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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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. 😅
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 👍👍👍
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?)
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! 🖖😊
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'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...🤣
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!
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).
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
@@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...)
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.
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?.
What happened next? Well, to sum it up in one word: Challenger. Spoilers for next week, I suppose. But yes, that's where NASA learned its first hard lesson in redundant launch systems.
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?