Stick Second Stage and Delta IV

Has anyone else noticed that the proposed
SRB/SSME "Stick" vehicle has a second stage
diameter that is roughly the same as the
diameter of the Delta IV Common Booster
Core (5.1 meters)? And, by the way, that
the SRB/SSME second stage length seems to
be not much less than the length of a CBC?

- Ed Kyle

Has anyone else noticed that the proposed SRB/SSME "Stick" vehicle has a second stage diameter that is roughly the same as the diameter of the Delta IV Common Booster Core (5.1 meters)?

Yep. Including ATK.

Ed Kyle wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that the proposed
SRB/SSME "Stick" vehicle has a second stage
diameter that is roughly the same as the
diameter of the Delta IV Common Booster
Core (5.1 meters)? And, by the way, that
the SRB/SSME second stage length seems to
be not much less than the length of a CBC?

Coincidence or Cooperation?

I guess the White Elephant second stage diameter is driven by the CEV
diameter and the length is then driven by the propellant required.

Using a Delta IV common booster would save a lot of development work,
but that rather defeats the puropose of the Stick.

Alex Terrell wrote:

Ed Kyle wrote:


Has anyone else noticed that the proposed
SRB/SSME "Stick" vehicle has a second stage
diameter that is roughly the same as the
diameter of the Delta IV Common Booster
Core (5.1 meters)? And, by the way, that
the SRB/SSME second stage length seems to
be not much less than the length of a CBC?



Coincidence or Cooperation?

I guess the White Elephant second stage diameter is driven by the CEV
diameter and the length is then driven by the propellant required.

Using a Delta IV common booster would save a lot of development work,
but that rather defeats the puropose of the Stick.



Not really. Practically, just about all that would be used on a
Stick/DIV vehicle from the DIV woud be the tanks, payload interface and
some of the plumbing, and even the tanks would be changed (shortened).
Development would still be required, but at least the tooling would be
in place for some of the major hardware.

--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller

Scott Lowther wrote:

.. Practically, just about all that would be used on a
Stick/DIV vehicle from the DIV woud be the tanks, payload interface and
some of the plumbing, and even the tanks would be changed (shortened).
Development would still be required, but at least the tooling would be
in place for some of the major hardware.

Hmmmmmm.

"Stick/DIV".

S-DIV.

S-IVD?

- Ed Kyle

On 7 Sep 2005 17:27:25 -0700, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

.. Practically, just about all that would be used on a
Stick/DIV vehicle from the DIV woud be the tanks, payload interface and
some of the plumbing, and even the tanks would be changed (shortened).
Development would still be required, but at least the tooling would be
in place for some of the major hardware.

Hmmmmmm.

"Stick/DIV".

S-DIV.

S-IVD?

Would they name the upper stage Delta V (aka delta-v)?

Brian

Alex Terrell wrote:

Using a Delta IV common booster would save a lot of development work,
but that rather defeats the puropose of the Stick.



Not really- it has a lifting capability superior to the Delta 4 heavy
and gets the payload to orbit with a total of only two main engines
being fired (one solid, one liquid) which should boost reliability.

Pat

I mean the only purpose of the stick is to provide development work.
Hence White Elephant.

In article , Pat Flannery says...

Alex Terrell wrote:

Using a Delta IV common booster would save a lot of development work,
but that rather defeats the puropose of the Stick.

Not really- it has a lifting capability superior to the Delta 4 heavy
and gets the payload to orbit with a total of only two main engines
being fired (one solid, one liquid) which should boost reliability.

Both have only one engine being lit *in flight*, which is where you'd
run into reliability problems. The Delta IV Heavy has to light three
engines on the pad, yes, but if one or more of them doesn't light or
doesn't run properly, you get to shut everything down and try again
tomorrow.

The Stick, you can maybe try again tomorrow if the SRB doesn't light
*at all*, but the intermediate cases between "doesn't light at all"
and "runs properly" are, well, interesting.

The sort of "interesting" most people would rather sit through a dozen
Delta pad aborts than experience, I should imagine.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

John Schilling wrote:

Both have only one engine being lit *in flight*, which is where you'd
run into reliability problems. The Delta IV Heavy has to light three
engines on the pad, yes, but if one or more of them doesn't light or
doesn't run properly, you get to shut everything down and try again
tomorrow.

In practice, is failing to ignite (on the pad or in flight)
a common problem, compared to other engine-related problems?

Paul