trying to get NROL-47 and I think they have had their 6th launch abort in two days...down to the 27 second mark - all over the place

every hold is a different issue...damn...you can hear the frustration in their voices

What are we talking about? ULA? I guess I should know what that is.

United Launch Alliance,
rivals to Space-X

ULA ???

https://www.ula-equipment.com/

Well its up now! Good launch

Huh? Scrubs are normal when launching rockets. ULA doesn't launch unless everything is perfect. Lots of minor reason why scrubs happen. We scrubbed once with 4 seconds remaining. The ROFI ignitors had already went off.

124 launches in a row with 100% mission success.

Spacex "It wasnt our fault that a satellite that cost billions fail back into the ocean, blame NG" LOL

Edit: Full disclosure. I am an engineer at ULA so yes, I am a little biased.

not complaining at all about their success rate - just that at the last scrub and recycle you could hear the frustration during the count as he said 'hold hold hold freakin' hold crap damnit hold'

quote:

Originally posted by D4Heavy:
Huh? Scrubs are normal when launching rockets. ULA doesn't launch unless everything is perfect. Lots of minor reason why scrubs happen. We scrubbed once with 4 seconds remaining. The ROFI ignitors had already went off.

124 launches in a row with 100% mission success.

That is a good mindset. Everything has to be perfect, so everyone works to that high standard.

Do you think that the USG was trying to save some money, going with Space-X for the Zuma satellite that was lost?

Funny how there is a member who bashes SpaceX for "delays" and inability to stick to a launch schedule...

Last time I checked ULA has had delays / scrubs the last several times they have (tried) to launch.

Then again they have to justify 3-5x the cost of a SpaceX launch, so...

quote:

Originally posted by Test1968:
United Launch Alliance,
rivals to Space-X

And no longer has a monopoly on US space launches.

Competition and innovation is a great thing.

More info on the possible Zuma failure - http://www.newsweek.com/elon-m...-zuma-failure-777864

quote:

Originally posted by D4Heavy:

Spacex "It wasnt our fault that a satellite that cost billions fail back into the ocean, blame NG" LOL
.

Have they concluded who was at fault with that launch? It may have been SpaceX, it may have been something else.

Too early to blame SpaceX, IMO.


Scrubs are nothing new. The Shuttle would scrub with all 3 main engines burning (once they lit the solid boosters, nothing would stop a launch).

quote:

Originally posted by D4Heavy:
Edit: Full disclosure. I am an engineer at ULA so yes, I am a little biased.

So I guess that explains your username.

I mean, at $175M per launch for Delta IV, you better get it right every time.

I'm confused again. As is normal. SpaceX is cheaper per launch if you don't include the cost of the lost payload. If you do, its a lot more expensive. The one last week cost billions and we/the government got nothing out of it. Or nothing except a lesson in economics. It really cost the government nothing because the taxpayers are the one's footing the bill.

Somewhere someone said you can do anything a little cheaper and a little worse. In all fairness, I'd rather see our tax dollars wasted trying to send stuff into space than supporting shithole countries like Haiti, Chicago, etc.

quote:

It really cost the government nothing because the taxpayers are the one's footing the bill.

Maybe, maybe not, depending on what "thuh government" bought. Ideally, it contracted for an orbiting, functional satellite - which it did not get - and Lloyds is eating the screw-up.

The real entertainment is going to be watching both corporate entities, each trying to prove it was the other guy's fault.

Great thing is SpaceX has it all recorded more than likely and if the second stage made it to the requested deployment location and the fairing separated (which would have occurred long before that point), it's pretty much on NG, since they built the sat and used their separation equipment (normally SpaceX provides that for Satellite providers).

It's akin to saying the long haul trucker damaged your sports car during transport, when in actuality it arrived and a different service provider damaged it while unloading it.

And again, it could have been SpaceXs fault - we don't know for sure - and of course expensive ULA types will always be happy about it since they want to keep their pork filled government contracts.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Great thing is SpaceX has it all recorded more than likely ...

Yes, it was all recorded. Due to the top secret nature of it though, the video feed to us was cut just before the separation. Or so I was told by the media talking heads.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
...it's pretty much on NG, since they built the sat and used their separation equipment (normally SpaceX provides that for Satellite providers).

This is not a personal attack on you RHINOWSO, but comments like this drive me nuts. I work at a launch vehicle provider doing analysis work. My speciality is in doing stage separation events, payload separation events, and fairing/shroud separation.

Neither SpaceX or NG are designing and building their own payload separation systems. There are a few companies around the world who specialize in designing and building these systems. You can count them on one hand. If the payload separation system truly did fail, the repercussions will be felt industry-wide because pretty much launch provider uses the same hardware.

Recently, I've been working on predictions for a mission that's due to launch towards the end of this year. The payloads are classified. We have been told very little about the payloads. In fact, we aren't even allowed to know who the manufacturer is. All information flows through what I would describe as a payload liaison. About all we received with any real detail are the mass properties.

The separation system being used on these payloads is one that we are quite familiar with, but the payload manufacturer is providing separation system with the payload. This is not that rare of an occurrence when it comes to classified payloads. The main reason it's done is because it's a few less pieces of information the payload builder has to provide the the launch vehicle provider. When it comes to classified things, there's always the requirement of need to know. This is just one more way of the government being able to compartmentalize classified information. There's a lot less sensitivity in providing the dimensions of a bolt diameter for a commercially available separation system than there would be in providing the bolt locations on the bottom of a classified payload.

quote:

Originally posted by HuskySig:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

The separation system being used on these payloads is one that we are quite familiar with, but the payload manufacturer is providing separation system with the payload. This is not that rare of an occurrence when it comes to classified payloads. The main reason it's done is because it's a few less pieces of information the payload builder has to provide the the launch vehicle provider. When it comes to classified things, there's always the requirement of need to know. This is just one more way of the government being able to compartmentalize classified information. There's a lot less sensitivity in providing the dimensions of a bolt diameter for a commercially available separation system than there would be in providing the bolt locations on the bottom of a classified payload.

Not to worry. I can think of any number of non-classified places that information might be stored. Like the New Yerk server of the smartest woman alive (all the others would be jailed), or her maid, or the woman like weiner to name a few.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
not complaining at all about their success rate - just that at the last scrub and recycle you could hear the frustration during the count as he said 'hold hold hold freakin' hold crap damnit hold'

It is very frustrating but, normal. Those that have to call the hold will say its one of the hardest jobs they have to do. Its usually some piddly issue that causes it.

c1steve, thats correct. USG was trying to save money. I get that but, the ol' cliche of you get what you pay for is appropriate here. Sure we are expensive but, we put the payload exactly where our customer want every time. Nobody is even close to our success rate.

I dont know who's fault it was but, Spacex always seems quick to blame everyone but, themselves.

The call to hold is a function of checklist and procedure, and it's all been rehearsed before. Everyone involved knows exactly what triggers a hold.

The whole point of having procedure is that there is a course to take. It's not "hard" to follow procedure.

The real trouble would come if someone did not.