-
#220
by
Analyst
on 16 Jun, 2007 11:37
-
Titan 4B with Milstar 2-1 in 1999.
Analyst
-
#221
by
Jim
on 16 Jun, 2007 19:36
-
Analyst - 16/6/2007 7:37 AM
Titan 4B with Milstar 2-1 in 1999.
Analyst
That really doesn't qualify as a "centaur" wrt to this launch
-
#222
by
edkyle99
on 16 Jun, 2007 19:37
-
I notice in Chris's posted video from the on-board Centaur camera that the stage seems to go loosey-goosey from about 1 to 2 minutes into the video. The event began with a video dropout. This was during the first burn. This seems to me to perhaps be more action than one would expect for a dogleg maneuver, etc. The stage even appeared to be flying a bit sideways for a short time. I wonder if Centaur got "lost" (suffered some type of momentary failure) for a moment and had to use extra propellant to make the parking orbit, then ran out of propellant during the second burn.
Now both EELV's have a failure.
- Ed Kyle
-
#223
by
Nick L.
on 17 Jun, 2007 03:16
-
Jim - 16/6/2007 3:36 PM
Analyst - 16/6/2007 7:37 AM
Titan 4B with Milstar 2-1 in 1999.
Analyst
That really doesn't qualify as a "centaur" wrt to this launch
I think the last "classic" Centaur (i.e. not a Titan Centaur) failure was AC-71 on August 23, 1992 launching Galaxy 1R, according to this:
http://geocities.com/launchreport/atlfail.txt
-
#224
by
oscar71
on 17 Jun, 2007 04:13
-
-
#225
by
Satori
on 17 Jun, 2007 16:39
-
Does anyone has the launch time in format 1512:XX.XXXUTC?
Thanks!
-
#226
by
Rocket Guy
on 17 Jun, 2007 21:22
-
-
#227
by
Shuttle Man
on 17 Jun, 2007 22:16
-
I got some dreaded quciktime error message Ben. Is it only in this format? I don't have an Apple Mac.
-
#228
by
oscar71
on 18 Jun, 2007 00:34
-
I couldn't see it either.
-
#229
by
Rocket Guy
on 18 Jun, 2007 00:45
-
Do you have Quicktime installed? It's free,
www.quicktime.com. No problems reported from anyone else
-
#230
by
NASA_Twix_JSC
on 18 Jun, 2007 01:26
-
oscar71 - 17/6/2007 7:34 PM
I couldn't see it either.
Hate quicktime players, had same problem. Would really like to see it!
-
#231
by
MKremer
on 18 Jun, 2007 02:21
-
It plays using VLC just fine.
-
#232
by
kevin-rf
on 18 Jun, 2007 12:40
-
Played fine for me (Opera v9.01, Quicktime v7.1, Windows XP Tablet), Thanks Ben
-
#233
by
elmarko
on 18 Jun, 2007 14:06
-
-
#234
by
bombay
on 19 Jun, 2007 05:28
-
McDew - 15/6/2007 6:48 PM
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/nro06157.xml&headline=NRO%20Spacecraft%20In%20Wrong%20Orbit&channel=space
Aviantion Week is reporting the Centaur malfunctioned and shut down prematurely resulting in the spacecraft placed in wrong orbit. The orbit parameters are classified.
Very ho-hum "launch failure" to say the least. I can't help but wonder if in fact a launch failure actually occured. Orbit parameters are classified, everything seemed fine through MECO-2 and SV separation, and then, whammo - wrong orbit.
No mention of a detailed failure investigation, no mention of any cascading effect relative to RL-10 engines, no stand-downs, just some benign statements with no substance.
-
#235
by
MKremer
on 19 Jun, 2007 07:02
-
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter (regardless of the ho-hum details) - failure to inject the payload into the designated orbit/transfer orbit will still be classed overall as a failure, regardless of the circumstances.
A shame, too, since Atlas-V/Centaur as had a pretty much flawless record so far.
-
#236
by
yinzer
on 19 Jun, 2007 08:09
-
bombay - 18/6/2007 10:28 PM
McDew - 15/6/2007 6:48 PM
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/nro06157.xml&headline=NRO%20Spacecraft%20In%20Wrong%20Orbit&channel=space
Aviantion Week is reporting the Centaur malfunctioned and shut down prematurely resulting in the spacecraft placed in wrong orbit. The orbit parameters are classified.
Very ho-hum "launch failure" to say the least. I can't help but wonder if in fact a launch failure actually occured. Orbit parameters are classified, everything seemed fine through MECO-2 and SV separation, and then, whammo - wrong orbit.
No mention of a detailed failure investigation, no mention of any cascading effect relative to RL-10 engines, no stand-downs, just some benign statements with no substance.
People on the SeeSat list are reporting an orbit of 776x1246km vs. a expected 1000x1200km. Not a small difference, but not fatal by any means. The US also has a history of pretending that there was a failure in order to hide something sneaky. One obvious possibility is a secret third payload that had issues resulting in the NOSS birds ending up in it's orbit rather than their own.
-
#237
by
meiza
on 19 Jun, 2007 09:21
-
Can you "pretend" a Centaur failure for secrecy reasons, it hurts LM/ULA business a lot. I don't buy it. (Or then DoD would have to compensate a lot for ULA taking the blame.)
Btw, don't take this as flamebait, but how many Atlas V launches have been done under ULA? And how has the manufacture and integration changed etc?
-
#238
by
MKremer
on 19 Jun, 2007 09:56
-
yinzer - 19/6/2007 3:09 AM
The US also has a history of pretending that there was a failure in order to hide something sneaky. One obvious possibility is a secret third payload that had issues resulting in the NOSS birds ending up in it's orbit rather than their own.
I've heard those stories, but then again, it was easier to do back when DoD services 'owned' their own birds. Now that everything is private industry and *any* launch failure can impact future commercial business with the same company, I'm not sure stories/excuses like that will work as well.
-
#239
by
WHAP
on 19 Jun, 2007 12:18
-
meiza - 19/6/2007 3:21 AM
Btw, don't take this as flamebait, but how many Atlas V launches have been done under ULA? And how has the manufacture and integration changed etc?
Two. And not much has changed yet. Things will change as the Delta and Atlas engineering are integrated in Denver and (most) manufacturing in Decatur. The former should be done this year, the latter in a couple of years.
