Last second launch abort on Delta IV Heavy launch

[Flyaway]

Not often you see a launch abort at T-3 seconds especially on a Delta IV Heavy.

The launch of a United Launch Alliance #DeltaIVHeavy carrying the #NROL44 mission for the National Reconnaissance Office was scrubbed today due to an unexpected condition during terminal count at approximately three seconds before liftoff.

— ULA (@ulalaunch) August 29, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1299620681789906945

The launch of a United Launch Alliance #DeltaIVHeavy carrying the #NROL44 mission for the National Reconnaissance Office was scrubbed today due to an unexpected condition during terminal count at approximately three seconds before liftoff.

The team is currently reviewing all data and will determine the path forward. The required recycle time prior to the next launch attempt is seven days minimum.

— ULA (@ulalaunch) August 29, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1299620707685617664

The team is currently reviewing all data and will determine the path forward. The required recycle time prior to the next launch attempt is seven days minimum.

The bird is in good shape. This was an automatic abort during the ignition sequence. Cause appears to have been in the ground system. System functioned as intended to protect the vehicle and payload.

— Tory Bruno (@torybruno) August 29, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1299623698090135552

 

[FighterJock]

Not often you see a launch abort at T-3 seconds especially on a Delta IV Heavy.

The launch of a United Launch Alliance #DeltaIVHeavy carrying the #NROL44 mission for the National Reconnaissance Office was scrubbed today due to an unexpected condition during terminal count at approximately three seconds before liftoff.

— ULA (@ulalaunch) August 29, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1299620681789906945

The launch of a United Launch Alliance #DeltaIVHeavy carrying the #NROL44 mission for the National Reconnaissance Office was scrubbed today due to an unexpected condition during terminal count at approximately three seconds before liftoff.

The team is currently reviewing all data and will determine the path forward. The required recycle time prior to the next launch attempt is seven days minimum.

— ULA (@ulalaunch) August 29, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1299620707685617664

The team is currently reviewing all data and will determine the path forward. The required recycle time prior to the next launch attempt is seven days minimum.

The bird is in good shape. This was an automatic abort during the ignition sequence. Cause appears to have been in the ground system. System functioned as intended to protect the vehicle and payload.

— Tory Bruno (@torybruno) August 29, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1299623698090135552

Not good news for United Launch Alliance, at least the rocket and the payload is safe. All we need now is a decision on another launch date.

 

[E-V Bomber]

Not often you see a launch abort at T-3 seconds especially on a Delta IV Heavy.

The launch of a United Launch Alliance #DeltaIVHeavy carrying the #NROL44 mission for the National Reconnaissance Office was scrubbed today due to an unexpected condition during terminal count at approximately three seconds before liftoff.

— ULA (@ulalaunch) August 29, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1299620681789906945

The launch of a United Launch Alliance #DeltaIVHeavy carrying the #NROL44 mission for the National Reconnaissance Office was scrubbed today due to an unexpected condition during terminal count at approximately three seconds before liftoff.

The team is currently reviewing all data and will determine the path forward. The required recycle time prior to the next launch attempt is seven days minimum.

— ULA (@ulalaunch) August 29, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1299620707685617664

The team is currently reviewing all data and will determine the path forward. The required recycle time prior to the next launch attempt is seven days minimum.

The bird is in good shape. This was an automatic abort during the ignition sequence. Cause appears to have been in the ground system. System functioned as intended to protect the vehicle and payload.

— Tory Bruno (@torybruno) August 29, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1299623698090135552

Not good news for United Launch Alliance, at least the rocket and the payload is safe. All we need now is a decision on another launch date.

Don’t really see the big deal here, it’s almost like you’ve never watched a D4H launch (eventually). It’s a very finicky and temperamental launch vehicle (despite being my favourite) that never goes off on the first attempt, nothing unusual here. It’s not like it’s payloads can fly on any other currently existing rocket.

 

[Dilandu]

Nothing especially outrageous, but clearly NOT a good advertising for ULA launch services.

 

[E-V Bomber]

Nothing especially outrageous, but clearly NOT a good advertising for ULA launch services.

The 5 remaining D4Hs have all been sold to the NRO, so there’s no need to snare new customers...

 

[Hobbes]

Nothing especially outrageous, but clearly NOT a good advertising for ULA launch services.

Why not? A problem was found, and the correct action was taken to not jeopardize the payload. This was a demo of their contingency systems working as designed.

 

[Flyaway]

View: https://youtu.be/qVqTE-uXqE8

 

[Flyaway]

Not often you see a launch abort at T-3 seconds especially on a Delta IV Heavy.

The launch of a United Launch Alliance #DeltaIVHeavy carrying the #NROL44 mission for the National Reconnaissance Office was scrubbed today due to an unexpected condition during terminal count at approximately three seconds before liftoff.

— ULA (@ulalaunch) August 29, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1299620681789906945

The launch of a United Launch Alliance #DeltaIVHeavy carrying the #NROL44 mission for the National Reconnaissance Office was scrubbed today due to an unexpected condition during terminal count at approximately three seconds before liftoff.

The team is currently reviewing all data and will determine the path forward. The required recycle time prior to the next launch attempt is seven days minimum.

— ULA (@ulalaunch) August 29, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1299620707685617664

The team is currently reviewing all data and will determine the path forward. The required recycle time prior to the next launch attempt is seven days minimum.

The bird is in good shape. This was an automatic abort during the ignition sequence. Cause appears to have been in the ground system. System functioned as intended to protect the vehicle and payload.

— Tory Bruno (@torybruno) August 29, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1299623698090135552

Not good news for United Launch Alliance, at least the rocket and the payload is safe. All we need now is a decision on another launch date.

Don’t really see the big deal here, it’s almost like you’ve never watched a D4H launch (eventually). It’s a very finicky and temperamental launch vehicle (despite being my favourite) that never goes off on the first attempt, nothing unusual here. It’s not like it’s payloads can fly on any other currently existing rocket.

I’ve never thought of it as being any more difficult a launch vehicle compared to other current launchers. Anyway it was the GSE not the launcher that caused this abort.

 

[Richard N]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jkjgo0Cs_8

 

[Flyaway]

The cost of handmade one off payloads for the NRO.

Yes. This was a fault in a ground system that helps to prepare the engines for ignition. There are many, many automated monitors, any one of which, would have triggered the abort. When you routinely launch one of a kind, billion $ payloads, you don’t take chances...

— Tory Bruno (@torybruno) August 29, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1299777936707420161

 

[djfawcett]

It’s not like it’s payloads can fly on any other currently existing rocket.

Doesn't the Falcon Heavy have similar if not greater throw capability?

 

[TomS]

It’s not like it’s payloads can fly on any other currently existing rocket.

Doesn't the Falcon Heavy have similar if not greater throw capability?

It depends. Fully expendable, FH can put about twice as much weight into GTO (26.7 tons vs 14.2 tons). But if you want to fully recover FH, it can only manage 8 tons to GTO. Somewhere in the middle it should about equal DIVH, maybe with recovered side boosters but an expended core.

But that's only part of the story. Right now, SpaceX does not have a vertical integration capability, but many national security payloads require it. So until they build the new vertical integration facility (which is funded under the latest government launch contract) those payloads cannot fly on FH.

 

[Flyaway]

It’s not like it’s payloads can fly on any other currently existing rocket.

Doesn't the Falcon Heavy have similar if not greater throw capability?

It depends. Fully expendable, FH can put about twice as much weight into GTO (26.7 tons vs 14.2 tons). But if you want to fully recover FH, it can only manage 8 tons to GTO. Somewhere in the middle it should about equal DIVH, maybe with recovered side boosters but an expended core.

But that's only part of the story. Right now, SpaceX does not have a vertical integration capability, but many national security payloads require it. So until they build the new vertical integration facility (which is funded under the latest government launch contract) those payloads cannot fly on FH.

In the Scott Manley video posted above he speculated that the reason for the high cost of one of the Air Force payloads maybe because it includes the development of vertical integration faculties & a stretched fairing for FH.

 

[mkellytx]

It’s not like it’s payloads can fly on any other currently existing rocket.

Doesn't the Falcon Heavy have similar if not greater throw capability?

It depends. Fully expendable, FH can put about twice as much weight into GTO (26.7 tons vs 14.2 tons). But if you want to fully recover FH, it can only manage 8 tons to GTO. Somewhere in the middle it should about equal DIVH, maybe with recovered side boosters but an expended core.

But that's only part of the story. Right now, SpaceX does not have a vertical integration capability, but many national security payloads require it. So until they build the new vertical integration facility (which is funded under the latest government launch contract) those payloads cannot fly on FH.

In the Scott Manley video posted above he speculated that the reason for the high cost of one of the Air Force payloads maybe because it includes the development of vertical integration faculties & a stretched fairing for FH.

Also could be that FH hasn't done enough missions yet to meet that customer's risk tolerance. One of the reservists I used to work with was a Shuttle guy and said that NASA would take risks with manned space flight that agency wouldn't accept...

 

[Flyaway]

It’s not like it’s payloads can fly on any other currently existing rocket.

Doesn't the Falcon Heavy have similar if not greater throw capability?

It depends. Fully expendable, FH can put about twice as much weight into GTO (26.7 tons vs 14.2 tons). But if you want to fully recover FH, it can only manage 8 tons to GTO. Somewhere in the middle it should about equal DIVH, maybe with recovered side boosters but an expended core.

But that's only part of the story. Right now, SpaceX does not have a vertical integration capability, but many national security payloads require it. So until they build the new vertical integration facility (which is funded under the latest government launch contract) those payloads cannot fly on FH.

In the Scott Manley video posted above he speculated that the reason for the high cost of one of the Air Force payloads maybe because it includes the development of vertical integration faculties & a stretched fairing for FH.

Also could be that FH hasn't done enough missions yet to meet that customer's risk tolerance. One of the reservists I used to work with was a Shuttle guy and said that NASA would take risks with manned space flight that agency wouldn't accept...

I am sure that it’s three flights were what the Air Force required.

 

[mkellytx]

It’s not like it’s payloads can fly on any other currently existing rocket.

Doesn't the Falcon Heavy have similar if not greater throw capability?

It depends. Fully expendable, FH can put about twice as much weight into GTO (26.7 tons vs 14.2 tons). But if you want to fully recover FH, it can only manage 8 tons to GTO. Somewhere in the middle it should about equal DIVH, maybe with recovered side boosters but an expended core.

But that's only part of the story. Right now, SpaceX does not have a vertical integration capability, but many national security payloads require it. So until they build the new vertical integration facility (which is funded under the latest government launch contract) those payloads cannot fly on FH.

In the Scott Manley video posted above he speculated that the reason for the high cost of one of the Air Force payloads maybe because it includes the development of vertical integration faculties & a stretched fairing for FH.

Also could be that FH hasn't done enough missions yet to meet that customer's risk tolerance. One of the reservists I used to work with was a Shuttle guy and said that NASA would take risks with manned space flight that agency wouldn't accept...

I am sure that it’s three flights were what the Air Force required.

That was for low risk stuff, granted it's been almost a decade since I reviewed the New Entrants Guide prior to publishing, but IIRC there are multiple pathways to certification. Wouldn't be a big shock if that customer picked the super low risk option.

 

[Flyaway]

The team continues the engineering investigation to determine root cause and the path forward. A new launch date will be released when available.

— ULA (@ulalaunch) September 5, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1302252879034699777

The team continues the engineering investigation to determine root cause and the path forward. A new launch date will be released when available.

 

[Flyaway]

Tweet Q & A with Tony Bruno:

Its not that kind of regulator

— Tory Bruno (@torybruno) September 2, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1301220345916129286

Ground

— Tory Bruno (@torybruno) September 3, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1301466649141358592

A device that lowers pressure from a high pressure source upstream to a desired pressure downstream

— Tory Bruno (@torybruno) September 2, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1301192726369755137

Hardware

— Tory Bruno (@torybruno) September 2, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1301221412468928515

 

[Flyaway]

The team continues the engineering investigation to determine root cause and the path forward. A new launch date will be released when available.

— ULA (@ulalaunch) September 8, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1303332193549398018

The team continues the engineering investigation to determine root cause and the path forward. A new launch date will be released when available.

 

[Flyaway]

It appears that ULA is targetting September 18th to launch Delta IV Heavy with NROL-44, with a launch window from 12:30 am EDT to 3:12 am EDT according to today's US Coast Gaurd Notice to Mariners report. However, SpaceX does have the 17th and 18th reserved for Falcon 9 attempts. pic.twitter.com/6ApXazOYGS

— Nathan Barker (@NASA_Nerd) September 9, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/nasa_nerd/status/1303687142376452097

It appears that ULA is targetting September 18th to launch Delta IV Heavy with NROL-44, with a launch window from 12:30 am EDT to 3:12 am EDT according to today's US Coast Gaurd Notice to Mariners report. However, SpaceX does have the 17th and 18th reserved for Falcon 9 attempts.

 

[Flyaway]

Found root cause of the pad side stuck regulator. Torn diaphragm, which can occur over time. Verifying the condition of the other 2 reg's. We will replace or rebuild as needed, re-test, and then resume towards launch. Mission success is the first priority. Currently, NET 18 Sept. https://t.co/iL1nmzniLG

— Tory Bruno (@torybruno) September 9, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1303807740465250312

Found root cause of the pad side stuck regulator. Torn diaphragm, which can occur over time. Verifying the condition of the other 2 reg's. We will replace or rebuild as needed, re-test, and then resume towards launch. Mission success is the first priority. Currently, NET 18 Sept.

 

[Flyaway]

Decided to replace all 3 regulators to be safe. Launch NET the 26th.

— Tory Bruno (@torybruno) September 15, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1305973025054109696

Decided to replace all 3 regulators to be safe. Launch NET the 26th.

 

[Flyaway]

The #DeltaIVHeavy #NROL44 launch for @NatReconOfc is planned for Sept. 26. The launch period is 12:01-1:35amEDT. The team has reviewed all data and ground support equipment and determined that a ground system regulator internal component failure was the cause of the on-pad abort. pic.twitter.com/VdoMyY7tLH

— ULA (@ulalaunch) September 17, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1306602832225800193

The #DeltaIVHeavy #NROL44 launch for @NatReconOfc is planned for Sept. 26. The launch period is 12:01-1:35amEDT. The team has reviewed all data and ground support equipment and determined that a ground system regulator internal component failure was the cause of the on-pad abort.

 

[FighterJock]

The #DeltaIVHeavy #NROL44 launch for @NatReconOfc is planned for Sept. 26. The launch period is 12:01-1:35amEDT. The team has reviewed all data and ground support equipment and determined that a ground system regulator internal component failure was the cause of the on-pad abort. pic.twitter.com/VdoMyY7tLH

— ULA (@ulalaunch) September 17, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1306602832225800193

The #DeltaIVHeavy #NROL44 launch for @NatReconOfc is planned for Sept. 26. The launch period is 12:01-1:35amEDT. The team has reviewed all data and ground support equipment and determined that a ground system regulator internal component failure was the cause of the on-pad abort.

Good news that the launch of the Delta IV Heavy has been rescheduled for Sept. 26. not long to wait. And another thing, at least they now know what caused the launch abort on the previous attempt.

 

[Flyaway]

The #DeltaIVHeavy #NROL44 launch for @NatReconOfc is planned for Sept. 26. The launch period is 12:01-1:35amEDT. The team has reviewed all data and ground support equipment and determined that a ground system regulator internal component failure was the cause of the on-pad abort. pic.twitter.com/VdoMyY7tLH

— ULA (@ulalaunch) September 17, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1306602832225800193

The #DeltaIVHeavy #NROL44 launch for @NatReconOfc is planned for Sept. 26. The launch period is 12:01-1:35amEDT. The team has reviewed all data and ground support equipment and determined that a ground system regulator internal component failure was the cause of the on-pad abort.

Good news that the launch of the Delta IV Heavy has been rescheduled for Sept. 26. not long to wait. And another thing, at least they now know what caused the launch abort on the previous attempt.

I do now wonder how much was caused by the lack of use due to how infrequently it launches.

 

[Flyaway]

The launch has been delayed again due to more GSE issues:

The launch of the ULA #DeltaIVHeavy #NROL44 mission is now set for no earlier than Sept. 28. Additional time is needed for the team to test and evaluate the swing arm retraction system.

— ULA (@ulalaunch) September 26, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1309885129658114054

The launch of the ULA #DeltaIVHeavy #NROL44 mission is now set for no earlier than Sept. 28. Additional time is needed for the team to test and evaluate the swing arm retraction system.

As we believe in safety first and are dedicated to mission success, we are taking our time to thoroughly review the data to determine the appropriate path forward.

— ULA (@ulalaunch) September 26, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1309885171332714496

As we believe in safety first and are dedicated to mission success, we are taking our time to thoroughly review the data to determine the appropriate path forward.

 

[brownt62]

I dont know about anyone else but right before ignition that free burning hydrogen going up the side of the vehicle makes me cringe......would that be allowed if the vehicle was man rated?

 

[Flyaway]

This launch has been delayed another 24 hours.

 

[FighterJock]

This launch has been delayed another 24 hours.

What is the problem now with the launch this time? Weather? Or something else.

 

[TomS]

This launch has been delayed another 24 hours.

What is the problem now with the launch this time? Weather? Or something else.

The swing arm apparently has a hydraulics issue, per ULA Twitter.

 

[FighterJock]

This launch has been delayed another 24 hours.

What is the problem now with the launch this time? Weather? Or something else.

The swing arm apparently has a hydraulics issue, per ULA Twitter.

Thanks for the quick update TomS, ULA are not having a good time of it recently. Let's hope that tomorrows launch goes to plan and that it is a success.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Just the ongoing general deterioration in the aerospace industry? Or should we start thinking the 'S' word, deliberate or otherwise?

 

[Moose]

Calm down, these sort of things happen all the time. The Florida climate and proximity to launching rockets make life hard for complex machinery on the pad.

 

[mkellytx]

I dont know about anyone else but right before ignition that free burning hydrogen going up the side of the vehicle makes me cringe......would that be allowed if the vehicle was man rated?

It's a feature. It's only cringe worth if the paint or insulation catch fire...

 

[Flyaway]

The swing arms on the pad are retracted by hydraulics. Failed routine test. Replaced hydraulic valves, but need to make sure we fully understand it before proceeding.

— Tory Bruno (@torybruno) September 27, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1310226143778344963

The swing arms on the pad are retracted by hydraulics. Failed routine test. Replaced hydraulic valves, but need to make sure we fully understand it before proceeding.

 

[Flyaway]

Everything is progressing toward the ULA #DeltaIVHeavy launch carrying the #NROL44 mission for the @NatReconOfc. The mission is set to lift off on Tues., Sept. 29 from Space Launch Complex-37 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The launch time is 12:02 a.m. EDT.

— ULA (@ulalaunch) September 28, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1310570842691076096

Everything is progressing toward the ULA #DeltaIVHeavy launch carrying the #NROL44 mission for the @NatReconOfc. The mission is set to lift off on Tues., Sept. 29 from Space Launch Complex-37 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The launch time is 12:02 a.m. EDT.

 

[Flyaway]

There was another launch scrub combination of bad weather & another GSE failure.

Hydraulic hose failure on the MST. Happens now and again. Part on hand, repair underway. However, the earlier lighting hold ate up so much of the launch window that we will not be able to continue towards a launch tonight.

— Tory Bruno (@torybruno) September 30, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1311100944130674690

Hydraulic hose failure on the MST. Happens now and again. Part on hand, repair underway. However, the earlier lighting hold ate up so much of the launch window that we will not be able to continue towards a launch tonight.

 

[Flyaway]

This article looks at concerns over ageing launch infrastructure.

Delta IV Heavy rocket delayed again, raising concerns of aging infrastructure

“These scrubs will no doubt frustrate other range users.”…

arstechnica.com

 

[mkellytx]

This article looks at concerns over ageing launch infrastructure.

Delta IV Heavy rocket delayed again, raising concerns of aging infrastructure

“These scrubs will no doubt frustrate other range users.”…

arstechnica.com

Not surprising given that Delta goes away in the near future. Heck, even during the height of EELV the customer program offices didn't really like Delta and down right hated the dual integration memo.

 

[Flyaway]

Another launch abort.

We experienced an automated abort because a sensor reported a fault. Automated Safety System operated as intended. Bird and payload are safe and unharmed. Engine ROFI ignitors were not fired. Turbo pumps were not spun up. Mission safety first...

— Tory Bruno (@torybruno) October 1, 2020

View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1311533156965715968

We experienced an automated abort because a sensor reported a fault. Automated Safety System operated as intended. Bird and payload are safe and unharmed. Engine ROFI ignitors were not fired. Turbo pumps were not spun up. Mission safety first...