Talk:Vanguard (rocket)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something wrong[edit]

The articles belonging to the Juno Rocket and the one about the Jupiter-C claim that the launch vehicle for the first american satellite Explorer 1 to 3 was such a rocket and not a Vanguard rocket. Because I'm not really sure (born afterwards in 1972) I would ask the author to rethink the intro of the Vanguard rocket and also the listing at the end.

Thanks, Paule 1:50 UCT, 14. December 2006

The Vanguard was the first American rocket to attempt a satellite launch on 6/12/57. The first stage engine failed less than five seconds after launch, and the rocket fell back to earth, exploding on the pad. The Juno-1 performed the first successful launch on 1/2/58. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 11:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanguard Program (failed) satellite launch was actually the 13th Viking rocket launch. The first twelve Viking test flights were launched successfully. Only "Kaputnik" got any publicity, creating the popular meme that all US rockets blew up on the launching pad since footage of the explosion was replayed. (subject: memes created by replaying news footage)Naaman Brown (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, Viking was a smaller rocket upon which Vanguard was based. At least five of the Viking launches failed, and none of them had anything to do with launching satellites. --GW… 13:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second American satellite is Vanguard I which was launched on 17 March 1958. Explorer II failed to orbit. Explorer III was launched on 26 March 1958.[1] Vanguard I is still on orbit and will be so for centuries.

Vanguard TV-0 was originally Viking 13 and was successful. TV-1 was Viking 14 and it too was successful.[2] The famous "Kaputnick was TV-3. The TV stood for Test Vehicle. TV-3 was the first Vanguard to have all three stages flight worthy. TV-2 was a structural test of the three stage configuration , with inert 2nd and 3rd stages. The original intent was to fly the Test Vehicles (TV-0, TV-2, Tv-2 TV-3, TV-4 & TV-5) before attempting to put a satellite in orbit with SLV-1 (Satellite Launch Vehicle, Vanguard was the first SLV of many).[3] The hysteria over Sputnik caused an the press to speculate TV-3 would orbit a satellite in December. That silliness became mandatory after White House Press Secretary Hagerty told reporters that there would be a satellite launch in December. That October 9 announcement left the Vanguard team with no alternative. There was a to be a 6,4 inch 4-pound "satellite" on TV-3 & TV-4, which was to stand in for the real satellite for the first and second all-up Vanguard launches.[4] If it managed to orbit it would be, as Vanguard Program Manager James Hagen told Eisenhower, "a bonus."[5]

TV-5 was to be the first launch with the 21-inch IGY satellite aboard. TV-5 was to be a final test before the first attempt to orbit the IGY satellite.[6] The plans for the test program started to change in July. As Vanguard was a low priority program, and Martin was preoccupied with the first priority Titan ICBM, production had slipped to the point it was clear that only 2 or 3 of the planned 6 SLVs could be launched before the end of the IGY. A decision was made to put the 6-inch satellites on TV-3 and TV-4, thus making them potential "satellite carriers." Martin did manage to make the changes to TV-3 and 4 necessary to allow them to possibly put a satellite in orbit.[7]

The 6-inch satellites were constructed by the NRL as a back-up in case something, such as weight increase or low performance of the 2nd or 3rd stages at altitude, prevented orbiting the 21-pound IGY satellite. The 6-inch satellites would have been used on the last SLVS.[8] Kurt Stehling, who was head of propulsion of the Vanguard program, observed of the decision to include the 6-inch satellites on the TVs, "thus, we were to wish many times during the next months that the 6-inch spheres had never been built."[9]

Stehling also wrote "After Sputnik I a great geyser of asininities erupted in the United States . . But surely the most foolish motion of them all was the common belief that Vanguard was ready and able to are the chestnuts out of the space fire."[10] The use of the word hysteria is not far from the truth about the reaction of the American public. People, unaware that Eisenhower had U-2 photographs which proved that the Russians were not ahead of us in rocketry, were panicked with the notion of a "missile gap." I must say it was most impressive to watch Sputnik II flashing across the sky as the satellite and attached booster tumbled. As a space crazed kid I was delighted, as an American I was appalled and terrified. (I remember well just where I sat before the TV in August 1957 as the newscaster told of Russia launching the first ICBM). Learning of "Kaputnik" when I arrived home from school I joined the legion of people who damned Vanguard and deplored the decision against letting Von Braun, "Mister Space" following his appearance on the Disney Show's "Tomorrowland" series, to launch a Jupiter C the year before. It was only years, decades, later that I could see Vanguard in perspective and not as a failure.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 21:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Green, Constance; Lomask, Milton (1970). Vanguard a History. Washington D.C.: NASA. p. 290.
  2. ^ Green, Constance; Lomask, Milton (1970). Vanguard a History. Washington D.C.: NASA. p. 282.
  3. ^ Green, Constance; Lomask, Milton (1970). Vanguard a History. Washington D.C.: NASA. pp. 282–284.
  4. ^ Stehling, Kurt (1961). Vanguard. New York: Doubleday company. p. 103.
  5. ^ Green, Constance; Lomask, Milton (1970). Vanguard a History. Washington D.C.: NASA. p. 197.
  6. ^ Stehling, Kurt (1961). Vanguard. New York: Doubleday company. p. 103.
  7. ^ Stehling, Kurt (1961). Vanguard. New York: Doubleday company. p. 104.
  8. ^ Stehling, Kurt (1961). Vanguard. New York: Doubleday company. p. 105.
  9. ^ Stehling, Kurt (1961). Vanguard. New York: Doubleday company. p. 105.
  10. ^ Stehling, Kurt (1961). Vanguard. New York: Doubleday company. p. 142.

Something wrong II[edit]

Payload capacity jumped from 22.7 lb to 22.7 kg (50 lb) from Vanguard SLV 6 to Vanguard 3. That is an 220% diff. Is there any account of why or how Vanguard 3 became so much more powerfull in relation to his antecessor ? 177.53.145.242 (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vanguard III was launched with a much higher performing 3rd stage, the ABL/Hercules X-248 with higher Isp and propellant fraction than the previously used Grand Central rocket motor.Magneticlifeform (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested reorganization w/r "Project Vanguard" article[edit]

It seems to me that this article and the corresponding project article need to be re-organized a bit to put the rocket history here and the project information in the other, with brief sections in each summarizing and cross-referencing the other. Probably the Vanguard technical history, "The Vanguard Satellite Launching Vehicle — An Engineering Summary". B. Klawans. April 1960, 212 pages. Martin Company Engineering Report No 11022, should be primary here, and Green and Lomask, NASA SP 4202, needs to be the primary reference for the project. There would still need to be some overlap, and each article needs to be able to stand on its own, but I think they could use some cleaning up. Wwheaton (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vanguard (rocket). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard 3 Satellite Mass[edit]

The last line under "Launches" says the Vanguard 3 satellite was "22.7 kg (50 lb)". The link on the reference is broken. Earlier in the "Launch Summary" section, it says "successfully orbited the 24 kilograms (53 lb) Vanguard 3 satellite". This is about the same as in the Wikipedia article at "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_3" which says "Mass of the satellite was approximately 23.7 kg (52 lb)". The link on the reference given is working.

EinkomischerKauz (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vanguard_(rocket)&oldid=1209347772"