Delta IV Out as Potential X-37 Launcher?

"Colonel K" wrote in message . com...
"ed kyle" wrote in message
m...
"Colonel K" wrote in message
. com...

I have to admit that I personally prefer LM's approach to LV
integration and processing.

Could you explain why? ...
it seems to me that what LockMart has really done is to
have moved the traditional launch stand vehicle integration
... to the VIF. ... Delta IV spends more
time on the actual pad, but it is about the same if you consider
VIF-time part of the SLC 41 "pad time".

It's not so much a matter of time spent in processing, it's a matter of time
spent exposed to the elements. Even with the MST, the Deltas are exposed to
weather and the seaside environment far longer than the Atlas.

This makes sense. Does the MST leave the base of the vehicle,
including the RS-68, SRMs, and most of the first stage, exposed?
I would have expected Boeing to equip the structure with doors
to fully enclose the rocket.

I'm told that
integrating SRMs to the Delta adds two weeks of pad time to the campaign.
No, I think LM learned a smart lesson from the Russians: get your vehicle
ready to fly in a controlled environment, and only roll to the pad when it's
time to fly.

Boeing could have achieved that if it had adapted the Russian
approach of horizontally integrating the payload (and if it
had not added SRMs). LockMart's approach does seem to do a
good job of adapting the Russian methods with the odd U.S.
need to afix SRMs to every rocket design.

Hangar processing is also easier on the workforce. I've worked on rockets
on their pads; I can tell you first-hand it's not that much fun, once the
initial excitement wears off and you begin to notice the weather and the
bugs. Performing your tasks in a controlled environment means you are more
focused and more likely to get first-time quality on a given task.


Continuing with that thought, I would think that working on
a horizontal integration stand in a hanger (as with Proton,
Soyuz, Zenit, etc.) would be better than working on a vertical
stand (as with Atlas V). Boeing's approach, where part of the
vehicle is integrated horizontally and part vertically, with
the payload added vertically, does seem to have failed by
combining the worst features of both horizontal and vertical
methods. Another design by the committee that gave us the
X-32 "Monica" and the "Sonic Cruiser"?

- Ed Kyle

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
It's not so much a matter of time spent in processing, it's a matter of
time
spent exposed to the elements. Even with the MST, the Deltas are exposed
to
weather and the seaside environment far longer than the Atlas.

This makes sense. Does the MST leave the base of the vehicle,
including the RS-68, SRMs, and most of the first stage, exposed?
I would have expected Boeing to equip the structure with doors
to fully enclose the rocket.

The MST encloses the second stage and payload, but it should be noted that
this is simple weather protection - there is no air seal to keep out
sal****er air.

I'm told that
integrating SRMs to the Delta adds two weeks of pad time to the
campaign.
No, I think LM learned a smart lesson from the Russians: get your
vehicle
ready to fly in a controlled environment, and only roll to the pad when
it's
time to fly.

Boeing could have achieved that if it had adapted the Russian
approach of horizontally integrating the payload (and if it
had not added SRMs). LockMart's approach does seem to do a
good job of adapting the Russian methods with the odd U.S.
need to afix SRMs to every rocket design.

It may seem odd, but using SRMs does provide flexibility.

Continuing with that thought, I would think that working on
a horizontal integration stand in a hanger (as with Proton,
Soyuz, Zenit, etc.) would be better than working on a vertical
stand (as with Atlas V). Boeing's approach, where part of the
vehicle is integrated horizontally and part vertically, with
the payload added vertically, does seem to have failed by
combining the worst features of both horizontal and vertical
methods. Another design by the committee that gave us the
X-32 "Monica" and the "Sonic Cruiser"?

I've been in Boeing's HIF and LM's VIF, and I'd prefer working on a rocket
vertically. The workstands and platforms provide much better access. With a
horizontal booster the upper surfaces can be very awkward to reach. That
said, it should be noted that both companies perform at least some of their
work in both modes. LM inspects the Atlas V horizontally and does a bit of
checkout before shipping it up the road to the VIF, and Boeing performs all
their electrical checkout, some of their mechanical and all SRM work while
vertical at the pad. For vertical work Boeing's MST has quite a complex
platform arrangement compared to LM's VIF layout.

-Colonel K

(ed kyle) wrote in
om:


I wonder if it might not be cheaper to simply build a single,
more powerful rocket and launch it under-capacity much of the
time. That is consistent with Proton, Sea-Launch Zenit, and
now Ariane 5.

Simplified modularity is the order of the day; one size fits all
doesn't, really. Check out the approach that Angara is taking. The
Angara can cover a very wide range of payloads, which Ariane
5 can't.

http://www.ilslaunch.com/angara/

(Hmmm... Something's just changed on this page. Up to four
Angara variants were being shown, but the two smaller ones have
been removed. Anyway, my point stands.)


Note that Arianespace, the commercial launch
market leader, has now abandoned the strap-on booster thing
that it did before with Ariane 4.

Um, what are those big thingies attached to the sides of
the Ariane 5? Studies have been made of using the cryo
core as strap-ons (with additional engines). I don't think
much will come of this for quite some time.

At some point even an oversized design gets to be undersized,
and so the strap-ons appear and/or get bigger, or a new design
has to be selected. It's the market responding rationally to
actual demand.

--Damon

"Damon Hill" wrote in message
32...
(ed kyle) wrote in
om:


I wonder if it might not be cheaper to simply build a single,
more powerful rocket and launch it under-capacity much of the
time. That is consistent with Proton, Sea-Launch Zenit, and
now Ariane 5.

Simplified modularity is the order of the day; one size fits all
doesn't, really. Check out the approach that Angara is taking. The
Angara can cover a very wide range of payloads, which Ariane
5 can't.

http://www.ilslaunch.com/angara/

(Hmmm... Something's just changed on this page. Up to four
Angara variants were being shown, but the two smaller ones have
been removed. Anyway, my point stands.)


The ones removed wouldn't do GTO missions. Presumably ILS doesn't think
there's a market for small LEO sats, or doesn't want to bother with it.

Murray Anderson


Note that Arianespace, the commercial launch
market leader, has now abandoned the strap-on booster thing
that it did before with Ariane 4.

Um, what are those big thingies attached to the sides of
the Ariane 5? Studies have been made of using the cryo
core as strap-ons (with additional engines). I don't think
much will come of this for quite some time.

At some point even an oversized design gets to be undersized,
and so the strap-ons appear and/or get bigger, or a new design
has to be selected. It's the market responding rationally to
actual demand.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote in message . 132...
(ed kyle) wrote in
om:

I wonder if it might not be cheaper to simply build a single,
more powerful rocket and launch it under-capacity much of the
time. That is consistent with Proton, Sea-Launch Zenit, and
now Ariane 5.

Simplified modularity is the order of the day; one size fits all
doesn't, really. Check out the approach that Angara is taking. The
Angara can cover a very wide range of payloads, which Ariane
5 can't.


I've seen many Angara concepts on paper over the years, but
none have flown. The modular approach has been tried before,
and it has failed every time. The problem is that you need
the larger vehicle more than the smaller vehicle, so if you
compromise and go modular, you end up most often flying a
heavier, costlier, more complex rocket than if you had simply
designed a simple big rocket to begin with. Sadly, the VLS-1
that exploded at Alcantara today (8/21/03) was an example of
a complex modular design.

Note that Arianespace, the commercial launch
market leader, has now abandoned the strap-on booster thing
that it did before with Ariane 4.

Um, what are those big thingies attached to the sides of
the Ariane 5?

I should have said that Arianespace has now abandoned the
multiple configuration strap-on booster concept. The Ariane 5
strap-on boosters are a fixed part of the base vehicle design.
There are no other Ariane 5 variants that use different levels
of first stage thrust augmentation via different combinations
of strap-on boosters.

Ariane 4, on the other hand, used variable strap-on geometry
from the start, resulting in at least six possible vehicle
configurations that I can recall. Clearly, Arianespace decided
to simplify by reducing vehicle variants with Ariane 5.


At some point even an oversized design gets to be undersized,
and so the strap-ons appear and/or get bigger, or a new design
has to be selected. It's the market responding rationally to
actual demand.


Proton hasn't become undersized even though it has been
flying for more than 35 years. In recent years Proton
has actually gained commercial market from Ariane. If
NASA hadn't stopped Saturn I/IB production, that rocket
(with no strap-on boosters) would also be offering the
same sweet-spot payload capability as Proton, Ariane 5,
Zenit 3SL, and the heavy EELVs.

- Ed Kyle

In article ,
ed kyle wrote:
bids from Rocketdyne back in the mid-1990s for what was to
become the Atlas V first stage engine. Rocketdyne prepared an
initial bid, but then pulled out of the running! The Atlas
builder was left with only Aerojet, which was either offering
another Russian engine or only had a paper design, and
Pratt&Whitney/Energomash, which had the only a real engine
offered, to choose from.

Actually, contrariwise. Aerojet, bidding the NK-33, had the only real
engine -- there was a warehouse full of mothballed NK-33s, although in the
long run a production restart would have been needed. P&W/E bid the
RD-180, which *did not then exist*, but was billed as a straightforward
derivative of the successful RD-170. I was somewhat surprised to see a
paper engine selected over an existing one, but apparently P&W/E offered a
good deal and made a convincing case that the development effort needed
was (given Russian experience and facilities) manageable and low-risk.

If NASA and the Air Force have no choice but to swallow
Russian rocket engines, than they only have themselves to
blame after starving U.S. liquid rocket engine development
for 30+ years.

Agreed.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

In article ,
Colonel K wrote:
No, I think LM learned a smart lesson from the Russians: get your vehicle
ready to fly in a controlled environment, and only roll to the pad when it's
time to fly. I don't think you can really call that approach to a launch
campaign a stunt.

Especially since it is also used for Ariane 5, and was meant to be used
for the Saturn V. (The intended approach at LC-39, never actually pursued
very hard because launch rates were so much lower than expected, was to do
all or almost all launch preparation in the VAB, rolling out at the last
minute and doing only a bare minimum of work on the pad.)

Ariane 5 is particularly interesting, given Arianespace's long experience
with integration on the pad for Arianes 1-4. Ariane 5 is built in the BIL
(a VAB equivalent); the payload and fairing are added, final checks are
run, and hypergolic fueling of both spacecraft and upper stage is done in
the BAF (a separate building, no real equivalent at KSC); and actual
rollout to the pad occurs only hours before launch, with only cryo fueling
left to be done.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

In article ,
Damon Hill wrote:
I wonder if it might not be cheaper to simply build a single,
more powerful rocket and launch it under-capacity much of the
time. That is consistent with Proton, Sea-Launch Zenit, and
now Ariane 5.

Simplified modularity is the order of the day; one size fits all
doesn't, really.

It does if you only make it *big* enough, as for Zenit and Proton. The
repeated mistake of Western expendable-launcher designers has been to make
the core vehicle too small.

You can sort of understand strap-ons showing up later in a launcher's
life, but when they start adding strap-ons *before the first flight*, that
tells you pretty definitely that the thing was under-sized. When Atlas III
(then Atlas IIAR) was first announced, they made a big deal out of how it
was going to eliminate strap-ons...

Check out the approach that Angara is taking. The
Angara can cover a very wide range of payloads, which Ariane 5 can't.

Maximum Angara payload, last I looked, was about the same as that of
Ariane 5. The only issue is whether costs permit flying Ariane 5 with
partial payloads. Other things being equal (which they are not!), it
ought to be cheaper than Angara, since it's simpler.

As Ed noted, after a decade of experience with the modular approach,
Arianespace explicitly abandoned it for Ariane 5. It's more expensive,
not less, than a big simple rocket. Similarly, after significant
experience, LockMart *tried* to abandon it for Atlas III.

At some point even an oversized design gets to be undersized,
and so the strap-ons appear and/or get bigger, or a new design
has to be selected. It's the market responding rationally to
actual demand.

Funny how that hasn't happened to Proton in 35 years.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
Damon Hill wrote in message
. 132...
(ed kyle) wrote in
om:

I wonder if it might not be cheaper to simply build a single,
more powerful rocket and launch it under-capacity much of the
time. That is consistent with Proton, Sea-Launch Zenit, and
now Ariane 5.

Simplified modularity is the order of the day; one size fits all
doesn't, really. Check out the approach that Angara is taking. The
Angara can cover a very wide range of payloads, which Ariane
5 can't.


I've seen many Angara concepts on paper over the years, but
none have flown. The modular approach has been tried before,
and it has failed every time. The problem is that you need
the larger vehicle more than the smaller vehicle, so if you
compromise and go modular, you end up most often flying a
heavier, costlier, more complex rocket than if you had simply
designed a simple big rocket to begin with. Sadly, the VLS-1
that exploded at Alcantara today (8/21/03) was an example of
a complex modular design.


Both Delta II and Atlas II are modular designs, and Delta II is a
continuation of a family of modular designs. Their EELV replacements are
modular designs. Ariane 4 was a modular design. This may be a bad idea, but
the statistics on reliability don't give any support. Arianespace must be
wishing they had a new launcher as reliable as the old.
Khrunichev is in good company with its modular design.

Murray Anderson

Note that Arianespace, the commercial launch
market leader, has now abandoned the strap-on booster thing
that it did before with Ariane 4.

Um, what are those big thingies attached to the sides of
the Ariane 5?

I should have said that Arianespace has now abandoned the
multiple configuration strap-on booster concept. The Ariane 5
strap-on boosters are a fixed part of the base vehicle design.
There are no other Ariane 5 variants that use different levels
of first stage thrust augmentation via different combinations
of strap-on boosters.

Ariane 4, on the other hand, used variable strap-on geometry
from the start, resulting in at least six possible vehicle
configurations that I can recall. Clearly, Arianespace decided
to simplify by reducing vehicle variants with Ariane 5.


At some point even an oversized design gets to be undersized,
and so the strap-ons appear and/or get bigger, or a new design
has to be selected. It's the market responding rationally to
actual demand.


Proton hasn't become undersized even though it has been
flying for more than 35 years. In recent years Proton
has actually gained commercial market from Ariane. If
NASA hadn't stopped Saturn I/IB production, that rocket
(with no strap-on boosters) would also be offering the
same sweet-spot payload capability as Proton, Ariane 5,
Zenit 3SL, and the heavy EELVs.

- Ed Kyle

On 22 Aug 2003 06:47:21 -0700, (ed kyle) wrote:


I wonder if it might not be cheaper to simply build a single,
more powerful rocket and launch it under-capacity much of the
time. That is consistent with Proton, Sea-Launch Zenit, and
now Ariane 5. Note that Arianespace, the commercial launch
market leader, has now abandoned the strap-on booster thing
that it did before with Ariane 4.

Er... pay no attention to the two honkin' big strap-ons on either side
of the Ariane 5 core. :-)


Brian