/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12766923

>>12330779
>Be Boeing
>Make successful but expensive rocket in 1989
>High on success, make Delta III
>Use satellite payload on test flight due to over confidence
>Rocket explodes
>Perform second test flight with satellite payload
>Rocket explodes
>Perform 3rd test flight with dummy payload
>Rocket launches into wrong orbit
>get contracted to develope SLS
>Take 11 years to test fire a redesign of the space shuttle tank
>get contracted to build capsule for commercial crew
>Get large chunk of contract (70%+ of it)
>Expect competition to fail, then use their failure to ask for more money lmao
>Competition doesn't fail, panic and launch incomplete capsule
>Launches into wrong orbit
>Also build plane that crashes into the ground by design :^)
Boeing hasn't, on their own, had a successful space dev program since 1989 haha, but they keep getting huge contracts

eueughheeggguegeghhh

>performs its first two test flights with satellite payloads
>Fails and explodes on both launches
>Partially fails it's third launch with a mass simulator, and launches into the wrong orbit
REMINDER that Boeing hasn't been allowed to build a rocket on its own since this disaster, now they have SLS lmao

>>12231507
I mean it's way better than its inbred little brother

>>12180719
it all went to shit when they decided to replace the RS-27 with a retardified SSME for medium payload launches. Delta III would have worked fine if they hadn't given up on it after one failed launch.

Atlas V heavy would've been great if they had run with that instead of D4H.

Literally do anything other than make more SSME-derived boosters. It's not that hard.

>>11839829
The Delta III was such a weird rocket. A series of compromises based on old hardware having to mesh with new hardware.

>>11682401
>DELTA III
Say what you will about it, but that blue core looked cool. When will rockets with interesting paint jobs come back?