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

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

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

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.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:22:24 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:

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
e.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

So reverse engineer the lawn ornaments.
I'm not seriously suggesting this. There are better things to do.

The Saturn V may have 11 engines over 2 stages but it also had some
engine out capability for significant parts of the flight. Does Delta
IV have this at all?


Mike Borgelt

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! |

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

"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

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! |

"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