-
#100 by edkyle99 on 03 Mar, 2007 19:24
-
Quote
bigdog - 3/3/2007 1:23 PM
Quoteedkyle99 - 1/3/2007 8:47 PM
Success/Attempts
Atlas 5 8/8
Delta 4M 6/6
What about Ariane 4? This is the closest to A5 & DIV Medium & Intermediate. I know the total was very big but it's the success percentage you get from the numbers that matters.
Ariane 4 is no longer in service. I wanted to compare active launch vehicles.Quote
Ariane 5-ECA 7/8Quote
What about the basic Ariane V version? They will not all be ECA's from now on will they?
The "G" version is being phased out in favor of the "E" version with the Vulcain-2 engine, although at least one more "G" launch is planned. The "G" record stands at 19 successes in 22 attempts, which is in the same reliability ballpark as the "E" version to date. ECA will probably handle most of the GTO launches from now on. A new "ES" version (an "E" core with a hypergolic EPS-V upper stage) will launch the ATV missions to ISS.Quote
Delta 4H 0/1Quote
I'd make this 0.9/1 since was only a demo flight and everything was successful except the final orbit. In other words it didn't blow up like a few Ariane 5's. Plus as someone pointed out in another thread or maybe it was earlier in this one if that DIV heavy launched the DSP that's going up next it would have made it orbit and had room to spare.
The CBC strap-on boosters and core stage all shut down 8-9 seconds early, with the result that several planned microsatellites were deployed into a suborbital trajectory and burned up. The main dummy payload, "Demosat", was stranded in a 19,029 x 36,408 km x 13.48 degree orbit versus the planned 36,342 km circular at 10 degrees. The Delta 4 Heavy didn't do what it was supposed to do. It didn't even come close. This was a launch vehicle failure by any measure.
- Ed Kyle -
#101 by bigdog on 03 Mar, 2007 19:37
-
Quote
Jim - 3/3/2007 12:40 PM
1. They found out it is a disadvantage. While another vehicle is at the pad or the pad is down for mods. The vehicle just sits in the HIF without any testing. There are been so many post shipment mods (Decatur doesn't ship clean vehicles) and fixes that testing in HIF would save time...
95% of the testing done at the Pad can't be done at the HIF and never could. The rocket needs to be vertical to properly test control systems, test with Range assests and do simulated flights. You are correct about the mods but the testing of those mods is almost always covered by the normal pad testing so nothing to be gained.QuoteAltas tests the booster (they can connect it to the upperstage) but more so the Centaur where the bulk of the avionics are.
I'm guessing they don't normally connect to the upper stage so doesn't sound like much of an advantage. The Centaur testing is required because it's not done in San Diego and probably could be done at the VIF so it's only an advantage if they are in a long down time as you mention or if they had a high launch rate. Under ULA is there any chance the Centaur testing will get moved to Decatur?Quote3. No, the CBC's have different centerbodys, interstages and more, not just SRM attach hardware. A D-IV medium can only be a medium, not a medium plus, nor can it handle 5m upperstage.
They are only different if you count cabling and ordnance lines etc. to the SRM's or strap-ons. The attach points for both of those are on the metal skirts on the tanks not the composites.
Look closely at a Medium, I believe you'll see the structural mounts for SRM's. Same for a 4/2 for the 3rd & 4th SRM's of a 5/4.
The Heavy CBC's are also unique. Structurally a little not electrically.QuoteAn Atlas CCB can be 401, 421, 431, 501, 511, 521, 531, etc. They can swap them, they can can start integration for a 531 and realize more thrust is needed and just add an SRM at the launch site. All CCB's are identical. Even the proposed Atlas V heavy. It truly is a "common' core.
I really doubt this. Do they really put in all the cabling etc. for 5 solids in for a launch with 3 solids planned? Do they install Safe & Arm devices for separating the solids if it's only a 401? If they don't then they are not truely common. Any of that can be added later on a CBC just as I bet it would be on a CCB.Quote4. Not quite that easy, there are more medium plus vehicles and therefore have solids that need to be removed.
That's why I tried to stick to heavies since regardless of "stacking" method the solids only go on vertical. Still not taking apart the primary stages is more of an advantage. -
#102 by bigdog on 03 Mar, 2007 19:50
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 3/3/2007 1:24 PM
The CBC strap-on boosters and core stage all shut down 8-9 seconds early, with the result that several planned microsatellites were deployed into a suborbital trajectory and burned up. The main dummy payload, "Demosat", was stranded in a 19,029 x 36,408 km x 13.48 degree orbit versus the planned 36,342 km circular at 10 degrees. The Delta 4 Heavy didn't do what it was supposed to do. It didn't even come close. This was a launch vehicle failure by any measure.
- Ed Kyle
The microsats were a late addition that Boeing really didn't want on a demo flight since if something did go wrong it would look worse than it should. The upper stage had no real control on when they were released as in once it was at the correct altitude. The vehicle only had to trigger a timer for an experimental release system provided by the Air Force after the first shut off of the second stage engine, it did that correctly. Since it had not made up the shortfall from the first stage yet they released themselves too soon. If it had been able to control as it does for any other payload they would not have been lost.
As a demo mission it demonstarted all but one milestone so it was a success in that sense. It may not even be fair to compare it with Ariane since it did not lose a multi-hundred million dollar satelite. Level of success is in the eye of the beholder and the Air Force & NRO saw it as a success and if your customer is okay with it I guess that's all that matters. -
#103 by Jim on 03 Mar, 2007 20:03
-
Quote
bigdog - 3/3/2007 3:50 PM
As a demo mission it demonstarted all but one milestone so it was a success in that sense. It may not even be fair to compare it with Ariane since it did not lose a multi-hundred million dollar satelite. Level of success is in the eye of the beholder and the Air Force & NRO saw it as a success and if your customer is okay with it I guess that's all that matters.
NASA doen't consider it a success. And NRO didn't really. That's why DSP is first -
#104 by Jim on 03 Mar, 2007 20:08
-
You still don't understand. Aside from some electrical cabling for the SRB's, all Atlas V CCB's are exactly the same. This is not true for D-IV. They have different centerbodies, interstages, LOX and LH2 tanks. Each D-IV CBC is different from the first day of construction and is not interchangeable. I am not at work, but I believe there are 2 different LOX tanks and 3 LH2 tanks.
-
#105 by Nick L. on 03 Mar, 2007 20:58
-
Quote
The CBC strap-on boosters and core stage all shut down 8-9 seconds early, with the result that several planned microsatellites were deployed into a suborbital trajectory and burned up. The main dummy payload, "Demosat", was stranded in a 19,029 x 36,408 km x 13.48 degree orbit versus the planned 36,342 km circular at 10 degrees. The Delta 4 Heavy didn't do what it was supposed to do. It didn't even come close. This was a launch vehicle failure by any measure.
- Ed Kyle
It was a TEST flight no matter what kind of "demonstration" they spun it to be. It was intended to find things that could go wrong. They found something that would prevent a successful mission from occurring, and fixed it.That's why Demosat was close to the maximum capacity to GSO (about 6000kg), and not the ~2500kg of a DSP-to test the limits. That's why mothers worry about their children becoming test pilots-because so much can go wrong on the first flight. And that's why it takes quite a bit of confidence (and higher insurance costs in all likelihood) to launch a valuable payload on a vehicle that has never flown before-because it is new and untested. The Air Force/NRO/whatever decided not to take that chance for exactly that reason.
So you can call it a failure if you really think that they flew the mission just to put an expensive, heavy aluminum can in geostationary orbit. But if you look at it for what it was- a TEST flight-it was at least a partial success.
-
#106 by Jim on 03 Mar, 2007 21:27
-
For insurance and NASA future usage, it is still a failure
-
#107 by bigdog on 03 Mar, 2007 21:29
-
Quote
Jim - 3/3/2007 2:08 PM
You still don't understand. Aside from some electrical cabling for the SRB's, all Atlas V CCB's are exactly the same. This is not true for D-IV. They have different centerbodies, interstages, LOX and LH2 tanks. Each D-IV CBC is different from the first day of construction and is not interchangeable. I am not at work, but I believe there are 2 different LOX tanks and 3 LH2 tanks.
I understand fine because unless they have all that cabling they are not common, not in way you imply. The CBC Tanks are all the same from one vehicle to the next. Any difference is with the rings attached to the tanks. The composite structures aside from 4 vs. 5 meter interstage are the same too. The different tanks are on the second stage. If you still think you're right prove it or at least decsribe how one is different than another with say a Medium LH2 tank vs. a Medium plus or with a Centerbody. At least then I can check your facts. -
#108 by bigdog on 03 Mar, 2007 21:39
-
Quote
Jim - 3/3/2007 2:03 PM
Quotebigdog - 3/3/2007 3:50 PM
As a demo mission it demonstarted all but one milestone so it was a success in that sense. It may not even be fair to compare it with Ariane since it did not lose a multi-hundred million dollar satelite. Level of success is in the eye of the beholder and the Air Force & NRO saw it as a success and if your customer is okay with it I guess that's all that matters.
NASA doen't consider it a success. And NRO didn't really. That's why DSP is first
DSP was already first, long before heavy demo flew. The NRO just won't move theirs up if DSP hits a big snag. I'd bet if it got critial they would change their mind. They also are behind the upgrade at VAFB for a heavy. The partial success or failure how ever you want to call it didn't seem to shake their confidence that it will be a reliable launcher. -
#109 by Jim on 04 Mar, 2007 00:38
-
Quote
bigdog - 3/3/2007 5:29 PM
I understand fine because unless they have all that cabling they are not common, not in way you imply. The CBC Tanks are all the same from one vehicle to the next. Any difference is with the rings attached to the tanks. The composite structures aside from 4 vs. 5 meter interstage are the same too. The different tanks are on the second stage. If you still think you're right prove it or at least decsribe how one is different than another with say a Medium LH2 tank vs. a Medium plus or with a Centerbody. At least then I can check your facts.
The Atlas V SRB cables are missions kits, which can be added and subtracted at will, therefore each CCB coming off the line can be used for any configuration.
You need to do the research and recheck the lack of your facts. I know they are different from experience -
#110 by Antares on 04 Mar, 2007 01:31
-
Quote
bigdog - 3/3/2007 3:37 PM
Bigdog, please stop arguing with people who KNOW. As I understand it, there are 5 flavors of CBC that ship from Decatur.
I'm guessing....
I really doubt this...
0 solids
2 solids
4 solids
Heavy Center
Heavy Strap-on.
There are some opportunities to get that down by 1 or 2.
There is 1 type of CCB that ships from Denver. It isn't locked into a certain configuration until some holes are plugged late in the flow at the Cape.QuoteThe Centaur testing is required because it's not done in San Diego...
The Centaur testing could never be done in San Diego because it isn't anywhere near finished until it goes to Denver. -
#111 by Nick L. on 04 Mar, 2007 02:31
-
Quote
Antares - 3/3/2007 8:31 PM
2 solids
4 solids
Why would there be a 2-solid-only CBC? All of the Delta IVs that have flown with solids have mounting points for four. -
#112 by edkyle99 on 04 Mar, 2007 03:29
-
Quote
Nick L. - 3/3/2007 3:58 PM
Quote
The CBC strap-on boosters and core stage all shut down 8-9 seconds early, with the result that several planned microsatellites were deployed into a suborbital trajectory and burned up. The main dummy payload, "Demosat", was stranded in a 19,029 x 36,408 km x 13.48 degree orbit versus the planned 36,342 km circular at 10 degrees. The Delta 4 Heavy didn't do what it was supposed to do. It didn't even come close. This was a launch vehicle failure by any measure.
- Ed Kyle
It was a TEST flight no matter what kind of "demonstration" they spun it to be. It was intended to find things that could go wrong.
Regardless of how the MISSION turned out, the LAUNCH VEHICLE failed. There is no such thing as a partial success for a launch vehicle. It either does what it is supposed to do, or it doesn't.
- Ed Kyle -
#113 by Analyst on 04 Mar, 2007 06:58
-
The discussion of how to classify the Delta IV Heavy launch is a little bit academic. It failed to achive the proper orbit, left its payload stranded, therefore it is a failure. But on the other hand it did achive orbit, it did not explode, had no engine failure etc. and proved the design and also showed some design problems. Like AS-502: no total success, but no complete failure like the first Ariane V.
With DSP it *would" have achived GEO. I think the problem with both EELVs is not the design or performance of the rockets, but the lack of payloads. I don't know of any plans to use the Heavy after the next two Delta IVH. Both, Atlas and Delta, launch almost only government payloads, because in the commercial market both EELVs are not competitive, for whatever reason.
Analyst -
#114 by Space Lizard on 04 Mar, 2007 10:29
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 4/3/2007 5:29 AM
QuoteNick L. - 3/3/2007 3:58 PM
Quote
The CBC strap-on boosters and core stage all shut down 8-9 seconds early, with the result that several planned microsatellites were deployed into a suborbital trajectory and burned up. The main dummy payload, "Demosat", was stranded in a 19,029 x 36,408 km x 13.48 degree orbit versus the planned 36,342 km circular at 10 degrees. The Delta 4 Heavy didn't do what it was supposed to do. It didn't even come close. This was a launch vehicle failure by any measure.
- Ed Kyle
It was a TEST flight no matter what kind of "demonstration" they spun it to be. It was intended to find things that could go wrong.
Regardless of how the MISSION turned out, the LAUNCH VEHICLE failed. There is no such thing as a partial success for a launch vehicle. It either does what it is supposed to do, or it doesn't.
It is quite similar to what happened on the second Ariane 5 which suffered from unexpected spin of the core stage that led to early shutdown and lower than expected apogee in GTO.
This low performance would have led to significant loss in lifetime for a commercial payload, hence it was considered a failure.
The event that caused the problem was very difficult to reproduce and test on the ground (even after it was known to exist) and the flight allowed to qualify lots of modifications introduced after the maiden launch failture. A lot was learnt from this flight and no operational mission was lost, hence it was mostly lived as a success... -
#115 by Jim on 04 Mar, 2007 13:23
-
Quote
Analyst - 4/3/2007 2:58 AM
I don't know of any plans to use the Heavy after the next two Delta IVH. Both, Atlas and Delta, launch almost only government payloads, because in the commercial market both EELVs are not competitive, for whatever reason.
Analyst
There is an east coast heavy in a few years and VAFB pad is currently being upgraded to take a heavy which will be the following mission after the next west coast medium -
#116 by edkyle99 on 04 Mar, 2007 17:08
-
Quote
Analyst - 4/3/2007 1:58 AM
The discussion of how to classify the Delta IV Heavy launch is a little bit academic. It failed to achive the proper orbit, left its payload stranded, therefore it is a failure. But on the other hand it did achive orbit, it did not explode, had no engine failure etc. and proved the design and also showed some design problems. Like AS-502: no total success, but no complete failure like the first Ariane V.
Although the Apollo 6 mission was able to achieve some of its objectives, AS-502 was a launch vehicle failure, plain and simple. The S-IVB stage failed to restart. The SLA suffered a structural failure. Etc.QuoteWith DSP it *would" have achived GEO.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. It wasn't a DSP payload. The launch vehicle failed to meet the assigned objectives on this flight. There was a failure, a post-flight failure investigation, engineering changes to the vehicle design, etc.
- Ed Kyle -
#117 by bigdog on 04 Mar, 2007 21:32
-
Quote
Jim - 3/3/2007 6:38 PM
The Atlas V SRB cables are missions kits, which can be added and subtracted at will, therefore each CCB coming off the line can be used for any configuration.
You need to do the research and recheck the lack of your facts. I know they are different from experience
I will re-check my facts but it's not a lack of them. My facts came from people who actually work on the hardware and from experience. That info may be a bit dated so I'll double check but it would help me if you could explain how those parts of the CBC you speak of are not the same.
You say the tanks are different, how? Thinner/thicker, shorter/longer etc.?
If the 2 SRM CBC has mounts for 4 SRM's it would seem it only lacks the "mission kits" that Atlas does. How is it not the same?
Also how does the Atlas come off the line? No SRM Kits installed or the number planned for that mission?
I don't want to argue with you and did not intend to as you clearly know a lot about these vehicles. I look for your help to better undrstand your position.
-
#118 by bigdog on 04 Mar, 2007 21:50
-
Quote
Antares - 3/3/2007 7:31 PM
Quotebigdog - 3/3/2007 3:37 PM
Bigdog, please stop arguing with people who KNOW..
I'm guessing....
I really doubt this...
You are correct I was argueing and I should have backed up my position with more detail. As I said in my reply to Jim I got my information from people who work on the rocket. I asked him to help me with more detail and I extend that request to anyone on this forum.QuoteAs I understand it, there are 5 flavors of CBC that ship from Decatur.
0 solids
2 solids
4 solids
Heavy Center
Heavy Strap-on.
There are some opportunities to get that down by 1 or 2.
There is 1 type of CCB that ships from Denver. It isn't locked into a certain configuration until some holes are plugged late in the flow at the Cape..
My information supports what you say about the CBC "flavors" but it's at a high level final assembly not at the generic assembly or sub assembly i.e. centerbody. Based on that I see the CBC as no different than the CCB from a commonality perspective once all the holes are plugged for example. The difference as I know it is the configuration is "locked' at Decatur instead of the Cape.QuoteQuoteThe Centaur testing is required because it's not done in San Diego...
The Centaur testing could never be done in San Diego because it isn't anywhere near finished until it goes to Denver.
I did not know why the testing was not done in San Diego just that it was not, thanks for the clarification. I was only trying to point out that the testing done at the Cape is needed and an advantage to horizontal processing whereas any testing for Delta IV was not.
I'll try not to get fired up and keep the discussion civil.
-
#119 by bigdog on 04 Mar, 2007 22:00
-
Jim,
I just thought of something else that you are likely just the right person to help with.
Since it's only been designed would the Atlas Heavy CCB's really as common as the others? Why would they build them with mounting points for 5 SRM's on each? Would that not be an un-needed weight penalty? Would they not impact the connection of the CCB's together?
