Slashdot Mirror
Delta 4 Inaugural Launch A Success
brandido writes "Space.com is reporting that the Delta 4 has lifted off from Cape Canaveral at 5:40 pm EST. According to the Article: 'Boeing's Delta 4 has lifted off from pad 37 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Everything appeared to be working normally with the rocket as it made its initial climb out over the Atlantic Ocean during the first minute.' It will now take the two-stage rocket some 37 minutes to deliver the Eutelsat W5 spacecraft to orbit, so keep your fingers crossed all continues to go well.'" Looks like everything went swimmingly well.
but did they strap a video camera to it???
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
-Bertrand Russel
Looks like everything went swimmingly well.
Don't say "swimmingly" when there is a rocket flying over the ocean with a satellite payload. Swimming is the last thing we want the satellite to do.
Heh...I'm guessing they *didn't* get John Carmack to design the onboard computer :)
Project Steve
Rueters:
The Delta 4 swerved suddenly of course at 5:45pm today and headed for Iraq with uncanny precsion eventually crashing into Saddam Hussein's secret, undergroud, booby trap filled hideout. A Pentagon spokesperson said "Our plan is working wonderfully, uh, I mean... to bad about the whole rocket foul-up."
Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
The Delta rockets have a pretty good (98%+?) success rate. I have a tendancy to get them confused with the larger Titan 4 series that seemed to want to blow up a little more frequently. I believe the Titan 4 has a failure rate under 10% now...not that that's a good number, but it's better than it used to be.
I was working for a company that did work on both, and I remember the huge disappointment when one of the Titan 4's exploded at launch...it seemed like the program would be declining rather quickly after that. Job security and all. The Delta program always seemed much more reliable in comarison.
Chaos, panic, disorder...my work here is done.
Most satellites are put up with rockets, not the Shuttle.
Not all the pads are active. For example, the launch pads they used to fire off Snarks and V2s captured from Germany in the 1940 are of limited use when launching vehicles that are literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of lbs heavier.
A shuttle launch pad (there are two active) has a very different set of requirements from a Titan V or Atlas launch pad, for example, because of the SRBs, the launch escape system, and more.
Additionally, newer pads are getting simpler and simpler to lower costs and increase reliability.
The Seattle PI had this link on their webpage.
Space.com is now reporting that the entire launch was a success. It made it through the last 37 minutes and deployed the satellite.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
Unfortunately space.com's article doesn't say much about the actual satellite, a few more details here: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/satellite-biz-02zc. html
...and we still don't use flying cars.
Boeing:1
Carmack:0
It's about cost, reliability and payload.
{Note - this goes off-topic because I googled a bit and was stunned by modern launch capability. Sorry}
A Space Shuttle can throw about thirteen tonnes into low earth orbit. That's a huge chunk of satellite. Unfortunately, NASA will charge you in excess of $500 million for the service. The reliability is excellent. One failure in over 110 launches. Probably the most reliable launcher in history. Use the Space Shuttle if it's very heavy, cost is no problem and it absolutely, certainly, definitely must get there.
Delta is an old, proven, excellent technology. It used to be considered a 'light' launcher. Delta IV, however, can smack a meaty Thirteen tonnes to orbit. Yowza. I only found that out now. OK, that vehicle hasn't been built yet.
Whoo-Hoo! I just read that page again. The Delta Heavy (not built yet, but all technology in place) can stuff 13 tonnes into Geosynchronous transfer orbit. It can throw (and this is astonishing) twenty-three humungous tonnes to low earth orbit. What the hell can compete with that?
Well, Ariane 5 ECS-B can do twelve tonnes to Geosynchronous orbit. No payload assist required for orbit transfer.
The Russian Proton
can do about 23 tonnes to low earth orbit. This is the only one I know the cost for. You want twenty-three thousand kilogrammes orbiting at 350 kilometers? 75 million dollars. Cash up front, go talk to your insurers. (The Proton is almost as insanely reliable as the shuttle, actually - certainly comparable with Delta)
Right. That's it. I'm going to become a rocket engineer. It's got to beat the hell out of managing telecoms networks for a living.
There's a list of 'delta-v's here.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"When I was about 14, my parents moved to Jacksonville, FL. I came home from boarding school (ahem, military school) to visit there. We drove down to the cape and did the normal touristy tours of the facilities. They spent a bit of time talking about lightening detectors. Then they announced that there would be a launch today! Gosh was I excited!
But you know what? My iron bitch mother decided that we had best drive back home *now* before the launch because she didn't want to get caught in traffic. Much whining and pouting later found me crying in the back of the station wagon as we drove away without seeing the launch. (No, I didn't do very well at military school.)
But you know what? That launch vehicle was hit by lightning and exploded shortly after takeoff.
And I missed that too. Fuck you, mom.
Also, they can't buy services elsewhere (the Russians have comparable or larger vehicles, for maybe 1/10 the cost), but a lot of these space programs, pretty much, are job creation programs for American citizens so they try to keep the tax dollars in America (quite apart from any security issues).
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Why? Do you think the Atlantic crossing had a 100% success rate before Europeans started colonizing North America? Why are people intolerable pussies these days? I'd like to return to the days when America was a nation full of people who had already done a lot of dangerous risky shit, and were sitting around thinking of how they could risk their hides one more time. I'd like to visit the age of space exploration when people thought astronauts were cool not because they grew earthworms in zero-gravity, but because they had the balls to climb up on top of a fucking rocket and light it.
I grew up on Merritt Island in the 50s thru 70's. The space shots were just a fact of life. I don't remember the Gemini's, but the Apollo's were awesome. I saw all of them. We lived about 25 miles south of the Cape. When a Saturn V went up, the windows rattled, the ground shook...even the leaves on the trees vibrated. You could feel it shaking your body. Then you'd see this monster flame slowly going up into the sky, with this teeny, tiny white speck at the top. They say those at the press stands could see the shock waves rippling across the ground toward them Even saw Apollo 17, which was a night shot. Sat out on Courtenay Parkway near Jefferson Jr. High School. Listening to the radio I could hear the countdown. At 7 seconds, the engines would cut on, (Took 7 secs at full power before it lifted off) and the whole north sky lit up like the sun coming up. A few seconds later this awesome flaming sword thing started rising up into the sky. The stars weren't visible and my shadow behind me rapidly shrank as the spacecraft ascended. It was way cool. And, it was an incredible demonstration of what flawed humanity can do when they work together. -Mike
Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them? --Abraham Lincoln
Well, at one point the plan was to use shuttles to launch all the US satellites-- commercial, civil and military. In 1985, there were supposed to be 15 (!) launches. The shuttles were going to VERY inexpensive. The challenger accident happened, and, after a serious re-examination, the program was really tightened up and its mission was narrowed.
This led to the rebirth of the Delta, the Delta II, to launch the new GPS satellites (planned for shuttle originally). Reagan announced that shuttles were not to be used for commercial satellite launches, and the commercial launch industry was reinvigorated.
Fast forward 10+ years, the AF decided they need better launch options, give Lockheed-Martin and Boeing (nee Mcdonell Douglas) 1/2 Billion dollars each. They used this to develop the EELVs (Delta IV and Atlas V).
The point of the EELVs is to replace the Delta II and Titan IV, as far as the Air Force is concerned. Commercial satellites just aren't launched on the shuttles anymore. One or both of the EELVs may be used to launch the new space plane NASA plans to build, and variants could be used to help launch the replacement for the shuttle.
Any of these rockets can get you to Mars, or at least a Rover. NASA uses Delta IIs for most of their Mars missions, which is much smaller than the IV. Bigger rocket, bigger payload.
As for the shuttle, it's an amazing piece of technology that is completely unappreciated due to its string of successes, high cost, and early problems. The marginal cost of a shuttle is about $40 million, not $500 million. That higher number comes from dividing the shuttle budget ($2 billion) by the number of launches/year (4). Adding one flight costs $40 million that year, although it will shorten the life of the shuttle, so that needs to be taken into account.
Then realize that the shuttle is the heaviest launcher in the world right now, it can put more payload into orbit than any other system. That does not include the mass of the shuttle itself. There may not be a space vehicle as versatile, powerful and reliable as the Space Shuttle for another 50 years. It's a shame the shuttle will never recover from its early problems.