Boeing to propose D-IV H for VSE

http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-s...ticle=02215top

Aviation Week & Space Technology

Trial By Fire
02/20/2005 01:42:58 PM
By Craig Covault

TRIAL BY FIRE

Boeing is preparing a range of Delta IV Heavy launcher
options for NASA Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and
unmanned cargo transportation architectures to the
Moon and Mars, now that the massive new rocket has
been flight tested.

The Dec. 21 launch of the 232-ft. vehicle on 2 million
lb. thrust marked the largest all-liquid expendable
booster flown since the last Saturn V in 1973. A second
Delta IV Heavy mission is scheduled for this summer
carrying a U.S. Air Force missile warning satellite.
The first launch carried a dummy payload.

Boeing wants NASA to consider the Delta IV Heavy for
manned CEV missions, but is also pushing the Heavy for
unmanned exploration launch roles. One Delta IV Medium
version could also be a CEV player.

Boeing says even modest upgrades could double the
Delta Heavy's Earth orbit capability to more than 50
metric tons, including being able to fire up to 20
metric tons on escape trajectories to Mars.

The current Heavy, like that tested in December, can
already send about 10 metric tons to the Moon, while
modest upgrades could more than double the lunar tonnage.
NASA is asking all exploration program elements to
standardize on metric ton references.

Also among the options are performance upgrades using new
upper-stage engines--including the Pratt & Whitney RL60
and the Mitsubishi/Boeing MB-60.

Allen Thomson wrote:
http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-s...ticle=02215top

Aviation Week & Space Technology
Trial By Fire
02/20/2005 01:42:58 PM
By Craig Covault

Lots of good info in this article. The best bits a

1) "The Delta IV is the only launch vehicle that, by
design, sets itself on fire during its ignition sequence."

and:

2) the information that Boeing has added to its catalog
a Delta IV Medium with six solid boosters that will be able
to meet the 20-metric-ton CEV launch mass requirement.
This might be an indication that the company doesn't expect
any more $200 million-a-copy Heavy launches after those
currently planned.

- Ed Kyle

"Ed Kyle" wrote in
oups.com:

Allen Thomson wrote:
http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-s...ge=aw_document
&article=02215top

Aviation Week & Space Technology
Trial By Fire
02/20/2005 01:42:58 PM
By Craig Covault

Lots of good info in this article. The best bits a

1) "The Delta IV is the only launch vehicle that, by
design, sets itself on fire during its ignition sequence."

Completely peculiar to the current design of the RS-68;
Rocketdyne might be asked to Do Something About It.

2) the information that Boeing has added to its catalog
a Delta IV Medium with six solid boosters that will be able
to meet the 20-metric-ton CEV launch mass requirement.
This might be an indication that the company doesn't expect
any more $200 million-a-copy Heavy launches after those
currently planned.

Man-rating a Medium D-IV with six solids might be interesting.
The astronaut's office is reported not happy with the prospect.
I wonder if they might go with two larger solids side-by-side.
The Heavy will still have the option of being built as needed,
when needed, and I think that could prove more often than
most do.

Significant payload gains with minimum changes, too. Now if
Boeing can just get the cost of the Heavy down, and keep it
there.

--Damon

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:40:39 -0600, in a place far, far away, Damon
Hill made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Man-rating a Medium D-IV with six solids might be interesting.
The astronaut's office is reported not happy with the prospect.
I wonder if they might go with two larger solids side-by-side.

I think that their consensus preference is a single solid (SRB based).

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
I think that their consensus preference is a single solid (SRB based).

Marshall is pitching that idea pretty hard. I hope it goes the way of all
Marshall projects.

There was an NASA-internal study performed last year which concluded that
segmented solids are more dangerous than monolithic solids. The study
examined US launch failures over the past twenty years and evaluated the
potential for a safe crew abort in each case, had a vehicle health
monitoring/abort system been installed. Even the Delta II which suffered an
SRM failure at about 1100' was judged to have been an abortable event.

-Kim-

"Kim Keller" wrote in
:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
I think that their consensus preference is a single solid (SRB
based).

Marshall is pitching that idea pretty hard. I hope it goes the way of
all Marshall projects.

There was an NASA-internal study performed last year which concluded
that segmented solids are more dangerous than monolithic solids. The
study examined US launch failures over the past twenty years and
evaluated the potential for a safe crew abort in each case, had a
vehicle health monitoring/abort system been installed. Even the Delta
II which suffered an SRM failure at about 1100' was judged to have
been an abortable event.

If I recall correctly, that was a GPS launch and the main explosion
was touched off by the ruptured solid motor that lit off the
detonation cord, which proceeded to unzip the rest of the Delta
on extremely short notice. Range safety was just as surprised as
everyone else. And I believe the GPS hit the beach essentially
intact along with the Star-something solid third stage.

That's a problem with safety systems; sometimes they are TOO
effective. But I'm not sure if a different system on a manned
launcher could have given enough time for an escape system to save
the crew, under the same circumstances.

How lucky do you feel, eh? Solids work well, but when they
go bad, they almost always go very badly, very uncontrollaby.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:


Man-rating a Medium D-IV with six solids might be interesting.
The astronaut's office is reported not happy with the prospect.
I wonder if they might go with two larger solids side-by-side.
The Heavy will still have the option of being built as needed,
when needed, and I think that could prove more often than
most do.


I got the impression from the article that the Astronaut's office was
plumping for a NASA-developed booster ('Upgrading EELVs "could
potentially be as costly as building a new human-rated booster," said
the Astronaut Office paper').

I guess I'd hoped for a more positive contribution -- let them help
define what the requirements are for the manned booster (and
"designed-in from scratch" doesn't count as a requirement) but even if
the EELVs aren't the least expensive boosters possible, I've got to
believe they're more affordable than *any booster* that NASA could develop.

--
Reed Snellenberger
GPG KeyID: 5A978843
rsnellenberger-at-houston.rr.com

"Damon Hill" wrote in message
31...
"Ed Kyle" wrote in
oups.com:

Allen Thomson wrote:
http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-s...ge=aw_document
&article=02215top




Significant payload gains with minimum changes, too. Now if
Boeing can just get the cost of the Heavy down, and keep it
there.

The Delta was designed for GEO which kept the LEO figures low.
Now as they make changes for LEO launches those figures
can be upgraded quickly and easily.

Ed Kyle wrote:

2) the information that Boeing has added to its catalog
a Delta IV Medium with six solid boosters that will be able
to meet the 20-metric-ton CEV launch mass requirement.
This might be an indication that the company doesn't expect
any more $200 million-a-copy Heavy launches after those
currently planned.


According to the article, Boeing will be proposing the Heavy for the CEV
manned flights and would only use the augmented Medium+6 and augmented
Heavy for cargo flights. That might be an indication that the company
expects many more of those Heavy launches...

--
Reed Snellenberger
GPG KeyID: 5A978843
rsnellenberger-at-houston.rr.com

Reed Snellenberger wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

2) the information that Boeing has added to its catalog
a Delta IV Medium with six solid boosters that will be able
to meet the 20-metric-ton CEV launch mass requirement.
This might be an indication that the company doesn't expect
any more $200 million-a-copy Heavy launches after those
currently planned.


According to the article, Boeing will be proposing the Heavy for the
CEV
manned flights and would only use the augmented Medium+6 and
augmented
Heavy for cargo flights. That might be an indication that the
company
expects many more of those Heavy launches...


I didn't see the article saying that Delta IV-M+(x,6) is only
meant for cargo. It says:

"Boeing wants NASA to consider the Delta IV Heavy for manned
CEV missions, but is also pushing the Heavy for unmanned
exploration launch roles. One Delta IV Medium version could
also be a CEV player...."

It is clear that Boeing would prefer to sell the Heavy,
but a 20 ton CEV payload would underuse Heavy. It sounds
like the company has worked out a less costly, fallback
Medium option for CEV launches designed to compete with
the solid-augmented Atlas V designs that Lockheed Martin
will surely propose.

- Ed Kyle