Technical Hitches Delay Orion Capsule's First Launch

According to NBC news, "A series of delays held up the maiden launch of NASA's Orion capsule on Thursday, adding some extra suspense to the first test of a spacecraft that's designed to take humans farther than they've ever gone — including to Mars." The much-anticipated launch, which had been scheduled for launch 7:05 a.m. Florida time, is to boost into orbit — empty — an instance of the Orion crew capsule intended to be part of a manned mission to Mars. As of shortly after 9 a.m. eastern time, troubleshooting has been in progress on the Alliance Delta 4 launch vehicle's hydrogen fill and drain valves in attempt to make the launch within today's launch window, which extends to 9:44 a.m. Besides the technical problem with those valves, the launch was delayed by wind, as well as by a boat that strayed into a restricted area. (Shades of the stray-boat delay in October for Orbital Science's ISS delivery launch.) Friday and Saturday have been designated as backup dates. Update: 12/04 15:03 GMT by T : The launch has been scrubbed.

Comments

Stray boats and those on them

[TWX]

Do they detain the crew and any passengers on stray boats that are caught within the restricted area?

There was a plot point in a TV movie called Earth II where someone attempted to sabotage a space launch with a rifle at the beginning. I assume that if an important tank or engine component is punctured by rifle fire at the right time it would destroy the vehicle.

Re:Stray boats and those on them

[Toad-san]

Detain? Phthth. Ignore works for me.

Re:Stray boats and those on them

[Martin Blank]

IIRC, the Coast Guard sends out a helicopter to warn them out of the area with loudspeakers. Failure to comply results in a visit from a Coast Guard boat, and that's where things can get expensive.

Re:Stray boats and those on them

[Overzeetop]

They should warn them with SAMs. Through center mass.

Re:Stray boats and those on them

[CrimsonAvenger]

They should warn them with SAMs.

Yeah, using Surface to AIR Missiles on boats actually works really well. Because, y'know, the difference between a boat and a plane is pretty much nonexistant....

Re:Stray boats and those on them

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a warning shot could get the point arcoss.

Re:Stray boats and those on them

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! That's why Gary Bussey isn't allowed at launches.

Re:Stray boats and those on them

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually SAMs will work on surface targets, if the fire control system can handle there isn't a problem. For example, the Standard Missile family can play both SAM and SSM roles. The only problem is the warhead size, you wouldn't be able to kill a large vessel with a SAM but for a smaller ship they can do the job.

For an operational example cf. Operation Praying Mantis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

"On April 18, 1988, during Operation Praying Mantis, USS Simpson (FFG-56) fired four RIM-66 Standard missiles and USS Wainwright (CG-28) fired two RIM-67 Standard missiles(SAMs) at Joshan, an Iranian (Combattante II) Kaman-class frigate. The attacks destroyed the Iranian ship's superstructure but did not sink it."

on the flip side in Desert Storm a Canadian CF-18 fired a Sparrow Missile at Iraqi Patrol boat.

Re: Stray boats and those on them

[Anonymous Coward]

The SAM could theoretically have taken care of the boat, if they could actually launch it.

Most likely it would have failed due to unfavourable winds, malfunctioning valves or another stray boat in the area.

Re:Stray boats and those on them

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Detain? Phthth. Ignore works for me.

How about, detained... INSIDE THE ORION CAPSULE?!!! That'd learn them!

Re:Stray boats and those on them

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, the Coast Guard sends out a helicopter to warn them out of the area with loudspeakers. Failure to comply results in a visit from a Coast Guard boat, and that's where things can get expensive.

This sounds more like a job for sharks with lasers on their heads.

Recycle?

[A10Mechanic]

Have they tried turning it off and on again? Oh, wait. They're actually doing that...

Re:Recycle?

[bobbied]

Have they tried turning it off and on again? Oh, wait. They're actually doing that...

Yea, Right after trying the reset and reboot options.... If power cycle doesn't work they are going to try kicking it too... Says so here in the flight manual...

scrubbed.

[A10Mechanic]

Never mind. see you tomorrow

Rocket science is called so for a reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Stray boat and crazy people in them
Auto-off wind triggers
Manual override to those wind triggers
Fuel valve funny business - power cycling, over pressurizing, and what not.

All in the course of a couple of hours. Yep. Space is hard, folks!

Re:Rocket science is called so for a reason

[NMBob]

The only problem I have is that they saw this same valve problem on a previous (the last one?) launch of the DIVH. And I can't imagine they didn't see it during testing too. I guess they didn't think it was important enough to stop a launch, and fix it before it did. Watching the wind to 'manual'. Too funny. It's sad that they thought they needed a computer to watch the wind in the first place. What's the saying? Hoisted by my own petard?

Re:Rocket science is called so for a reason

[webanish]

Would there have been a valve or wind abort if that stray boat hadn't showed up? If not, then the valve issues might have become a complication later on in the mission? Sounds kinda edgy to me... I guess this is what test flights are for.

Re:Rocket science is called so for a reason

[ColdWetDog]

Why would you NOT scrub a any space flight for a potential problem? You've got billions on the line. You can launch again in a day or so.

You in a hurry to go somewhere?

Re:Rocket science is called so for a reason

[webanish]

Fully agree. In the many years and billions spent to reach this day, a 24 hr delay (or even a 48hr or more) is a fraction of a peanut. But the fact that they were willing to manually override the auto wind triggers suggests that they either felt pressured with the closing of the launch window, or didn't trust enough in the reliability of those automated systems. If it's the former, then it's a scary prospect. The purpose of this mission I guess is to test the capsule and the upper launch stages. The DIVH is going to be replaced by a different system in the future (SLS) anyway, so having a failure in this part of the mission would be characterized so. Having in a failure while in orbit or on the way back would be 'extremely useful test data' and NOT a failure.

Re:Rocket science is called so for a reason

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to see how difficult this is, try playing Kerbal Space Program. Great game, really shows you how it works.

Re:Rocket science is called so for a reason

[Geoffrey.landis]

But the fact that they were willing to manually override the auto wind triggers suggests that they either felt pressured with the closing of the launch window, or didn't trust enough in the reliability of those automated systems.

It works better to have the automated system slightly conservative: to flag the weather as potential for a wind delay, and then have a human judgement serve as the go-ahead.
You could do it the other way, with the automated system set to err on the side of "go for launch" in the cases requiring a human evaluation, and rely on human judgement to rule "no."

Re:Rocket science is called so for a reason

[schlachter]

I think you mean Earth is hard. Space will present a host of additional challenges.

Re:Ob

[Anonymous Coward]

Amercia, Fuck Yeah!

rounding error

[savuporo]

For a vehicle that is literally planned to be in development for about two decades, this is a rounding error anyway. The world is not going to stop turning or even much of a notice if it doesnt launch tomorrow, the next week or in the next couple of years.
First of all, it is an engineering test article that is very far from what the final product is supposed to be, and the flight really mostly exist because nobody would otherwise believe the program exists and does anything. Ares-1X , anyone ?
Second, it is not really a deep space craft that could really go anywhere on its own even after its supposedly ready. Moon ? No, need at least a lander and a service module. Mars ? Not even with addons, as it wont survive for 6 months on the outward journey, 2 years in orbit and then 6 months coming back.
Why is it being even built absent any plans to actually go anywhere ? Well, all these people have to have jobs ..

Re:rounding error

[Anonymous Coward]

Political error.

USA started cutting like beasts into science budget and now they face their future as an underdeveloped brainless conglomerate of warring nations.

Maybe they should reboot with a big elastic string and the watermelons they seem so abundant of today.

Re:rounding error

[Martin Blank]

While I'm not terribly enthusiastic about the Orion project, I do give them some credit that you clearly don't. A moon mission is to be possible with a single launch, similar to the Apollo missions. (I think a near-Earth asteroid will also be possible in one launch.) I believe a Mars mission is expected to be 2-3 launches, with the last one the manned launch, followed by docking in orbit and then leaving for Mars.

The setup flying from the Delta IV Heavy is only part of the stack. When the SLS launches, it will have a payload capacity of 130 tons, compared to the Delta IV Heavy's 23 tons. (The Saturn V could lift 118 tons.) That's a lot more hardware and fuel that can be lofted.

Re:rounding error

[Eevee]

When the SLS launches,

Surely you mean If the SLS launches. Does Ares I ring a bell?

Re: rounding error

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is "one launch" important? Launch fuel, launch equipment, launch technicians to put stuff together, launch astronauts, go to moon. It should be almost routine. (Note, don't go to Mars, sending people to Mars with current technology would be stupid. Get a moon base operating first.)

Re:rounding error

[Anonymous Coward]

Mars ? Not even with addons, as it wont survive for 6 months on the outward journey, 2 years in orbit and then 6 months coming back.

Because it doesn't have a docking hatch on it, right? Oh, wait...

Re:rounding error

[butalearner]

The total cost of Ares development was expected to be upwards of $40 billion in 2009 dollars. The total cost of SLS development was expected to be $18 billion in 2011 dollars. It might not launch if Tea Partiers like Ted Cruz gets their way, but with the pro-NASA congressman expecting to head up the appropriations committee over the next two years, there's still a good chance it will.

Re: rounding error

[butalearner]

Note, don't go to Mars, sending people to Mars with current technology would be stupid. Get a moon base operating first.

The first part is okay, but the second doesn't necessarily follow. Establishing a permanent presence on another planetary body will take a long time - even if we started ASAP - and technology can be developed in the meantime. One such technology is in-situ resource utilization. The more resources the base can pull from its surroundings, the better. Mars has carbon and the Moon doesn't, which is pretty huge. If water is also significantly easier to extract, then even despite the far greater distance, Mars might be a more attractive location.

But who knows, we may find out we can deal with near-zero gravity better than we thought, and there may be a decently large, carbon- and water-rich asteroid at one of Earth's L-4/5 Lagrange points or something. That would be even cheaper in terms of delta-V to reach than the Moon. Or maybe we set up shop on a co-orbital body like 3753 Cruithne, which orbits the Sun every 364 days, and will be within 13.6 million km of Mars in 2058 (Earth and Mars only come within 56 million km of each other).

Or we just do all of the above, because humanity is awesome.

Re: rounding error

[savuporo]

more hardware and fuel could be lofted any day, there are plenty of operational launch vehicles all around the world.
if you add up the actual launch capacity of all the operational rockets and pads you could put like thousand tons or more to orbit every year.
to get to mars, you will need to launch more than once in any case. to get to moon in a useful capacity with more than flags and footprints, you will also need to launch more.

what exactly is the point of spending another decade, tens of billions and building yet another launcher to actually start going anywhere?
orion is dumb because it is not actually designed to go anywhere, SLS is dumb because it is redundant.

Re: rounding error

[Martin Blank]

More launches mean more cost, especially if you're scattering it across launch pads located around the world. There aren't many sites that can handle significant launch masses: Cape Canaveral, Baikonur, Plesetsk, French Guiana, Jiuquan (China), Satish Dhawan (India), and Tanegashima (Japan). So you have enormous coordination between nations that have widely varying launch experience for their heavy lifters, that use different technologies and procedures, and have different goals for their space programs. This doesn't even get into the politics of "What do you do for me if I agree to lift this 15T payload into orbit?"

It also would cost more fuel, since launching from different locations means having to match inclinations. This has already led to one major limitation with the ISS, since its inclination is a compromise between the ideal inclinations for Cape Canaveral and Baikonur.

On top of that, you add complexity in having to dock so many more times, increasing the risk of an incident. While the potential loss from a single large launch is significantly more than that of a single small launch, the cumulative risk of any loss is greater with multiple launches. Putting a thousand tons into orbit would take eight SLS launches, but a minimum of 44 launches of the Delta IV Heavy or Proton, currently the heaviest launchers available.

I would rather see projects like the Falcon XX or MCT encouraged, and I expect they'll be showing up on the test schedule around the same time as the SLS. But NASA is going to have their own path despite the costs, and so they may as well work on an SLS-class launcher. If nothing else, it will give SpaceX (and maybe others) something to aim for and probably provide some valuable lessons along the way.

Tor exit node ...

[CaptainDork]

... was down?

Re:Ob

[alexander_686]

This? Coming from an agency that could not harpoon a comet at point blank range? It is not like we are talking about rocket science here. No wait – we are – dammit!

Re:Ob

[ihtoit]

uh... Rosetta/Philae is ESA, not NASA.

Jussayin'.

Re:Ob

[morgauxo]

Hey, at least the US is working towards having a manned vehicle again. I can see a "har har" from Russia or China but from the ESA? Whatever!

Wind is a technical hitch?

[plopez]

I thought it was weather. Nice job with the headline.

Re:Wind is a technical hitch?

[ihtoit]

wind=weather. And yes, when you're talking a 233 foot roman candle filled with cryogenic fuel, it's a showstopper.

Re:Ob

[DroolTwist]

That was the point, he was replying to the guy saying 'on behalf of ESA haha etc etc'.

"Or-E-On"

[kheldan]

I just wanted to take this opportunity to express how much I've cringed this week every single time an NPR newsreader mispronounced 'Orion' -- except Jack Speer, who actually pronounced it correctly.

Re:"Or-E-On"

[khallow]

We don't have enough fake grammar nazi-ing on the Intarweb. Please more.

Re:"Or-E-On"

[kheldan]

We don't have enough sourpuss punkasses like you on the Intarweb. Please kill yourself.

Re:"Or-E-On"

[Anonymous Coward]

What a couple of khocksuckers.

Re:"Or-E-On"

[kheldan]

Do everyone a favor and go back to /b/ where you belong.

More worries over technical competence

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that NASA has become completely incapable of pulling off a launch, especially in the last few years. There always seems to be "technical hitches" that should have been ironed out YEARS before a vehicle was ever put on a launch pad.

Re:More worries over technical competence

[zuckie13]

You clearly have never paid attention to the space industry in your life. Launch delays happen. They can't control the weather, they can't control an idiot boater, and I'd rather they make sure a mechanical problem on the launch vehicle doesn't cause a mission failure by making sure its fixed before lighting it up.

Re:More worries over technical competence

[bobbied]

It seems that NASA has become completely incapable of pulling off a launch, especially in the last few years. There always seems to be "technical hitches" that should have been ironed out YEARS before a vehicle was ever put on a launch pad.

Modern system engineering and "hurry up you fools!" being said to the lowest bidder is what we have, well that and literally a room full of newbies at launch control. I'm just happy they actually called it off and didn't just go though with it and lose the vehicle. It means SOMEBODY is at least trying to pay attention to things, unlike Challenger, where it was public pressure to launch coupled with nothing has happened before that killed the crew.

They will eventually get things going, eventually the newbies will get things off the ground. I just hope they keep being careful, because it's easy to forget how dangerous this stuff is.

Re:More worries over technical competence

[trout007]

NASA doesn't launch these rockets. They are operated by ULA (Boeing and Lockheed).

Re:More worries over technical competence

[trout007]

This was a problem with the Air Force rocket not the NASA payload.

Re:More worries over technical competence

[Brett Buck]

Right, this is the first ever launch delay or abort. Except for almost all of the Mercury flights, two pad aborts on Gemini, 3-4 launch slips on Apollo, alternate launch window launch on Apollo 16, repeated shuttle launch delays and scrubs, It happens all the time, all the preparation in the world will not prevent them, and it has nothing to do with "newbies" in the process.

    And in fact, since this is a ULA Delta launch, with NASA personnel who formerly ran the Shuttle and ISS operations, I would estimate based on my personal knowledge that they have several orders of magnitude more launch experience that most of the mission control people on Apollo ever had.

    Other than that, you are absolutely correct.

Re:Ob

[Anonymous Coward]

Namby-pamby Eurocommies with their stupid harpoons. We'd have nuked it - twice. Number one! Number one!

Orion to Mars

[Eunuchswear]

Wouldn'y Orion get a bit cramped for a mission to Mars.

Re:Orion to Mars

[amicusNYCL]

I think anything short of a cruise ship would get cramped on a mission to Mars.

Unfortunate name

[rossdee]

Wasn't Orion the name of a concept spacecraft powered by throwing nukes out the back and detonating them?

(see Niven & Pounelle's Footfall)

Re:Ob

[Anonymous Coward]

On behalf of the European Space Agency, I'd like to say a few words: "Har har".

Because the ESA has never had a launch delay?

yes

[Anonymous Coward]

yup and due to a treaty your not supposed to legally be able to do that

Re:Ob

[bazmonkey]

On behalf of the European Space Agency, I'd like to say a few words: "Har har".

Because the ESA has never had a launch delay?

... It doesn't rain in the French Guiana. Didn't anyone tell you that? Sheesh, what careless misinformation.

And to think you thought it rained--lol--in French Guiana!!!

Re:Ob

[KeensMustard]

Building a steam train in the age of bullet trains is not entirely a boast worthy exercise.

Just do it [Re:More worries over technical com...]

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that NASA has become completely incapable of pulling off a launch, especially in the last few years.

Yeah-- twenty-nine years ago they used to have somewhat a less cautious philosophy. And then just that one time, they did the "oh, what the heck, quit with the delays and just launch the thing already," and it turned out not to be their best day.

Twenty-nine years ago this January. And people are still beating them up about it.

There are worse things than being cautious.

Orion [Re:Unfortunate name]

[Geoffrey.landis]

Wasn't Orion the name of a concept spacecraft powered by throwing nukes out the back and detonating them?

No, wasn't it the name of the Pan Am Space Clipper in 2001: A Space Odyssey?

Re:Orion [Re:Unfortunate name]

[Anonymous Coward]

Geoff, you of all people should know better. ;-)

Orion was indeed the project (headed by Ted Taylor and Freeman Dyson) exploring the idea of propulsion by detonating nukes behind a pusher plate.

The Pan Am Space Clipper was called the Space Clipper, which in one version used an Orion-like "nuclear pulse" propulsion system but the actual design used in the film (and the plastic model kit) wasn't anything like that (and was probably more like the gas-core fission rockets which Max Hunter described in his book "Thrust Into Space" which Clarke referenced elsewhere.) Any reference to the Space Clipper being an Orion post-dates the movie by a couple of decades.

Incidentally, it looks like in the upcoming SyFy series "Ascension", the Orion Project did manage to (secretly!) launch a manned starship on a 100 year mission back in 1963. (I think they handwave the number of nukes needed to maintain 1 gee (or even 0.1 gee) acceleration/deceleration for that long.)

Well, the name is recycled

[Fortran IV]

Rats. Every time I see a headline about an Orion spacecraft, I get all excited again.

Won't anybody ever build the real thing?

Re:Ob

[Brett Buck]

Check the scoreboard, ace.

Number of manned missions launched be NASA - ~150.
Number of manned missions launched by ESA - 0 and none planned.

      It's *really easy* to never fail - as long as you never try.

Re:Ob

[Anonymous Coward]

and then re-nuked the dust cloud, i mean, we must think of the children!

Re:Just do it [Re:More worries over technical com.

[Anonymous Coward]

That wasn't lack of caution, it was political pressure from the highest level: the handlers of St. Reagan the Senile wanted the shuttle in the air for his State of the Union speech, and during that time NASA was getting beaten up for being completely unable to match their proposed launch frequency. So NASA/White House overrode the engineers (that nice bunch of tame Mormons out at Thiokol who hadn't the balls to call every politician and newspaper in sight to tell them what lethal idiocy was afoot) and lit that candle.

There are a whole bunch of people who should be in jail for that act of manslaughter. But, they aren't in jail, and the astronauts are still dead.

Re:Ob

[Hognoxious]

Fake. No wind = flag hanging vertically.

Also, the shadows are wrong.

How dat Muslim outreach working?

[gelfling]

Is spaceflight haram?

A Multiplicity of Orion

[Geoffrey.landis]

It was a trick question. There are a large number of proposed and science fictional spaceships named Orion. The bomb-powered ship (much beloved by science fiction writers) was one; the Pan Am Space Clipper "Orion" was another. The Raumschiff Orion from the 1966 TV show "Raumpatrouille - Die phantastischen Abenteuer des Raumschiffs Orion" is probably the most famous, although almost unknown to English speakers.