@jonalululy I doubt it. Smaller rockets can be pressure fed but an engine this size requires turbopumps. In theory the turbopump speed could be changed but bad things sometimes happen to engines when you do this; eg the Apollo LM descent engine could not run between 65% and 100% thrust because of excessive nozzle erosion. So the thrust was kept at 100% until guidance called for less than 65% and then it dropped in a big step.
I suspect Delta thrust is controlled with SRB grain shaping.
You can build SRBs for almost any thrust vs time curve with the right mandril shape when pouring the propellant. No mandril means the propellant burns from the bottom up with low, constant thrust. A cylindrical mandril gives a rising thrust curve as the burning surface area increases. Star-shaped mandrils are common - a lot of thrust at liftoff, then lower sustained thrust as the points burn down to a cylinder. And so on.
@jonalululy There is absolutely NO active control over solid rocket thrusts once they're lit. But they're constructed to follow a desired thrust-vs-time curve. E.g. the shuttle SRBs reduce thrust near max-Q and then increase again. The expanding plume is due to the rapidly decreasing air pressure as the rocket climbs through the atmosphere.
I don't know for sure, but I don't think the Delta 1st stage main engine can be throttled.
The only problem with this rocket is someone chose to use solid rocket boosters. I would have been better if they upgraded the second stage or added a third stage. Solid rocket engines have a history of going wrong when you least expect it. India's space program just took a major hit because of a solid.
@ti994apc Solid rockets aren't that unreliable, and they have some important advantages. First, they're cheaper. Most of all they have a very high thrust-to-weight ratio. This is very important at launch when you're flying mostly vertical and overcoming gravity loss. Later on, specific impulse becomes more important than maximum thrust so many upper stages use high performance liquid fuels like hydrogen. Hypergols are also popular when restartability is required, as it often is.
@ti994apc Solid rockets aren't that unreliable, and they have some important advantages. First, they're cheaper. Most of all they have a very high thrust-to-weight ratio. This is very important at launch when you're flying mostly vertical and overcoming gravity loss. Later on, specific impulse becomes more important than maximum thrust so many upper stages use high performance liquid fuels like hydrogen. Hypergols are also popular when restartability is required, as it often is.
I'll resist the urge to make "daft" comments. Never reach conclusions from just one (sometimes just a few) of your search results. This video is a Delta II rocket used to launch satellites into orbit. It's a NASA operation. Your search result was Delta Air Lines, flt # 2, B767-400 service which flies London-NYC's JFK airport. You may fly Delta 2 if you can buy the ticket, but I doubt you'd get to ride on a Delta II!
i may be daft, but i googled delta 2, and it is currently departing from heathrow airport (london) to JFK (america), what exactly is this used for? :)
If this was the Delta flight from VAFB on December 14, 2006, this would have been the launch of the infamous USA 193, 2006-057A, catalog 29651. What's unusual about this launch was the prograde 58.5 degree inclination; most VAFB launches are into sunsynchronous orbits.
This satellite may have been classified, but orbital elements were readily available thanks to a team of volunteer observers that makes a hobby of tracking classified satellites.
@ApolloWasReal Ah, that would explain the rather large maneuvers done by the first stage. Many Vandenberg launches execute "doglegs" to avoid offshore oil platforms, but it looks like this one first flew to the west to get away from land, then made a BIG swing to the southeast after dumping its airlit solids, presumably to put it on the right azimuth for its 58 deg orbit, which is low for Vandenberg. That has to reduce launcher performance significantly.
Wow. It doesn't seem like the Delta 2 needs that much energy to seperate the rocket boosters. The space shuttle looks like it blows up everytime they seperate the SRB's but this one just falls off.
i would say that on the space shuttle that blast you see is a boost or small propulsor pushing the booster away from the space shuttle, in the delta, the can just fall off in any direction.
PS: that is not true information, it is what i think
The shuttle SRBs have small rocket engines that push them away from the orbiter and ET. The Delta SRBs are much smaller and lighter so they simply use springs. The Delta SRBs are also not recovered.
Those were both halves of the payload fairing after being jettisoned. They are the two pieces of the nose cone after they are split apart by tiny explosives.
The last Delta II explosion was actually in 1997 when a SRB let go spectacularly seconds after liftoff. That's the one where PAO infamously said "we have had an anomaly..."
at 3:44, auxiliary oxigen tanks are on... at 4:50, totally out of atmosphere. take a look of the at the fuel beeing burned! like a little explosions... AWESOME!!!
@filipefilipefilipe No, at 3:44 you see ignition of the air-lit solids. This Delta has 9 SRBs, of which only 6 are lit at launch. They burn for 60 sec, then the other 3 are lit. Normally the first 6 are dumped right away, but they're often held for a while on VAFB launches to avoid some offshore oil platforms. It isn't really "out of the atmosphere" until 2nd stage flight when the fairing is jettisoned. There's no point in keeping it any longer than necessary.
@novawarrior1 the delta II is a rocket family. Its like a boeing 747 so to speak, two have exploded but another ~135 have gone on to get to orbit successfully
I live in Las Vegas. Sometimes when they launch rockets out of Vanderberg we can see the exaust trail of the rockets. As darkness falls, the sunlight over the horizon picks up the trail leaving a wierd glowing streak or cloud in the western sky. We don't see much of them now as when i was a kid (in the 80s to early 90's.
What are you talking About.. This is VANDENBURG in Lompoc, California. VERY Far from Las Vegas haha.. What the hell is VanDERBURG... a base in nevada?
haha of course im not saying you cant see them from there.. im just wondering if this person is getting the base confused? or perhaps something else? lol
If you notice the solids burn out and are not released right away. This is to avoid hitting the off shore oil rigs and Catalina Island south of VAFB. At the cape they are released shortly after burnout.
There IS a SLC-17, at the Cape. This, however was at Vandenberg AFB SLC-2W. You wanna tell me there's no fixed pads? I've got news for you bro, I've spent many days of the last year working at them :) This was taken from an Ecliptic Enterprises RocketCam system. Good footage, Xylicon.
Ive just spent 3 weeks at Vandenberg AFB for work, and based on the location, would be SLC 2. Whoever said there are no perminent Launch Pads are insane...
This is very much real out of Vandenberg. Since I worked the day it went up and watched it I can say its not fake. Sweet view too. LoL I can almost see myself down there as it went up.
An educated foe could calculate the final orbit and determine how the spacecraft could be used by calulating the second stage burn time. Although the payload could have had a manuvering package of its own to enable it to reposition after 2nd stage separation.
Shutting off the camera after faring separation helps hide its location and final orbit.
An educated foe could calculate the final orbit and determine how the spacecraft could be used by calulating the second stage burn time. Although the payload could have had a manuvering package of its own to enable it to reposition after 2nd stage separation.
Shutting off the camera after faring separation helps hide its location and final orbit.
@n6vmo Not that it matters - Ted Molczan's group always quickly finds these things so they can publish their own orbital elements. Classifying the orbit of a satellite only draws attention to it. Many of these things are quite large and very visible; I've used some of Ted's elements and they're usually right on.
Except that the title and tag both indicate Vandenberg not the Cape. The runway is VAFB North. I dont recall any permanent launch structure there. But then again, I dont recall a view like that. ;)
Yes there is it's just on the other side of the country... (I thought the video was taken at the cape...) but it seems as it was launched over at Vandenberg, which would be SLC 2. (cape side thy are launched from SLC 17.)
I removed motorbreath22's dumass comments, hes obviously too dumb to realize that the other Delta II video on my list if of that same launch. He should try googling "rocketcam" and maybe he'll shutup
I am very happy to see the vidoe Delta II Onboard Cam from you, hopefully the others also are happy for You
Ondelendo 3 weeks ago
I Love The Video Delta II Onboard Cam It Can Increase My Knowledge
bebeheuy 3 weeks ago
Nice Video Delta II Onboard Cam That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You
willamricard 3 weeks ago
I Really Like The Video Delta II Onboard Cam From Your
imegatrone 3 weeks ago
Your Video Delta II Onboard Cam Is Very Useful Sharing
bundawartini 3 weeks ago
IGNITION 2:35
KASPLARFO 3 months ago
this is just awesome....almost looks unreal from 07:07 on!!! AWESOME!!!
r1casill 5 months ago
@jonalululy I doubt it. Smaller rockets can be pressure fed but an engine this size requires turbopumps. In theory the turbopump speed could be changed but bad things sometimes happen to engines when you do this; eg the Apollo LM descent engine could not run between 65% and 100% thrust because of excessive nozzle erosion. So the thrust was kept at 100% until guidance called for less than 65% and then it dropped in a big step.
I suspect Delta thrust is controlled with SRB grain shaping.
ApolloWasReal 9 months ago
You can build SRBs for almost any thrust vs time curve with the right mandril shape when pouring the propellant. No mandril means the propellant burns from the bottom up with low, constant thrust. A cylindrical mandril gives a rising thrust curve as the burning surface area increases. Star-shaped mandrils are common - a lot of thrust at liftoff, then lower sustained thrust as the points burn down to a cylinder. And so on.
ApolloWasReal 9 months ago
@jonalululy There is absolutely NO active control over solid rocket thrusts once they're lit. But they're constructed to follow a desired thrust-vs-time curve. E.g. the shuttle SRBs reduce thrust near max-Q and then increase again. The expanding plume is due to the rapidly decreasing air pressure as the rocket climbs through the atmosphere.
I don't know for sure, but I don't think the Delta 1st stage main engine can be throttled.
ApolloWasReal 9 months ago
The only problem with this rocket is someone chose to use solid rocket boosters. I would have been better if they upgraded the second stage or added a third stage. Solid rocket engines have a history of going wrong when you least expect it. India's space program just took a major hit because of a solid.
ti994apc 1 year ago
@ti994apc Solid rockets aren't that unreliable, and they have some important advantages. First, they're cheaper. Most of all they have a very high thrust-to-weight ratio. This is very important at launch when you're flying mostly vertical and overcoming gravity loss. Later on, specific impulse becomes more important than maximum thrust so many upper stages use high performance liquid fuels like hydrogen. Hypergols are also popular when restartability is required, as it often is.
ApolloWasReal 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ti994apc Solid rockets aren't that unreliable, and they have some important advantages. First, they're cheaper. Most of all they have a very high thrust-to-weight ratio. This is very important at launch when you're flying mostly vertical and overcoming gravity loss. Later on, specific impulse becomes more important than maximum thrust so many upper stages use high performance liquid fuels like hydrogen. Hypergols are also popular when restartability is required, as it often is.
ApolloWasReal 9 months ago
I'll resist the urge to make "daft" comments. Never reach conclusions from just one (sometimes just a few) of your search results. This video is a Delta II rocket used to launch satellites into orbit. It's a NASA operation. Your search result was Delta Air Lines, flt # 2, B767-400 service which flies London-NYC's JFK airport. You may fly Delta 2 if you can buy the ticket, but I doubt you'd get to ride on a Delta II!
JERRYinCHS 1 year ago
i may be daft, but i googled delta 2, and it is currently departing from heathrow airport (london) to JFK (america), what exactly is this used for? :)
spazzaaaron 1 year ago
lol this vid was put up the next day when they got the camra back
ryan0157 1 year ago
small world
DonMasakoni 1 year ago
at 3:31 you can see a heart in the middle top of the screen
13234656989 1 year ago
cut everything before 2:30 and repost please
istartedi 1 year ago
NASA don't need a camera back!
ftucyk 2 years ago
How did they get they camera back? Or was it transmitted video? Good stuff!
usfansw 2 years ago
If this was the Delta flight from VAFB on December 14, 2006, this would have been the launch of the infamous USA 193, 2006-057A, catalog 29651. What's unusual about this launch was the prograde 58.5 degree inclination; most VAFB launches are into sunsynchronous orbits.
This satellite may have been classified, but orbital elements were readily available thanks to a team of volunteer observers that makes a hobby of tracking classified satellites.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
@ApolloWasReal Ah, that would explain the rather large maneuvers done by the first stage. Many Vandenberg launches execute "doglegs" to avoid offshore oil platforms, but it looks like this one first flew to the west to get away from land, then made a BIG swing to the southeast after dumping its airlit solids, presumably to put it on the right azimuth for its 58 deg orbit, which is low for Vandenberg. That has to reduce launcher performance significantly.
ApolloWasReal 9 months ago
Incredible, imagine being there...I could do w/out riding the rocket fuel tho
Yoetah 2 years ago
One of the BEST rocketcams I've seen. Could have chopped the first 2 minutes.
FractAlkemist 2 years ago
Waiting 2.5 minutes for launch? Damn.
BaseStationZero 2 years ago
Impressive.
enoughzenough 2 years ago
aww no audio, that always makes it seem fast-paced. either way its the BOMB!
johnayerger13 2 years ago
Wow. It doesn't seem like the Delta 2 needs that much energy to seperate the rocket boosters. The space shuttle looks like it blows up everytime they seperate the SRB's but this one just falls off.
canadaflying123 2 years ago
i would say that on the space shuttle that blast you see is a boost or small propulsor pushing the booster away from the space shuttle, in the delta, the can just fall off in any direction.
PS: that is not true information, it is what i think
eamt10 2 years ago
The shuttle SRBs have small rocket engines that push them away from the orbiter and ET. The Delta SRBs are much smaller and lighter so they simply use springs. The Delta SRBs are also not recovered.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
omg. i got chills while i was watching this video. that was beautiful!! i swear i even got teary eyed!!! beautiful simply beautiful!!
lovemekyp 3 years ago 8
7:15 looks kind of animated for some reason
nickrock6 3 years ago
All the lighting is pure in space.
It resembles animations because animations don't have very much light filtration.
sigmasquadleader 2 years ago
Anyone remember the spy satelite that was shot down recently? This is the launch of exactly that satelite, USA 193, from Vandenberg AFB.
blablubb12345 3 years ago
What was that contracting and expanding blob towards the end (7:22)? looked like a liquid of some sort.
Wcoltd 3 years ago
Those were both halves of the payload fairing after being jettisoned. They are the two pieces of the nose cone after they are split apart by tiny explosives.
n6vmo 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This isnt the Delta II. The Delta II exploded after take-off
Cokeacolaproductions 3 years ago
Negative the last explosion of a delta II was back in like 1988, hundreds of launched since then, this is one of em.
This is a Delta II
xylicon 3 years ago 5
The last Delta II explosion was actually in 1997 when a SRB let go spectacularly seconds after liftoff. That's the one where PAO infamously said "we have had an anomaly..."
ugowar 3 years ago
@Cokeacolaproductions lol u really dont kno much about rockets do you buddy.
wessendorf15 1 year ago
Thank you for sharing this video. It was a lot of fun to watch. The staging sequence at 7:09 was very cool.
michchap 3 years ago
A "Z" motor would be up to 167,772,160 n-seconds of total impulse, or 37,701,609 lb-seconds. I'm guessing these are even bigger than that. Way cool.
DTHRocket 3 years ago
5/5 stars. By model rocket motor total impulse letter ranking those strap on boosters must be z motors.
DTHRocket 3 years ago
Ignition is at 2:38. No point in waiting around.
DTHRocket 3 years ago 2
Yeah!!! sonic boom at 3:17... seeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!
filipefilipefilipe 3 years ago
at 3:44, auxiliary oxigen tanks are on... at 4:50, totally out of atmosphere. take a look of the at the fuel beeing burned! like a little explosions... AWESOME!!!
filipefilipefilipe 3 years ago
@filipefilipefilipe No, at 3:44 you see ignition of the air-lit solids. This Delta has 9 SRBs, of which only 6 are lit at launch. They burn for 60 sec, then the other 3 are lit. Normally the first 6 are dumped right away, but they're often held for a while on VAFB launches to avoid some offshore oil platforms. It isn't really "out of the atmosphere" until 2nd stage flight when the fairing is jettisoned. There's no point in keeping it any longer than necessary.
ApolloWasReal 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
is this a video game?
azzyo9 3 years ago
That was awsome!
larry40m 3 years ago
Cool...it goes supersonic at 3:17.
n6vmo 3 years ago 3
Cool, my dad works at SLC-2W there, 12 years of Delta service!
tdbf2142 3 years ago
Thats not real! Thats all CGI!!
(just a joke making fun of those who believe the moonlanding was faked... Oh, And I know this is not a moon rocket)
pmokadakeisuke 3 years ago
I was there for this. .Its so tight
chocolateadonis1987 3 years ago
Look at the green on flames edge at takeoff...
lrshero1 3 years ago
OMG,HOLD ON!!!!
lrshero1 3 years ago
wasnt delta 2 the rocket that exploded in the air?
novawarrior1 3 years ago
It has exploded before but I believe its only had 2 failures since its maiden flight in 1989.
132 successful launches out of 134, thank you wikipedia.
xylicon 3 years ago 6
@novawarrior1 the delta II is a rocket family. Its like a boeing 747 so to speak, two have exploded but another ~135 have gone on to get to orbit successfully
Neoli2300 5 months ago
This is the launch which carried the satellite that will re-enter or be shot down in early March 2008.
mreverting 4 years ago
Doggie015, The escape speed is 11.8 Km/s not 7.4 ,with this speed you wouldent even reach half way through!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
roundthebigworld 4 years ago
7.4 km/s is how fast you go to get in orbit
oPYROo 4 years ago
No, he's right, 11.8 Km/s
insult0master 4 years ago
11,8 km/s is the speed you need to get out of earths gravity.
To reach an orbit around the earth only 7,4km/s are needed.
drube 4 years ago
Atmosphere?
lrshero1 3 years ago
i can see this all days.. is my dream
biok2006 4 years ago
Chris, about 60 miles away ground.Cool video!
Travellerdream 4 years ago
UFO's 10:22!!!
attickstars101 4 years ago
Can anyone tell me approx how far out of the atmosphere a shuttle needs to be before it is pulled in by gravity?
ChrisPlugged 4 years ago
it doesn't really matter how far out the shuttle is but how fast the shuttle is going and what the escape speed is.
g5f4d9h230a 4 years ago
A space shuttle has to be at least 200 Kilometers up and moving at about 7.4 Kilometers per SECOND
doggie015 4 years ago
Awesome!
ooohyeahh 4 years ago
what spacecraft is that
techdeck321 4 years ago
Delta II rocket I believe
Michaud27 4 years ago
I live in Las Vegas. Sometimes when they launch rockets out of Vanderberg we can see the exaust trail of the rockets. As darkness falls, the sunlight over the horizon picks up the trail leaving a wierd glowing streak or cloud in the western sky. We don't see much of them now as when i was a kid (in the 80s to early 90's.
haiderodes 4 years ago
What are you talking About.. This is VANDENBURG in Lompoc, California. VERY Far from Las Vegas haha.. What the hell is VanDERBURG... a base in nevada?
knaughtynitefox 4 years ago
He said he can see the exhaust trail in Las Vegas, which is possible, I've seen it from great distances too.
xylicon 4 years ago
haha of course im not saying you cant see them from there.. im just wondering if this person is getting the base confused? or perhaps something else? lol
knaughtynitefox 4 years ago
It's Just too bad that they don't do this during the recent Delta 2 Launch
wmh2006 4 years ago
If you notice the solids burn out and are not released right away. This is to avoid hitting the off shore oil rigs and Catalina Island south of VAFB. At the cape they are released shortly after burnout.
Rocketmechanic 4 years ago
unbelievable...its a video like that which makes you realize how small we truely are.
AslanLionheart 4 years ago 4
There IS a SLC-17, at the Cape. This, however was at Vandenberg AFB SLC-2W. You wanna tell me there's no fixed pads? I've got news for you bro, I've spent many days of the last year working at them :) This was taken from an Ecliptic Enterprises RocketCam system. Good footage, Xylicon.
patriotik 4 years ago
lol. That'd be awesome though.
michaeldim 4 years ago
Ive just spent 3 weeks at Vandenberg AFB for work, and based on the location, would be SLC 2. Whoever said there are no perminent Launch Pads are insane...
JLangevin 4 years ago
This is very much real out of Vandenberg. Since I worked the day it went up and watched it I can say its not fake. Sweet view too. LoL I can almost see myself down there as it went up.
jberlotti 4 years ago
Nice view. Why does the video end shortly after ignition of the second stage: Loss of signal or just because nothing "interesting" happens any more?
JaguarCat2 4 years ago
Two reseans:
1. Classified payload.
2. Too much information from camera.
An educated foe could calculate the final orbit and determine how the spacecraft could be used by calulating the second stage burn time. Although the payload could have had a manuvering package of its own to enable it to reposition after 2nd stage separation.
Shutting off the camera after faring separation helps hide its location and final orbit.
n6vmo 4 years ago
Comment removed
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Two reseans:
1. Classified payload.
2. Too much information from camera.
An educated foe could calculate the final orbit and determine how the spacecraft could be used by calulating the second stage burn time. Although the payload could have had a manuvering package of its own to enable it to reposition after 2nd stage separation.
Shutting off the camera after faring separation helps hide its location and final orbit.
n6vmo 3 years ago
@n6vmo Not that it matters - Ted Molczan's group always quickly finds these things so they can publish their own orbital elements. Classifying the orbit of a satellite only draws attention to it. Many of these things are quite large and very visible; I've used some of Ted's elements and they're usually right on.
ApolloWasReal 9 months ago
You should've left the dumbass's comments up, they're always fun to read.
jonburrows 5 years ago
Sweet. Which SLC was that from?
cngp71 5 years ago
IIRC it's a Delta II thy are launched from SLC 17.
nebfer 4 years ago
Except that the title and tag both indicate Vandenberg not the Cape. The runway is VAFB North. I dont recall any permanent launch structure there. But then again, I dont recall a view like that. ;)
cngp71 4 years ago
There is no SLC 17
xylicon 4 years ago
Yes there is it's just on the other side of the country... (I thought the video was taken at the cape...) but it seems as it was launched over at Vandenberg, which would be SLC 2. (cape side thy are launched from SLC 17.)
nebfer 4 years ago
wow very impressive! never seen in that way
jord83 5 years ago
I removed motorbreath22's dumass comments, hes obviously too dumb to realize that the other Delta II video on my list if of that same launch. He should try googling "rocketcam" and maybe he'll shutup
xylicon 5 years ago
Fake huh? Duded you don't know what you are saying. * Rollseyes*
Ghostkol 5 years ago
Need evidences, dude.
antdude 5 years ago