WHY IS THE US DEVELOPING THE DELTA ROCKETS
WHEN THE SATURN 5 IS SO MUCH BETTER?



The Delta rockets are Americas attempt to catch up with the Chinese, French and Russians in the satellite launching business. They are being developed by Boeing. Lockheed-Martin is also developing the Atlas rockets, which use the Russian-made RD-180 main engine and boosters (manufactured by the Russian company Energomash).

The Delta's come in four major varieties, the early Delta's (developed from the Thor ballistic missile), the Delta 2's, the Delta 3 and the Delta 4's.

The Delta 2's come in a number of varieties, the 7326, 7425, 7925 and variants. The Delta 2's are now a reliable delivery system.

The Delta 3 has only one model: the 8930. Two out of three Delta 3 launches ended in total failure. The Delta 3 has been discontinued...

Full text here

Perhaps America is using the heavy lift vehicles of Russia to lift heavy things up into space now. Why spend more when you can get it done cheaper? Here's a recent article about this sort of thing.

http://www.altavista.com/r?ck_sm=382...Proton300.html

Why spend more when you can get it done cheaper?

Because no one can make sure that political stability will stay as well...

Delta project emerged very much from the millitary scene and their main requirements are medium sized spysattelites in low-earth orbit, still if Bush wants to return to the moon or even to mars, something bigger or smarter than the Delta has to be made

One reason Jack. Cost.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm

Launch Price $: 431.00 million in 1967
Launch Price $: 2.3 billion in 2002

Well get out.

Cost you say?!?!?

Why do you not mention the IMMENSE DEVELOPMENT COST of whatever was to replace the Saturn V.

The fact that this development will DELAY THE LAUNCH of many satellites by years, even decades.

The fact that there is no guarantee that what replaces it would be cheaper to run in the long term -- the shuttle launches actually proved even more expensive.

You have definitely not thought this one through.

Agreed, The shuttle was a nice toy, hailed during it's development as the reusable launch vehicle to cut launch costs, but it did not live up to the economic expectations, in hindsight, keeping the old proven saturn alive would have been cheaper than the shuttle fleet ?

I do think that, with the rerurn to the moon in the crosshairs, a russian - american jointventure for even larger proton rocket against affordable russian prices would be a good solution.

Most satellites are launched with much cheaper rockets and not with the space shuttle. They don't need a Saturn V to launch them into orbit. Notice there was a development cost with the Saturn V too. A damn expensive one for its time. And it would have still cost a large amount to launch each time because it was designed for heavy lifting. You couldn't have done to the Hubble (repair missions) with the Saturn V. The shuttle in that aspect is fine. I have thought this one through. While the shuttle isn't perfect, we really don't need a behomith of a rocket anymore. We need to build in pieces in space and ISS can be a good platform for this.

...You mean like ISS as an asemblyplace to fit all the small pieces together into a mars/moon mission rocket that starts from LEO...not a bad idea, still it would be a good costeffective idea to keep hiring the russians for getting those modules up there (both for economic and political partnership reasons), or perhaps the private sector (X-prize contenders etc. ) may prove cheapest access to LEO.

In both cases the NASA could focus her expertise on the development of advanced colony concepts and interplanetary/interstellar engines while the regular initial dirty liftingwork is done by the private sector.

This prospect, cheaper launch oppertunities from the private sector, is also what will possible make the shuttle really obsolote...

It's true that on a cost/pound basis the Saturn V was the most efficient rocket ever created. The problem is that a Saturn V provides more rocket than most people need. It has a payload capacity of about 280,000 lbs to low-earth orbit. To put it bluntly, no one needs to launch 280,000 lb satellites. Most satellites only weigh a few thousand pounds. Even the really heavy ones rarely weigh over 20,000-30,000 lbs. As someone else pointed out, the cost of launching a Saturn V, adjusted for inflation, is about 2.5 billion dollars. In comparison, a delta rocket 'only' costs a few hundred million. Why would anyone want to pay so much more for launch capacity that they don't need?

Because by god... Bigger is Better! and it's American! heh. No, using Delta rockets makes sense now. Thanks for this info.

no one needs to launch 280,000 lb satellites

Like man,.... no one needs to launch the ISS,... oh thats right they did launch the International Space Station

Oh,.. I guess Nasor needs to go back to school -- cheers.

You idiot, Jack. You couldn't launch the entire ISS into orbit anyhow. You know how big the thing is suppose to end up being? It's going to be the length of a football field. You couldn't launch it all in one sitting. You do it section by section like NASA is doing. The shuttle launched them because it used its robotic arm to connect the different sections. It looks like the one that needs some schooling is you Jack. Or are you happy with your high school diploma.

Yeah, I like the way you latch onto a single sentence fragment while completely ignoring what I actually said in my post.

The Delta rockets aren't intended to launch big things like ISS components. Deltas are meant for launching conventional satellites; weather satellites, spy satellites, communications satellites, etc.

Why would I want to use a $2.5 billion rocket with a 280,000 lb lift capacity to launch my 8,000 lb satellite? Doesn't it make sense that we have a smaller, cheaper class of launch vehicles for placing small satellites in orbit?

In this paper, tethers unlimited dicusses a "bootstrap" strategy using light tether lifters that will pay for their own development after wich they can be combined to form a heavy lifter.

http://www.tethers.com/papers/MXERJPC2003Paper.pdf

Now that NASA is seeking has to phase out the shuttle and given a mission by Bush (without enough money it seems) they might as well tie up the loose ends into a tether.

It's an intriguing idea. Oh course, you still have to find a way to get your payload into low earth orbit. Didn't NASA do some tests with tethers like this years ago? I don't remember how they turned out.

I think that was an idea of powering satellites.

ok, let's rephrase the question, why build Saturn-V if you could built an Orion ?