I have to confess to not getting up to watch the scheduled 6:00 AM Vulcan launch this
morning. It has been a few days with things going on that have been a bit more
tiring than usual and sleeping in sounded better. Not so much storm
cleanup but what could be prep for the inevitable next one. Sleeping in made it
impossible to know that the launch was aborted in the last minute, and after
various precautions they recycled to launch at 7:25 AM (1125 UTC) this morning.
A friend of mine sent a quickie email saying, "looked OK from the front yard" but he's a bit farther from the Cape than I am and I don't think what happened would have been visible without a powerful, guided telescope from here. What happened? Essentially a RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly) of one of the two solid rocket boosters strapped onto the core stage of the Vulcan. The (composite, not metal) exhaust nozzle of one those boosters broke apart in flight. The booster didn't blow up, the Vulcan Centaur continued on its mission with one of the boosters putting out significantly less thrust than the other.
As the rocket arced east from Cape Canaveral, a shower of sparks suddenly appeared at the base of the Vulcan rocket around 37 seconds into the mission. The exhaust plume from one of the strap-on boosters, made by Northrop Grumman, changed significantly, and the rocket slightly tilted on its axis before the guidance system and main engines made a steering correction.
Videos from the launch show the booster's nozzle, the bell-shaped exhaust exit cone at the bottom of the booster, fall away from the rocket.
"It looks dramatic, like all things on a rocket," Bruno wrote on X. "But it’s just the release of the nozzle. No explosions occurred."
As is often the case in situations like this, a good guy to check out is Scott Manley, and he posted a good video on this early today. This is a screen grab of Scott's screen grab from another source (D Wise at NASA Spaceflight). The broken off section of the nozzle is in the red circle. It was tumbling and the moment I grabbed the picture was when you can look through the nozzle - still glowing hot - and see the sky behind it.
Remarkably, the solid rocket didn't explode, the Vulcan's control systems saw that the thrust was lower than expected and the rocket wasn't on the planned trajectory, so it adjusted what it could to regain a nominal flight. The main stage with it's Blue Origin-supplied BE-4 methane/oxygen engines burned seconds longer than the normal, expected flight, and then shut down and fell away, as it should have. The Centaur V upper stage started and burned, with the onscreen video's timer showing the Centaur's RL-10 engines burned approximately 20 seconds longer than planned, apparently also to compensate for the lower thrust from the damaged booster during the first phase of the flight. The Centaur upper stage completed a second burn about a half-hour into the mission.
ULA CEO Tory Bruno considered the mission a success, saying "Orbital insertion was perfect" on X. The US Space Force hailed the test flight as a "certification milestone" in a press release after the launch. Clearly, both ULA and Space Force have a vested interest in certifying the Vulcan for the National Security missions it will carry; equally clearly, US Space Force would face more criticism for approving the Vulcan if this should recur. Or get worse.
A photo taken a few seconds after liftoff shows the BE-4 Main engines with their
light blue Mach Diamonds, accompanied on both sides by the solid rocket
boosters. Both appear to be "normal and healthy" in this photo. Image credit:
United Launch Alliance
If this happened on a SpaceX certification flight, sure as God made little green apples SpaceX wouldn't be certified. Not in these times.
ReplyDeleteGood for ULA for being able to get around the issue and succeed in the flight.
Though I'm wondering how long it will take to mitigate the issue.
It's remarkable that they were able to compensate for such a significant failure and still reach the desired orbit. Kudos for a good job adapting in real time.
ReplyDeleteI suspect the vehicles programming included the actions to attempt to make up for such a problem. Or any other that caused loss of thrust.
DeleteThere is no controlling the thrust level of solid boosters. Once they light, they burn. I do not believe the solids on Vulcan have thrust vectoring (as they did on Shuttle and do on SLS) so there is nothing to be done there, but the main booster is almost guaranteed to carry some extra propellant to make up for problems, and same for Upper Stage.
After a lifetime of designing control loops in various radios, I've become rather fond of them. Those are generally primitive compared to what seems to be going on here.
DeleteIn Scott's video, he points out places where you can see the controller working in the attitude of the rocket, presumably trying to get back on the programmed path.
Yep, I was awake at 04:00 MT to watch. Being a Solid-fuel semi-expert (minuteman missiles) I immediately noticed the one SRB's exhaust plume wasn't quite right, and then I saw sparks. Just before going into the clouds I saw the explosion and detachment of the nozzle but still saw the SRB putting out exhaust in the right direction with no sign of burn-through on the SRB body - a very "good" sign. The TVC of the Vulcan 1st stage did an adequate job of compensation at the sudden loss of most of the thrust on that side, and getting into the proper orbit (and also dropping the SRBs into the proper splash area) was a VERY good job on the programmers part!
ReplyDeleteStill, if the problem had been on a SpaceX launch I wonder if the FAA would have had a cow and the vehicle would not have been certified! Granted, the SRBs were NOT manufactured directly by ULA but by Thiokol (whatever they are called now!) and Something Wasn't Made Right - which DOES affect future launches no matter who is at fault. Downcheck on that, a very solid upcheck on the control programming! ULA was *definitely* given the benefit of the doubt here.
I still wouldn't trusty 'em yet, sports fans.......
think since June '18 (thru Orbital ATK) it's now a part of Northrop Grumman
DeleteBingo! Scott Manley's video mentions that they're now Northrop Grumman, and I think the place they're built is the direct descendant of the ones who made the Shuttle SRBs.
DeleteSiG, the Minuteman first and second stages were built by (then) Thiokol, I'm very familiar with how these puppies are built, especially long-term "storage" (in the missile launch tube) without cracking or chemical degradation. Slightly important stuff...
DeleteMost of the SRBs built here in the USA are descendants of Thiokol and their ilk. We still have the solid booster test facility just down the road a ways from me here in the SLC area. Hey, if I get wind of another big booster test I can wander down that way and watch the fireworks!! I'll bring marshmallows... Heh.
I've seen quite enough. This government, not mine I'll tell you what, is nothing now but an organized criminal gang, and they are 2 legged leaches who rob regular honest good folks of their wealth under the guise of a lucrative paycheck for some kind of "authority." The thin veneer of legitimacy essentially no longer exists, truth be told, and I am beginning to understand this has been the case for as long as this Republic has been around, 1859... tick tock anyone? If I am not mistaken, they all seem not to care any longer about that fact to boot. It is disgusting as nothing else is, Aforethought and Malice. It turns my puce.
ReplyDeleteNot for nothing either, these ruthless criminals along with their globalist elite overlords, they do not truly understand just how mad good folks get, when their codes are violated.
Good thing those BE4 engines worked as well as they apparently did!
ReplyDeleteSeriously.
DeleteFrom an unusual perspective, it might have been the best thing ULA could have done on a test flight. Test under 3-sigma, or at least far from nominal conditions.
BE-4s are complete unknowns compared to Raptors simply because they've made and tested so many Raptors. BE-4s need hours of flying to equal the Starship test flights.
Those BE4's look like shuttle engines. Did they borrow from Rocketdyne's design I wonder, pretty reliable engine, make a lot of common sense to do so, save a lot of R&D testing time.
Delete