Yes, that's the title given by AP.
[ For Educational Purposes Only ]

http://www.tampabayonline.net/news/news101p.htm
Six Launch Failures In Less Than Nine Months: What's Going On?

[ This is an AP Breaking News URL which will go dead in a few hours ]

5/5/99 -- 4:20 PM

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - Two launch explosions. Three satellites stuck in useless orbits. Another satellite vaporized in the atmosphere.

The United States has had six U.S. rocket failures in less than nine months with losses totaling $3.5 billion, mostly at taxpayer expense.

It's the worst string of botched U.S. rocket launches since the mid-1980s; space shuttle Challenger was among the casualties back then.

The question being asked Wednesday just hours after the latest mishap was: What's going on?

``The problem, I think, is that this is still hard. We have not learned how to make the launch systems that we have anywhere near the reliability of aircraft, for example,'' said John Logsdon, director of George Washington University's space policy institute.

``And so as long as we use these systems, there are going to be failures. Now when they all come in a row, it's really kind of nasty. But statistically, I think that's as likely as any other outcome.''

The six rockets were carrying three military satellites, two commercial communication satellites, and a privately owned satellite capable of taking detailed, military-quality photographs of Earth.

Three of the rockets were launched by the Air Force; three by aerospace companies.

As for the safety implications for NASA's space shuttle program, the shuttle itself, at least, has no parts in common with the errant rockets. But the same two contractors that built them - Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. - also work on the shuttle.

``Underneath, there may be some systemic problems,'' Logsdon said.

Still, the shuttle program has been affected by the launch fiascos.

Columbia is grounded, and its telescope-delivery mission in July is on hold, until the Air Force figures out why an upper-stage motor on a Titan IV rocket failed during a satellite launch last month. The same kind of motor will be used to propel NASA's $1.5 billion Chandra X-ray telescope.

Boeing's newest rocket, the Delta III, was the latest to flop.

After a month of delays, including a countdown that went all the way down to zero without an engine ignition, the Delta III blasted off Tuesday night. Everything seemed to go well until 22 minutes into the flight, when the upper stage that's needed to boost the satellite into a higher orbit either did not fire for the second time or did not fire long enough.

Instead of circling Earth thousands of miles high, the communication satellite was left in a useless, lopsided orbit 98 miles by about 860 miles. The chances of saving the satellite were slim.

It was the second botched flight in a row for the Delta III, which was intended to grab more of the launch market for Boeing.

The inaugural flight in August ended in a fireball 71 seconds after liftoff because of a poor computer program. The satellite was destroyed.

Also in August, an Air Force Titan IV rocket carrying a spy satellite blew up less than a minute into flight. An Air Force investigation uncovered faulty wiring as well as questionable quality control by Lockheed Martin. All Titan models were grounded during the investigation.

The Titan IV - the Pentagon's most powerful rocket and the only one able to lift hefty military payloads - was back in action April 9. But the missile-warning satellite it was carrying ended up in a useless orbit.

Another Titan IV lifted off last Friday, but that military communication satellite also ended up in an orbit thousands of miles too low.

Air Force Brig. Gen. Randy Starbuck, who is in charge of the Cape Canaveral Air Station, said there appears to be no similarities among the three failed Titan IV missions, which cost about $1 billion each. Nonetheless, Titan launches are on hold, as are Deltas.

In the midst of all this, Lockheed Martin's relatively new Athena II rocket failed following its launch from California last week. A protective shroud did not separate from the Earth-imaging satellite aboard and dragged it back down through the atmosphere, where it burned up.

Gale Schluter, a Boeing vice president, said one explanation for recent launch failures may be that so many more rockets are flying. Boeing averaged six rocket launches a year from 1993 to 1998, and expects to triple that from 1998 to 2003.

``We're seeing not only an increase in rates, but we're also seeing new products being brought to market, and I think when you put all that together, that has a bearing on the performance that we're seeing right now,'' he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), May 05, 1999

Answers

Systemic ripples and consequences. Delays and shut-downs. Very large amounts of wasted money. And they still don't know the cause or the fix. Sound familiar?

mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmm

-- Ashton (allaha@earthlink.net), May 05, 1999.

Could it be sabotage? or is that just wishful thinking?

-- MRS. PEABODY (none@no.where), May 05, 1999.

How about budget cutbacks, layoff of experienced personnel, increase in workloads, diminished quality control procedures?

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 05, 1999.

I don't understand why they exploded either! They were 92 percent compliant!

-- Czar (john_k@spin.gov), May 05, 1999.

Mrs Peabody,

Shame on you for thinking such "doom and gloom" thoughts. Just because we"re getting a visit at work from NASA and Air Force investigators over what made Titan go "BOOM", with questions about "Was this wiring fault really so hard to miss?" doesn't mean it was an intentional act.

I mean, just because having the USA at a space-based reconnaisance, communications and early warning disadvantage would be just what an advisary possibly planning to attack if Y2K goes bad would want. It doesn't mean they would have activated sleeper agents placed at key aerospace contractors to sabotage such launches, now would it?

We were BS-ing at work today and came to the same conclusions ourselves. And some of us with military backgrounds do see how very easy it could be done, too. Of course, sabotage of space launches is something that only "crazy people" like Gen. Keegan (USAF, Retired) would ever consider. But I saw Keegan be right about a lot of other issues, and I'm afraid his Challenger accident theories can very well apply to this situation as well.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), May 05, 1999.

Years ago, maybe about 10 years, I saw a guy on a talk show who claimed that the Soviets were sabotaging our rocket launches. I did not get to see the whole show. I do remember he claimed that they were using lasers mounted on ships off the coast of Florida to do the damage. At the time of the Challenger explosion there were four other failed launches. The odds of this were calculated to be millions to one. Who knows?

-- Joe O (ozarkjoe@yahoo.com), May 05, 1999.

Let's steal an idea from the Chinese for a change. Order the head of NASA to fly the next mission!

-- (snowleopard6@webtv.net), May 05, 1999.

Upon hearing of the Apache crash with two lives lost, Sweetie yelled, "Of course it did if they're only getting an hour a month to keep up their proficiency!" He calmed down and said that's an exaggeration but that for five years flight hours have been decimated as part of the defense cutbacks and it was a miracle there hadn't been more military aviation mishaps. I vote for Tom's explanation about the launches.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 05, 1999.

I think the key to it is that "this is still hard." We are lulled by strings of successes, to the point where we look for evil influences when we have more problems. It's amazing we have as many successes as we do. Millions of critical moving parts, a mind-boggling supply chain, contracts to low bidders, all needing to work together perfectly. Each successful launch surprises me more than any failure.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 05, 1999.

" It's amazing we have as many successes as we do. Millions of critical moving parts, a mind-boggling supply chain, contracts to low bidders, all needing to work together perfectly. Each successful launch surprises me more than any failure. "

I think if you substitute the word remediation for launch in the above statement you will have summed up the doomer point of view pretty well.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 05, 1999.

heh heh heh

you beat me to that one Nikoli, LOL

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.

Nikoli and Andy:

Yes, I agree with both of you completely. It does indeed closely resemble the remediation progress. And failures are so unusual we marvel at them and dream up conspiracies to explain them.

I expect y2k will probably be much the same.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 05, 1999.

Yes flint and ya know what?

There are two conspiracies.

A digit. And another digit.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.

USAF Satellite Launch Failures Now Total $3 BILLION In Last 9 Months

By Steven Young 5-4-99

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force Tuesday officially declared last Friday's $1.2 billion launch of a communications satellite a "mission failure" and started an investigation into the accident, its third costly space failure in nine months.

Friday's launch left a Milstar communications satellite stranded tens of thousands of miles below its intended orbit by an apparent problem with the Centaur upper stage booster on its Titan 4B rocket.

It was the Air Force's third consecutive launch breakdown, following the explosion of a Titan 4 carrying a spy satellite in August 1998 and a botched launch on April 9 that left a missile warning satellite in the wrong orbit. The total cost of the failed missions has reached about $3 billion.

In a statement, the Air Force said ground controllers had gained control of the stranded $800 million communications satellite in its irregular egg-shaped orbit. They deployed its electricity-generating solar panels and were monitoring it.

"It is too soon to speculate on the final disposition of the spacecraft," the statement said.

However, industry and military sources said it was very unlikely it could be maneuvered into its intended orbit 22,300 miles (35,680 km) above the equator using its limited onboard fuel supply.

Milstar is the U.S. military's most sophisticated and costly communications satellite. The relay stations were designed during the Cold War to survive nuclear war and keep U.S. leaders in contact with military forces around the globe.

An Air Force investigation board was to convene at Cape Canaveral this week to probe the latest failure, the effects of which are being felt throughout the space industry.

A Titan 4B rocket, which was scheduled for launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California Friday, is on hold while mission managers check the rocket. The booster is carrying a top secret spy satellite for the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office.

NASA is reviewing plans for three of its upcoming launches:

-- Pre-flight preparations for the space agency's $1.5 billion Chandra X-ray observatory aboard space shuttle Columbia are on hold, because it will use the same type of solid fuelled upper stage believed to be responsible for the April 9 Titan mission failure. The launch was scheduled for July 9 but will slip nearly two weeks or more.

-- An Atlas 2 rocket, which uses a Centaur upper stage similar to the one on the Titan, was to have launched a weather satellite on May 15. Mission managers are meeting this week to decide whether to proceed with preflight preparations.

-- A Titan 2 rocket, a less powerful model than the Titan 4, is due to launch a NASA ocean wind monitoring satellite on May 29 from Vandenberg. Project officials are assessing what impact, if any, the Air Force failures will have on this mission.

"We can't just ignore that these other systems have had problems," NASA spokesman Bruce Buckingham said. "We are being prudent."

Boeing Co., meanwhile, decided to go ahead with a $230 million satellite delivery mission Tuesday using its new Delta 3 rocket, after delaying the launch two days to learn more about Friday's Titan trouble.

The commercial Delta 3, which failed on its maiden flight in August 1998, uses a modified version of the engine on the Titan's Centaur upper stage. Boeing decided to proceed after learning the Titan failure appeared unrelated to systems on its rocket.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.

I have every confidence in General Starbuck.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), May 06, 1999.

I hope THIS is he rocket technology the Chinese stole courtesy of old Billy Bob in the White House.

-- kozak (kozak@formerusaf.guv), May 07, 1999.

[ For Educational Purposes Only ]

Military Satellite Declared Dead

May 13, 1999, Web posted at: 1:27 p.m. EDT (1727 GMT), CNN

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (AP) -- An $800 million military satellite has been declared dead, nearly two weeks after its botched launch.

The Air Force said Wednesday that the Milstar communication satellite will never reach its intended 22,300-mile-high orbit or serve any purpose.

The satellite poses no threat to other spacecraft in its lopsided orbit, said Air Force spokesman Aaron Renenger. It could remain in orbit for hundreds of years.

The Milstar was launched into the wrong orbit April 30 by a Titan IV rocket. It was the third consecutive failure for the program.

An investigation is continuing. The trade journal Aviation Week & Space Technology reported this week that the problem may have been inaccurate computer software involving the rocket's upper stage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), May 14, 1999.