Very impressive. Yikes was the dummy payload actually 112,000 lb? wow that would make SSP systems fairly feasible. That is weird about the Saturn V becoming obsolete.
Sorry I was thinking of the space X Falcon Heavy, it is going to be up in the 50,000 kg range, which will enable SSP and drops orbit costs to $1000 per kg.
@yenamarre100 Same reason crowds don't gather in Paris when a plane makes a non-stop trans-Atlantic flight, as they did for Lindbergh. It's a common, not-special occurrence now.
I remember thinking we'd crossed that threshold with manned space flight, the day a Shuttle launch wasn't covered live...even though the morning launch was during normal network news shows. It wasn't just not worth breaking into entertainment programming, it wasn't newsworthy, even when you're already *doing* news.
Everytime I get a boner I go through a count down like this outloud. My girlfriend gets annoyed, but I simply can't resist. I go through all the stages and in a monotone say things like: "Main power on" and "Primary ignition activated." I then move into a count down: "10. 9. 8. 7..." When I'm completely errect I say: "We have lift off." However on those unfortunate nights when I can't get excited I again go through all the stages but in the end simply say: "Houston, we have a problem."
Impressive if you've never witnessed a shuttle launch, especially with all the hype surrounding the launch here in Lompoc. But its always neat to see a launch anyway.
@ugowar Yes! Good, Hi-Def footage of Delta IV-H seems to be rare, even non-existent. Its the booster that should always have been the one to launch the Orion spacecraft. In fact, Boeing says that if 5x corestages were strapped together with upgraded RS-68-B engines, Aluminium/Lithium tankage and an on-the-drawing-board 3x RL-10B2 powered upper stage: you'd get a booster that could put more than 60 tons into Earth orbit or throw 25+plus tons at the Moon or Mars. A cheap-ish Heavy Lifter, eh? :)
@MattBlak1 Even more annoying than the lack of any good quality footage is the fact that out of the 4 launches that happened so far, 3 have been night launches. Of those 3, two were in cloudy/foggy weather. Visually, a bust. We shall see when the next Delta IV Heavy flies in January 2011 from Vandenberg, although they don't have as good trackers as the Cape does.
That would be impossible. NASA destroyed the tools, engineering drawings and just about everything else related to the Saturn V. They did as a way to ensure the survival of the the Space Shuttle by making it the only game in town for payloads between 30,000 and 50,000 pounds. Unfortunately for NASA and the USA the outrageous cost of shuttle launches is the reason the USA is sucking hind tit in the commercial launch industry today.
@1138thz Um... No. You can go see them on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center, and of course the tooling would be scrapped or abandoned. There were no plans to continue the production line so there was no reason to maintain the equipment.
There were no plans to continue production of the S-V because NASA wanted the STS to be the only game in town even if it was the most inefficient one. Either NASA had a collective case of downs syndrome in being so short sighted or their destruction of the capability to launch heavy payloads was intentional and served their STS agenda. By the way do tell why the CIA and The USAF pulled out of the STS...was it cost...reliability...or both? The D-IV-H and Atlas-V exist why?
@1138thz That's not what I was arguing. I was countering your statement that everything related to the Saturn V was destroyed. I know perfectly well the political reasoning for it.
Well Ok partner, no slight intended.... Hey, what do you think of the Falcon 9 & Falcon9 heavy? I'm pretty excited about those. It think its interesting that SpaceX's engine the Merlin 1c is based on the LEM engines. I wish those guys a lot of luck. But you still gotta love those LOX/LH2 RS-68 engines on the D-IV 80% fewer components than the SSMEs and 80% cheaper. I like the Russian RD-180's on the Atlas V but I like American engines on American rockets.
@1138thz Totally agree on the RS-68. D-IV's probably my favorite rocket we have flying right now.
As for the Falcon, SpaceX has done a great job so far, but I think they're being massively optimistic with the Falcon Heavy's payload. I don't know how they went from around 9 tons to LEO to 53 with a simple "Heavy" modification. But time will tell, I suppose. I'd actually like to see the proposed Delta IV Super Heavy, but that doesn't seem likely right now.
Look at the puffs and plumes in the exhaust. If that happened to a SSME during a shuttle flight they would rebuild it and file a 3000 page report. I think that what has a lot to do with being man rated is being complete predictability, triple redundancy, and utter reliability. The Delta IV series isn't designed with that in mind.
@lrodcantu It's designed to loft multibillion dollar national security spacecraft. Do you really think the shuttle SRBs for example are inherently safer than a liquid booster? When was the last time a liquid engine blew?
The puffs and sparks come from the RS-68 ablative nozzle and they're normal and *expected*. Since SSME is a regeneratively cooled engine, no debris should theoretically be released and that's why any observed flaring/sparking immediately raises question marks.
@lrodcantu The vast majority (if not all) of the "puffs and plumes" are the firing of small vernier rockets which help steer all Delta rockets during certain portions of the trip uphill. But you are right: man rating and the kind of "triple redundancy" and other measures required for human space flight are likely to stop private companies in their tracks (or more likely result in huge infusions of public money to keep them going).
I watched this launch live, in the Huntington Beach Boeing Facility with a few hundred people that spent years of their life designing this beast of a rocket. They screamed and applauded, one of the most satisfying experiences of my life. I will never forget it.
This rocket can launch a luner lander and luner return capsule just like the Saturn V, but its not as powerful. Nasa says its not human certified but I guess thats not a good reference considering whats happened in past with ok'ed vehicles.
2:55-4:11 Is it just me or did that monster nearly make a right hand turn WOW thats some maneuvering. And what Kind of camera Was that Incredible ZOOM!!!!
@PastYears That's not maneuvering. It's an artifact of the way the camera tracker follows the vehicle and rotates on its axis. The rocket just flies a slow pitch profile to change from going vertically up at liftoff to flying parallel to the horizon at orbital insertion.
@ugowar Thanks I was just curious. And FYI Vandenberg Air Force Base has Scheduled a Launch of one of these Delta IV Heavy rockets in early January of 2011.
@PastYears Yep. A shame VAFB doesn't have such high resolution trackers as CCAFS, but at least I hope the launch won't be *another* D-IV Heavy night launch...
@jb42682 It's designed, built and operated by Boeing which is now part of a merger with Lockheed Martin's own launch vehicle division (and Atlas V rocket). The company's called United Launch Alliance. NASA procures launches of Atlas and Delta commercially, it's just a customer.
@jb42682 This is not a NASA rocket, wise guy. First thing to do when making such wisecrack comments is to *know* something about the topic you're actually talking about.
@datzfast They arent strap ons, they are a core rocket, the same rocket as the Shuttle main engine(the main 3 engines) Second stage is the Centaur on most Geo Sync Launches.
@Vuaviator Technically they *are* strapons, even though it's just two more cores because they're... well, *strapped on*. It's the same propellant as Shuttle main propulsion, but not the same engines. These are RS-68 engines, not SSME.
Also, Delta doesn't fly Centaurs, it flies its own LH2 upper stage - a 4 or 5 meter variant. Centaur is now flown on Atlas Vs.
Giant hulk of steel. This launch was EPIC FAIL!!!!!!
Demosat payload reached orbit, but not the intended orbit. Also, the fate of the 2 microsatellites is unknown because there is currently no signal from them...........................
@Luisvaldez989 EPIC FAIL? You very obviously don't know what you're talking about. It was a test flight with a complex flight plan and as such it served its purpose perfectly, identifying all issues to be fixed so the next flight can be 100% successful.
@NittanyTiger1 It's not surprising the boosters are expended when you realize they burn out at around 4 kilometers per second. When they reenter the atmosphere the aeroheating and stress is enough to rip/melt them apart.
@FractAlkemist Solids are more expensive than liquid strapons and have lower performance (even though higher thrust). Delta IV Heavy has more performance than Titan IV had, and it had boosters similar to the Shuttle.
Obama has killed off the Constellation program. Thank goodness!
*lights up a joint*
Folks I don't understand the obsession with super heavy duty lift rockets.
If we need to put a 400,000 pound load into space why not just break it up into 8 pieces. Launch each separately using Delta 4 heavies and then send a Chinese astronaut up into space to put all the pieces together.
@ugowar I expect you mean hydrogen, since helium doesn't burn. Either way, hydrogen is plentiful (about 75% of the entire universe is hydrogen) and it's easily extracted from lots of compounds, including water.
If I was in charge, I'd give up on human space flight and outsource the job to the Chinese. With all the extra money we could build a giant assembly line and mass produce 400 Delta 4 heavy rockets for half the cost of what we spent on the Space shuttle program. ^_^
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The NASA program is bogus, and a laughing stock. I have seen, a massive heavy bodied Shuttle type space plane over fly my radio tiower in Ireland. It had massive thick wings, part of the main body. 1/3 end section black rectangualr engine bay, Twin tail. BIG , Massive HEAVY vehicle. took 8 seconds to fly 100miles . Like a STS and RAF VULCAN Bomber on Steroids. Coming to land NE of Ireland,. Possibly Norway or Russia.
Deepblue sky setting sun lit it up perfect MAN Made off planet Freight carrier
The portion at 1:26, the vehicle looks a little like a grain elevator taking off! I would be interested to know how cost effective having the three liquid fuel boosters are as opposed to having SRB's, like the old Titan III configuration.
It's potentially much more cost-effective than big SRBs. Titan IV was one expensive puppy because it was built around performance, not operational cost or ease of handling. Liquid boosters cost more to develop, but are cheaper to crank out and handle afterward. Delta IV Heavy turned out pretty expensive (still cheaper than T-IV, while offering higher performance) partly because of an IMHO poor choice of 1st stage propellants. Atlas V HLV would probably cost 2x less for even higher performance.
Cost of engines and fuel are usually way down on the overall cost of the craft, it's usually personnel pay that eats up the large majority of the money involved.
To save cost. Theoretically, they would be the same as the core booster which would mean you just crank out cores, but RS-68 didn't meet all its performance targets (hence the ongoing RS-68A upgrade) so each CBC is actually unique, optimized for different loads it experiences.
It's a neat concept using 3 same cores - Atlas V HLV would really have identical cores and offer greater performance than Titan IV with its big and expensive solid rocket motors.
Of Course a Heavy EELV was studies with Atlas V strap-ons and a Delta IV core stage, great increase in lift but the infrastructure modifications were horrendous.
True, D4H has *actual*, demonstrated capacity. A paper rocket such as Ares V has *no capacity*.
There is no need for a heavy lifter as the majority of mass lifted to LEO is propellant anyway. Propellant depots can enable cheaper exploration missions. D4H can easily replace Ares I as it will have ample performance with the RS-68A upgrade and NASA can use those $35 billion for actual exploration instead of spending it on MSFC guys relearning how to design rockets all over again.
We're talking about rockets for future use and you're complaining about "Paper Rockets"?.
D4H can replace Ares 1, but no rocket, short of the Saturn V, can replace Ares V. Propellant depots are a good idea that won't be put in place until after major exploration starts. Infrastructure first can't and won't work.
Also, you need a heavy lifter for lunar and martian landers, and building a martian spacecraft in only several launches is far cheaper than dozens of launches.
Yes, I'm talking about "paper rockets" because that's what Ares V is and will remain in this economic climate. Or do you think NASA will really get to spend 80+ billion dollars on developing such a monstrosity that would be unsustainable to operate and wouldn't amortize its development cost for decades due to low flight rate? There is no need for 180 ton lifters to LEO as a Mars ship can and should be made workable with modules no larger than 50 tons. The majority of the mass will be propellant.
This obsession with heavy lift and doing it like Apollo-style is the only way is completely limited and not thinking outside the box. Do you know what happened to Apollo and Saturn V? They got cancelled because they were too expensive to operate. Yet NASA still thinks doing the same thing again will be different this time. Spending 35 billion on a EELV heavy class vehicle and another 80 billion on a heavy lifter is ludicrous. There will be no exploration that way, only a few more flags planted.
1) That would be the fueled Altair, again where does the requirement of launching it fueled come from?
2) Reality check, there is no Altair anymore. It got "defunded" by the Constellation program because the Ares program continues to suck the air out of the room, also making Orion drop safety features just so Ares I can make its performance targets. Ares is a dead end and its cancellation is all but certain.
There are upgrades to Delta IV all the way to 100T and Atlas V phase III can handle 50T payloads though LM is pitching an alternative lander for Atlas the DTAL lander.
I always thought of the Altair design as somewhat wasteful in that the lander must carry over sized tanks and engines all the way to the lunar surface.
it looked so beautiful and impressive in the beginning. i wonder why those guys in the Centre did not realize that there is a problem after separation of boosters? that the launch is not as successful as they said?
They probably realized something wasn't right when the two strapons separated several seconds early and the center core also shut down prematurely.
They *had to* realize the underperformance when the 2nd stage burned much longer than predicted in trying to compensate. Still, it's not like you go screaming FAILURE at the first sign of trouble, especially if it's not a catastrophic problem. The first thing is probably just head scratching and going over the numbers.
right. i like *head scratching* expression. that was definitely not a catastrophe although the task was not exactly accomplished. and really it looked very beautifully impressive in the first 2-3 minutes. nice vid!
Geeez I agree all the Purchasing of goods to build these launch vehicles amongst all the idiot politicians, and government officials getting a kick back for each launch it is a wonder why we just dont build a Uge ass sling shot and launch 100 of these payloads...LOL it woyld be cheaper , and eventually we will get one in orbit, Sorry guys I feel our Aerospace is greasing the wrong people and we are in a coarse for major meltdown of our jobs
Nice video, but I am surprised the exhaust of the RS-68's are orange. I would expect them to be Blue-White like the shuttle since it runs on Liquid Hydrogen/ Liquid Oxygen. On another note, has anyone thought of using Atlas-V's as boosters with a Delta IV core?
SSME exhaust is also reddish, but it's not readily obvious during daytime launches and next to bright SRB plumes. RS-68 is a lower efficiency engine and runs more fuel rich so that's where the reddish post-combustion burning comes from.
i would so totally ride a Delta IV in an Orion CEV. no solid rocket strap ons... no fratricide... Delta IV should be America's next manned launcher. Go Delta! Go Orion 1!
The only daytime launch of the Heavy yet and all we have is this skippy webcast footage. I wish there was a full motion version available, the launch provided for some spectacular tracking camera shots.
It's Delta IV. The Titan rocket family has been phased out.
The high cost of using hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, along with the special care that was needed due to their toxicity, proved too much compared to the higher-performance liquid hydrogen or RP-1-fueled vehicles, with a liquid oxygen oxidizer.
Well, let's see... The video description says it's a Delta IV Heavy, the video caption says it's a Delta IV Heavy, the launch commentator states it's a Delta IV Heavy on several occasions so... yes, you're right - it's a Titan IV.
With a liquid-fueled rocket, the cost of the propellant is a tiny fraction of the vehicle's cost, and offers a high specific impulse (a measure of engine efficiency).
Solid propellant is much more expensive, can't be throttled, and has a lower specific impulse. Its advantage is high thrust, so it makes sense to use it as a booster which is quickly discarded.
I can't say anything about the actual propellants, but solid rockets are usually much cheaper and reliable than liquid rockets due to their simplicity and lack of expensive and (relatively) unreliable turbopumps, plumbing, etc. They can be designed to have varying thrust during their burn by shaping their cores were the fuel is being burnt. You are right though that they are uncontrollable and less efficient
True, the vehicle structure is greatly simplified. However, the propellants are expensive to manufacture compared to oxygen, hydrogen, and kerosene. They also incur greater expenses down the road, due to being explosive, toxic, and in need of forming into patterns to control burn rate.
No, but they have to deal with thrust oscillations of a different kind and they get exponentially worse as the solid rocket motor gets bigger. Just take a look at NASA's pitiful Ares I design using a beefed up shuttle SRB for first stage.
It's said liquid boosters are more expensive to develop initially, but are cheaper to crank out down the line once you've designed them. I disagree about the reliability and failure modes of solids vs. liquids. Yeah, a liquid engine will tend to fail more often, but it will do so nonexplosively. Compare that to the U.S. Delta II and Titan solid rocket booster explosions. I dare you to find when was the last time a liquid engine failed catastrophically and blew up the vehicle in an instant.
Actually there is a way. Some US ICBMs are equipped with valves that basically cause a massive pressure change inside the rocket and cause the flame to blow itself out. It was actually utilized in the cold war to enable a more precise nuclear strike.
Let's compare them to the Shuttle, the most familiar LV in use right now...Liquid fueled engines can be throttled up & down. The Shuttle Main Engines can do this but the SRBs can't. Once a solid rocket motor is lit, that's it. No in-between; they're lit or they're not. Also, in emergencies, liquid fueled rockets can be shut down. SRMs can't. If problems occur after solid ignition on the shuttle, it's still gonna go. Liquids can be shut down on the pad after ignition (see Gemini 6A & some STSs).
Indeed. I'd love to get hold of this footage in higher resolution than this web stream. The only thing that kills it is the sound immediately after liftoff, it's not that powerful rumble but the sound of a dying microphone.
The third launch is scheduled for lift off on November 10th as of June 12th. Only problem is that this rocket gets delayed a lot. November 10th is the fifth revised date for this launch, from an original August 28th.
And not a drop of 'pollution'. Hydrogen mixed with oxygen. H2O. Just some water vapour. An eco-friendly 900 ton-thrust booster. Brilliant.
soberek 1 month ago
how this rocket is kept straight during launch?
Omatunto 3 months ago
Liquid fueled rockets are soooo much better than crappy solid rocket fueled dumbed down rockets.
ti994apc 4 months ago
Damn!! The flames shooting out the end of the rocket at launch are massive!!!
american2015 4 months ago
This rocket is ugly
TooMuchGass 5 months ago
@TooMuchGass Who gives a damn what it looks like, it's functional.
bweazel 4 months ago
@bweazel We care how anything else looks
TooMuchGass 4 months ago
At 1:26 it looks like a paintbrush!
MrMaypole14 5 months ago
Huge "Finger" gesture in the sky... It's beautiful
HungryGreeny 5 months ago
does hd cam's cost to much are what ? ?
hotrod4you2 5 months ago
1:20 kind of looks like its flipping the middle finger to everyone. everywhere.
Neoli2300 6 months ago
you could put a capsual on top of 1 of these instead of being russias bitch
701shep 7 months ago
Ugly lookin rocket
mohammeddavis 7 months ago
@1:25 it's saying "F**k you!" to the entire world
ozzymuzzy246 8 months ago
Very impressive. Yikes was the dummy payload actually 112,000 lb? wow that would make SSP systems fairly feasible. That is weird about the Saturn V becoming obsolete.
UFOMAN618 8 months ago
@UFOMAN618
More like 11,200 lb. The Saturn V still plays in a totally different league.
blablubb12345 8 months ago
Sorry I was thinking of the space X Falcon Heavy, it is going to be up in the 50,000 kg range, which will enable SSP and drops orbit costs to $1000 per kg.
UFOMAN618 7 months ago
@UFOMAN618
Well, at least that's what Elon Musk says. I'd take those numbers with a grain of salt ;-)
blablubb12345 7 months ago
Solid fuel launches are more dramatic. More smoke.
CharlesShawRules 9 months ago
The Delta IV looks more like the Titan 3-C.
altfactor 9 months ago
Damn, I was looking for the Drum and Bass producer "Delta Heavy". I feel like the guy who walks into the wrong room full of people. :P
wonderbrawl1919 9 months ago
@yenamarre100 Same reason crowds don't gather in Paris when a plane makes a non-stop trans-Atlantic flight, as they did for Lindbergh. It's a common, not-special occurrence now.
I remember thinking we'd crossed that threshold with manned space flight, the day a Shuttle launch wasn't covered live...even though the morning launch was during normal network news shows. It wasn't just not worth breaking into entertainment programming, it wasn't newsworthy, even when you're already *doing* news.
stardolphin2 9 months ago
Great rocket. However, You have no idea what this magnificent machine is going to be used for or what it will finally accomplish.
MSQNN 10 months ago
Delta IV Heavy is just magnificent. We need to man-rate her NOW!!!
kittypie070 10 months ago
The hard banging sound, is it from supersonic exhaust gasses?
Skandalos 10 months ago
That tracking is dead on. Does anyone know if they use people to track like the shuttle or is it automated?
Tubeglowfun 10 months ago
fake
shawbaby1111 11 months ago
Delta IV is showing a finger at 0:57 LOL.. :)
strangerindanger 1 year ago
This is an awesome rocket! I'm so thankful that I got to see one launch from Vandenberg in January!
decemberdazzle 1 year ago
from 1:13 the quality of the video makes it look like a video from the 60's lol
OsanBlackCat5RS 1 year ago
looks kinda like one of those cheesey 60's- 70's space movies at 1:19
teen1418 1 year ago
Everytime I get a boner I go through a count down like this outloud. My girlfriend gets annoyed, but I simply can't resist. I go through all the stages and in a monotone say things like: "Main power on" and "Primary ignition activated." I then move into a count down: "10. 9. 8. 7..." When I'm completely errect I say: "We have lift off." However on those unfortunate nights when I can't get excited I again go through all the stages but in the end simply say: "Houston, we have a problem."
JohnQRandom 1 year ago
Wow looks like something that might have blasted its way out of Mos Eisley
Gavingreenhill 1 year ago
That is one hell of a camera mount! Fuck ME
TheArfdog 1 year ago
Impressive if you've never witnessed a shuttle launch, especially with all the hype surrounding the launch here in Lompoc. But its always neat to see a launch anyway.
nateholio 1 year ago
One of these Delta IV-Heavy rockets just launched from Vandenberg! Such an impressive vehicle!
decemberdazzle 1 year ago
Delta IV heavy launching today from Vandenberg AFB @1:08pm pst.
CubsWinThePennant 1 year ago
Comment removed
BadRonald1 1 year ago
Comment removed
BadRonald1 1 year ago
2:30,34,37,39 check those Spake Plugs for Gap Clearence Clarence
tsns1 1 year ago
Finally, a rocket that makes sense.
wakauai7wsxedcrfvqaz 1 year ago
That looks really heavy, but it got up.
dtiydr 1 year ago
Jesus christ! Impressive zoom shots!
bweazel 1 year ago 2
Can anyone get a higher quality of this video? Delta IV-H sure is a Badass booster!!
MattBlak1 1 year ago 13
@MattBlak1 That's what I'd like to know as well.
ugowar 1 year ago 4
@ugowar Yes! Good, Hi-Def footage of Delta IV-H seems to be rare, even non-existent. Its the booster that should always have been the one to launch the Orion spacecraft. In fact, Boeing says that if 5x corestages were strapped together with upgraded RS-68-B engines, Aluminium/Lithium tankage and an on-the-drawing-board 3x RL-10B2 powered upper stage: you'd get a booster that could put more than 60 tons into Earth orbit or throw 25+plus tons at the Moon or Mars. A cheap-ish Heavy Lifter, eh? :)
MattBlak1 1 year ago 4
@MattBlak1 Even more annoying than the lack of any good quality footage is the fact that out of the 4 launches that happened so far, 3 have been night launches. Of those 3, two were in cloudy/foggy weather. Visually, a bust. We shall see when the next Delta IV Heavy flies in January 2011 from Vandenberg, although they don't have as good trackers as the Cape does.
ugowar 1 year ago
@ugowar With all these NSA and NRO secret payloads, believe me: they prefer the thing to disappear into cloud decks as soon as possible ! : ]
rss0246 1 year ago
@ugowar they should just bring back the Saturn V and tried and tested rocket
madman026 10 months ago
@madman026
That would be impossible. NASA destroyed the tools, engineering drawings and just about everything else related to the Saturn V. They did as a way to ensure the survival of the the Space Shuttle by making it the only game in town for payloads between 30,000 and 50,000 pounds. Unfortunately for NASA and the USA the outrageous cost of shuttle launches is the reason the USA is sucking hind tit in the commercial launch industry today.
1138thz 8 months ago
@1138thz Um... No. You can go see them on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center, and of course the tooling would be scrapped or abandoned. There were no plans to continue the production line so there was no reason to maintain the equipment.
Tyrannobeast 8 months ago
@Tyrannobeast
There were no plans to continue production of the S-V because NASA wanted the STS to be the only game in town even if it was the most inefficient one. Either NASA had a collective case of downs syndrome in being so short sighted or their destruction of the capability to launch heavy payloads was intentional and served their STS agenda. By the way do tell why the CIA and The USAF pulled out of the STS...was it cost...reliability...or both? The D-IV-H and Atlas-V exist why?
1138thz 8 months ago
@1138thz That's not what I was arguing. I was countering your statement that everything related to the Saturn V was destroyed. I know perfectly well the political reasoning for it.
Tyrannobeast 8 months ago
@Tyrannobeast
Well Ok partner, no slight intended.... Hey, what do you think of the Falcon 9 & Falcon9 heavy? I'm pretty excited about those. It think its interesting that SpaceX's engine the Merlin 1c is based on the LEM engines. I wish those guys a lot of luck. But you still gotta love those LOX/LH2 RS-68 engines on the D-IV 80% fewer components than the SSMEs and 80% cheaper. I like the Russian RD-180's on the Atlas V but I like American engines on American rockets.
1138thz 8 months ago
@1138thz Totally agree on the RS-68. D-IV's probably my favorite rocket we have flying right now.
As for the Falcon, SpaceX has done a great job so far, but I think they're being massively optimistic with the Falcon Heavy's payload. I don't know how they went from around 9 tons to LEO to 53 with a simple "Heavy" modification. But time will tell, I suppose. I'd actually like to see the proposed Delta IV Super Heavy, but that doesn't seem likely right now.
Tyrannobeast 8 months ago
@Tyrannobeast
Falcon 9 heavy
stage 1 18 merlin 1C's at full power (strap on) 9 at 1/2 power(core) = 2.7 million pounds of thrust
core stage after power up = 1,000,000 lbs thrust.
upper stage (lox/Rp1) = 138.000 lbs
I think D-IV, Atlas V, and Falcon9 and Falcon 9 heavy all have a niche in the inventory
1138thz 8 months ago
@MattBlak1 Heavy lifter? Try SUPER heavy lifter! Phew! 60 tons! 25 tons to mars?! They could put several MSL probes down on mars at once!
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
Look at the puffs and plumes in the exhaust. If that happened to a SSME during a shuttle flight they would rebuild it and file a 3000 page report. I think that what has a lot to do with being man rated is being complete predictability, triple redundancy, and utter reliability. The Delta IV series isn't designed with that in mind.
lrodcantu 1 year ago
@lrodcantu It's designed to loft multibillion dollar national security spacecraft. Do you really think the shuttle SRBs for example are inherently safer than a liquid booster? When was the last time a liquid engine blew?
The puffs and sparks come from the RS-68 ablative nozzle and they're normal and *expected*. Since SSME is a regeneratively cooled engine, no debris should theoretically be released and that's why any observed flaring/sparking immediately raises question marks.
ugowar 1 year ago 5
@lrodcantu The vast majority (if not all) of the "puffs and plumes" are the firing of small vernier rockets which help steer all Delta rockets during certain portions of the trip uphill. But you are right: man rating and the kind of "triple redundancy" and other measures required for human space flight are likely to stop private companies in their tracks (or more likely result in huge infusions of public money to keep them going).
rss0246 1 year ago
I watched this launch live, in the Huntington Beach Boeing Facility with a few hundred people that spent years of their life designing this beast of a rocket. They screamed and applauded, one of the most satisfying experiences of my life. I will never forget it.
ithicaplasma 1 year ago
This rocket can launch a luner lander and luner return capsule just like the Saturn V, but its not as powerful. Nasa says its not human certified but I guess thats not a good reference considering whats happened in past with ok'ed vehicles.
fairlanejay 1 year ago
@fairlanejay "Human certified" is indeed in the eye of the beholder...
ugowar 1 year ago
@fairlanejay It's three times less powerful...could it get them out of earth orbit?
edj66 1 year ago
lol... you can hear stuff shaking in background
fairlanejay 1 year ago
2:55-4:11 Is it just me or did that monster nearly make a right hand turn WOW thats some maneuvering. And what Kind of camera Was that Incredible ZOOM!!!!
PastYears 1 year ago
@PastYears That's not maneuvering. It's an artifact of the way the camera tracker follows the vehicle and rotates on its axis. The rocket just flies a slow pitch profile to change from going vertically up at liftoff to flying parallel to the horizon at orbital insertion.
ugowar 1 year ago
@ugowar Thanks I was just curious. And FYI Vandenberg Air Force Base has Scheduled a Launch of one of these Delta IV Heavy rockets in early January of 2011.
PastYears 1 year ago
@PastYears Yep. A shame VAFB doesn't have such high resolution trackers as CCAFS, but at least I hope the launch won't be *another* D-IV Heavy night launch...
ugowar 1 year ago
@jb42682 Delta IV is owned by Boeing. That's a 5m faring.
swaggs 1 year ago
@jb42682 It's designed, built and operated by Boeing which is now part of a merger with Lockheed Martin's own launch vehicle division (and Atlas V rocket). The company's called United Launch Alliance. NASA procures launches of Atlas and Delta commercially, it's just a customer.
ugowar 1 year ago
@jb42682 This is not a NASA rocket, wise guy. First thing to do when making such wisecrack comments is to *know* something about the topic you're actually talking about.
ugowar 1 year ago
how far is the craft before you lose visual? is it 100 miles or so as per what's said on the radio? thanks
maxmouche 1 year ago
jesus did you guys see the size of those strap ons they were thrusting the whole time
datzfast 1 year ago
@datzfast They arent strap ons, they are a core rocket, the same rocket as the Shuttle main engine(the main 3 engines) Second stage is the Centaur on most Geo Sync Launches.
Vuaviator 1 year ago
@Vuaviator Technically they *are* strapons, even though it's just two more cores because they're... well, *strapped on*. It's the same propellant as Shuttle main propulsion, but not the same engines. These are RS-68 engines, not SSME.
Also, Delta doesn't fly Centaurs, it flies its own LH2 upper stage - a 4 or 5 meter variant. Centaur is now flown on Atlas Vs.
ugowar 1 year ago
its good to see NASA is going with the smokeless black powder LOL
datzfast 1 year ago
@datzfast Huh?
ugowar 1 year ago
Giant hulk of steel. This launch was EPIC FAIL!!!!!!
Demosat payload reached orbit, but not the intended orbit. Also, the fate of the 2 microsatellites is unknown because there is currently no signal from them...........................
Luisvaldez989 1 year ago
@Luisvaldez989 EPIC FAIL? You very obviously don't know what you're talking about. It was a test flight with a complex flight plan and as such it served its purpose perfectly, identifying all issues to be fixed so the next flight can be 100% successful.
ugowar 1 year ago
Is any part of this vehicle re-usable?
NittanyTiger1 1 year ago
@NittanyTiger1 No, it's all expendable. Hence the name EELV or "Evolved *Expendable* Launch Vehicle" class.
ugowar 1 year ago
@ugowar Well, that's a waste, especially when the first stage + boosters are 3 large, identical rockets strapped together.
NittanyTiger1 1 year ago
@NittanyTiger1 It's not surprising the boosters are expended when you realize they burn out at around 4 kilometers per second. When they reenter the atmosphere the aeroheating and stress is enough to rip/melt them apart.
ugowar 1 year ago
@NittanyTiger1 Obviously you have no clue what the term heavy lift means.
swaggs 1 year ago
@swaggs I know well what it means. It refers to the weight of the payload.
NittanyTiger1 1 year ago
не плохо!
activan2 1 year ago
wouldnt it be better if the 2 on the side were SRB, like the shuttle.
would be simpler and cheaper.
but maybe not enuf power then.
FractAlkemist 1 year ago
@FractAlkemist Solids are more expensive than liquid strapons and have lower performance (even though higher thrust). Delta IV Heavy has more performance than Titan IV had, and it had boosters similar to the Shuttle.
ugowar 1 year ago
That's a big bird ;)
ludocrat 1 year ago
Jeez, freaking beast
F22PilotArcile 1 year ago
@arsenal553 i work for the company that makes them!
Dittlelifferent 1 year ago
that looks sooo bad ass
detibry 1 year ago
Obama has killed off the Constellation program. Thank goodness!
*lights up a joint*
Folks I don't understand the obsession with super heavy duty lift rockets.
If we need to put a 400,000 pound load into space why not just break it up into 8 pieces. Launch each separately using Delta 4 heavies and then send a Chinese astronaut up into space to put all the pieces together.
odegaard 1 year ago
They gulp helium during startup like there's no tomorrow, though. And helium is increasingly becoming a scarce commodity in today's civilization.
ugowar 1 year ago
@ugowar I expect you mean hydrogen, since helium doesn't burn. Either way, hydrogen is plentiful (about 75% of the entire universe is hydrogen) and it's easily extracted from lots of compounds, including water.
StereoSpace 1 year ago
@StereoSpace *Helium* is used for the turbopump spinup during ignition and vast quantities are used in the process.
ugowar 1 year ago
This baby look mean!!!! GO USA!
mackjsm 2 years ago 2
@mackjsm it also resembles something else hint Austin Powers moves
warlored333 1 year ago
@warlored333 LOL!!
mackjsm 1 year ago
Porque só usam Hidrogênio líquido como combustível desde o primeiro estágio
eMobster 2 years ago
If I was in charge, I'd give up on human space flight and outsource the job to the Chinese. With all the extra money we could build a giant assembly line and mass produce 400 Delta 4 heavy rockets for half the cost of what we spent on the Space shuttle program. ^_^
odegaard 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The NASA program is bogus, and a laughing stock. I have seen, a massive heavy bodied Shuttle type space plane over fly my radio tiower in Ireland. It had massive thick wings, part of the main body. 1/3 end section black rectangualr engine bay, Twin tail. BIG , Massive HEAVY vehicle. took 8 seconds to fly 100miles . Like a STS and RAF VULCAN Bomber on Steroids. Coming to land NE of Ireland,. Possibly Norway or Russia.
Deepblue sky setting sun lit it up perfect MAN Made off planet Freight carrier
megawatts1066 2 years ago
Put the joint down. Get some help. There's so much nonsense in this post that I don't know where to begin.
Boy75402 2 years ago 9
The portion at 1:26, the vehicle looks a little like a grain elevator taking off! I would be interested to know how cost effective having the three liquid fuel boosters are as opposed to having SRB's, like the old Titan III configuration.
76RBK 2 years ago
It's potentially much more cost-effective than big SRBs. Titan IV was one expensive puppy because it was built around performance, not operational cost or ease of handling. Liquid boosters cost more to develop, but are cheaper to crank out and handle afterward. Delta IV Heavy turned out pretty expensive (still cheaper than T-IV, while offering higher performance) partly because of an IMHO poor choice of 1st stage propellants. Atlas V HLV would probably cost 2x less for even higher performance.
ugowar 2 years ago
Cost of engines and fuel are usually way down on the overall cost of the craft, it's usually personnel pay that eats up the large majority of the money involved.
marmaladekamikaze 2 years ago
Does that use the RS-68 hydrogen engines? I assume so... given the visible hydrogen burn-off igniter sparks visible at the 0:34 mark...
rakrupski 2 years ago
Yes. Also clear by the huge fireball of helium and hydrogen that engulfs the rocket during the ignition sequence.
ugowar 2 years ago
Why are the strap-ons liquid fueled?
rakrupski 2 years ago
To save cost. Theoretically, they would be the same as the core booster which would mean you just crank out cores, but RS-68 didn't meet all its performance targets (hence the ongoing RS-68A upgrade) so each CBC is actually unique, optimized for different loads it experiences.
It's a neat concept using 3 same cores - Atlas V HLV would really have identical cores and offer greater performance than Titan IV with its big and expensive solid rocket motors.
ugowar 2 years ago
Of Course a Heavy EELV was studies with Atlas V strap-ons and a Delta IV core stage, great increase in lift but the infrastructure modifications were horrendous.
Ronsmytheiii 2 years ago
Pardon, whats an EELV, electrolevitation?
megawatts1066 2 years ago
@megawatts1066 evolved expendable launch vehicle
arias1772 1 year ago
@rakrupski Aviation Week just published an article "ULA Plans Fix For Delta IV Heavy Launch Flame" that says they are going to address this issue.
psychocandy007 7 months ago
They ought to use this booster instead of Ares 5. The Delta 4 Medium could be used instead of Ares I.
sfcbjs 2 years ago
No, they shouldn't. D4H's payload capacity is not even close to Ares V's capacity.
Gatedialer 2 years ago
True, D4H has *actual*, demonstrated capacity. A paper rocket such as Ares V has *no capacity*.
There is no need for a heavy lifter as the majority of mass lifted to LEO is propellant anyway. Propellant depots can enable cheaper exploration missions. D4H can easily replace Ares I as it will have ample performance with the RS-68A upgrade and NASA can use those $35 billion for actual exploration instead of spending it on MSFC guys relearning how to design rockets all over again.
ugowar 2 years ago
We're talking about rockets for future use and you're complaining about "Paper Rockets"?.
D4H can replace Ares 1, but no rocket, short of the Saturn V, can replace Ares V. Propellant depots are a good idea that won't be put in place until after major exploration starts. Infrastructure first can't and won't work.
Also, you need a heavy lifter for lunar and martian landers, and building a martian spacecraft in only several launches is far cheaper than dozens of launches.
Gatedialer 2 years ago
Yes, I'm talking about "paper rockets" because that's what Ares V is and will remain in this economic climate. Or do you think NASA will really get to spend 80+ billion dollars on developing such a monstrosity that would be unsustainable to operate and wouldn't amortize its development cost for decades due to low flight rate? There is no need for 180 ton lifters to LEO as a Mars ship can and should be made workable with modules no larger than 50 tons. The majority of the mass will be propellant.
ugowar 2 years ago
This obsession with heavy lift and doing it like Apollo-style is the only way is completely limited and not thinking outside the box. Do you know what happened to Apollo and Saturn V? They got cancelled because they were too expensive to operate. Yet NASA still thinks doing the same thing again will be different this time. Spending 35 billion on a EELV heavy class vehicle and another 80 billion on a heavy lifter is ludicrous. There will be no exploration that way, only a few more flags planted.
ugowar 2 years ago
Then there is always Atlas 5 heavy lift boosters. Either Atlas or Delta can be modified to lift the Altare lander and Earth orbit escape rocket.
sfcbjs 2 years ago
No, they can't.
Altair weighs 50 tons. EDS probably weighs 60 tons.
Atlas 5 heavy or D4H can't lift both, not to mention both are very wide and would require extreme width fairings to fit the CBC or Atlas core.
Gatedialer 2 years ago
1) That would be the fueled Altair, again where does the requirement of launching it fueled come from?
2) Reality check, there is no Altair anymore. It got "defunded" by the Constellation program because the Ares program continues to suck the air out of the room, also making Orion drop safety features just so Ares I can make its performance targets. Ares is a dead end and its cancellation is all but certain.
ugowar 2 years ago
There are upgrades to Delta IV all the way to 100T and Atlas V phase III can handle 50T payloads though LM is pitching an alternative lander for Atlas the DTAL lander.
I always thought of the Altair design as somewhat wasteful in that the lander must carry over sized tanks and engines all the way to the lunar surface.
Membrane556 2 years ago
looks like an early corellian corvette
yarahahrwe 2 years ago
Looks like a paintbrush.
bjsank28 2 years ago 2
...yeah it does around 0:55 !
Never occurred to me until I read the comment.
Gary190tube 2 years ago
it looked so beautiful and impressive in the beginning. i wonder why those guys in the Centre did not realize that there is a problem after separation of boosters? that the launch is not as successful as they said?
mikkitiny 2 years ago
They probably realized something wasn't right when the two strapons separated several seconds early and the center core also shut down prematurely.
They *had to* realize the underperformance when the 2nd stage burned much longer than predicted in trying to compensate. Still, it's not like you go screaming FAILURE at the first sign of trouble, especially if it's not a catastrophic problem. The first thing is probably just head scratching and going over the numbers.
ugowar 2 years ago
right. i like *head scratching* expression. that was definitely not a catastrophe although the task was not exactly accomplished. and really it looked very beautifully impressive in the first 2-3 minutes. nice vid!
mikkitiny 2 years ago
Geeez I agree all the Purchasing of goods to build these launch vehicles amongst all the idiot politicians, and government officials getting a kick back for each launch it is a wonder why we just dont build a Uge ass sling shot and launch 100 of these payloads...LOL it woyld be cheaper , and eventually we will get one in orbit, Sorry guys I feel our Aerospace is greasing the wrong people and we are in a coarse for major meltdown of our jobs
chrashdive 2 years ago
the outline of the craft after launch looks like a flying "middle finger". XD
lfstweak420 2 years ago
no, it does not look like *f...* sign. lol. it looks very nice construction.
mikkitiny 2 years ago
Nice video, but I am surprised the exhaust of the RS-68's are orange. I would expect them to be Blue-White like the shuttle since it runs on Liquid Hydrogen/ Liquid Oxygen. On another note, has anyone thought of using Atlas-V's as boosters with a Delta IV core?
MadMichigander1313 2 years ago
SSME exhaust is also reddish, but it's not readily obvious during daytime launches and next to bright SRB plumes. RS-68 is a lower efficiency engine and runs more fuel rich so that's where the reddish post-combustion burning comes from.
ugowar 2 years ago
i would so totally ride a Delta IV in an Orion CEV. no solid rocket strap ons... no fratricide... Delta IV should be America's next manned launcher. Go Delta! Go Orion 1!
nashsynthetic 2 years ago
The only daytime launch of the Heavy yet and all we have is this skippy webcast footage. I wish there was a full motion version available, the launch provided for some spectacular tracking camera shots.
ugowar 2 years ago
The three engines in a row looks like the Discovery spacecraft from 2001.
Alembic25 2 years ago
"It looks like a giant....."
rwboa22 2 years ago
isnt that a titan iv?
dufie123 2 years ago
It's Delta IV. The Titan rocket family has been phased out.
The high cost of using hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, along with the special care that was needed due to their toxicity, proved too much compared to the higher-performance liquid hydrogen or RP-1-fueled vehicles, with a liquid oxygen oxidizer.
HAL11000 2 years ago 2
Well, let's see... The video description says it's a Delta IV Heavy, the video caption says it's a Delta IV Heavy, the launch commentator states it's a Delta IV Heavy on several occasions so... yes, you're right - it's a Titan IV.
I'll fix the video description right away.
ugowar 2 years ago
Exceptional spectacular images like a science fiction movie!!!
Spartac58 2 years ago
Comment removed
A86 2 years ago
Who said it uses only one RS-68?
ugowar 2 years ago
Oops, sorry. I misread the description on the side. I visually skipped over the part about CBCs each having one RS-68. My bad.
A86 2 years ago
That is one goofy looking rocket.
JustAnAdjunct 2 years ago
Certainly less goofy than the space shuttle stack...
ugowar 2 years ago
Amen to that :)
JustAnAdjunct 2 years ago
With a liquid-fueled rocket, the cost of the propellant is a tiny fraction of the vehicle's cost, and offers a high specific impulse (a measure of engine efficiency).
Solid propellant is much more expensive, can't be throttled, and has a lower specific impulse. Its advantage is high thrust, so it makes sense to use it as a booster which is quickly discarded.
lithiumdeuteride 3 years ago
I can't say anything about the actual propellants, but solid rockets are usually much cheaper and reliable than liquid rockets due to their simplicity and lack of expensive and (relatively) unreliable turbopumps, plumbing, etc. They can be designed to have varying thrust during their burn by shaping their cores were the fuel is being burnt. You are right though that they are uncontrollable and less efficient
soapy05 2 years ago
True, the vehicle structure is greatly simplified. However, the propellants are expensive to manufacture compared to oxygen, hydrogen, and kerosene. They also incur greater expenses down the road, due to being explosive, toxic, and in need of forming into patterns to control burn rate.
But at least they don't have to deal with pogo.
lithiumdeuteride 2 years ago
No, but they have to deal with thrust oscillations of a different kind and they get exponentially worse as the solid rocket motor gets bigger. Just take a look at NASA's pitiful Ares I design using a beefed up shuttle SRB for first stage.
ugowar 2 years ago
It's said liquid boosters are more expensive to develop initially, but are cheaper to crank out down the line once you've designed them. I disagree about the reliability and failure modes of solids vs. liquids. Yeah, a liquid engine will tend to fail more often, but it will do so nonexplosively. Compare that to the U.S. Delta II and Titan solid rocket booster explosions. I dare you to find when was the last time a liquid engine failed catastrophically and blew up the vehicle in an instant.
ugowar 2 years ago
And I know of no known way a shutting down a solid once it starts ... except by the range safety officer ... hint ... boom?
donkeyxotedelamanche 2 years ago
Actually there is a way. Some US ICBMs are equipped with valves that basically cause a massive pressure change inside the rocket and cause the flame to blow itself out. It was actually utilized in the cold war to enable a more precise nuclear strike.
Dothomir 2 years ago
Great video. I live 65 miles east of KSC. They're trying to launch a Delta IV from Canaveral tonight. I can't wait!
CofCGuy 3 years ago
Yeah, after two holds in the countdown and god only knows how many delays, they finally got that bird off the ground.
Too bad it was a night launch again, and only the third Delta IV Heavy flight ever.
ugowar 3 years ago
wow that was amazing
its in my favs!!
cjracer1000 3 years ago
Let's compare them to the Shuttle, the most familiar LV in use right now...Liquid fueled engines can be throttled up & down. The Shuttle Main Engines can do this but the SRBs can't. Once a solid rocket motor is lit, that's it. No in-between; they're lit or they're not. Also, in emergencies, liquid fueled rockets can be shut down. SRMs can't. If problems occur after solid ignition on the shuttle, it's still gonna go. Liquids can be shut down on the pad after ignition (see Gemini 6A & some STSs).
AceWalkerAstronaut 3 years ago 3
Amazing vid, looks almost animated, never seen camera work like that. Great work
blenk71 3 years ago
Damm!that was the most Awsum Vid!thnx u made my Day.more Plse!
000darkstar000 3 years ago
Nice video. After Space Shuttle retirement Delta IV Heavy would be best and most powerful rocket available to humankind for quite some time.
drVitall 3 years ago
any stats?
speed?
yotube123454321 3 years ago
incredible. looks almost animated
TGAcodes 3 years ago
I watched this launch live on the internet in 2004. It was one of the most beautiful I've ever seen. I wonder when they'll fly another one.
Ferrariman60 3 years ago 4
Indeed. I'd love to get hold of this footage in higher resolution than this web stream. The only thing that kills it is the sound immediately after liftoff, it's not that powerful rumble but the sound of a dying microphone.
ugowar 3 years ago
The third launch is scheduled for lift off on November 10th as of June 12th. Only problem is that this rocket gets delayed a lot. November 10th is the fifth revised date for this launch, from an original August 28th.
tperciac 3 years ago
Love this launch. I am such a nerd. I can't tell you how many times I've watched this.
tperciac 4 years ago 6