Delta 4 Heavy PR ignores Russian space accomplishments?

The Delta 4 Heavy rollout press release "Boeing Delta IV Heavy
Completes Rollout" states "The Delta IV Heavy is the longest rocket
ever to have moved horizontally to a launch pad."

This is not true, I think. The N-1 was also rolled horizontally to
the pad, and it was taller yet. According to

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm

the N-1 was 105 meters tall when complete. The versions as flown
might have been somewhat shorter, but I suspect are still longer than
the delta-4 heavy.

Lou Scheffer

Lou Scheffer wrote:

The Delta 4 Heavy rollout press release "Boeing Delta IV Heavy
Completes Rollout" states "The Delta IV Heavy is the longest rocket
ever to have moved horizontally to a launch pad."

This is not true, I think. The N-1 was also rolled horizontally to
the pad, and it was taller yet. According to

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm

the N-1 was 105 meters tall when complete. The versions as flown
might have been somewhat shorter, but I suspect are still longer than
the delta-4 heavy.


Yes on all points; Delta 4 is big- but nowhere near as big as an N-1;
let's hope it works better than a N-1... or a Delta 3 for that matter...

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:

Yes on all points; Delta 4 is big- but nowhere near as big as an N-1;
let's hope it works better than a N-1... or a Delta 3 for that matter...

The Delta 4 plumbing is certainly simplified compared to the N-1. All
those engines on the N-1 made things difficult.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

On 2003-12-17, Pat Flannery wrote:

Yes on all points; Delta 4 is big- but nowhere near as big as an N-1;
let's hope it works better than a N-1... or a Delta 3 for that matter...

Anyone have accurate figures as to just how big ? I've heard it claimed it
will be taller than the shuttle stack, but then I've also heard the Delta-IV
will be 185ft high, and Encylopedia Astronautica claims the Shuttle Stack
is 285ft...

Maybe its just folks quoting the height of only the CBCs in some articles,
and the entire stack in others thats confusing me.


Iain

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:34:40 +0000, Iain Young
wrote:

On 2003-12-17, Pat Flannery wrote:

Yes on all points; Delta 4 is big- but nowhere near as big as an
N-1;
let's hope it works better than a N-1... or a Delta 3 for that
matter...

Anyone have accurate figures as to just how big ? I've heard it
claimed it
will be taller than the shuttle stack, but then I've also heard the
Delta-IV
will be 185ft high, and Encylopedia Astronautica claims the Shuttle
Stack
is 285ft...

Maybe its just folks quoting the height of only the CBCs in some
articles,
and the entire stack in others thats confusing me.


Iain


Here is a diagram in PDF format showing the various U.S. launch
vehicles
that are launched from Florida.

The last two diagrams show the Delta 4-Heavy and Space Shuttle side by
side.

From the diagram, it appears that the Delta 4-Heavy side boosters are
wider
and taller than the Shuttle solid rocket boosters. The overall height
of the
Delta 4-Heavy is taller than the Space Shuttle.

URL:
http://www.fsri.org/FSRI%20Archives/... Spaceport.pdf

Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/zos4


-Rusty Barton

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Iain Young wrote:

On 2003-12-17, Pat Flannery wrote:

Yes on all points; Delta 4 is big- but nowhere near as big as an N-1;
let's hope it works better than a N-1... or a Delta 3 for that matter...

Anyone have accurate figures as to just how big ? I've heard it claimed it
will be taller than the shuttle stack, but then I've also heard the Delta-IV
will be 185ft high, and Encylopedia Astronautica claims the Shuttle Stack
is 285ft...


Sounds like yet another factual error or typo that Mark Wade isn't likely
to correct anytime soon.

The the U.S. space shuttle stack is "only" about 184.2 (56.14 meters) feet
tall, and the Buran/Energia stack is a little bit taller than that. If the
Delta IV without a payload stands 170 feet (51.81 meters) tall, and up to
235 feet (71.62 meters) with the payload installed, then it is clearly
taller than STS. But that is a bit misleading since STS carries it's
payload sidemounted, as opposed to Delta-IV which carries it top mounted.
the Shuttle stack is also much heavier than Delta-IV, and it produces more
thrust than a Delta-IV heavy. The total weight to orbit is somewhat higher
for STS, 63,500 lbs (28,803 kg) to a due east 28.5 degree LEO versus
Delta-IV at around 50,000 lbs (23,000 kg).
-Mike

The the U.S. space shuttle stack is "only" about 184.2 (56.14 meters) feet
tall, and the Buran/Energia stack is a little bit taller than that. If the
Delta IV without a payload stands 170 feet (51.81 meters) tall, and up to
235 feet (71.62 meters) with the payload installed, then it is clearly
taller than STS. But that is a bit misleading since STS carries it's
payload sidemounted, as opposed to Delta-IV which carries it top mounted.
the Shuttle stack is also much heavier than Delta-IV, and it produces more
thrust than a Delta-IV heavy.

I'm pretty sure that each solid booster alone produces more thrust
than a Delta IV :-)



The total weight to orbit is somewhat higher
for STS, 63,500 lbs (28,803 kg) to a due east 28.5 degree LEO versus
Delta-IV at around 50,000 lbs (23,000 kg).
-Mike


ISTR that 65k or so was the original goal but that after Challenger it
got cut back. Something about the booster casings being heavier or
something.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Scott Ferrin wrote:


The the U.S. space shuttle stack is "only" about 184.2 (56.14 meters) feet
tall, and the Buran/Energia stack is a little bit taller than that. If the
Delta IV without a payload stands 170 feet (51.81 meters) tall, and up to
235 feet (71.62 meters) with the payload installed, then it is clearly
taller than STS. But that is a bit misleading since STS carries it's
payload sidemounted, as opposed to Delta-IV which carries it top mounted.
the Shuttle stack is also much heavier than Delta-IV, and it produces more
thrust than a Delta-IV heavy.

I'm pretty sure that each solid booster alone produces more thrust
than a Delta IV :-)

Yup. A single SRB is approximately 2.9 million lbs of thrust as compared
to Delta-IV at around 2 million lbs.


The total weight to orbit is somewhat higher
for STS, 63,500 lbs (28,803 kg) to a due east 28.5 degree LEO versus
Delta-IV at around 50,000 lbs (23,000 kg).
-Mike


ISTR that 65k or so was the original goal but that after Challenger it
got cut back. Something about the booster casings being heavier or
something.

It was cut back to 55,000 lbs because of the weight increases on the
orbiters, SRBs, and to a much lesser extent, the ET. There is also the
fact that the orbiters are generally now limited to 55,000 lbs because of
Center of Gravity (CG) concerns, as well as stresses on the landing gear
during an abort landing.

With the advent of weight reduction in the ET (Super Light Weight External
Tank), and in the orbiters themselves, the THEORETICAL maximum payload was
increased to 63,500 lbs. This is important for the ISS-bound orbiters,
especially since they have to steer so far out of plane to reach the 51.6
degree inclination, and take a huge payload penalty as a result.
-Mike

In article a.edu,
Mike Dicenso wrote:
With the advent of weight reduction in the ET (Super Light Weight External
Tank), and in the orbiters themselves, the THEORETICAL maximum payload was
increased to 63,500 lbs. This is important for the ISS-bound orbiters,
especially since they have to steer so far out of plane to reach the 51.6
degree inclination, and take a huge payload penalty as a result.

? There is no out-of-plane steering required to reach 51.6deg. The
maximum inclination reachable by an in-plane launch trajectory from the
Cape is about 57deg. The shuttle has only once used major out-of-plane
steering, to reach a 62deg inclination for one military payload.

The large payload penalty for reaching ISS is partly because of the high
inclination -- Earth's spin contributes less velocity, and the effect on
the shuttle is particularly bad because *all* the mass reduction has to
come out of the payload, which is only a modest fraction of the total
orbited mass -- and partly because of ISS's relatively high altitude.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Henry Spencer wrote:

In article a.edu,
Mike Dicenso wrote:
With the advent of weight reduction in the ET (Super Light Weight External
Tank), and in the orbiters themselves, the THEORETICAL maximum payload was
increased to 63,500 lbs. This is important for the ISS-bound orbiters,
especially since they have to steer so far out of plane to reach the 51.6
degree inclination, and take a huge payload penalty as a result.

? There is no out-of-plane steering required to reach 51.6deg. The
maximum inclination reachable by an in-plane launch trajectory from the
Cape is about 57deg. The shuttle has only once used major out-of-plane
steering, to reach a 62deg inclination for one military payload.

I've heard it described as steering out of plane from the prefered 28.5
degree inclination to reach the higher inclinations. Can Jorge or JimO
chime in here?


The large payload penalty for reaching ISS is partly because of the high
inclination -- Earth's spin contributes less velocity, and the effect on
the shuttle is particularly bad because *all* the mass reduction has to
come out of the payload, which is only a modest fraction of the total
orbited mass -- and partly because of ISS's relatively high altitude.

That's correct, and the extra fuel required to reach the higher
inclination as well. An expendable rocket gets hit as well, but not nearly
as bad as the shuttle because the ELVs lack the heavy wings, wheels, crew
compartment, ect that the shuttle carries with it.
-Mike