Re: Three Launchers Return to Flight

From: Douglas Holmes (noholmesdgspam_at_verizon.net)
Date: 03/05/05 

Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:38:45 GMT

"Damon Hill" <damon1six1@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:Xns960F875A551EDdamon161attbicom@216.196.97.131...
> "Douglas Holmes" <noholmesdgspam@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:WmXVd.54900$uc.30538@trnddc08:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The successes reduce the number of "failure-recovering"
>>> rockets to three or four or five. Among these are Space
>>> Shuttle, Delta IV, and Isreal's Shavit.
>>>
>> The Delta IV Heavy has been declared successful by both the Air Force
>> and Boeing.
>> What we really need is a third category like underperform
>> to separate rockets that come up short from ones that say explode.
>
> Success and failure depend on the context of the flight;
> the recent Delta IV Heavy flight was essentially an
> engineering exercise to test the new configuration over
> a maximum flight regime. That it did limp a heavy payload
> into a lower than planned altitude without coming apart
> should make it a qualified success. And it did uncover a
> subtle problem that's needing some time to assess and
> fix.
>
> Had it been a billion-dollar NRO payload that >had< to
> get to GEO in order to be usable, I'd be leaning more towards
> calling it a qualified failure :). So might the owners of
> the two microsats that were lost.

Mostly I would agree.
I think part of it is I am thinking in terms of man-rating a rocket.
Would we consider a manned launch a failure if they reached
360km instead of 400km?

>
> And the next Heavy flight will likely be an operational one,
> so Boeing had better get their engineering act together
> to keep their bragging rights from being defaulted to
> Atlas. The perception of success is very important in
> this business.
>
> Wonder if Delta IV Heavy will have to do another 'test'
> flight, or the fix could be simulated on a Medium, or
> even just a ballasted CBC suborbital lob into the
> Atlantic?
>

My quick estimate says without fixing the problem the Delta IV
Heavy should handle between 4000 and 5000 kg to GEO instead of
the projected 6000+kg.

On the next launch the satellite masses less then 2900 kg.
That is about 40% of the test satellite, so even without fixing the problem
it can launch that satellite easily.
The one after that appears to be no more then 4000 kgs.

In other words they already had two more semi-test flights planned.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats happened to these two groups? Ill contribute.
    ... Boeing 727 (Mexicana, USAir Shuttle, Delta Shuttle) ... Longest flight by distance: LAX to SYD, ... AA, Cathay, JAL (also as AA codeshare, + ...
    (rec.travel.air)
  • Re: Three Launchers Return to Flight
    ... > The Delta IV Heavy has been declared successful by both the Air Force ... > to separate rockets that come up short from ones that say explode. ... Success and failure depend on the context of the flight; ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Delta IV Heavy Failure
    ... "The Boeing Co. today said Tuesday's flight of the new ... Delta 4 Heavy rocket was a success even though it failed ... "I am inclined to characterize the launch as a failure ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: SS1 flight set for June 21
    ... >> professional reputation is unaffected by the success or failure of the ... Payload capability can be a very, ... lead pellet ballast but DO matter a great deal to a satellite or other ... Why not let an automated flight control system ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: SS1 flight set for June 21
    ... >> professional reputation is unaffected by the success or failure of the ... Payload capability can be a very, ... lead pellet ballast but DO matter a great deal to a satellite or other ... Why not let an automated flight control system ...
    (sci.space.policy)