Tod says:
* @Jack Hagerty: It was a serious question (why would you
* think otherwise?)

Sorry. I thought I detected a bit of smirk in your original posting.

* I think you misunderstood. It wasn’t the “vanguard” moniker
* so much as the “1? designator since two earlier attempts to
* launch had failed.

Ah, yes. I did misunderstand. Vanguard was a development program, the ultimate test of which was orbiting a satellite, but the purpose was to develop the capability to do so more than the satellite itself. The early vehicles were designated TV, as I mentioned, for “Test Vehicle.” Also, it isn’t uncommon to rename flights once they’d been successfully launched. For example, Pioneers “F” and “G” were re-named Pioneer 10 and 11 after they were safely on their way. The Vanguard project people only named the satellite once it was up there.

* Thanks also for correcting my memories of the failed Vanguards. I
* have to mention, though, that the site I link to above notes that
* eight of 11 Vanguards failed to launch.

Not a all uncommon for a development program. The Vanguard booster was very complex compared to other vehicles of the time. They started with quasi-proven hardware: the first stage was based on the Viking sounding rocket and the second stage, I think, on the Aries. The third stage was an “Altair” solid motor. The project was as much an integration effort as new development.

The first three vehicles (TV-1, -2 and -3) were booster-only tests with only the first stage “live” and dummy upper stages. After the Soviet Union launched not one, but two satellites (the second one carrying a dog), the government did one of those lovely “legislating technology” moves and ordered that TV-3 would be a full-up test. We all saw the results.

There were actually 14 vehicles in the Vanguard program (maybe your source didn’t count the first three). Only launches #5, 10 and 14 made it to orbit, the last two with the larger 10 Kg instrument satellite.

Also, I’d like to correct an earlier error. I said that the first instrumentation package, Vanguard 2, was launched “later that year” (1958). It was actually launched in February 1959. Vanguard 3 was launched in September that year.

- Jack

Sorry. I thought I detected a bit of smirk in your original posting.

> I think you misunderstood. It wasn’t the “vanguard” moniker
> so much as the “1? designator since two earlier attempts to
> launch had failed.

Ah, yes. I did misunderstand. Vanguard was a development program, the ultimate test of which was orbiting a satellite, but the purpose was to develop the capability to do so more than the satellite itself. The early vehicles were designated TV, as I mentioned, for “Test Vehicle.” Also, it isn’t uncommon to rename flights once they’d been successfully launched. For example, Pioneers “F” and “G” were re-named Pioneer 10 and 11 after they were safely on their way. The Vanguard project people only named the satellite once it was up there.

> Thanks also for correcting my memories of the failed Vanguards. I
> have to mention, though, that the site I link to above notes that
> eight of 11 Vanguards failed to launch.

Not a all uncommon for a development program. The Vanguard booster was very complex compared to other vehicles of the time. They started with quasi-proven hardware: the first stage was based on the Viking sounding rocket and the second stage, I think, on the Aries. The third stage was an “Altair” solid motor. The project was as much an integration effort as new development.

The first three vehicles (TV-1, -2 and -3) were booster-only tests with only the first stage “live” and dummy upper stages. After the Soviet Union launched not one, but two satellites (the second one carrying a dog), the government did one of those lovely “legislating technology” moves and ordered that TV-3 would be a full-up test. We all saw the results.

There were actually 14 vehicles in the Vanguard program (maybe your source didn’t count the first three). Only launches #5, 10 and 14 made it to orbit, the last two with the larger 10 Kg instrument satellite.

Also, I’d like to correct an earlier error. I said that the first instrumentation package, Vanguard 2, was launched “later that year” (1958). It was actually launched in February 1959. Vanguard 3 was launched in September that year.

- Jack

Let Vanguard I remain in orbit as a legacy!

These were all research vessels, and if we can learn something by retrieving Vanguard, then let’s do it. If it is done just to say, “hey look what we can do!” then let them be.

As for the name, my understanding is that the rocket “Vanguard” was not the same as the satellite. Each was developed separately by different agencies, and was given the “Vanguard” name independently. I don’t think that would happen now, but this was in the early days of space exploration and equipment development, so it is understandable.

Good story, Phil!

People seem to fail to understand the style of engineering that was employed at the time, which was of the ‘design/fail/redesign/fail/redesign’ variety. Certainly, those launches were not meant to fail, but at the same time, the designs were so cutting edge that failure was inevitable.

Compare and contrast that to Explorer 1, which was America’s first “artificial moon” and was successfully launched by the Huntsville based ABMA team (Army Ballistic Missile Agency) of Werner Von Braun. The Juno 1 was a much more highly evolved design, and quite frankly, Von Braun had a better and more experienced team. Of course, I am prejudiced, my Grandfather was a key member of that team, reporting to Dr. Kurt Debus.

But if rocket design is now so easy, even with the vast experience, computer designs, computer based FMEA simulations, better materials, etc. et. al, then why is Ares-1 having some major design concerns such that it is being taken back to the drawing boards and reworked quite a bit?

I’ll tell you why: they weren’t Estes rockets out in the back yard then, and they darned sure still aren’t.