Delta 4: heavier and bigger

Boeing's thinking bigger, and MUCH bigger.

Taking the Delta 4's inherant modularity, Boeing is
considering major upgrades to the Delta 4 Heavy that
could eventually take it to a Saturn V class (albeit
heavily modified).

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...2004-03-01.pdf

Upgraded versions using modified existing pad structures
would have a payload range of 30 to 45 metric tons to LEO
and about 10 to 18 metric tons to escape velocity.

Using a new pad structure and using from 5 to 7 CBCs with
other upgrades, payload would range upwards to about 90
metric tons to LEO and around 35 tons to escape. In
physical size alone, it would be about as large as the
Saturn V due to its all-cryogenic tankage.

A new 7-meter CBC with a BIG new cryo engine would start at
Saturn V payloads. Shades of the M-1 and Nova, is all I can say....

There would be various upgrades of existing system as hinted
at in the above document, more than I'll try to list here.
The upper stage will have to grow, a lot, including the
use of multiple RL or MB-60s, or even a new cryo engine.
The RS-68 would also grow, and densified propellants are
suggested, too.

Naturally, LM will be thinking similar things with the Atlas
V. Who needs Shuttle C, eh? Modular's the way to go.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:

Boeing's thinking bigger, and MUCH bigger.

Taking the Delta 4's inherant modularity, Boeing is
considering major upgrades to the Delta 4 Heavy that
could eventually take it to a Saturn V class (albeit
heavily modified).

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...2004-03-01.pdf

Upgraded versions using modified existing pad structures
would have a payload range of 30 to 45 metric tons to LEO
and about 10 to 18 metric tons to escape velocity.

Using a new pad structure and using from 5 to 7 CBCs with
other upgrades, payload would range upwards to about 90
metric tons to LEO and around 35 tons to escape. In
physical size alone, it would be about as large as the
Saturn V due to its all-cryogenic tankage.

They did not mention anything about propellant crossfeed, so we have a
cluster of seven totally independent CBCs. If a single engine fails the
whole launch would be a failure.

On the other hand, the soyuz LV uses a similar configuration, and it has
quite good reliability for an ELV. You would be able to check out all
engines before liftoff.

At least you would get some real economy of scale for the CBCs.

"Damon Hill" wrote in message
34...
Boeing's thinking bigger, and MUCH bigger.

Taking the Delta 4's inherant modularity, Boeing is
considering major upgrades to the Delta 4 Heavy that
could eventually take it to a Saturn V class (albeit
heavily modified).

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...2004-03-01.pdf

Upgraded versions using modified existing pad structures
would have a payload range of 30 to 45 metric tons to LEO
and about 10 to 18 metric tons to escape velocity.

Using a new pad structure and using from 5 to 7 CBCs with
other upgrades, payload would range upwards to about 90
metric tons to LEO and around 35 tons to escape. In
physical size alone, it would be about as large as the
Saturn V due to its all-cryogenic tankage.

A new 7-meter CBC with a BIG new cryo engine would start at
Saturn V payloads. Shades of the M-1 and Nova, is all I can say....

It may be a 2 engine version not a new engine.
That would allow using more existing equipment and give some engine out
capability.
The single core version could probably put 18 tons to LEO.


There would be various upgrades of existing system as hinted
at in the above document, more than I'll try to list here.
The upper stage will have to grow, a lot, including the
use of multiple RL or MB-60s, or even a new cryo engine.
The RS-68 would also grow, and densified propellants are
suggested, too.

A couple of things really hit me:

The first one just adds 4 solids seems to add up to close to 30 tons to LEO.
Combined with the MB-60 should approach 40 tons to LEO.

There seems to be a lot of variations at just over 40 tons.
This is approximately what is needed for a manned capsule fuel supply to LTI
in one launch.
My guess only 1 or 2 will be built.

What is a RS-68B could it be what the RS-68 is tested at but not certified
for?
Sort of like SSME at 109%?

I have never even heard of a RS-800.
It appears to be a small upper stage engine.

No real idea what Dens and regen are either.


Naturally, LM will be thinking similar things with the Atlas
V. Who needs Shuttle C, eh? Modular's the way to go.

These and the Atlas versions will do quite nicely.

I do wish there was some engine out capabilty but maybe Delta Next will
provide that.

DGH wrote:

[snip]

No real idea what Dens and regen are either.

Proably dense propellants (maybe hydrogen sludge or a more oxygen rich
mixture ratio), and a regeneratively cooled engine.

"Damon Hill" wrote in message
34...
Boeing's thinking bigger, and MUCH bigger.

Taking the Delta 4's inherant modularity, Boeing is
considering major upgrades to the Delta 4 Heavy that
could eventually take it to a Saturn V class (albeit
heavily modified).

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...2004-03-01.pdf

Upgraded versions using modified existing pad structures
would have a payload range of 30 to 45 metric tons to LEO
and about 10 to 18 metric tons to escape velocity.

Using a new pad structure and using from 5 to 7 CBCs with
other upgrades, payload would range upwards to about 90
metric tons to LEO and around 35 tons to escape. In
physical size alone, it would be about as large as the
Saturn V due to its all-cryogenic tankage.

A new 7-meter CBC with a BIG new cryo engine would start at
Saturn V payloads. Shades of the M-1 and Nova, is all I can say....

There would be various upgrades of existing system as hinted
at in the above document, more than I'll try to list here.
The upper stage will have to grow, a lot, including the
use of multiple RL or MB-60s, or even a new cryo engine.
The RS-68 would also grow, and densified propellants are
suggested, too.

Naturally, LM will be thinking similar things with the Atlas
V. Who needs Shuttle C, eh? Modular's the way to go.

--Damon

I agree that "Modular's the way to go". You have, without realising it,
answered two of my main questions: What diameter would the New Booster Core
be? and the really big question: Is this possible? Answer to the first
question is: 7 metres and the second question is answered with an emphatic
"Yes".

I have to say that I don't like the idea of adding the GEM solids to the
current configuration as it would be hugely complicated. However, the
configuration with seven CBC's and two MB-60's is of great interest.
Payload is much higher than I had anticipated and even higher than I dared
hope for.

I feel the NBC (the 7 metre core as mentioned in the .pdf)/4xCBC combination
is the best way to go, but the payload can be easily achieved with just
CBC's, then there is almost _no_ development cost. This beats anything I
could have hoped for, let alone come up with.

Thank you! )


--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

"Ruediger Klaehn" wrote in message
...

They did not mention anything about propellant crossfeed, so we have a
cluster of seven totally independent CBCs. If a single engine fails the
whole launch would be a failure.

On the other hand, the soyuz LV uses a similar configuration, and it has
quite good reliability for an ELV. You would be able to check out all
engines before liftoff.

At least you would get some real economy of scale for the CBCs.

Was there crossfeed on the Saturn V? There was one mission where an engine
failed inflight and the mission was still successful.

--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

Alan Erskine wrote:

"Ruediger Klaehn" wrote in message
...

They did not mention anything about propellant crossfeed, so we have a
cluster of seven totally independent CBCs. If a single engine fails the
whole launch would be a failure.

On the other hand, the soyuz LV uses a similar configuration, and it has
quite good reliability for an ELV. You would be able to check out all
engines before liftoff.

At least you would get some real economy of scale for the CBCs.

Was there crossfeed on the Saturn V? There was one mission where an
engine failed inflight and the mission was still successful.

Saturn had one big tank per stage, so there was no need for crossfeed.
Saturn decent engine out survivability, the delta IV XXL will have none at
all without crossfeed.

In article ,
Alan Erskine wrote:
Was there crossfeed on the Saturn V? There was one mission where an engine
failed inflight and the mission was still successful.

Two, although Apollo 6 was only marginally a success. But as others have
noted, crossfeed is inherent when all the engines run from the same tanks.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article ,
Ruediger Klaehn wrote:
They did not mention anything about propellant crossfeed...

Nope, read it more carefully -- the high-end three-core configuration has
crossfeed ("X-feed"), so very likely the ones beyond that have it too.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article ,
DGH wrote:
What is a RS-68B could it be what the RS-68 is tested at but not certified
for? Sort of like SSME at 109%?

It's presumably an upgraded RS-68 of some kind. Note that it is quite
normal for rocket engines to get better and more powerful over time with
development -- the SSME's difficulties in going much beyond its original
nominal thrust are an exception, not the rule.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |