Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 Launched
NNASA Launches New Carbon-Sensing Mission to Monitor Earth’s Breathing [Watch], SpaceRef
“NASA successfully launched its first spacecraft dedicated to studying atmospheric carbon dioxide at 2:56 a.m. PDT (5:56 a.m. EDT) Wednesday.”
“The Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) raced skyward from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, on a United Launch Alliance Delta II rocket. Approximately 56 minutes after the launch, the observatory separated from the rocket’s second stage into an initial 429-mile (690-kilometer) orbit. The spacecraft then performed a series of activation procedures, established communications with ground controllers and unfurled its twin sets of solar arrays. Initial telemetry shows the spacecraft is in excellent condition.”
Related:
– United Launch Alliance Successfully Launches 51st Delta II Mission for NASA
– Orbital-Built OCO-2 Satellite Successfully Launched
Anyone know what the launch and assurance costs are for this flight?
Thanks.
Pity that solids preclude hot launch rehearsals. With liquid engines they could test everything including the suppression system.
it sounds like some of the rainbirds got clogged. this is a plumbing problem, not a rocket problem.
Agreed, but: if they had done a hot rehearsal they would have found the problem. Of course they also would have found it if they had just tested the suppression system. (Some other media outlet reported the thing had not been used in three years. Sheesh. I wouldn’t trust a toaster that hadn’t been used in three years.)
Funny thing about testing. It’s hard to know in advance which systems are going to fail so that one tests only those systems.
three YEARS? that is redonkerous. yeah… someone should have turned them on a few weeks ago to make sure they were OK… better put that in the pre-launch checklist for next time.
The NASA press release yesterday said:
“A valve that is part of the pulse suppression water system, which had operated properly during tests shortly before the launch countdown, failed to function properly during the final minutes of the launch attempt.”
So the valve was tested prior to launch, however I assume without water actually flowing through the system. If water had been flowing through the system during the test, would the valve have failed? I guess we’ll never know
Heh.. those rainbirds sure are fussy. I remember they were the cause of a heartbeat skip during one of the Falcon 9 launches — rainbirds pumped dirty water all over the pretty white first stage, making a black streak almost up to the 1st/2nd stage inter-connector.before it started lifting off.. I thought it had caught fire.
Does anyone know more about the actual nozzle details used on the system, or where I could see more? Are they OTS or custom built, what sort of volume, etc.?
Shuttle era rain bird, Pad 39A: http://www.capcomespace.net…
In action: http://www.nasa.gov/images/…
Solids are extremely reliable so there’s no need to test them.
Is the concern that testing the suppression system could damage the solids?
Interesting thought. I would think not, but I don’t know.
I was reading into your comment where you said that with liquids they could test everything including sound suppression, which I inferred to mean that you were saying that when solids are present they cannot test sound suppression, and I was trying to understand why. After reading your exchange with Doug I realize that’s not what you meant.
i’m not sure if you knew or not, but the sound suppression system is just rainbirds dumping water all over the launch pad. it prevents damage to the pad and reduces the sound levels.
http://youtu.be/9LehY5avJUM…
they could easily have tested this weeks ago, without the rocket on the pad. i think it’s a pretty silly thing to have caused a launch delay, but i’m sure stranger things have happened.
I was thinking of the Shuttle suppression system which involved more than just rainbirds they also had basically the equivalent of fire hose nozzles dumping huge amounts of water all around and under not just from above. 300,000 gallons released during pre and post ignition. With that powerful of a system I could see where testing sound suppression while a rocket is on the pad would be avoided if possible, thus I was interested in the comment by RS indicating that you could do that with liquids but not with solids, which I now realize he was talking about something else.
Of course I realize that a Delta II doesn’t require as powerful of a sound suppression system as a Shuttle, however whereas info and stats on Shuttle sound suppression was readily available during its day, I haven’t yet found any details about the suppression systems used on pads such as at complex 576.
The rainbirds used on the Shuttle pad were huge, much larger than the ones on the Delta pad, which are more like fire hose nozzles.
It is asinine to use a vehicle to test ground systems. Also, hot fires are unnecessary and a risk.
Delta II doesn’t use a hold down system, the weight of the vehicle is greater than the engine thrust.
“the weight of the vehicle is greater than the engine thrust”– from a non-rocket scientist, how does that work?
The SRM’s are lit once the engine “checkout” passes and then the T/W>1 and the vehicle lifts off.
I assume that during main engine checkout that the thrust is lower than the maximum, then after the solids light they immediately go to full throttle or thereabout. I wonder if for each mission the level of checkout thrust varies depending on the weight of a particular stack, or is there a standard thrust setting used for all launches that is low enough that it works for all launch weights? I am guessing that it’s a standard setting so that it’s easier to benchmark.
Add “…before the solids fire.”
The one rocket that has an even longer record of reliability than the Atlas V is … the Delta II. Also ULA’s most economical launch vehicle. Which ULA abandoned. TMK there are only three left; two with missions and one still available.
Hey, we’re back in the climate science business. Congressman Posey will blow his top. His legislative assistant told me that there would be plenty of money for commercial crew “if NASA stopped wasting money studying climate change”.
You got that wrong. Delta II was most economical, because the USAF was subsiding 2 launch crews to support a 60 day GPS call up.
Also, there are 4 left and 3 have missions.
Need to check your facts again.
Debates on the solids aside, how many Delta II’s are left in storage now? I think NASA has . . . 2 – 3 in storage? Could ULA cobble together more, from the spare parts? (I believe there are others out there, but for display only — and hopefully with no one planning to snatch-n-shoot)
there are 3 left, two have been spoken for, one is still available.
NASA doen’t have any in storage. ULA has them
Great news. We needed to have this data stream coming in for a long time now.
I was a little suprised at the velocity call – the first call was early on at 959mph, and then a fair amount of time goes by and the velocity was 991mph. So basically after accelerating ridiculously at first, it didn’t do much acceleration immediately after that.