Saturday, June 1, 2024

Still Sittin' Around, Waitin' For the Big Story

I'm sure that everybody following the Starliner launch knows that when they came out of a programmed countdown hold at T minus 4:00 minutes, the system went into an automatic hold within 10 seconds. The time remaining of 3:50 remaining frozen on the clock.

Screen capture from NASA Spaceflight's coverage. Notice in the lower left part of the control bar that the video's timer is 4:00:40 into their coverage if you want to watch it.

NASA provided a terse little summary late in the day today, saying that they're not sure that the hold and scrub for the day was really necessary, but they'll know more by tomorrow morning. 

NASA, Boeing, and ULA (United Launch Alliance) are forgoing a Crew Flight Test launch attempt Sunday, June 2, to give the team additional time to assess a ground support equipment issue at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station’s Space Launch Complex-41 in Florida.

Saturday’s launch was to carry NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to and from the International Space Station scrubbed due to an observation of a ground launch sequencer. The system was unsuccessful in verifying the sequencer’s necessary redundancy.

ULA will assess the ground support equipment overnight, and NASA will provide an update June 2 on next steps for the flight. The next available launch opportunities are Wednesday, June 5, and Thursday, June 6.

Space.com adds a little needed context here that NASA's statement doesn't address

ULA CEO Tory Bruno told reporters in the post-scrub briefing that engineers suspect the abort may have been caused by a faulty computer card in ground launch sequencer system housed in a building at the base of at Starliner's launch pad, Space Launch Complex 41, at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. But checking that card would require ground teams to wait several hours until it was safe to approach the pad. "The system was unsuccessful in verifying the sequencer's necessary redundancy," NASA officials said of the sequencer glitch.

"We can't get in there until we're done defueling a rocket, which is followed by making sure there's no stray hydrogen inside that building, so that it's safe for people to be there. Then we'll go in and troubleshoot it, Bruno said. "And if it's as simple as replacing a card, we have spares for everything, and we would do that. We would test it, which is required, and then be in a position for a recycle tomorrow."

That interview was before NASA's announcement saying they're forgoing an attempt tomorrow. 

While I was interested in the Space Shuttle program before the first flight, I don't remember much about things like this that happened while building up to the STS-1 mission, launched on April 12, 1981. I didn't live near the KSC until just over a year later. That first flight was originally scheduled for March of 1979 as a suborbital flight, which got turned into a thorough test on orbit for a couple of days. You have to go that far back to find a man-rated spacecraft being tested with a crew for the first time to compare this to. Well, you have to go back to 1981 to find a man-rated spacecraft that isn't named Dragon. The Orion capsule on Artemis has only flown unmanned missions since its first flight in December of 2014.

Something I swear I remember hearing about STS-1 is a quip from one of the crew members, either John Young or Bob Crippen, something like if the delays kept up instead of being Young and Crippen, they'd be old and crippled. I can't find any evidence of that being real. Anybody else remember that?

 

 

11 comments:

  1. Gee, for once it's not Starliner itself. It's only ULA...

    Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  2. They should just close up shop and give all the money to SpaceX.

    ReplyDelete
  3. From the beginning I thought the launch cadence of SST too aggressive. A friend at NA Rockwell gave me flip pad which detailed the schedule of shuttle launches from the first launch and out past 135. As time matched on, there were a lot of scrubs.

    (The same friend got me VIP passes to watch all the testing at Edwards. That was exciting.)

    However, as exciting as it was, it was disappointing. Because the space truck represented a turning away from furtherance of the lunar programs. History has proved that that was a bad idea. Not w they're playing catsup to recapture the technology developed then.

    Ergo multi scrubbed vehicles choking launch facilities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Launch facilities are NOT choked, each Contractor - be it SpaceX or ULA or Rocket Labs or whomever - has their own launch facilities. They are not shared. Now, berthing/docking spaces on the ISS *are* limited, so there's that...

      Note that SpaceX now has THREE LF's, and will probably need more due to their launch cadence. And Starship is not really operational yet!!

      Delete
  4. The Young and Crippen quote- https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/spaceman-7766826/

    Tory Bruno says they have all the spare parts necessary to make a repair except for one of those little readers that explains the error code when the check engine light goes on.

    Compare and contrast, a little later that day, China landed another lander on the moon to collect samples.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that Smithsonian link! Nice to know I haven't completely lost my mind. Or, at the least, some of what's left is useful.

      Delete
  5. Full of sound and fury,, signifying nothing! Give the boot to ULA. They are not cost-plus on this project, they just proved they can't do the job any more.

    I mean, a simple thing like a ground sequencer? Don't misunderstand, it's a piece of AGE (Aerospace Ground Equipment) that's a very important system that sees to it that everything to get the bird off the launch pad. ULA has a triple-redundant system that apparently needs ALL THREE of them to be working correctly before it will let anything jump off the pad. Stupid - you should be able to launch with only two of the three working correctly. Who designed this abortion, anyway?? Oh, wait...

    We had 'em in the Minuteman system, it was the sequencer's job to make sure everything important was fired off in the correct sequence before the First Stage was lit. It was a simpler system, granted, but it was designed in the 50s and performed time after time at Vandenburg when we did Operational Tests on a Minuteman. Please explain to me why a non-rad-hard-mechanical-system works/worked flawlessly after being quiescent for decades... I'll wait.

    What's funny/ironic is that Boeing was the PRIMARY Contractor on the Minuteman systems!

    Oy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's funny/ironic is that Boeing was the PRIMARY Contractor on the Minuteman systems!

      Nah, not funny/ironic. It was before people started thinking it was just another stupid computer system and it doesn't matter.

      Delete
    2. And it was before McDonald-Douglas infiltrated Boeing management.

      Delete
  6. "ULA has a triple-redundant system that apparently needs ALL THREE of them to be working correctly before it will let anything jump off the pad."

    Which means, used by ULA in this manner, that it *isn't* triple redundant - failure of any component causes a scrub.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ahhh, Boeing, turning United Launch Alliance to United Sitting Alliance.

    ReplyDelete