Yep. Somebody went there. And you thought your pickup truck had power! 
Dodge Ram 3500 vs. Delta IV Heavy
I dunno, the 0-60 of the DIV is lacking a bit.....
Yeah, but its passing acceleration blows away the Ram...it will pull 4.5 G's fully loaded.
Does anyone know the approximate shaft horsepower of the RS-68 turbine? That's always been one of the figures that's amazed me...the idea of a machine roughly the size of a garbage can generating as much power as several locomotives.
Yeah but can you get a Dodge Ram in burn orange and white?
Yep. Somebody went there. And you thought your pickup truck had power!
Dodge Ram 3500 vs. Delta IV Heavy
I dunno, the 0-60 of the DIV is lacking a bit.....
That is comparing horizontal speed with vertical velocity.
Straight up the Dodge would do something like 2 mph if a winch was attached.
the SOFI is supposed to burn like that. it's not a problem, except when it comes to public perception. boeing did numerous burn tests on the foam before ever launching a delta iv and determined there was no safety issue. as far as man-rating goes, modifications would be made to eliminate the ball of flame. the RS-68B variant will not cause the SOFI to burn like that.
Last time I compared Delta IV with Energia, someone at forums asked me if I knew what Energia did to prevent the flame-up. It turned out that Energiya had a rather tricky system of burners that took a significant effort to develop. They considered solid-fuel burners like on Shuttle, but those were not sufficient for Energiya. So, they went with bi-component torches. The main problem was the stability of the flame in all sorts of atmosphere. Gubanov mentions this:
Его особенностью является то, что внутри зажигательного устройства происходит только образование высокотемпературной водородной плазмы - инициатора воспламенения, а образование смеси, ее поджиг и стабилизация пламени происходят вне устройства в спутном потоке, чем обеспечивается устойчивость факела и его большая дальнобойность и исключается влияние факела на сопло.
E.g. the issue was the reach for the torch's flame across the flame duct, so that free hydrogen cannot escape. (by
http://buran.ru/htm/13-3.htm)
Probably the daunting task and associated expense was the reason why Boeing decided not to bother with effective burners and just put some insulation on the rocket instead.
Now let's hope that whatever replaces the FIA that Boeing botched so badly for high-resolution work is well-managed, 'cause I guess we're all outta Keyholes.
The rumours from last year are that the KH-11 will be put back into production, although there is some political discussion over the need for high-res imaging. I don't know what the outcome of the debate was.
Why the 11 and not the 12?
Blackstar can chime in here (hey! we're actually /not/ talking about launch vehicles!), but I have the impression that KH-11 is often used as a shorthand for the entire post-MOL Keyhole fleet. Presumably they've gone through a lot of sensor changes over the past four decades as CCDs have change immensely, plus avionics, plus taking advantage of modern TDRS, etc., even if the basic optical chassis and propulsion has remained similar. I'm not sure what difference -12 really indicates as a particular subclass within a larger family of multiple variants.
GW, where did you hear those rumors? One would think it wouldn't be easy to put the Keyholes back into full production, having been so long since the major components were manufactured and tooling perhaps gone. The story of the resurrection of NROL-49 will be interesting to read (hiring folks out of retirement?) in, oh, 30 years. Presumably, would also mean a major commitment to SLC-6 DIVH. Perhaps we'll be able to tell by the order book.
-Alex
Seems like the satellite is working - and some folks must be quite happy and proud (image is from NRO's web site)
