Boeing to propose D-IV H for VSE

hop wrote:
Historical nitpick...

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.
In what way is D-IV H "larger" than energia ?


The author was leaning heavily on the word
"expendable".

Of course the inaugural Energia launch
didn't carry a reusable orbiter - but it
didn't make orbit either.

- Ed Kyle

Douglas Holmes wrote:
"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...
No-solids would shut
out Lockheed Martin's existing Atlas V
models after all.

Lockheed seems to be pushing a two engine version.
It should easily break 20 tons.

Zenit-Centaur!

- Ed Kyle

On 2005-02-23, Will McLean wrote:

It is clear that Boeing would prefer to sell the Heavy,
but a 20 ton CEV payload would underuse Heavy. It sounds

One solution would be to add an ASTP style logistics module behind the
CEV for ISS flights. Especially since the CEV will be a lot less than
20 tons if it doesn't need to carry fuel to push it back from the moon.

It strikes me - at the risk of doing some wouldn't-it-be-cool paper
engineering - that there's an interesting lesson to be learned here from
(of all things) Shenzhou.

Shenzhou makes an interesting change to the well-understood Soyuz
modular concept, in that its orbital module is enlarged and designed to
be capable of autonomous flight; one concept that's been batted around
is that these could be docked with later Shenzhou flights, providing
double the "living space" for a later mission. When that one deorbits it
leaves *both* orbital modules behind, and so on - an incremementally
built space station, a kind of "Salyut light".

The implications of applying this concept to a later CEV "mission
module" should, of course, be apparent; by making it an "optional"
design component you end up with a small CEV capable of using lighter
launchers, or a heavier one - with additional capacity - to utilise the
full capacity of a D-IVH or the like. It doesn't need to be ISS-tasked,
specifically, but some form of mission is almost certain to be seen as
desirable...

It's a pipe-dream - CEV is all things to all men at this point - but it
is an interesting idea to consider. Taking modularity a next step on...

--
-Andrew Gray

In article .com,
Ed Kyle wrote:
lb. thrust marked the largest all-liquid expendable
booster flown since the last Saturn V in 1973.
In what way is D-IV H "larger" than energia ?

The author was leaning heavily on the word "expendable".

No, he -- or more likely, the Boeing press release he was cribbing from --
simply forgot about Energia altogether.

Of course the inaugural Energia launch didn't carry a reusable orbiter...

And there was no particular reason it had to. Energia was independent
of Buran, an expendable launcher which could carry Buran as a payload
but could also carry other things.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Douglas Holmes wrote:

Lockheed seems to be pushing a two engine version.
It should easily break 20 tons.
I wish Boeing would follow Lockheed's lead.


Do you mean a version of the Atlas V with two RD-180s? I hadn't heard
that one before -- and am having a hard time imagining it.

If you're referring to the two-engine Centaur as 2nd stage, on the other
hand, that one I've heard about...

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

Reed Snellenberger wrote:
Douglas Holmes wrote:

Lockheed seems to be pushing a two engine version.
It should easily break 20 tons.
I wish Boeing would follow Lockheed's lead.

Do you mean a version of the Atlas V with two RD-180s? I hadn't
heard
that one before -- and am having a hard time imagining it.

If you're referring to the two-engine Centaur as 2nd stage, on the
other
hand, that one I've heard about...


Lockheed gave this presentation last year:
"http://www.spacecongress.org/2004/Panel-4/3Gass.pdf"
that showed Atlas V growth options for space
exploration purposes. An early upgrade could
be a wide body Centaur with up to 4 RL10s.
A follow up step would be a wide body Atlas
with up to 2 RD180s and replacement of the
RL10s with a higher thrust engine. Use of
both upgrades appears to roughly triple
performance. All on paper, of course.

Makes me wonder - could a launcher be created
using only two existing core first stages
side-by-side, rather than spending bucks to
develop a new fat stage? A double-core would
double the liftoff thrust.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:

The author was leaning heavily on the word
"expendable".

Of course the inaugural Energia launch
didn't carry a reusable orbiter - but it
didn't make orbit either.


Good point -- I also remember that there were plans to recover Energia
strap-on boosters via parachute.

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

"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

"Ed Kyle" wrote in
oups.com:

Makes me wonder - could a launcher be created
using only two existing core first stages
side-by-side, rather than spending bucks to
develop a new fat stage? A double-core would
double the liftoff thrust.

It's hard to tell for certain, but that's what Boeing
is apparently thinking of for the 'Delta V' widebody
first stage.

Using existing stages in series with a large second
stage may lead to a very long stack; a paralleled
configuration looks more rigid and may present a less
complex structural and control challenge in atmospheric flight.
The interstage might be more complex and heavier.

At any rate, I can't think of an operational example
of just two paralleled first stages with all upper
stages on top; must be a reason for it. Otherwise,
it seems like a logical approach to heavier launch
vehicles.

One could say that Saturn I and IB were paralleled
Thor? stages, I suppose. Or perhaps Proton was
a paralleled derivative of some ballistic missle
launcher?

--Damon

On 2005-02-23, Reed Snellenberger wrote:

Do you mean a version of the Atlas V with two RD-180s? I hadn't heard
that one before -- and am having a hard time imagining it.

The Atlas V Mission Planners guide has some details - Pages 8-9 and
8-10. See http://www.ilslaunch.com/missionplanner/ (They want your
email address...) You want section 8.0

Instead of a 3.8m diameter core, it would require a 5.4m version,
closer to the diameter of the Delta IV's core.

Iain