Serious shortfall

Space/Science » in reply to Possible lower than expected performance, final burn 10:27 EST

Serious shortfall

Larry J — 12/23/2004 1:15:40 AM (archived)

It appears that the perigee for the orbit is about 10,000 miles low and the inclination is 3 degrees higher than intended. The SpaceFlight Now article says that the first stage strap ons separated at least 8 seconds early. Lower than expected 1st stage performance meant the upper stage had to burn a lot longer than intended to reach the parking orbit, seriously cutting into the propellant used to boost the demo satellite to GEO.

The whole thread (33 posts)

Delta 4 Heavy on hold for launch 4:31 EST today - SteveS - 12/21/2004 7:35:07 PM
- I may sound like a broken record.... - Jacob Samorodin - 12/22/2004 4:00:19 PM
  - There may be a simplier way to increase the payload - Larry J - 12/22/2004 8:38:57 PM
    - Energia may be what Nasa has planned. I hope. - Lee - 12/23/2004 2:47:30 AM
- Possible lower than expected performance, final burn 10:27 EST - SteveS - 12/22/2004 3:11:41 AM
  - Serious shortfall - Larry J - 12/23/2004 1:15:40 AM
    - re: Serious shortfall - SteveS - 12/23/2004 1:21:13 PM
      - re: Serious shortfall - Larry J - 12/23/2004 3:58:36 PM
        
        re: Serious shortfall - SteveS - 12/24/2004 1:26:13 AM
        
        According to a rumor I've seen online... - Larry J - 12/24/2004 4:55:12 PM
        
        Maybe it packed on some extra pounds while sitting on the launch pad for over a year. ;-) (n/t) - Lee - 12/24/2004 9:57:23 PM
- re:Great details! Fantastic view! - Raoul - 12/21/2004 9:57:36 PM
  - Photo - SteveS - 12/22/2004 2:24:51 AM
    - That's a lot of soot on the side of the rocket. (n/t) - Lee - 12/22/2004 2:56:20 AM
      - Guess it's scorching from the launch, never mind. (n/t) - Lee - 12/22/2004 10:05:36 AM
  - That was very cool (n/t) - Dave - 12/21/2004 10:16:36 PM
    - re: The rocket - Raoul - 12/21/2004 10:40:51 PM
      - Damn! I missed it all - SteveS - 12/22/2004 12:19:22 AM
        
        They're still repeating it on the webcast last time I looked. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 12/22/2004 5:55:14 PM
        
        Yes, (Great link thread) (n/t) - SteveS - 12/23/2004 1:34:19 PM
- Webcast link - Larry J - 12/21/2004 9:41:57 PM
  - Great link - SteveS - 12/22/2004 2:49:47 AM
- Now planned for 4:50 p.m. EST (n/t) - Dave - 12/21/2004 9:37:28 PM
  - D'OH! I checked in on this board at 1:56 Pacific time. Looks good so far... (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 12/21/2004 9:58:40 PM
    - Geez, that sure doesn't look like a LOX/LH2 engine exhaust. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 12/21/2004 10:03:21 PM
      - Insulation (thermal shields) burning as designed - SteveS - 12/22/2004 2:58:13 AM
      - re: Geez, that sure doesn't look like a LOX/LH2 engine exhaust. - Doug Ellison - 12/21/2004 10:19:01 PM
        
        Shuttle main engine exhaust seems almost invisible (except for steam) - Tom Brosz - 12/21/2004 11:12:42 PM
        
        Steam? - et - 12/22/2004 5:02:49 AM
        
        re: Shuttle main engine exhaust seems almost invisible (except for steam) - dopey - 12/22/2004 12:35:07 AM
        
        Ah. Ablative nozzle. - Tom Brosz - 12/22/2004 4:53:38 AM
        
        re: Regenerative closed cycle staged combustin engines. - werner - 12/22/2004 1:56:58 PM
        
        I agree.... (n/t) - et - 12/21/2004 10:24:41 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Space/Science

The whole thread (33 posts)