Documents / Report
This final report, dated September 10, 1996, was prepared by the Research Triangle Institute for the Department of the Air Force's 45th and 30th Space Wing safety offices. Titled Modeling Unlikely Space-Booster Failures in Risk Calculations, it shows how rare Mode-5 failures, in which a rocket veers well off its intended flight line, are modeled in the DAMP risk-analysis program. An appendix lists Atlas, Delta, Titan and Thor launch and failure histories through August 1996.
From the source:Release of 2026-05-08 Incident: 9/10/96, N/A. This report describes the Modeling of Unlikely Space-Booster Failures in Risk Calculations, documenting historical launch failure modes and recommending corrective actions to address them using novel modelling techniques.
“Gemini 4”3 pages
D.3.2 Delta Failure Narratives The following narratives provide available details about each Delta failure since the beginning of the Delta program. The narratives are numbered to match the flight- sequence numbers in Section D.3.1. 1. Echo I, 13 May 60, Response Mode 4, Flight Phase 2.5: Attitude control lost during second stage coast period. Third stage spun up, but did not fire. 10. Tiros E, 19 June 62, Response Mode NA, Flight Phase 5: The flight was considered a success, although failure of the BTL guidance system resulted in a propellant- depletion shutdown of the second stage. The apogee of the final orbit was 175 miles above the planned value and well outside the three-sigma limit of 76 miles. 24. S-66, 19 Mar 64, Response Mode 4, Flight Phase 3: Spacecraft did not attain orbit. Third-stage bum of X-248 motor was interrupted after 23 seconds of a planned 42- second bum period. 26. Imp B, 3 Oct 64, Response Mode NA, Flight Phase 5: The flight was considered a partial success, although it failed to reach the desired orbital altitude. The apogee was some 52,590 miles below the planned value of 110,000 miles, but perigee was within 3 miles of the desired value of 105 miles. 28. Tiros I, 22 Jan 65, Response Mode NA, Flight Phase 2 and 5: Loss of WECO guidance during second-stage burn caused second stage to burn to oxygen depletion. As a result, spacecraft was inserted into an elliptical rather than a circular orbit. 33. O50-C, 25 Aug 65, Response Mode 4, Flight Phase 2.5: Third stage ignited after spin up but before separation from second-stage spin table. Payload did not orbit. 34. GEOS A, 6 Nov 65, Response Mode NA, Flight Phase 2 and 5: The flight was considered a success, although failure of the BTL guidance system during second- stage powered flight led to a propellant-depletion shutdown of the stage. Actual apogee was 436 miles too high, and well outside the three-sigma limit. 38. AF-ff, 25 May 66, Response Mode NA, Flight Phase 2 and 5: Due to- WECO guidance failure (ground system·Iocked on side lobe), second stage burned to propellant depletion, some 12 seconds longer than expected. As a result, the orbital apogee was 800 miles higher than planned. 39. AIMP-D, 1 July 66, Response Mode NA, Flight Phase 2.5 and 5: Although an alternate mission was accomplished, primary objectives could not be achieved because excess velocity imparted to the spacecraft prevented insertion of the 9/10/96 142 RTI
Not linked to a story yet.
Report, from the pursue collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 181 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.