Delta 4 Heavy -- the engine for humans beyond LEO?

This booster is beginning to look really impressive to me -- the recent
launch holds don't bother me at all.

In its current and EXPANDABLE forms, is this the kind of rocket
that can take people beyond LEO, or assemble the vehicle to do so,
in LEO, when the time comes?

Has a really good, big booster snuck up on us, when many of us
(like me) really weren't paying attention?

JimO

Alan Erskine wrote:

D-IV H has potential to deliver ISS components (payload similar to
the Proton), deliver supplies in quantities far greater than Progress

Seems like an ATV would fit on top of one, anyway

ATV mass at launch - 20750 kg
ATV maximum diameter - 4.48 m
ATV Length - 9.8 m

D-IV H mass to SSI orbit: 21890 kg
D-IV 5m fairing max payload width: 4.572 m
D-IV 5m fairing max payload length: 11 m

ATV data from http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ATV/ESA4ZJ0VMOC_0.html
D-IV data from
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...ltaPayload.htm
and
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...oduct_card.pdf

--
Reed

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:08:27 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Jim
Oberg" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

This booster is beginning to look really impressive to me -- the recent
launch holds don't bother me at all.

In its current and EXPANDABLE forms, is this the kind of rocket
that can take people beyond LEO, or assemble the vehicle to do so,
in LEO, when the time comes?

Yes, though it will be expensive as hell.

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message

I continue to be baffled at the way some people are jumping up and down
with enthusiasm for Delta IV Heavy... when Atlas V Heavy can carry quite
significantly heavier loads,
...

I don't think that's true, is it? I put this chart together a couple of
years ago:

http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/Launch_Costs.pdf

It's kind of rough, and the figures may be outdated (though I supplied
references for what I got), but I do seem to recall that Atlas V 552 and
Delta IV Heavy have roughly the same "payload capability" to about the same
LEO target. Do you have some different figures?

Jon

Well, we've had Titan IVs with similar capability for just a little
higher cost per launch, so I wouldn't consider this a major leap
forward.

"Damon Hill" wrote in message
31...
Delta IV Heavy is available.

So's a Kia, but I don't choose to drive one.

I don't see where Atlas V Heavy has much,
if any, payload advantage; thought they were about equal?

Atlas has a better vehicle Isp, I believe.

Okay, so we've got TWO very adaptable and expandable launch
systems. Other than Delta IV simply looks less awkward with a
5-6 meter payload shroud, and Boeing has thought about how they
could expand on it. I'd like to see how Atlas V could be
expanded.

I have. LM has every bit as inventive a staff as Boeing does. And some of
their art is better, too. :-)

Granted, Atlas can roll to pad and launch in a very short time.
Boeing could have done better there, especially given their
experience with Sea Launch/Zenit (though Delta IV got started
with McDonald/Douglas sometime before Boeing bought the latter).

What does a D-IVH sound like at full thrust? Woof woof!

-Kim-
*my opinions and no one else's*

In article ,
Jon S. Berndt jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org wrote:
It's kind of rough, and the figures may be outdated (though I supplied
references for what I got), but I do seem to recall that Atlas V 552 and
Delta IV Heavy have roughly the same "payload capability" to about the same
LEO target. Do you have some different figures?

Uh, the 552 is *not* a Heavy -- it's a single core with five small solid
strap-ons. The Heavy doesn't have a three-digit code.

Performance numbers on the Atlas V Heavy are hard to find, since LockMart
had pretty much lost interest in it for a while. Now that you mention it,
I find that I can't quite remember whether the original numbers showed the
same sort of performance advantage over Delta IV Heavy as the lesser A-V
configurations have over their D-IV counterparts; it's possible that I'm
remembering a version with an upgraded upper stage, since even the
stretched Centaur is definitely undersized for the Heavy.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

"Kim Keller" wrote in
m:


"Damon Hill" wrote in message
31...
Delta IV Heavy is available.

So's a Kia, but I don't choose to drive one.

I don't see where Atlas V Heavy has much,
if any, payload advantage; thought they were about equal?

Atlas has a better vehicle Isp, I believe.

?? Are you saying Atlas has a better mass ratio? Otherwise,
I don't understand. Delta's clearly got a higher Isp with
hydrogen/oxygen, though Atlas has a thrust-to-weight advantage.

Okay, so we've got TWO very adaptable and expandable launch
systems. Other than Delta IV simply looks less awkward with a
5-6 meter payload shroud, and Boeing has thought about how they
could expand on it. I'd like to see how Atlas V could be
expanded.

I have. LM has every bit as inventive a staff as Boeing does. And some
of their art is better, too. :-)

I'm sure they do and we'd all like to know more about this. Ahem.

Granted, Atlas can roll to pad and launch in a very short time.
Boeing could have done better there, especially given their
experience with Sea Launch/Zenit (though Delta IV got started
with McDonald/Douglas sometime before Boeing bought the latter).

What does a D-IVH sound like at full thrust? Woof woof!

Hopefully we'll find out shortly.

--Damon, waiting impatiently for that launch...

In article ,
Damon Hill wrote:
Atlas has a better vehicle Isp, I believe.

?? Are you saying Atlas has a better mass ratio? Otherwise,
I don't understand. Delta's clearly got a higher Isp with
hydrogen/oxygen, though Atlas has a thrust-to-weight advantage.

Historically, it has been difficult to make LOX/LH2 *stages* light enough
to really exploit their Isp advantage. The stage delta-V numbers (which
may be what Kim was thinking of) tend to be no better, indeed a bit worse,
than those of good stages with denser fuels.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

"Ed Kyle" wrote in
oups.com:

As for me, I'm looking forward to the continued EELV
fly-off that is underway. One of these days an Atlas V
or a Delta IV is going to get bent. After enough failures
occur, one of the systems should stand superior to the other.
So far, Boeing is the loser in this regard. It lost two
Delta III (EELV precursor) missions. In contrast, all of
Lockheed's Atlas III boosters have flown true so far.

Delta III is irrelevant; it was replaced by Delta IV, as was
more or less planned all along. Delta III was Delta II
essentially maxed out; Delta IV is a fresh start.

Atlas V has a vulnerability in that excellent RD-180 engine;
political winds shift and might make it unavailable. I
believe Lock-Mart has a Plan B for that contingency, but it
could be awkward for a while.

We might be waiting a while to see those failures.

At least, I hope so. Right now, it's Ariane that's got
broken egg on its face, yet they've still got plenty of business.
I don't see much fallout if the impending Delta IV Heavy launch
does fail; there isn't much need for it in the near future.
Depending on how Bush's plans fare in the later part of the
decade, that could change one way or the other. I think Boeing
will play along at least through the end of the decade with Delta,
rather than throw in the towel.

--Damon