Thor's Children - The History of the Delta Rocket - Part 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2024
- Following up on the History of the Thor rocket, I have the History of the Delta rocket, which began as a NASA version of the Thor in 1960. The Delta would evolve over time to match the mission requirements as they grew. Japan would build their own version of the Delta too for their launch program.
This covers the first 20 years of Delta design evolution, up to 1981 and the arrival of the Space Shuttle which was supposed to replace it.
Again, heavily influenced by Ed Kyle's History:
web.archive.org/web/202204060...
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley - Наука та технологія
Delta, predated the shuttle, survived the shuttle, outflew the shuttle, and worked out overall cheaper than the shuttle.
Number of Space telescopes repaired: zero.
Number of space station assembled: zero
@@thetimebinder arguably the ISS could have been built with delta iv, possibly cheaper.
@@thetimebinder Granted not man rated, but better overall safety record than the shuttle anyway.
@@thetimebinder number of astronauts killed: zero
@@perigeehypertrophy5916 It's easy when it never had to do the job in the first place.
12:36. 700 tons to geostationary orbit! Holy cow why did we ever move away from this rocket. Just a quick typo in the script man its all good
Probably just one of those non-metric tons.
Lmao... some intel Mr. Manley let slip about that cloaked, human-alien space-dock out at some lagrange point.
Funny that he runs right through it without realizing what he had just said ;). He even emphasizes the '700' as an impressive number and "impressive" is an understatement.
I assume 700Kg? must just be a mis-speak.
Weird how you can just say stuff like that in a script without realizing, but then again I don't blame him for not going back and fixing it, probably should've corrected himself in post though.
I started my career at McDonnell Douglas in 1979. So you ended right where my experience with Delta started, the Delta 3000.
So I'm looking forward to your next video which will essentially encompass my career.
We did do some work for Shuttle launched satellites. We built the PAM stages, holding cradle, and sun shades for the Shuttle launched satellites.
i would be very interested if scott manley would do a interview with you about your work!
@@Roestikrokette Sounds like a good idea. I'd be interested in that as well 🙂
I suspect all footage generated will have to be cleared with some press and/or security people, as I suspect Matt is either still working there or recently retired and some of the stuff might be highly classified.
@@realulli why?
@@TomUlcak in the uk it's called "official secrets act" in the usa it's called "national security" or as most people call it... giving away secrets that the us govt dont want people to know even though it means nothing any more cus it's old tech.
@@WX4CB I mean, how do you know that this 'official secrets act' or 'national security' applies to mattcolver1? You don't. Unless, you work there and you wouldn't be discussing it here for sure.
At 12:30 I guess you meant to say 700 kg to geostationary instead of 700 tons?😉
Very interesting history on the delta, cant wait for part 2
700 tons to GEO would be an interesting rocket.
Why on Earth did so many people (me included) catch this?
At 14:36 he compares this to the 1.1 ton to GTO capability of the H1, I believe they should both be GTO.
@@michaelsouth2567 because we’re all space nerds thanks to Scott 😂
@@notjackschannel5380 That should be "nit-picking, detailed obsessed, pedantic space nerds" thank you very much.
I've recently been looking for a video synopsis of the delta rocket in general and I couldn't find anything as informative as you'd make it. So thank you!!!
A few interesting facts about the costs of the Delta booster. In 1978 MDAC was building and launching Delta 2000 and Delta 3000 boosters as fast as they could, about one per month. At that time it was a government program, run by NASA-GSFC; a government, foreign, or commercial user had to go through Goddard SFC. The cost GSFC charged for a Delta 2000 for government users (e.g., USAF, NOAA, NATO, etc.) was $20M. Commercial users had to pay $25M, to reimburse for the cost of the government manpower.
In 1977 NASA said they knew just how much a Shuttle flight was going to cost: $14M. Each user would be charged at least $18M, so NASA would have a net "profit" of $4M per Shuttle launch. And the Shuttle could carry two Delta 2000 class payloads, so that would bring in $36M, for a "profit" of $22M on that Shuttle launch. That $18M charge per user soon went up to $20M. But note that for government users it was only a little cheaper to fly on a Shuttle rather than a Delta 2000. And since only very few satellites could use the orbits attainable by the Shuttle, almost everyone needed an upper stage as well, and that would cost at least another $1M and probably a great deal more. And if your payload could have flown on a Scout at a cost of $5M, you still had to fork over that $18M-$20M. If your payload could have flown on a converted Atlas E/F ICBM the cost would have been about $15M; too bad we scrapped at least 26 of them in the early 70's due to Shuttle.
In reality, the actual cost of a Shuttle mission has been calculated at $1.5 BILLION per launch, a mere 114 times as much as the $14M NASA claimed in 1977.
No. The $14M figure is not adjusted for inflation the CAIB report states that he shuttles actual marginal cost was roughly 7x the cost predicted by NASA so $252M in 2012
@@youravaragejoe5102 The $1.5B figure was no doubt based on taking the total cost of the program and dividing the number of launches into it, not on an actual directly attributable cost per launch basis. And even at that, I know of costs that came from the Shuttle program that very few people would know to include because the costs were in the Air Force budget. And we are not talking about Opportunity Lost costs, which would be an order of magnitude higher.
@@MIflyer5124 Yes thats my point? You took the marginal cost that NASA predicted in 1970's USD and the total program cost/total number of launches in 2011 USD to make the shuttle appear more expensive then it actually was You are literally taking figures out of context And the "costs in the Air Force budget that you know about" are irrelevant as long as you cant provide a source or prove that you were in an adequate position to know about those costs And they are also irrelevant because marginal cost doesnt include nonrecurring costs
@@youravaragejoe5102
Disclosing material classified for national security reasons is a federal crime (or a military crime, depending on how one came upon the information). If there were costs supposedly incurred by the Air Force, I'll just leave it at that.
Besides, the cost of refurbishment alone in materials and manpower destroyed whatever profit NASA anticipated to make. 'Profitable launch?' Arguably. 'Profitable launch-and-refurbishment?' Undoubtedly not.
Just here to show some love for poor Delta III. It was great, could've been successful without those unfortunate early failures and then people getting cold feet.
I’m from the city they used to be built. Sad times,
Y
Any engineer will tell you iteration is the key to a good design. You come up with an idea and original design. This is NEVER, EVER, the best design, it's just the first step. Once you get something that works, you continue to make it better in small steps. And this has to be the way it is, because you have to have a working vehicle in order to make the money to keep making new vehicles.
You can see this in modern times with Space-X. They are continually upgrading and redesigning their vehicles trying to make them more reliable, more reusable, and more powerful.
As an engineer I agree with your comments, however sometimes the money counters get tired of paying, and the schedule can have a vote too! Nice episode!
yes, the fact simulation software makes it easier to predict future design behavior, it doesn't necessary predict the reliability. It's usually not the complicated stuff that results in unreliability, it's the stupid mondaine stuff. And you never get it all out in advance, nor is it always that wise to try to get it all out in advance. I am really at awe with Space X's 'Fail-fast, learn fast' methodology. So refreshing with a business strategy that isn't fearfull to swap out discussion with a 'checkmark it works, checkmark it doesn't work' approach. In the end, for most engineering projects it isn't even that interesting why something works, just that it works.. and a step later trying to figure out under which conditions its stops working.
Yes and no. Unfortunately sometimes people (both engineers and management) get too scared to innovate and instead continue to rely on "proven" outdated, suboptimal designs.
@@Mike-oz4cv You just described 'The Peter Principle' in action. Read the book.
SpaceX and Musk-Shotwell have a great, dynamic approach to design innovation; they iterate design with ambitious goals, but they seem to be able to think design while listening to both the bean counters and the creators (who want to solve problems in new ways, not old ways made better) at the same time. Stainless steel for Starship was a bold innovation, not something most people, even entrepreneurs, would be willing to try. The fairing recovery system, even though scrapped, I thought was ingeneous and well thought-out.
I remember watching the Echo satellite go by overhead when I was a kid in Portland. It was so amazing to see something in space.
Thank you for the terminator reference. You never disappoint.
Wasn't that actually a Star Trek reference? See the episode, "Assignment: Earth" where the Enterprise time travels and gets involved in the mission assigned to Gary Seven.
@@MonkeyJedi99 no, Skynet is the name of the A.I which constructs the terminator series of assassin androids that become Cyborgs at the T-800 itteration which Arnold Schwarzenegger plays.
@@linyenchin6773 Skynet for the satellite may be linked to terminator, but star trek had an episode as commented about the cause of the launch failure being sabotage instead of the publicly released explanation. both exist side by side without conflict
And this is only part one; he'll be back!
@@MonkeyJedi99 Gary sabotaged Apollo 6, lol. A troubled launch that lines up with that episode nicely (1968 setting, Saturn V footage, no nukes on Apollo 6 though...)
No where can you get such a great extended synopsis of the Thor and Delta history than here with Scott Manley. As my better half says, "You watching that Space Guy again.
Scott gives us a cliffhanger!! lol
Thanks Scott. Looking forward to Part 2.
My brother was part of Delta (scratch that) Titan 34D program at Vandenberg. Also he was trained on the Canadian Robotic Arm the space shuttle used.
Any rocket that can launch 700T to geo is one amazing rocket. In particular considering it couldn't place nearly as much in LEO, a mere 1.8T.
~12:30 in the time line. 😅
Ikr?
It's be nice if Scott stuck to one system of measurement instead of trying to sound extra smart by using both and confusing them all the time.
Scott, you tell such great stories with enthusiasm and gusto.
@12:36. 700 tonnes to geo stationery orbit….. that would be one hell of a performance
Thank you Scott, that was a great story and fill in of the Delta history. Keep up the good work!
It's amazing how far back the heritage goes on so many modern launch vehicles. Thor was a long time ago. Atlas is another program that's been around since the mid-1950s.
and there is more - "Союз", the backbone of Russian space activities, is successor of Р-7
This series is filling a huge gap for me. Thanks!
Thank you Scott, it was very interesting! Looking forward for the next part.
Scott please do videos like these for all the rocket families especially titan.
What a cool video, and what a legendary vehicle lineage!
Ed Kyle is to be thanked for chasing down documentation, as the Thor/Delta evolved.
Thanks for a history and evolution of these rockets.
Glad you made a video about delta.
When you were talking about the Japanese companies involved in their Delta variant, I was really disappointed that Tamaribuchi Heavy Manufacturing Concern was not one of the companies involved. (Hey, if Ball can make canning supplies and rocket parts, why not rocket parts and dishwasher detergent?)
Really enjoying these rocket history series - I hope we get one on the Titan next...
Thor == Scott Manley the manliest man of all then? Facts check out.
We Love You, Scott!
Brilliant. Thank you again sir.
Great video- Thank You!
I ❤️❤️❤️ your videos Scott ! You’re the best 👍
Delta II series was my second favorite when i was young(first was Ares series). Look that pile of boosters powering the rocket. Its so charming.
Pretty interesting indeed! 😃
Lately I've been watching lots of history about military airplanes and other stuff... This matches it perfectly! Thanks, Scott! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
I love this series 🍿
Thats slick.. time traveler,sky net,there wouldn't be a cyberdine systems in there some where would there...as long as it doesn't be come aware... great video 👍👍👍
I love that first Thor Delta chart showing lineage, but sadly I can't find it online.
Space history cliffhanger! Nice.
Solid skynet terminator reference! I tip my hat sir.
The irony of DETLA being the acronym for doubly extended three letter acronym is not lost here. They just kept. Adding. Things.
Love the deadpan delivery of your reference to Terminator @12:45-13:05! Skynet 2 indeed! Well played sir. Well played.
So…this means the Delta will be back?
@@Hooptyc as the delta iv heavy, yes
The history of Titan next, pretty please!
That would be great too!
It’s really happening!!! We’re getting every single rocket family!!
I'm in so much suspense!... will Space Shuttle take over all space flight into the future? Tune in next shocking and very surprising episode!!!... :D
Scott leaving us on a cliff hanger.
I love how Scott explain like a piece of cake.
Got an old spice ad for Thor’s love and thunder before video. It’s like fate.
Or algorithms.
Glad I came back for part 1. Things would have been odd if I didn't. 🙄👍
Imagine what it was like growing up in Cocoa Beach from the very early 50's on and seeing all of these amazing machines fly...
If your a Space X fan or not, you have to admit that reusable rockets were a game changer.
Who knows! Um, as it happens I was working in the GPS Phase IIb design and deployment at the time of "what happens". Delta lived longer and launched the satellites with my work on them. Then into the 1990s I visited a friend who worked on the telemetry systems for the Deltas and other toys NASA had. L and I were in Fla for a convention. We visited Hal. Among other things he was able to take us up an unoccupied Delta gantry. Such a view! Then he took us to the block house. That is where I learned the Delta had some specially calibrated instruments used to stage it and launch it, organic computers with very well trained fingers on push buttons. Yup, in the early/mid 90s the Delta was still a ground based push button rocket to handle all the staging and such. And here I'd envisioned fancy automation through the on board guidance systems with 10s to 100s of microsecond accuracy. Ah well, it was still a thrill and gave me a serious notion of the size of those later generation Delta behemoths.
The complex featured two towers. We could not go up the other one. It was partially loaded with a Delta, if I remember correctly. It was still being hooked up and tested pre launch. There was a small chance that some of my equipment and designs were involved on that launch. I managed to get my fingers into a fair portion of the GPS flight articles and prelaunch testing articles. So over all that visit was a real thrill that built a new appreciation of that rocket system.
{^_^}
I thought you had this already done… 🤔Anyway, glad to see another update!
Nope, one of the first things he says in the video is about how this video is a continuation of the first video about the history of delta/thor
Can never have too much Thor / Delta history!
It's a bit disturbing that a nuclear weapon delivery system had to be "modified for reliability."
I'm a 43yr old kid....when it come to rockets, the bigger, more powerful, and coolest thing to watch at lift off.....HUGE fan of the DeltaIV Heavy....can't wait till part 2 !!!
And no, I don't have a "complex" about bigger more powerful things.....I don't think...might have to ask my wife about that...🤣
I am bummed out that ULA is not keeping the name Delta and Atlas. I like the cliffhanger/suspense at the end of this video.
So excited
8:44 Hey Paul!
Great content! (Just feeding the algorithm)
I observed the 1/25/83 IRAS (Infrared Astronomical Satellite) launch as it passed Huntington Beach from VAFB. When the solids detached, the entire sky ionized with a brief flash that I’ll never forget! Does that sort of thing happen much?.
I remember my father taking me out to the backyard one night to watch Echo-1A going overhead.
"Thor's Children" Iconic title!
Omg what a cliff hanger!
mm I think next episode we will learn that the space shuttle ran supreme and took all the government contracts, but because the government kept it so busy they managed to keep the delta around to launch comercial satelites.
Lets see next time if I am correct or not. I cannot wait!
Come on now i need to start reading wikipedia! Can't wait for part 2
Delta vs. Shuttle FIGHT!
Can You make a video on the Titan rocket thank you PS I’ve been watching you for a few years you are One of my favorite UA-camer
Did the Solid Rocket Boosters have gimbals etc in a manner akin to that video you made on the Space Shuttle’s or were they essentially “dumb” ? If so, did that system evolve over time?
I believe SRBs achieve thrust vectoring my moving a vane of some kind into the exhaust to divert the part of the flow.
@@TimStCroix or by injecting a fluid into one side of the exhaust that changes its flow, effectively angling it
The space shuttle solid boosters did have gimbaling nozzles. Same for the Atlas. Most large solid boosters use gmballling nozzles.Generally designers prefer gimbaling nozzles because it is the most efficient. Vanes in the nozzle reduce efficiency.
@@stevenf1678 I don’t think the Atlas series SRBs have gimbal, but the Titan series (UA120X) did.
Were the Japanese Delta's exempt from the rule that required them to launch at an angle?
I seem to remember Japan launching their rockets pre-angled, but maybe that was just for one brief era?
I guess once the rocket reaches a certain size they can't launch that way anymore?
got love that naming scheme. could they help microsoft name (number) the next incarnation of windows?
Nice
12:42… 🤣. Would’ve been the 2nd best sequel in the franchise.
Skynet experienced a failure on launch? Did anyone check if an individual named John Conner was involved?
We have a few Titan engines, and a centaur upper stage at Wings over the rockies!
Of course I'm getting Thor commercials for old spice
Impressive feat by Japan to copy the Delta through license and then improve upon it!
@1:31 Agile Rocket development!
@Scott Manley can you do titan family next?
I know you've got a schedule but you really missed out on posting this on thor's-day.
nice, it will be already sequel Love and Rockets
12:37 700 tons to geo stationary orbit is pretty impressive :D
Do you have an episode on the Titan family planned?
700 tons to GEO is pretty darn good!
What are your thoughts on Skylon?
Fun fact, Nippon is the Japanese word for Japan so those Japanese rockets that were originally just clones of Delta rockets are named after Japan which I presume was some sort of marketing ploy like made in America (until you look under the hood).
Was there any of the original Thor left at the end? If not, was it still a Delta, it a new rocket?
I am curious.. You say (at around 8:16) the N6 and M6 used a staggered SRB ignition but kept the spent SRBs until they were all ditched .. What was the point of not getting rid of the spent SRBs and carrying them along ? Isn't it like carrying around dead weight - isn't the point of staging to actually discard spent hardware to reduce the weight ? Was there any engineering concern of detaching 3 of the 6 SRBs early ? Isn't the point of a booster or boosters to get rid of it/them as soon as possible ? Carrying those spent SRB for a free ride is bound to significantly reduce the mass to the desired orbit ! (Or is there something I missed ?)
Not sure about these particular ones, but many launches had to cary the SRBs far enough so they can safely be dropped into a designated bit of ocean or other uninhabited places instead of risking hitting people and stuff on the ground.
@@benbaselet2026 That would be a good and perfectly good reason indeed ! You do have a good point ! I hadn't thought of that ;)
@@benbaselet2026 Tell that to China. They don't seem to care if stray boosters land on a nearby village.
@@my3dviews I'd rather not. It does not bother me at all that they bomb their own villages :-)
I suspect, after being spent they didn't amount to all that much mass. They probably couldn't jettison them individually because of either interactions or because the added complexity would have added more weight than it saved.
I guess they couldn't ignite them all on the ground because then the whole vehicle would have gotten so fast that MaxQ would have destroyed it even with a completely shut down liquid center engine. (Or it would have become uncontrollable because they need the steering from a swiveling main engine)
delta ❤️
Children of the KoRn? I didn't know that Scott is a KoRn fan :D
What a cliffhanger man.
So Japan did the same thing with rockets that they like to do with jet fighters, rather than just buying them straight up from us and using them as is. Kinda like how the F-15 became the F-15J, built by Mitsubishi. Also the F-16 eventually becoming the Mitsubishi F-2.. Very cool, I didn't know they also did that with rockets.
What will happen next? Who Knows?... I mean we know, but in the late 70's, there was optimism.
Rocket story time with Scott ... gather 'round nerdy kids!
Isn't a solid rocket motor as final stage an odd choice? I would have thought you would want something throttleable for final orbital adjustments.
Those Delta B's look like internal ultrasound probes.
You mention a Japanese company helping build the N-1. What is the name of that company written out? It was hard to tell from your comment and a quick search didn't obviously give the name.
Question: Are strap on solid fuel rocket boosters really strapped on?
Any chance we could get a breakdown of ARCA's new water rocket?
Have you seen Scott's video on ARCA's old water rocket? I think that about sums up the new water rocket as well. He may mention it in the next deep space updates video to poke a bit of fun at it I'd guess.
Perhaps a quibble, but at 12:30 you mentioned that the new engines based upon the LEM descent engine allowed 1.7 tons to LEO, but 700 TONS to Clarke orbit (geostationary)?
Huh?
700kilos
"700 tons to geostationary ordbit". I think Scott just unveiled his secret Mega Sea Dragon project xD
Now with cliffhangers.