Last second launch abort on Delta IV Heavy launch

Flyaway

Flyaway

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
21 January 2015
Messages
12,104
Reaction score
16,244
Not often you see a launch abort at T-3 seconds especially on a Delta IV Heavy.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1299620681789906945
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.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1299620707685617664
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.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1299623698090135552
View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1299623698090135552
 
Flyaway said:
Not often you see a launch abort at T-3 seconds especially on a Delta IV Heavy.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1299620681789906945
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.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1299620707685617664
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.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1299623698090135552
View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1299623698090135552
Click to expand...

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

https://twitter.com/x/status/1299620681789906945
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.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1299620707685617664
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.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1299623698090135552
View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1299623698090135552
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
Nothing especially outrageous, but clearly NOT a good advertising for ULA launch services.
Click to expand...

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.
 
E-V Bomber said:
FighterJock said:
Flyaway said:
Not often you see a launch abort at T-3 seconds especially on a Delta IV Heavy.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1299620681789906945
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.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1299620707685617664
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.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1299623698090135552
View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1299623698090135552
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
djfawcett said:
E-V Bomber said:
It’s not like it’s payloads can fly on any other currently existing rocket.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the Falcon Heavy have similar if not greater throw capability?
Click to expand...

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.
 
TomS said:
djfawcett said:
E-V Bomber said:
It’s not like it’s payloads can fly on any other currently existing rocket.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the Falcon Heavy have similar if not greater throw capability?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Flyaway said:
TomS said:
djfawcett said:
E-V Bomber said:
It’s not like it’s payloads can fly on any other currently existing rocket.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the Falcon Heavy have similar if not greater throw capability?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
mkellytx said:
Flyaway said:
TomS said:
djfawcett said:
E-V Bomber said:
It’s not like it’s payloads can fly on any other currently existing rocket.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the Falcon Heavy have similar if not greater throw capability?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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...
Click to expand...
I am sure that it’s three flights were what the Air Force required.
 
Flyaway said:
mkellytx said:
Flyaway said:
TomS said:
djfawcett said:
E-V Bomber said:
It’s not like it’s payloads can fly on any other currently existing rocket.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the Falcon Heavy have similar if not greater throw capability?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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...
Click to expand...
I am sure that it’s three flights were what the Air Force required.
Click to expand...
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 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1306602832225800193
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

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.
 
FighterJock said:
Flyaway said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1306602832225800193
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
I do now wonder how much was caused by the lack of use due to how infrequently it launches.
 
The launch has been delayed again due to more GSE issues:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1309885129658114054
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.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1309885171332714496
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.
Click to expand...
 
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?
 
Just the ongoing general deterioration in the aerospace industry? Or should we start thinking the 'S' word, deliberate or otherwise?
 
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.
 
brownt62 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom