Delta 4 Inaugural Launch A Success 163
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.
Re:All Looked good from a live view (Score:5, Informative)
Most satellites are put up with rockets, not the Shuttle.
Re:why so many launch pads? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
This is the Ritz Space Shuttle... we are booked... (Score:2, Informative)
Video here (Score:5, Informative)
Full success (Score:5, Informative)
Some more info about the actual satellite (Score:5, Informative)
Cost and reliability (Score:5, Informative)
{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 [boeing.com] 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 [space-technology.com] can do twelve tonnes to Geosynchronous orbit. No payload assist required for orbit transfer.
The Russian Proton [spaceandtech.com]
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.
Yes, it could. Re:range (Score:5, Informative)
There's a list of 'delta-v's here [caltech.edu].
Re:cams? (Score:3, Informative)
However, there's a night launch of the space shuttle on Friday, I'm looking forward to that. I'm thinking of visiting a friend who lives in Merritt Island.
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (Score:3, Informative)
Already, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter will be launched on top of the Atlas V; future Mars missions carrying payloads to examine the Mars atmosphere by glider and free-flying balloon and eventually a Mars soil sample return mission will likely need these bigger launchers.
Satellite Launches - Shuttle vs Delta & others (Score:2, Informative)
It's important to understand that the Space Shuttle (while a Marvelous piece of technology) is far to expensive for "most" satellite launches. There are numbers out there (somewhere on the internet) that compare cost per pound, for the various launch vehicles. Because it's man-rated, and much larger than the other vehicles, the shuttle is MUCH more expensive, on average.
The shuttle, on the other hand, is perfect for getting "hands-on" time with a payload, either as a capture, repair and relaunch, or for those payloads that need tender loving care, before being sent on their way.
That being said, when there is payload space available on an existing shuttle flight, fitting in satellite launchs that make sense for shuttle launch, is a good thing... (Satellite launches that make sense for Shuttle carriage would tend to include low-earth orbit birds) High Altitude Satellites (geosynchronous, and such-like) tend to require a "second stage" to lift them from the shuttles (approx.) 180 mile orbit... making them even less cost effective for deployment by Shuttle.
All of that being said, it took the Challenger accident to convince NASA that the shuttle wasn't the Do-it-all pick-up-truck to the stars that they liked to think it was. Before Challenger, NASA's plans were to shift more and more Satellite launches (ever hear of Shuttle Centaur? - it's the Centaur second stage, modified for use from the shuttle payload bay) to Shuttle based launches.
Fortunately, they are now using a "best fit" when it comes to launching Satellites, which means that if it can be done without on-site human intervention, and isn't LEO bound, it'll probably launch on a Delta, Titan, or some other suitable unmanned launch vehicle.
-I know you think you saw me post this, but you didn't.