← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · SummersDay
Thread ID: 12257 | Posts: 3 | Started: 2004-02-11
2004-02-11 02:48 | User Profile
[color=magenta][size=4]WHY IS THE US DEVELOPING THE DELTA ROCKETS WHEN THE SATURN 5 IS SO MUCH BETTER?[/size][/color]
[img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/delta-rockets.jpg[/img]
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.
The Delta 4 's will come in a number of varieties, namely the Medium, Medium + (4,2), Medium + (5,2), Medium + (5,4) and the Heavy (Boeing certainly has shown no imagination in its naming of the Delta 4 's). Only one Medium and one Medium + (4,2) have been launched (20 Nov 2002 and 11 Mar 2003). There are plans to launch the Heavy in July, 2004.
The following are the payloads (in kilograms) that the Delta rockets can carry to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and to Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO).
Delta model [color=red]LEO payload[/color] GTO payload [color=blue]History[/color] Delta Delta [color=blue]First Launched 13 May 1960[/color] Delta 2's Delta 7326 [color=red]2,731 kgs[/color] 898 kgs [color=blue]First Launched 14 Feb 1989 Continues till present (111 Launches 2 Failures)[/color] Delta 7425 [color=red]3,094 kgs[/color] 1,102 kgs Delta 7925 [color=red]4,971 kgs[/color] 1,799 kgs Delta 7925-10 [color=red]5,139 kgs[/color] 1,869 kgs Delta 7925-H10L [color=red]5,815 kgs[/color] 2,064 kgs Delta 3 Delta 8930 [color=red]8,292 kgs[/color] 3,810 kgs [color=blue]First Launched 27 Aug 1998 (3 Launches 2 Failures)[/color] Delta 4's Medium [color=red]8,120 kgs[/color] 4,210 kgs [color=blue]First/Only Launch 11 Mar 2003[/color] Medium + (4,2) [color=red]10,430 kgs[/color] 5,845 kgs [color=blue]First/Only Launch 20 Nov 2002[/color] Medium + (5,2) [color=red]7,980 kgs[/color] 4,640 kgs [color=blue]Not Yet Launched[/color] Medium + (5,4) [color=red]11,475 kgs[/color] 6,565 kgs [color=blue]Not Yet Launched[/color] Heavy [color=red]23,040 kgs[/color] 13,130 kgs [color=blue]Not Yet Launched[/color]
Note, that until Nov 20, 2002, the maximum payload that any of these rockets could reliably lift to Low Earth Orbit was 5,815 kgs.
Remember that the Saturn 5 could supposedly lift 280,000 lb = 127,000 kgs into Low Earth Orbit (this is equivalent to lifting 100,000 lb = 45,000 kgs all the way to the moon (100,000 lb was the weight of the lunar lander and command module (including fuel))).
Does it not seem strange to you that the US is researching and developing the Delta family of rockets (many of which have not yet flown) when they have the good old Saturn 5 which can lift 100,000 lb = 45,000 kgs all the way to the moon and can consequently lift 280,000 lb = 127,000 kgs into Low Earth Orbit.
Why did the US develop and use the Delta's and Delta 2's instead of using the good old Saturn 5 which can lift 22 times (I repeat; twenty-two times) the payload of the biggest Delta 2?
Why is the Delta 2 still, in 2004, the main unmanned launch vehicle of the United States?
And after the 2003 shuttle disaster, the Delta 2's and Atlas remain the only (light-weight) launchers available to the United States. This means that the International Space Station is totally reliant on the Russian space program.
Why did the US not use the good old Saturn 5 to deliver the International Space Station in just a small number of launches, rather than numerous shuttle launches (each of which was more expensive than a Saturn 5 launch)?
[color=red]Why is the US still attempting to develop a brand new set of rockets that (when they finally get them up and running) will, at best, only preform at a fraction (about 1/6 th) of the capability of the old Saturn 5's?[/color]
Something, smells in the land of the US of A. Something truly stinks,.....
[color=blue]A note of explanation:[/color] The orbit used for transfer to geostationary orbit is named appropriately enough a "geostationary transfer orbit". It is an elliptical orbit with one edge of the ellipse at low earth orbit and the other at geostationary orbit. It takes much less energy to get to a geostationary transfer orbit than it does to get to a geostationary orbit, hence the payloads that can be launched to a geostationary orbit are smaller than those that can be launched to a geostationary transfer orbit.
2004-02-11 13:40 | User Profile
Yet another post designed to detract from the real issues.
Oh well, lets play along...
Let me guess where you are going with this one:
The Saturn 5 rocket was just a plastic model used to perpetrate the moon landing hoax, which in turn was the result of a Jewish conspiricy to trick the world for the sake of making loads of money
or...
The company, or companies, that build the delta rockets, and/or their components are all owned by Jews, who have conspired to trick the world into thinking the delta rocket is better, so they can make loads of money
Take your pick. I'm just honorred to know that we have a rocket scientist on this forum who is more educated that the smartest minds in the space business (but they are probably all jews who conspired to fake their education, so they could make loads of money)
Dan
2004-02-15 21:55 | User Profile
We should invest in the developement of a space elevator.