|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Delta IV EH?
Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker wrote:
Am 26 May 2003 17:47:14 GMT schrieb "Jim Davis": Oh, that could be done with a never-built Russian concept: An Energia with eight strapons and a "fat" upper stage - i cannot remember the proposed name for that (something like "Hercules" or so... I think this may be what you are talking about. It's called Vulcan. Now you can build one too! Don't quote me on it, but I think it could lift like 600K lbs to LEO. http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?STA-018 -- Andrew |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Delta IV EH?
On Thu, 22 May 2003 04:44:08 GMT, Damon Hill
wrote: (Allen Thomson) wrote in . com: Damon Hill wrote [Snip] Anything after that probably depends on market demand. Indeed. I'm just wondering about the plausible(*) technical enlargeability of the vehicle if, for some reason, a funded requirement to do really heavy lifting came along. (*) Having said that, I wonder how plausible the designers of the Titan II ICBM would have found the T4B. The jaw-dropping part for them probably would have been the big solids; proposed variants on the Titan core included a bigger liquid core with more of the same engines, but were never actually built. And I don't think they would have believed the launcher that did result could have been so expensive, either. My thinking for Delta IV is that the CBC would make a helluva second stage. Four CBCs should suffice for boosting a core CBC to altitude ignition, as with Titan III/IV. It would take advantage of the high production rate of the standardized CBC, though the core CBC would likely require modifications and a new launch pad would be needed, or the existing launch stand highly modified (the horizontal/vertical erector isn't designed to handle such a vehicle). And a significantly larger upper stage would eventually be needed, but I think that's already in the planning stages. So far I don't see any show-stoppers, other than an actual need for a larger vehicle. One could get really wiggy with additional CBCs, or go with a larger core stage with two engines, propellant cross-feeding, etc. At any rate, we were lucky to get the EELV program; we should take advantage of the technology and build on it. --Damon, hoping that Delta IV Heavy demo flight succeeds Figured out the reliability yet? Lots of things to go wrong with that many tanks/engines. Best way to get a Saturn V class LV is to build a Saturn V. With modern electronics and materials. Mike Borgelt Mike Borgelt |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Delta IV EH?
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:59:57 +1000, Mike Borgelt
wrote: On Thu, 22 May 2003 04:44:08 GMT, Damon Hill wrote: (Allen Thomson) wrote in .com: Damon Hill wrote [Snip] Anything after that probably depends on market demand. Indeed. I'm just wondering about the plausible(*) technical enlargeability of the vehicle if, for some reason, a funded requirement to do really heavy lifting came along. (*) Having said that, I wonder how plausible the designers of the Titan II ICBM would have found the T4B. The jaw-dropping part for them probably would have been the big solids; proposed variants on the Titan core included a bigger liquid core with more of the same engines, but were never actually built. And I don't think they would have believed the launcher that did result could have been so expensive, either. My thinking for Delta IV is that the CBC would make a helluva second stage. Four CBCs should suffice for boosting a core CBC to altitude ignition, as with Titan III/IV. It would take advantage of the high production rate of the standardized CBC, though the core CBC would likely require modifications and a new launch pad would be needed, or the existing launch stand highly modified (the horizontal/vertical erector isn't designed to handle such a vehicle). And a significantly larger upper stage would eventually be needed, but I think that's already in the planning stages. So far I don't see any show-stoppers, other than an actual need for a larger vehicle. One could get really wiggy with additional CBCs, or go with a larger core stage with two engines, propellant cross-feeding, etc. At any rate, we were lucky to get the EELV program; we should take advantage of the technology and build on it. --Damon, hoping that Delta IV Heavy demo flight succeeds Figured out the reliability yet? Lots of things to go wrong with that many tanks/engines. Best way to get a Saturn V class LV is to build a Saturn V. With modern electronics and materials. From previous pasts regarding the Saturn 5 it is not practical, as all the blue prints have been trashed, and most of the guys and ladies who worked on it are either now retired or dead, and lots of companies that provided parts are probably long gone. You'd have to start from scratch again, and as America is now run by lawyers, its a none stater. Christopher +++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Only those who risk going too far, can know how far they can go." T.S. Elliot |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Delta IV EH?
Andrew Tubbiolo wrote in message ...
Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker wrote: Am 26 May 2003 17:47:14 GMT schrieb "Jim Davis": Oh, that could be done with a never-built Russian concept: An Energia with eight strapons and a "fat" upper stage - i cannot remember the proposed name for that (something like "Hercules" or so... I think this may be what you are talking about. It's called Vulcan. Now you can build one too! Don't quote me on it, but I think it could lift like 600K lbs to LEO. http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?STA-018 Howabout a space shuttle launch -minus the orbiter, with expendable main engines to replace the SSME? This has to be capable of around 250Klbm. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Delta IV EH?
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Delta IV EH?
In article ,
Damon Hill wrote: Realistically, how many rockets today have engine-out capability with propellant crossfeed? Essentially none. Usually there are too few engines for a meaningful engine-out capability. (Even the Saturn V, although it could *survive* most engine failures, would then have had trouble carrying out the mission except in particularly favorable cases. The Saturn I was about the only major launcher which had fairly complete engine-out tolerance.) Delta IV Heavy has a maximum of four engines; there is no engine-out capability; none is needed. The fantasy of more engines = more reliability doesn't pan out in today's practice. Yes, although that is mostly a sad reflection of the general unreliability of today's launchers. With overall failure rates of 2-5%, it is not worth putting serious effort into any problem area that doesn't contribute a significant fraction of that. And engines by and large don't (although a moment's thought turned up several failures in the last decade which *might* not have occurred if the stage in question had had engine-out capability, starting with the second Delta III). If you were shooting for a 0.1% failure rate, probably achievable with expendables if you tried hard (still far above the failure rate of even high-tech aircraft), you'd want engine-out capability in all stages. But when a 1% failure rate is considered high reliability, it's not worth it. -- MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! | |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Delta IV EH?
From previous pasts regarding the Saturn 5 it is not practical, as all the blue prints have been trashed, and most of the guys and ladies who worked on it are either now retired or dead, and lots of companies that provided parts are probably long gone. The plans are almost all still around; the claim that they were lost or destroyed is known to be a myth. The people are mostly gone, yes, as are many of the subcontractors, and more important, the manufacturing tooling. The BBC reported several years ago that the US had squandered the Saturn V engineering. This was later shown to be false. All engineering, drawings and a complete plan to re-start manufacturing are currently maintained. But wouldn't it be easier to use shuttle parts? Saturn V capacity--118,000Kg to 118Km orbit Space Shuttle; Orbiter -- 99,318Kg +Payload-- 24,400Kg =123,718Kg -SSME x 3 ~ 13,500Kg =100,000 Kg to 204Km orbit Replace the orbiter with a payload. Design new mounting for engines (make recoverable?) atparke |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Delta IV EH?
"atparke" wrote in message om... But wouldn't it be easier to use shuttle parts? Saturn V capacity--118,000Kg to 118Km orbit Space Shuttle; Orbiter -- 99,318Kg +Payload-- 24,400Kg =123,718Kg -SSME x 3 ~ 13,500Kg =100,000 Kg to 204Km orbit Replace the orbiter with a payload. Design new mounting for engines (make recoverable?) Congrats, you've designed Shuttle-C. One of several different designs that have been floated about. Unfortunately there's been no one willing to pay for it. atparke |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Delta IV EH?
In article ,
atparke wrote: From previous pasts regarding the Saturn 5 it is not practical... ...But wouldn't it be easier to use shuttle parts? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what the requirements are, and what the constraints are. The Saturn V is definitely a more capable vehicle than any simple shuttle derivative. Saturn V capacity--118,000Kg to 118Km orbit That sounds low, considering that the bottom two stages of a Saturn V put 100t into a 435km orbit. Space Shuttle; Orbiter -- 99,318Kg +Payload-- 24,400Kg =123,718Kg -SSME x 3 ~ 13,500Kg =100,000 Kg to 204Km orbit You don't get to put the SSMEs on without an assortment of other items to go with them. The most optimistic number for a near-term shuttle cargo derivative was about 77t to low orbit. -- MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! | |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Delta IV EH?
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote in
: "atparke" wrote in message om... But wouldn't it be easier to use shuttle parts? Saturn V capacity--118,000Kg to 118Km orbit Space Shuttle; Orbiter -- 99,318Kg +Payload-- 24,400Kg =123,718Kg -SSME x 3 ~ 13,500Kg =100,000 Kg to 204Km orbit Replace the orbiter with a payload. Design new mounting for engines (make recoverable?) Congrats, you've designed Shuttle-C. One of several different designs that have been floated about. Unfortunately there's been no one willing to pay for it. No one's willing to pay for the payloads. Ergo, no launcher. --Damon |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Delta 4: heavier and bigger | Damon Hill | Space Shuttle | 17 | June 1st 04 09:36 PM |
Wetenschappelijke experimenten Missie DELTA: hoe zijn ze verlopen? | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 2 | May 16th 04 06:34 PM |
Successful European DELTA mission concludes with Soyuz landing | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 1st 04 12:25 PM |
Follow the Delta launch and docking with the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | April 7th 04 06:49 PM |
Next ISS flight named DELTA | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | November 6th 03 10:09 PM |