@ww2footage I could not find out the numbers but I am sure it is more expensive than a Russian Proton or a ESA Ariane-5. Of course the more vehicles built, the cheaper it becomes. So far there has been only three launches.
I knew some people could actually give intelligent comments.
;p
Also... The space shuttle Is actually more reliable because after times past they've learned they're lessons. Ares/Orion Is still a good choice though because they can go to the moon along with the Altair lunar lander.
It depends on what is meant by "extremely expensive", Empyohon. Our Office of Management and Budget shows the cost of a Space Shuttle launch to be about $200 million. Payloads (ISS modules, satellites, etc.) and crew costs (training, etc.) are extra. If we discount payload and crew costs, the $200 milllion per launch makes the Space Shuttle a terrific bargain, given the heavy, bulky payloads it can deliver to space plus its versatility as a orbiting repain shop for satellites. It's a bargain.
To let those of you that talk about man-rating the Delta or Atlas, ULC announced their proposal for doing just that earlier this week as an alternative to the Ares.
Perhaps NASAshould extend the Shuttle, even if it means building one or two more. The Shuttle program has been performing excellently lately, having benefitted from lessons learned from its own lengthy operating exxperience. Next generation launch systems would have deadline and political pressure lifted from their development, allowing the winner(s) to emerge naturally as the advanced technology proves itself out in a calm and deliberate pace.
Delta 4, 5 and 7 along with Atlas 5 HLV and the SpaceX Falcon 9 MLV and HLV should all be man rated for use with Orion CEV's because of the need for booster capacity that will be needed for Lunar and Planetary flights.
The bottom line is that NASA want to make manned space flight "ultra-safe". And idiot proof...One giant solid is pretty idiot proof...Thats the ONLY reason to built the piece of junk. America couldn't handle the man power and manufacturing of a Saturn 5. Pretty sad that we have fallen to this state.
well and saturn 5 was invented by a german wernher von braun in use of german technology. his point was to make the rocket saver then save. and he did it - as we all know! so in this case... lol the space shuttle engines base also on a german patent of MBB. (Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm).
i saw a documentary on the making of the rockets at dailyplanetclips dot ca, its pretty intense on how precise everything has to be or else it will explode.
The official NASA reason for not using the Delta for the Ares program is that man-rating the Delta would push up manufacturing costs,which the Airforce are not prepared to pay for.
I figure they should as it looks like Ares I's limitations are really causing problem for Orion.
Yes they also can use the GEM 60s on ares I but I'd worry about over stressing an already overstressed joint on the first SRB segment but then that may be the only way to make ares I work.
A better solution would be direct launcher as this is close to where apollo was evolving before nixon killed it they were going to use saturn V derived vehicles for all missions and drop the IB.
Why doesn't nasa use this thing for Orion? If they choose this we would be at the testing stage by now and would be flying manned Orion missions by 2009 vs 2014 with ares I
Also the Delta IV H beats Ares I by 3 tons and can easily lift 30 tons if Orion ends up weighing that much just by adding four little GEm 60 srbs to it.
Actually NASA could also use the Atlas V Heavy configuration (strapping three Atlas V CBCs together) and replacing the Centaur upper stage with a Shuttle-derived upper stage with the J-2 engine in place of the Centaur. If you look at both configurations, the Atlas V, which uses the Russian-designed RD-180 engine, have a higher thrust at liftoff than the RS-68 engine used on the Delta IV Heavy, and could fly the faster route to orbit.
I will be in Florida in time for the middle of the night D-IV Heavy launch on Aug 28 - is it worth seeing and driving a couple of hundred miles that night for?
Thanks for the comments. The Ariane you are talking about is the Ariane 5. I do have a vid of that. The Ariane 5 was orignally built for the canceled Hermes shuttle but now ESA just uses it for hauling sattelites.
I think the Delta-IV would be perfect for the CEV but I have heard rumors that NASA does not like because they did not design it.
Thanks for the feedback guys. I wish I still had the Boeing site info with the future variants of the Delta-4. A few of the variants had lifting capacities equal to the Saturn 5.
The rumors swirling are that the shuttle-derived Aries is turning out to be underpowered. Delta IV may be impractical, but my gut tells me they should at least consider a backup system (Atlas V, Heavy Delta, etc.) - just call it nerves at putting all eggs in on basket. Also, they could modify pads 39A and 39B to launch any system.
As for the last comment, the Delta IV is launched from the Cape Canaveral Air Force station. NASA want to launch the Orion from the nearby John F. Kennedy Space Center on Meritt Island.
it is capable of lifting 23,000 kilograms into low earth orbit.
cptskellern 1 year ago
hello, what is the cost ton/LEO ?
ww2footage 1 year ago
@ww2footage I could not find out the numbers but I am sure it is more expensive than a Russian Proton or a ESA Ariane-5. Of course the more vehicles built, the cheaper it becomes. So far there has been only three launches.
sixpackgenius 1 year ago
lmao at 00:50 u can hear some guy in the background go WOOHOO! YEAA!!
rickster9222 2 years ago
I knew some people could actually give intelligent comments.
;p
Also... The space shuttle Is actually more reliable because after times past they've learned they're lessons. Ares/Orion Is still a good choice though because they can go to the moon along with the Altair lunar lander.
heound 2 years ago
It depends on what is meant by "extremely expensive", Empyohon. Our Office of Management and Budget shows the cost of a Space Shuttle launch to be about $200 million. Payloads (ISS modules, satellites, etc.) and crew costs (training, etc.) are extra. If we discount payload and crew costs, the $200 milllion per launch makes the Space Shuttle a terrific bargain, given the heavy, bulky payloads it can deliver to space plus its versatility as a orbiting repain shop for satellites. It's a bargain.
Plutoplatter 2 years ago
To let those of you that talk about man-rating the Delta or Atlas, ULC announced their proposal for doing just that earlier this week as an alternative to the Ares.
downix 2 years ago
Perhaps NASAshould extend the Shuttle, even if it means building one or two more. The Shuttle program has been performing excellently lately, having benefitted from lessons learned from its own lengthy operating exxperience. Next generation launch systems would have deadline and political pressure lifted from their development, allowing the winner(s) to emerge naturally as the advanced technology proves itself out in a calm and deliberate pace.
Plutoplatter 2 years ago
you know that nasa is ending the space shuttle program right?
heound 2 years ago
Delta 4, 5 and 7 along with Atlas 5 HLV and the SpaceX Falcon 9 MLV and HLV should all be man rated for use with Orion CEV's because of the need for booster capacity that will be needed for Lunar and Planetary flights.
AblePumper 3 years ago
The bottom line is that NASA want to make manned space flight "ultra-safe". And idiot proof...One giant solid is pretty idiot proof...Thats the ONLY reason to built the piece of junk. America couldn't handle the man power and manufacturing of a Saturn 5. Pretty sad that we have fallen to this state.
dcb1138 3 years ago
well and saturn 5 was invented by a german wernher von braun in use of german technology. his point was to make the rocket saver then save. and he did it - as we all know! so in this case... lol the space shuttle engines base also on a german patent of MBB. (Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm).
SaGruenwdt 3 years ago
Check this months issue of Popular Mechanics. I think Obama mas force NASA to go with this option. Makes sense to me. Ares 1 is a loss.
dcb1138 3 years ago
lol did they say strap on at 0:55
Jamestub3 3 years ago
strap on boosters!
not the same thing your mother uses on you though.
retsisruoydekcufi 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
<3 nom nom
My ex gf cheated on me and i found out so haha i posted all of her adult vids on this profile! lz
aoikaoru3 3 years ago
flying cock and ballz
duvasgabre 3 years ago
i saw a documentary on the making of the rockets at dailyplanetclips dot ca, its pretty intense on how precise everything has to be or else it will explode.
idownloadfun 4 years ago
The official NASA reason for not using the Delta for the Ares program is that man-rating the Delta would push up manufacturing costs,which the Airforce are not prepared to pay for.
DFORCE1969 4 years ago
I figure they should as it looks like Ares I's limitations are really causing problem for Orion.
Yes they also can use the GEM 60s on ares I but I'd worry about over stressing an already overstressed joint on the first SRB segment but then that may be the only way to make ares I work.
A better solution would be direct launcher as this is close to where apollo was evolving before nixon killed it they were going to use saturn V derived vehicles for all missions and drop the IB.
Membrane556 4 years ago
Why doesn't nasa use this thing for Orion? If they choose this we would be at the testing stage by now and would be flying manned Orion missions by 2009 vs 2014 with ares I
Also the Delta IV H beats Ares I by 3 tons and can easily lift 30 tons if Orion ends up weighing that much just by adding four little GEm 60 srbs to it.
Membrane556 4 years ago
Actually NASA could also use the Atlas V Heavy configuration (strapping three Atlas V CBCs together) and replacing the Centaur upper stage with a Shuttle-derived upper stage with the J-2 engine in place of the Centaur. If you look at both configurations, the Atlas V, which uses the Russian-designed RD-180 engine, have a higher thrust at liftoff than the RS-68 engine used on the Delta IV Heavy, and could fly the faster route to orbit.
rwboa22 3 years ago
Good video of a space launch.
daltonagre 4 years ago
I will be in Florida in time for the middle of the night D-IV Heavy launch on Aug 28 - is it worth seeing and driving a couple of hundred miles that night for?
TomHarrisNRSP 4 years ago
Hell yeah you should see it! I would check the weather first and make sure they don't scrub the launch.
sixpackgenius 4 years ago
Thanks for the comments. The Ariane you are talking about is the Ariane 5. I do have a vid of that. The Ariane 5 was orignally built for the canceled Hermes shuttle but now ESA just uses it for hauling sattelites.
I think the Delta-IV would be perfect for the CEV but I have heard rumors that NASA does not like because they did not design it.
sixpackgenius 5 years ago
Excellent video. D-IV Heavy would make an ideal vehicle for large orbital fuel depots, if the VSE ever alteres to allow such a thing.
readmedottext 5 years ago
Thanks for the feedback guys. I wish I still had the Boeing site info with the future variants of the Delta-4. A few of the variants had lifting capacities equal to the Saturn 5.
sixpackgenius 5 years ago
The rumors swirling are that the shuttle-derived Aries is turning out to be underpowered. Delta IV may be impractical, but my gut tells me they should at least consider a backup system (Atlas V, Heavy Delta, etc.) - just call it nerves at putting all eggs in on basket. Also, they could modify pads 39A and 39B to launch any system.
PC3900 5 years ago
As for the last comment, the Delta IV is launched from the Cape Canaveral Air Force station. NASA want to launch the Orion from the nearby John F. Kennedy Space Center on Meritt Island.
BigKwell 5 years ago
NASA needs to consider launching the CEV/Orion on this booster.
PC3900 5 years ago
Too small. They're using shuttle-derived technology for the launch vehicle... although it's a good thought.
BigKwell 5 years ago
You could fit the Apollo CSM in there...
BigMac199 4 years ago