Atlas - Delta Very Heavy

This subject was touched on a few years ago in one of the sci.space groups.
Now that NASA has been given a new direction, maybe its time bring it up
again.
I have been following all the threads on proposed shuttle-C and the need for
a new heavy lift vehicle. And, I keep wondering about a Delta or Atlas with
four additional CBC's instead of two. The question is would it take longer,
and cost more money, to upgrade the Heavy's to Very Heavy than it would to
turn shuttle into shuttle-C, or build a whole new heavy lifter? If it could
be done, how would it compare with shuttle-C in lifting power. My first
thought would be that it probably wouldn't have the muscle of the C but it
might have enough to do the job at a reasonable development cost.
Any thoughts?
Farmer

I don't know about Delta, but Atlas has been working on (even before Bush's
"vision" thing) a continuing "evolved" approach to the Atlas family of
launch vehicles...all the way up to a Saturn class or beyond. Whether or
not this ever becomes reality is anyone's guess.

P. Ruzicka

"William J Hubeny" wrote in message
om...
This subject was touched on a few years ago in one of the sci.space
groups.
Now that NASA has been given a new direction, maybe its time bring it up
again.
I have been following all the threads on proposed shuttle-C and the need
for
a new heavy lift vehicle. And, I keep wondering about a Delta or Atlas
with
four additional CBC's instead of two. The question is would it take
longer,
and cost more money, to upgrade the Heavy's to Very Heavy than it would to
turn shuttle into shuttle-C, or build a whole new heavy lifter? If it
could
be done, how would it compare with shuttle-C in lifting power. My first
thought would be that it probably wouldn't have the muscle of the C but it
might have enough to do the job at a reasonable development cost.
Any thoughts?
Farmer

Am Fri, 2 Apr 2004 06:45:08 -0800 (PST) schrieb "William J Hubeny":

[...]
I have been following all the threads on proposed shuttle-C and the need for
a new heavy lift vehicle. And, I keep wondering about a Delta or Atlas with
four additional CBC's instead of two. The question is would it take longer,
and cost more money, to upgrade the Heavy's to Very Heavy than it would to
turn shuttle into shuttle-C, or build a whole new heavy lifter? If it could
be done, how would it compare with shuttle-C in lifting power. My first
thought would be that it probably wouldn't have the muscle of the C but it
might have enough to do the job at a reasonable development cost.

AFAIK, there is not only the (manageable) problem to 'simply' add two
or eve four additional cores to urate the Atlas or Delta Heavy
configurations to Extra or Ultra Heavy ones. The launch pads as well
as the launch vehicle integration facilities are made for up to
three-core configuration. They would have to be rebuilt, or
replaced/added by vertical integration facilities and appropriate pad
structures. The KSC VAB and LC39 _could_ be used for that, but that is
the great advantage of the Shuttle-C plans: imho there would not be
the necessity for _such huge_ investments, if Shuttle-C would be in
the line of duty.

It's a pity, that Boeing does not even think about putting its marbles
in one bag, and augments Delta cores with Zenit boosters, if there is
need for heavier launchers and necessary investments for them,
anyhow...

cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ /
http://zili.de X No HTML in
/ \ email & news

Why not just build everything on the moon? Mine and Smelt the ore, make the
metals and build the ships. First build specialized ships to shuttle people
to and from the moon. build a large moonbase and get things going. We can do
it with nuclear powered aircraft. Screw the environmentalists. Let them
suck swamp water.

"William J Hubeny" wrote in message
om...
This subject was touched on a few years ago in one of the sci.space
groups.
Now that NASA has been given a new direction, maybe its time bring it up
again.
I have been following all the threads on proposed shuttle-C and the need
for
a new heavy lift vehicle. And, I keep wondering about a Delta or Atlas
with
four additional CBC's instead of two. The question is would it take
longer,
and cost more money, to upgrade the Heavy's to Very Heavy than it would to
turn shuttle into shuttle-C, or build a whole new heavy lifter? If it
could
be done, how would it compare with shuttle-C in lifting power. My first
thought would be that it probably wouldn't have the muscle of the C but it
might have enough to do the job at a reasonable development cost.
Any thoughts?
Farmer



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.663 / Virus Database: 426 - Release Date: 4/20/2004

Am Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:55:27 -0700 (PDT) schrieb "Rodney Kelp":

Why not just build everything on the moon? Mine and Smelt the ore, make the
metals and build the ships. First build specialized ships to shuttle people
to and from the moon. build a large moonbase and get things going. We can do
it with nuclear powered aircraft. Screw the environmentalists. Let them
suck swamp water.

....because it makes no sense for a "single shot" enterprise.

There _IS_ a huge difference between exploration and colonization. And
the actual goal is exploration. None of the real deciders even think
about colonization - as long as there is no prove of huge economic
advantages, that pay off the efforts...

cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ /
http://zili.de X No HTML in
/ \ email & news

Rodney Kelp wrote:

Why not just build everything on the moon?

Because labor will be extremely expensive on the moon for the forseeable
future.

Paul

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

Rodney Kelp wrote:

Why not just build everything on the moon?

Because labor will be extremely expensive on the moon for the forseeable
future.

Especailly if you use small launch vehicles to lob factories to the moon
in bits...

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

Labor could be zero because many people would volunteer.
And we don't lob factory parts to the moon, we make them there.

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Rodney Kelp wrote:

Why not just build everything on the moon?

Because labor will be extremely expensive on the moon for the forseeable
future.

Paul



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.675 / Virus Database: 437 - Release Date: 5/2/2004

In article , rodneykelp605
@hotmail.com says...

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Rodney Kelp wrote:

Why not just build everything on the moon?

Because labor will be extremely expensive on the moon for the forseeable
future.

Labor could be zero because many people would volunteer.
And we don't lob factory parts to the moon, we make them there.

Labor cost in this case has nothing to do with salaries. It has to do
with the infrastructure required to keep a labor force alive, and the
transportation system required to transport them to and from the work
site (i.e., the Moon). It will be very expensive to put a labor force
on-site and it will be even more expensive keeping them there.

And you need a fair number of manufactured parts to make the parts that
are needed to make the factories. In other words, you need factories
that create the parts out of which you make other factories. Whatever
you do, you're going to have to build, transport, land and assemble the
equivalent of a pretty large factory (or several of them) just to get
started.

It's not the easy deal you seem to think it is, Rodney.

Doug

Rodney Kelp wrote:

Labor could be zero because many people would volunteer.
And we don't lob factory parts to the moon, we make them there.

Using what? Sharpened rocks?


--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address