launch a few hours earlier.
-
#19
by
ugordan
on 20 Dec, 2013 19:20
-
-
#20
by
quasar
on 20 Dec, 2013 19:47
-
-
#21
by
Danderman
on 20 Dec, 2013 19:57
-
IIRC, VAFB can support launch directly to 57 degrees inclination, which requires flying south east, following the California coastline. The constraint is dropping SRBs (assuming the launcher has SRBs), since there are some small islands in the flight path early on. LVs with SRBs are required to hold on to the depleted SRBs until the islands have been passed.
Since Atlas V-401 has now SRBs, this constraint does not exist for this launch.
-
#22
by
rcaron
on 21 Dec, 2013 02:24
-
IIRC, VAFB can support launch directly to 57 degrees inclination, which requires flying south east, following the California coastline. The constraint is dropping SRBs (assuming the launcher has SRBs), since there are some small islands in the flight path early on. LVs with SRBs are required to hold on to the depleted SRBs until the islands have been passed.
Since Atlas V-401 has now SRBs, this constraint does not exist for this launch.
aka "Don't hit Catalina" ?
-
#23
by
Danderman
on 21 Dec, 2013 02:25
-
IIRC, VAFB can support launch directly to 57 degrees inclination, which requires flying south east, following the California coastline. The constraint is dropping SRBs (assuming the launcher has SRBs), since there are some small islands in the flight path early on. LVs with SRBs are required to hold on to the depleted SRBs until the islands have been passed.
Since Atlas V-401 has now SRBs, this constraint does not exist for this launch.
aka "Don't hit Catalina" ?
Closer to VAFB, maybe San Nicolas.
-
#24
by
Vultur
on 21 Dec, 2013 04:51
-
Does this represent a miss/loss for SpaceX, or for one of ULA's remaining Delta 2 rockets?
- Ed Kyle
This is an Atlas, but I thought there is only 1 remaining Delta II not spoken for...
I was just wondering if SpaceX might have bid and lost on this launch service. Falcon 9 v1.1 should be able to boost more payload than Delta 2 toward Mars from the Cape, and this payload was originally designed for Delta 2. Atlas 5 is overkill, performance-wise and, presumably, price-wise.
- Ed Kyle
What's the risk category of this payload? Cat three certification can only be started after six successful flights. I suspect F9v1.1 didn't had the required number of flights to get to the point where they can say on the contract that they can be reasonably sure that it will be certified by the payload's launch. This is a planetary mission, after all.
Yeah, I'm kind of surprised they didn't pick Falcon. But I guess SpaceX needs to prove their ability to meet schedule with the F9v1.1.
I find it hard to believe that F9v1.1 might reasonably not have six flights by 2016 though, short of total disaster. They've already done two... I expect it to have six flights by the end of summer (2014).
-
#25
by
ugordan
on 21 Dec, 2013 11:34
-
I find it hard to believe that F9v1.1 might reasonably not have six flights by 2016 though, short of total disaster.
That's not the point. It didn't have at least 3 by the time this contract was awarded. In addition to them needing to prove they can actually meet schedules, I would also guess their bait and switch with Falcon 9 v1.0 for Jason-3 had something to do with NASA's decision.
Wonder if SpaceX can/will protest this, though.
-
#26
by
Jim
on 21 Dec, 2013 13:45
-
Yeah, I'm kind of surprised they didn't pick Falcon. But I guess SpaceX needs to prove their ability to meet schedule with the F9v1.1.
I find it hard to believe that F9v1.1 might reasonably not have six flights by 2016 though, short of total disaster. They've already done two... I expect it to have six flights by the end of summer (2014).
NASA already has a Falcon 9 contract (Jason-3) so certification is not the reason.
There is no surprise, F9 has not been selected for the many competitions since F9 had been available. It just can't do many of the missions NASA has.
-
#27
by
Star One
on 21 Dec, 2013 16:41
-
I find it hard to believe that F9v1.1 might reasonably not have six flights by 2016 though, short of total disaster.
That's not the point. It didn't have at least 3 by the time this contract was awarded. In addition to them needing to prove they can actually meet schedules, I would also guess their bait and switch with Falcon 9 v1.0 for Jason-3 had something to do with NASA's decision.
Wonder if SpaceX can/will protest this, though.
They could only protest if they even bid for the launch & lost, which we don't know they did.
-
#28
by
Jim
on 21 Dec, 2013 17:23
-
-
#29
by
edkyle99
on 21 Dec, 2013 19:58
-
NASA already has a Falcon 9 contract (Jason-3) so certification is not the reason.
There is no surprise, F9 has not been selected for the many competitions since F9 had been available. It just can't do many of the missions NASA has.
Delta 2 boosted the 680 kg Phoenix to C3 = 29.080 km2/sec2. We don't have a Falcon 9 v1.1 Users Guide that tells us (and by "us" I mean those outside the company and its potential customers) what payload the rocket can launch to that velocity, but I believe it must be more than 680 kg. The old Falcon 9 "Block 2" guide lists an 898 kg payload at C3 = 28 km2/sec2 and 673 kg at 33 km2/sec2. That suggests 850 kg at the Phoenix velocity. All from the Cape of course.
With this limited information, I don't see why Falcon 9 v1.1 should not be able to perform the InSight mission in terms of mass to the needed trajectory. There may be other reasons, possibly related to the horizontal processing.
Note that ULA's press release says that "ULA's Atlas V is the only launch vehicle certified by NASA to fly the nation's largest and most complex space exploration missions".
- Ed Kyle
-
#30
by
joek
on 22 Dec, 2013 06:03
-
First off, congratulations to ULA on the win.
NASA already has a Falcon 9 contract (Jason-3) so certification is not the reason.
Certification still appears to be an issue. Per
NASA's response to the GAO some time ago:
While NASA has selected the Falcon 9 launch vehicle for the Jason-3 mission, this mission is unique in that NASA is acting, on a reimbursable basis, as NOAA's acquisition agent to develop and launch the spacecraft. As such, NASA does not have a dedicated budget for the mission. It is NASA's intent to assign the certification costs to a specific mission, but this will only be done when a NASA-funded mission is identified for flight on a new medium launch vehicle. This recommendation will remain open until NASA has awarded a contract for a NASA-funded science mission and all potential costs are recognized in NASA's budget documentation.
While dated (and addresses F9v1.0), the status of the recommendation is still open.
-
#31
by
Jim
on 22 Dec, 2013 11:18
-
Certification still appears to be an issue.
It isn't. Certification has been in work for quite sometime. It hasn't played into solicitations for launch services.
-
#32
by
baldusi
on 22 Dec, 2013 12:37
-
Certification still appears to be an issue.
It isn't. Certification has been in work for quite sometime. It hasn't played into solicitations for launch services.
What risk profiles is InSight, B? Don't they have to certificate for high risk and only then go upping the certification?
-
#33
by
edkyle99
on 22 Dec, 2013 16:35
-
Certification still appears to be an issue.
It isn't. Certification has been in work for quite sometime. It hasn't played into solicitations for launch services.
In its press release, ULA essentially claims that it is.
- Ed Kyle
-
#34
by
MP99
on 22 Dec, 2013 21:25
-
-
#35
by
Jim
on 22 Dec, 2013 22:12
-
Certification still appears to be an issue.
It isn't. Certification has been in work for quite sometime. It hasn't played into solicitations for launch services.
In its press release, ULA essentially claims that it is.
- Ed Kyle
No, ULA says it has the only certified vehicles. That doesn't mean anything. MRO & PNH launch services were procured before verification was complete.
-
#36
by
vapour_nudge
on 23 Dec, 2013 10:06
-
FWIW, an interesting note is that back in 2012 a freely available document named "icubesat-org-2012-c-2-1_presentation_szatkowski.pdf" had NASA's Discovery 12 (aka InSight) pinned to an Atlas V 401.
Albeit at that time this was listed as an eastern range launch though.
-
#37
by
Jim
on 23 Dec, 2013 12:00
-
FWIW, an interesting note is that back in 2012 a freely available document named "icubesat-org-2012-c-2-1_presentation_szatkowski.pdf" had NASA's Discovery 12 (aka InSight) pinned to an Atlas V 401.
It wasn't "pinned", it was assumed.
-
#38
by
joek
on 24 Dec, 2013 04:48
-
Certification still appears to be an issue.
It isn't. Certification has been in work for quite sometime. It hasn't played into solicitations for launch services.
Would you elaborate? That could be read as either: (a) risk of failure to achieve certification by launch was not a significant factor; or (b) the process never went far enough for (a) to become a factor? Specifically, did SpaceX bid, or was it a non-starter before (a) became a consideration?
E.g., Insight mission PDR was in August and they would have wanted to lock in the LV around that time. If Insight launch service responses were due before CASSIOPE (Sep 29), SpaceX could not have bid F9v1.1, and maybe not credibly until SES-8 (Dec 3). Also, while certification has been in process for some time, IIRC last public estimate for F8v1.1 certification put it "as early as FY2015" (which sounds like "best case, if there are no issues"). I can't imagine that didn't carry some weight given InSight's launch constraints?
-
#39
by
vapour_nudge
on 24 Dec, 2013 07:28
-
FWIW, an interesting note is that back in 2012 a freely available document named "icubesat-org-2012-c-2-1_presentation_szatkowski.pdf" had NASA's Discovery 12 (aka InSight) pinned to an Atlas V 401.
It wasn't "pinned", it was assumed.
And when we "assume" ....
-
#40
by
savuporo
on 24 Dec, 2013 20:50
-
FWIW, an interesting note is that back in 2012 a freely available document named "icubesat-org-2012-c-2-1_presentation_szatkowski.pdf" had NASA's Discovery 12 (aka InSight) pinned to an Atlas V 401.
Albeit at that time this was listed as an eastern range launch though.
Updated version of that deck icubesat-org_2013-a-2-1-mule_szatkowski_201305281629l.pdf still shows ER. Or maybe nobody touched that slide.
-
#41
by
russianhalo117
on 25 Dec, 2013 19:10
-
Does this represent a miss/loss for SpaceX, or for one of ULA's remaining Delta 2 rockets?
- Ed Kyle
This is an Atlas, but I thought there is only 1 remaining Delta II not spoken for...
Yes as far as I know there is one DII remaining that is unmanifested.
Side Note: The Air & Space Museum's Udvar Hazey (Spelling ??) Centre a years back had expressed interest in acquiring a full size DII (might have been a Delta I N Series LV) Launcher for display purposes and ULA would build the last one for display if its components shelf life expire before it can be manifested and flown.
-
#42
by
Jim
on 25 Dec, 2013 23:38
-
Side Note: The Air & Space Museum's Udvar Hazey (Spelling ??) Centre a years back had expressed interest in acquiring a full size DII (might have been a Delta I N Series LV) Launcher for display purposes and ULA would build the last one for display if its components shelf life expire before it can be manifested and flown.
When ULA said that it had 5 unsold Delta II's. It meant it had all the components from subcontractors. ULA had yet to build the tanks or assemble the vehicles. So, it is likely that the 5th vehicle is just avionics boxes, an RS-27, AJ-10, and second stage tanks. No fairing, first stage structure, second stage guidance section or miniskirt has been built yet.
-
#43
by
woods170
on 28 Dec, 2013 09:41
-
Side Note: The Air & Space Museum's Udvar Hazey (Spelling ??) Centre a years back had expressed interest in acquiring a full size DII (might have been a Delta I N Series LV) Launcher for display purposes and ULA would build the last one for display if its components shelf life expire before it can be manifested and flown.
When ULA said that it had 5 unsold Delta II's. It meant it had all the components from subcontractors. ULA had yet to build the tanks or assemble the vehicles. So, it is likely that the 5th vehicle is just avionics boxes, an RS-27, AJ-10, and second stage tanks. No fairing, first stage structure, second stage guidance section or miniskirt has been built yet.
No repeat of the patchy delta 189 then.
-
#44
by
newpylong
on 30 Dec, 2013 14:49
-
This thread is a hoot. Why would NASA contract Falcon 9 (that has only flown twice thus far) for one of their Discovery missions? It doesn't matter if it's $50 million or $300 million for launch...
-
#45
by
Comga
on 30 Dec, 2013 15:35
-
This thread is a hoot. Why would NASA contract Falcon 9 (that has only flown twice thus far) for one of their Discovery missions? It doesn't matter if it's $50 million or $300 million for launch...
Because under the original Discovery program failure WAS an option. The early Discovery missions were run lean, somemes with bad results, but NASA could afford a Discovery mission every year.
Of course, the original Discovery program rules excluded Mars. However, now that the Mars program is one multi-billion dollar program every eight or so years, things were changed. Hence Mars Insight.
This doesn't say that MI should fly on an F9. It just says that economy used to be a major driver of Discovery missions. The cost of launch does still matter.
