In the LaunchCode field of the launch lists, I take a rather old-fashioned view of
success and failure. Nowadays, if a commercial satellite launch vehicle fails to
deliver all its customer payloads to the correct orbit in working order,
the launch is considered a total failure. In the 1950s, however,
a US government launch that got only a few metres off the pad might still be considered a `partial success',
for example because it demonstrated the correct functioning of the engine ignition
system and the ability of the rocket to fly in vaguely the right direction.
When you're assessing the capability of launch vehicles over decades and comparing
those from new space players and established spacefarers, this older approach is
actually helpful. In 2012 I introduced the following scheme.
For pass/fail purposes I consider a score of less than 0.75 to be a failure; one could argue for
lowering that boundary a little bit.
For launches with a single payload, or multiple equal-priority payloads, I give:
| - full success | 1.00 | |
| - orbit usable but not nominal | 0.75 | |
| - orbit but not a usable one | 0.40 | |
| - payload failed to separate or fatally damaged by LV | 0.25 | (even if good orbit) |
| - orbit not reached | 0.00 | (or reentry after circa 1 orbit) |
For missions with primary (P) and secondary (S) payloads, a rough scaling
to give the P 3 times the weight of S -
| - full success | 1.00 |
| - S off-nominal orbit | 0.95 |
| - S unusable orbit | 0.85 |
| - S failed to sep | 0.75 |
| - P off-nominal orbit | 0.55 |
| - P unusable orbit | 0.30 |
| - P failed to separate | 0.10 |
There's still some subjectivity here, and I've allowed myself to assign intermediate values,
e.g. when an orbit is only slightly off-nominal. Now obviously scores of 0.40 or less
are going to mean an unhappy customer, but I think it's still worth distinguishing from complete
failure to orbit a it usually indicates a vehicle which is 'close' to working in contrast
to some vehicles which never make it beyond first or second stage burn.
In my initial implementation in 2012, the scores assigned that differ from 0.0 and 1.0 were:
| Score | LaunchCode | Launch (Launch desig, vehicle) |
|---|---|---|
| 0.25 | OF25 | 96-061 Pegasus |
| 0.40 | OF40 | 63-021 Thor Agena, 67-032 Proton. 76-062,76-088, 80-031, 86-075,90-055 Molniya, 78-119, 95-052 Kosmos, 84-120, 04-052 Tsiklon, 91-051 Pegasus, 95-U01 Mu-3S-II, 96-048 CZ-3, 80-043 Atlas, 99-017, 99-023 Titan, 99-024 Delta 3, 06-006, 08-011, 11-045, 12-044 Proton/Briz, 11-005 Rokot |
| 0.45 | OF45 | 04-050 Delta 4H (primary payload medium-bad orbit, secondary failed to orbit) |
| 0.50 | OF50 | 01-029 Ariane 5/V142 |
| 0.75 | OS75 | 97-057 PSLV, 97-066 Ariane 502, 07-027 Atlas V/NROL-30, 09-029 Soyuz/Meridian |
| 0.80 | OS80 | 00-048 Delta 3, 01-015 GSLV (somewhat off-nominal orbit) |
| 0.85 | OS85 | 12-054 Falcon 9 (primary perfect, secondary unusable) |