|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Delta III abandoned?
Does anyone know if Boeing has abandoned their Delta III development? The
web site http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...lta/flash.html now only lists the Delta II and IV. Given the track record of the III - out of three launches (1998, 1999, 2000) only the last was successful - it makes sense. But the web site also has no press release that I could find announcing that they were discontinuing the III. It was a ridiculous idea anyway, just shortening and widening the 1st stage of the existing (and very reliable) II. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Delta III abandoned?
Stephen the Red wrote:
Does anyone know if Boeing has abandoned their Delta III development? They have. But the web site also has no press release that I could find announcing that they were discontinuing the III. Standard procedure. When a program dies a less-than-honorable death, all records of it having existed are expunged from the PR campaigns. -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Delta III abandoned?
In article ,
Stephen the Red wrote: Does anyone know if Boeing has abandoned their Delta III development? The web site http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...lta/flash.html now only lists the Delta II and IV. It apparently was always intended that D-III would be just a transitional step toward D-IV, and the long delays resulting from the two initial launch failures let D-IV catch up with it, so there was little point in pursuing D-III further... especially with the launch market collapsing and even the Delta customers clearly unenthusiastic about D-III. ...the web site also has no press release that I could find announcing that they were discontinuing the III. Boeing would very much prefer that people just forget D-III entirely, so they aren't going to call attention to it unnecessarily. It was a ridiculous idea anyway, just shortening and widening the 1st stage of the existing (and very reliable) II. Don't forget the heavier strap-ons (which have since shown up on a heavy version of the Delta II) and the fat upper stage. D-III was obviously a slightly-kludgey intermediate step, a way of getting a new upper stage into service without having to build an all-new lower stage at the same time. Putting the diameter change at the intertank rather than the interstage appears to have been driven by a combination of pad-facilities compatibility and limiting wind loads. Larger and fancier strap-ons were probably required just to get the heavier vehicle off the ground. Given the decision to do a new upper stage, it wasn't an unreasonable design... and given that a new first stage was a bigger job and McDonnell Douglas was hoping that the EELV program would pay for that, it made sense to do the upper stage first. The result was a bit odd-looking but not at all ridiculous. McDD appears to have underestimated just how much all the changes altered the dynamic behavior of the vehicle. As it was, the first launch was *almost* a success -- the first batch of strap-ons were starting to burn out when they ran out of hydraulic fluid for nozzle vectoring, and a bit more caution in the fluid allocation or a less windy launch day might have gotten that launch past strap-on separation. -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Delta III abandoned?
"Stephen the Red" wrote in
m: Does anyone know if Boeing has abandoned their Delta III development? For all intents and purposes, yes. Given the track record of the III - out of three launches (1998, 1999, 2000) only the last was successful - it makes sense. But the web site also has no press release that I could find announcing that they were discontinuing the III. It was a ridiculous idea anyway, just shortening and widening the 1st stage of the existing (and very reliable) II. And adding an all-new high-energy upper stage. What really happened is that the III got aced out by Delta IV, but the III's upper stage went to the IV and the larger strap-ons went to the II as the Delta II Heavy. So I wouldn't call it a waste by any means. It was a transitional design that became redundant a bit early before it got all the bugs worked out. Ariane V on the other hand, still hasn't reached design maturity where it could be considered reliable. --Damon |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Delta III abandoned?
"Stephen the Red" wrote
Does anyone know if Boeing has abandoned their Delta III development? http://www.comdev.ca/pdf/IndustryArticleSep03.pdf Report from 7th World Summit for Satellite Financing, Paris Sept 8-12 [2003] Wilbur Trafton, president of Boeing Launch Services, said overcapacity among launch providers will confine the Delta IV to military operations until about 2009 and that the disappointing Delta III project is being killed. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Delta 4: heavier and bigger | Damon Hill | Space Shuttle | 17 | June 1st 04 09:36 PM |
Waste of a Delta 4 Heavy? | ed kyle | Technology | 2 | May 4th 04 01:35 AM |
Successful European DELTA mission concludes with Soyuz landing | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 1st 04 12:25 PM |
Follow the Delta launch and docking with the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | April 7th 04 06:49 PM |
Next ISS flight named DELTA | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | November 6th 03 10:09 PM |