IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Why was MER-B launched on Delta 2 Heavy?
karolp
post Sep 2 2006, 03:07 PM
Post #1


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 147
Joined: 14-April 06
From: Berlin
Member No.: 744



Another one emerging from the vast Planetary Radio archives. Emily in her inpersonation of Sandy Moondust sitting on MER-B before launch (check the Astrobots project if unfamiliar with that biggrin.gif ) said that it was to be launched on a heavier vehicle than MER-A, namely Delta 2 heavy with strap-ons 6" thicker than a regular Delta 2. Why is that so? Why launch two identical rovers on two different rockets? And - was it also the case with the Viking and Voyager pairs?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Sep 2 2006, 03:54 PM
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2511
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (karolp @ Sep 2 2006, 08:07 AM) *
Why is that so? Why launch two identical rovers on two different rockets? And - was it also the case with the Viking and Voyager pairs?

Because the launch windows were non-overlapping (mostly because of workload on the spacecraft and Delta teams) and for the 2003 geometry the C3 (a measure of injection energy needed to get to Mars) was rising rapidly at the end of the window (see
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstre...5/1/02-1854.pdf ) MER-B needed a larger rocket.

The Vikings were launched on identical Titan-IIIE/Centaurs as far as I know. I suspect the Titan had enough excess capability to make up for any C3 differences across the window. It might be that in the days of routine dual spacecraft missions they had larger launch teams, also.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dvandorn
post Sep 2 2006, 03:55 PM
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3419
Joined: 9-February 04
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Member No.: 15



IIRC, they had to launch the Deltas from the same pad, so there had to be a separation of several weeks between the launches. At the beginning of the launch window to reach Mars in 2003, the amount of energy required to get a MER to Mars was within the capabilities of the more basic Delta II configuration. But by the end of the launch window, the energy requirement was enough greater that the Heavy configuration was required.

The problem, I believe, was more that the MERs stretched the ability of the Delta II right up to its limits. You oculdn't send anything much heavier than the MER package to Mars on a Delta II in any configuration. They nearly maxed out the launch and EDL systems with the MERs.

-the other Doug


--------------------
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Sep 2 2006, 04:43 PM
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2511
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (dvandorn @ Sep 2 2006, 08:55 AM) *
IIRC, they had to launch the Deltas from the same pad, so there had to be a separation of several weeks between the launches.

No. There are two pads at Complex 17. MER-A went from one and MER-B from the other. The end of MER-A's launch window and the start of MER-B's were only about a week apart.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dvandorn
post Sep 2 2006, 05:08 PM
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3419
Joined: 9-February 04
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Member No.: 15



OK, kewl. I know that Oppy got off literally at the very end of her launch window, as well, due to issues with (among other things) debonding of cork insulation around the booster. IIRC, Squyres made the comment at one point that no one ever proved that the cork actually stayed bonded to the vehicle during flight, and that they might have left a trail of cork pieces all along the Atlantic Missile Range...

-the other Doug


--------------------
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Sep 2 2006, 05:13 PM
Post #6


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14432
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Not really the end of its window. July 8th on a June 25th till July 15th window. Day 14 of a 21 day window. Spirit was day 3 of a 17 day window

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dvandorn
post Sep 2 2006, 05:26 PM
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3419
Joined: 9-February 04
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Member No.: 15



I seem to recall that there was considerable pressure to get Oppy off on the night she actually launched -- the speculation was that if she didn't get off that night, she might not be able to launch at all. Perhaps there was a weather system approaching that made the last week of the launch window look iffy? All I recall for certain is that the press was speculating in a "now or never" vein...

-the other Doug


--------------------
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim from NSF.com
post Sep 3 2006, 09:32 AM
Post #8


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 321
Joined: 6-April 06
From: Cape Canaveral
Member No.: 734



The cork didn't come off, since none was seen in the engine plumes. (Shedding launch vehicle debris is always is seen when it enters the plumes and is "lit up").

MERB was orginally on an Atlas II. But once the DII Heavy was available, it was found that it could meet the C3 requirements and the minimum 20 day launch period. This was a money saving measure, in that each the vehicle, integration and launch approval costs were cheaper. Integration and interfaces were identical and it ended up that the actual spacecraft were swapped because of a fuse problem. MER 2 flew on MER A launch and MER 1 flew on MER B launch.

So does anybody "really" know which rover is Spirit and which is Opportunity?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Sep 3 2006, 09:38 AM
Post #9


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14432
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



And hence why all Opportunitys images have a 1 serial number, and Spirits have 2 smile.gif

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim from NSF.com
post Sep 3 2006, 09:40 AM
Post #10


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 321
Joined: 6-April 06
From: Cape Canaveral
Member No.: 734



QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Sep 2 2006, 11:54 AM) *
The Vikings were launched on identical Titan-IIIE/Centaurs as far as I know. I suspect the Titan had enough excess capability to make up for any C3 differences across the window. It might be that in the days of routine dual spacecraft missions they had larger launch teams, also.


The Titan IIIE's were launched from the same pad, LC-41. The second vehicle was rolled to the pad and checked out and then moved to "storage", while the first vehicle was checked out and launched. Now the second vehicle could be sent back to the pad and launched. Any other LV would have required a second pad. The Titan ITL concept enabled one pad to be used. LC-40 was only configured to launch T-IIIC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim from NSF.com
post Sep 3 2006, 09:45 AM
Post #11


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 321
Joined: 6-April 06
From: Cape Canaveral
Member No.: 734



QUOTE (dvandorn @ Sep 2 2006, 11:55 AM) *
The problem, I believe, was more that the MERs stretched the ability of the Delta II right up to its limits. You oculdn't send anything much heavier than the MER package to Mars on a Delta II in any configuration. They nearly maxed out the launch and EDL systems with the MERs.

-the other Doug


Actually, this was the only time these spacecraft could have been launched on Delta II's. Missing the 03 window would have sent the spacecraft to musuems, larger LV's would have been required in 05 and 07.

You are correct in that the EDL system contrained the total weight of the vehicle. So MER exceeding the capability of the Delta II during the minimum 20 day launch period was never an issue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim from NSF.com
post Sep 3 2006, 09:49 AM
Post #12


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 321
Joined: 6-April 06
From: Cape Canaveral
Member No.: 734



QUOTE (dvandorn @ Sep 2 2006, 01:26 PM) *
I seem to recall that there was considerable pressure to get Oppy off on the night she actually launched -- the speculation was that if she didn't get off that night, she might not be able to launch at all. Perhaps there was a weather system approaching that made the last week of the launch window look iffy? All I recall for certain is that the press was speculating in a "now or never" vein...

-the other Doug


It wasn't quite that bad. But every day that MER A didn't launch, meant that MER B was delayed a day. There was a 10 day minimum interval between the missions. MERB couldn't be at the pad while MER A launched.

PS. Just a little info, I was the NASA LV integration engineer for both missions
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th April 2024 - 08:42 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.