Posted on 12/22/2004 1:41:14 PM PST by leadpencil1
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - A new heavy-duty Boeing rocket designed to haul super-sized military satellites into space failed during a test flight to put a dummy satellite into its intended orbit, officials said Wednesday.
Boeing said the failure Tuesday was apparently caused by a shorter-than-planned firing of the Delta 4 Heavy rocket's three main engines. Fired simultaneously, each of the three hydrogen-powered main engines generates 17 million horsepower.
A dummy satellite carried in the rocket's nose cone was to have been delivered to a circular geosynchronous orbit - a spot 22,300 miles from Earth where the satellite would remain over the same spot on Earth at all times. Even after an extended firing of the rocket's second stage, the satellite fell short of that goal.
The Air Force paid Boeing $140 million to conduct the test rather than risk the loss of an expensive military satellite on the inaugural launch.
In a statement, a Boeing executive characterized the mission as success despite the failure of the satellite to reach its proper orbit.
"While the demonstration satellite did not reach its intended orbit, we now have enough information and confidence in the Delta 4 Heavy to move forward with preparations for the upcoming Defense Support Program launch," said Dan Collins, vice president of Boeing Expendable Launch Systems.
That mission, scheduled for next fall, is to carry a missile detection satellite into space. A third launch is to carry a secret payload for the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates the nation's fleet of spy satellites.
It is unclear what effect the rocket's failure will have on those missions.
The Air Force is still evaluating the situation and declined to comment on any potential fallout, spokesman Joe Davidson said.
ping
HERESY ALERT!!
The AF doesn't have any business in space. Neither does the Navy. Nor the Army.
They all use space products, but don't ever need to be in charge up there.
The Army didn't need a USAAF and the USAF didn't need a USAFSC. Same arguments, many years later...
/john
You have no idea what you're talking about.
My guess is that it was a performance issue on one of the first-stage engines. They're probably looking at chamber pressures, temperatures, turbopump performance, and so on to narrow down the issue.
Why is a new branch in charge of space activities a bad idea?
Heck, *I* have no idea what they're talking about...
;)
Think of all the glass houses imploding were you to prevail
I was all for aerospace up until I read the joint doctrine documents, and the individual service documents.
USAF will spawn a space service, but it needs to be separate from the other services. And there needs to be a joint doctrine document before it is devised.
I am very well read. And don't support the USAF position on this. AF needs to focus on EW and tankers.
/john
Paging Duck Dodger, in the 21st Century!!!
You know, I don't care how many horses they strap to the top of that thing, they'll never get it over 35 MPH.
Shalom.
Because it reduces AF budget somewhat, and costs in turf. But FOCUS, which leads to MASS is important in doctrine. And the air medium, up to 120k ft is enough for one service.
Besides, if you have USN, USA, USMC, USAF, USCG, et al for customers.... it's best not to have it the hands of one of those branches. Conflict of interest and all of that...
/john
It's time to launch US Star Fleet as it's own department.
Shalom.
"It's about 6,000 pounds of brass"
About 3 four star generals worth?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.