Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire A Very Sad Space Launch

Saturday, ULA is set to launch an earth observation satellite for NASA from Vandenberg, Calif. Liftoff is set for 8:46 - 11:20 am Eastern. Watch it HERE or on NASA TV

This is a sad day for me because it is the very last Delta II rocket, my all-time favorite launch vehicle. Tracing its roots back to the 1950s Thor rocket, the Delta family is one of the most reliable and useful launch vehicles ever. Saturday's launch will mark the 100th straight success, for example. The Delta II is also - by far - the prettiest rocket, with its teal center body and white boosters and nose fairing, it is simply stunning to see. I was lucky enough to be the launch commentator for more than a dozen Delta launches, so saying goodbye to this old workhorse is heartbreaking for me.

For more on the Delta rocket's proud history, read THIS or the very well done WIKI

Farewell, old friend.

hope they come up with something as good or better

My money would be on a new vehicle....which we probably have, but don't want to reveal for national security purposes...

That tinfoil a bit tight today?

We have new rockets, with more coming. All but one by commercial builders. Even the NASA one is built by commercial contractors, and there's nothing spy secret about it.

Space vehicles are a wee bit hard to hide, you know. Damn things are bigger than a bottle rocket. As in 12-15 feet in diameter and 160 feet tall. The upcoming ones are three times that size. Literally as big as a skyscraper building.

...nope....do you really think we'd put all of our satellites at risk without a ways/means of repairing or replacing them other than to rely on Russian rockets and the ISS???

What do you suppose we're gonna use for our new "SPACE FORCE"???

New rockets and commercial builders are only the shiny ball used for distraction....

Rocky, my read on it falls under the heading of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The Delta was a workhorse and try as they might there was no quantum leap available. The bureaucracy, profoundly frustrated, finally said something like "I know, we'll just shut it down and they'll have to come up with something better, right?"

I note the B52 is still flying..........

ol werner von braun helped get it all going. it's kind of amazing actually. we were fortunate to attract his talent.

lot's of reports of black op satellites out there. i have no clue if that's true.

Heck yes, they are! go BUFF!

SpaceX, Orbital, and ULA are the way we put all our satellites up, commercial AND government. Both SpaceX and ULA are developing follow-on booster systems. Blue Origin is developing an orbital cargo carrier, and there are several smaller companies now or soon able to put up small satellites. If required, we could launch payloads on European, Indian, or Japanese boosters.

Would it surprise me to learn there are military rockets in development? No. But they'd be like every other military system - built by a commercial contractor.

The Space Force isn't going to be about astronauts. It's going to be satellite-based systems mostly for observation and communications. Really high-flying drones, in other words. Which we already have, but under the control of both the AF and Navy. My take on the Space Force is that it will consolidate control of those systems under one roof.

I say good riddance.

It costs NASA $10,000 per pound to put stuff into low earth orbit. That's right. $80,000 for a gallon of water. I'm no fan of Elon Musk but SpaceX has lowered this cost by 80% already by developing a reusable rocket. The Space Shuttle was supposed to do this but it was a dismal failure, actually costing more to launch payloads than the older throw-away rockets.

NASA has overall been pretty incompetent since the Apollo program of the 1960s. They are presently developing a big rocket called Orion, sort of an extension of the old Saturn 5 that launched Neil Armstrong to the moon. The problem is there is no good mission for Orion. So they've thought up a sometimes-manned station to be put in lunar orbit. They're trying to find some reason to put it there! It's a big welfare program to keep a lot of bureaucrats pushing paper in Houston.

The things that NASA does very well are the unmanned scientific missions. These are usually small self-contained projects with highly-motivated people.

Manned space flight in general, and the ISS in particular, is also a solution looking for a problem. The Trump administration has decided to end ISS funding in 2024.

Rocky, I'm sure this is classified, but do you think the "Space Force" would include satellites with weapon systems on them?

I would be amazed if it didn't. Probably would consist of capability to eliminate a potential enemy's communications and reconnaissance satellites. China actually tested such a system a number of years ago, blowing up one of their own defunct satellites. The problem with that is it made a lot of space debris, hazardous to other satellites for years. Better to disable rather than destroy. There are ways to do that.

The Air Force has been launching a small "space plane," sort of an unmanned miniature space shuttle orbiter, for the last several years. It stays in orbit for months and then returns. Its missions are totally classified.

Thanks, I just wanted to what you guys thought about that. I remember back when Regan was pushing for the "Star Wars Project".

According to international agreement, there are not supposed to be any weapons in space. But it is strongly suspected that China and perhaps Russia have already cheated on that. I have no knowledge of anything like that on our side. Not being a Democrat politician, I wouldn't admit or discuss it even if I did know.

Indy, the Delta II has nothing whatever to do with NASA except that it sometimes carried NASA payloads for hire.

Honestly, weaponizing space is about as stupid as using nukes to advance policy. The long term downside just runs off the chart. Can you imagine what zapping a few good size satellites would do to create ultra high muzzle velocity space junk that would put EVERYTHING in space at random risk of destruction?
There will be a time when mankind figures out how to lift into orbit at a reasonable cost. And it will be done in a systematic manner, with ordered orbits and other means of making sure the space junk stays in formation until it is either returned to earth for reuse, or burnt on re-entry. But it would be a shame if the first priority is to put up giant Hoover screens to catch all the crap we blew up.

your point is well taken. sometimes in our quest for logic, we forget all about practical logic. it's a paradox or dilemma. look at all the waste in the ocean. we've decided to ban drinking straws for goodness sakes.

the heavens are awash with space junk. usually non iron, i'm thinking so a magnet couldn't be used to collect the menagerie of stuff capable of downing high-end satellites.

india, japan, china, russia, us, everybody's got their own ideas. not much cooperation in sight. well some, thanks to the usa, russia agreements.

Was an article in the news yesterday just on that subject... direct and indirect use of space or land based weapons to take out other country's satellites by creating massive shot particles. Pointing out the U.S. heavy reliance on satellite information to fight wars,. possibly other country's too. Either way basically would leave a path or evidence as to the assaulting nation eventually leading to world war.

Would be an idiotic move for any nation to secretly base a weapons system in space!


Phil

As long as there are people who crave power over others, it's idiotic NOT to have "AT A MINIMUM" a leg up on those who'd wish us harm....