...the Titan IVA. The Delta whose GEM was cracked in handling. ...
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Like the 34D right after the Challenger loss, at Vandenberg, which could have
killed a lot of people in Lompoc if the wind had been blowing a different
direction?
On 2015-11-03 12:47, Henry Vanderbilt wrote:
Bill - where in that do you count liquid boosters that failed due to a
solid strap-on failure? I recall several such even without looking up
the records, which suggests this may be a statistically worthwhile
subcategory to break out.
Henry
On 11/3/2015 11:26 AM, rcktman (Redacted sender rcktman for DMARC) wrote:
Uwe:
The data set of all launches to orbit 1980 - 2010 shows solid rockets
having about 1/2 the failure rate of liquid rockets.
Bill
Sent from my Commodore 64.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AR] Re: ORS-4 ("Super Strypi") Hawaii launch delayed
Local Time: November 3 2015 11:18 am
UTC Time: November 3 2015 6:18 pm
From: uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Am 03.11.2015 um 19:12 schrieb Henry Vanderbilt:
> My experience is, it doesn't matter how conceptually simple the
> propulsion concept is. By the time it's integrated into an actual
> operationally interesting vehicle, real world considerations will
> dictate that the overall package will be complex.
>
> (And if the vehicle actually does stay simple, there's a good chance
> real-world considerations have been ignored and will come back to
bite
> it once it's flying. Naming no obvious examples...)
What is the failure rate for solid boosters if we
ignore BuSabInternal effects.
Hmm, stage trees.
uwe
