Orion Spacecraft, Rocket Move Closer to First Flight, NASA
“NASA’s new Orion spacecraft and the Delta IV Heavy rocket that will carry it into space are at their penultimate stops in Florida on their path to a December flight test.”
ULA Moves Delta IV Heavy to Launch Pad for Orion’s Exploration Flight Test, ULA
“On 30 September United Launch Alliance (ULA) rolled the Delta IV Heavy rocket from its processing facility to Space Launch Complex 37 in advance of the Dec. 4 Exploration Flight Test (EFT-1) for NASA’s Orion spacecraft.”
Orion Spacecraft Transfers to Launch Abort System Facility, Lockheed Martin
“NASA and Lockheed Martin have finished fueling the Orion spacecraft with ammonia, hydrazine and high pressure helium at Kennedy Space Center’s Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility. Orion has now been moved to the Launch Abort System Facility for integration with the launch abort system (LAS).”
Why not man rate the Delta IV?
That is an issue that has been debated since the Launch System Architecture Study. It would have required pad mods similar to those being done for the Atlas and Falcon, and redesign of the second stage to meet NASA’s archaic static load factor spec of 1.4, along with adding dual-string electronics and actuators. But it would certainly have been possible. Two factors seem to have stonewalled any such efforts.
1. The cost of operating the Delta is significantly higher than the Atlas, partly because of the long delay on the pad, so ULA prefers the Atlas where feasible. and
2. During Constellation the Delta was seen as a threat to the politically favored Ares I, so an effort was made to convince management that it simply could not be done.
A nice read is “Atlas and Delta Capabilities to Launch Crew to Low Earth Orbit”, Patton and Barr, ULA. A little dated but still informative.
Why is the launch vehicle going to be out in the weather for two months?
so they can run system checks for two months?
Because it can ….
two months might be a minimum considering how many generals,high ranking NASA management, congressmen and business leaders have to take tours to see it. I dont think it will fly until the entire industry has had the opportunity to pay homage to its NASA immensity.
This is the usual Delta payload flow. pad time has always been much longer than originally predicted in the launch complex design, and that is part of the reason for the higher cost of the Delta vs the Atlas. However the Mobile Service Tower provides fairly effective weather protection on the pad though some areas of the booster are exposed.
If it were SLC-6 at VAB, it would also have the Mobile Assembly Shelter.
Cape Canaveral probably needs it more considering the weather differences. But it will be fine.
The instructions say “some assembly required”.
Why are they putting the escape tower on Orion for this flight?
they are going to do a test jetison I thought?
I assume for mass and aerodynamic verification. I am not sure the capsule can even be launched without the ogive blast shield. That said, the gigantic and expensive LAS was designed for use with the Ares I which required an extraordinary 20G escape acceleration. Had they chosen to actually launch on the Delta during the Constellation program a much smaller escape system could have been used, because the Delta can terminate thrust prior to separation. The mass of the LAS contributed to the excessive launch mass and resulted in the deletion of the landing air bags, requiring even more expensive ocean recovery.
NASA does not see the unprecedented weight and cost of the LAS as a problem, but rather as another spectacular feat. The fundamental problem seems to be confusing means (the spectacular LAS) with ends (human spaceflight at a sustainable cost).
It will be mostly inert ballast. Only the jettison motor to pull the tower away will be live.