Comments:Proton rocket fails to launch AMC-14 satellite
Refuelling would be possible if....
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
This event should not have been an issue. If they (Lockheed & SES) would have installed the refueling coulpings we had proposed to them they could get the additional fuel by the time they will need it, by our on-orbit refueling system HERMES (under development). see http://www.georing.biz/OTHER/whitepaper_HERMES_low.pdf
The satellite will most probably reach eventually orbit but will be short of fuel.
AMC-14 Launch:Failure or Partial Failure?
Copied from Comments talk:Proton rocket fails to launch AMC-14 satellite - Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 01:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
"The Proton itself performed nominally, and the Briz-M upper stage successfully completed the first of three burns. During the second burn, however, an undisclosed malfunction occurred, leaving the satellite stranded in a much lower orbit than planned." I think that this is a partial failure because if it were a failure, the AMC-14 would have not reached orbit at all due to an explosion,disintegration ,crash,etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)