Delta IV Heavy article in AW&ST

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst.jsp

First pictures (small) of three assembled CBCs; one
apparently will be the cover of this week's AW&ST.

--Damon

"Damon Hill" wrote in message
2...
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst.jsp

First pictures (small) of three assembled CBCs; one
apparently will be the cover of this week's AW&ST.

--Damon

Thanks for the link. Regardless of the 'difficulties' Boeing might be
having right now, this is one very impressive vehicle!

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
Where are the Weapons of Mass
Destruction, Mr Bush?

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 14:03:03 GMT, "Dholmes"
wrote:

I also do not get the emphasis on the article on an Atlas Heavy, I thought
Lockheed had abandoned any heavy lift version since the large solids they
have can almost equal it.

I do. The chances that NASA will choose an OSP launch vehicle that
uses large solid boosters is somewhere down near zero.

Brian

Damon Hill wrote in message 32...
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst.jsp

First pictures (small) of three assembled CBCs; one
apparently will be the cover of this week's AW&ST.


Seasoned space reporter Covault notes in this article
that the stars seem aligned for Delta IV to become NASA's
next human-rated launcher. Most notable is that the USAF
sanctions have taken launches away from Delta IV starting
in 2006, just when OSP action could start to fill the
void.

Very interesting.

- Ed Kyle

"Reed Snellenberger" wrote in
message .190...
I'm surprised that they didn't just install some CBC's on the outer pad
locations temporarily to do some get-ahead testing, rather than waiting
until they got the Heavy put together -- it seems like the basic fit
checks
and plumbing tests could have been performed, and reduced the amount of
pad
time the Heavy has to endure. Might have been a pad scheduling issue with
the other Delta IV launches.

The booster erection technique only works with a center booster. There's no
way to erect a booster to the strap-on positions on the launch mount.

And thanks for the link -- I'm off to the Delta website to see if they've
got a bigger version of that picture of the Heavy with that technician
standing in front of it :-)

I have a few photos of the elements in the HIF at
http://home.cfl.rr.com/kkeller2/

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 14:03:03 GMT, "Dholmes"
wrote:

I also do not get the emphasis on the article on an Atlas Heavy, I
thought
Lockheed had abandoned any heavy lift version since the large solids they
have can almost equal it.

I do. The chances that NASA will choose an OSP launch vehicle that
uses large solid boosters is somewhere down near zero.

The chance might be higher than you think. I've seen an OSP concept
configured on an Atlas 552. It may not make the final cut, but it's being
investigated. The motors are monolithic, so there is much less risk of a
failure than with a segmented booster.

-Colonel K

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 17:46:55 GMT, "Colonel K"
wrote:


I do. The chances that NASA will choose an OSP launch vehicle that
uses large solid boosters is somewhere down near zero.

The chance might be higher than you think. I've seen an OSP concept
configured on an Atlas 552. It may not make the final cut, but it's being
investigated. The motors are monolithic, so there is much less risk of a
failure than with a segmented booster.

A catastrophic failure like that of Delta 241's monolithic GEM in 1997
might not be survivable for OSP.

Now, more than ever, you can pretty safely bet that NASA won't choose
a vehicle with solids for OSP.

Brian

"Dholmes" wrote in message ...

I do not get why they are waiting so long, the tests they want to perform do
not seem sixth months worth.


Mechanical fit checks, detailed electrical tests
(including first vehicle power-up on pad), wet dress
rehearsal tests (first use of side-booster propellant
loading equipment), RF interference and RF communications
tests with entire vehicle in place, maybe (but probably not)
a hot-fire static test on the pad. It all takes time,
and when it is done some corrections (engineering changes)
might have to be made. THEN the normal several-week-long
launch campaign process can begin.

- Ed Kyle

"Dholmes" wrote in
:



I also do not get the emphasis on the article on an Atlas Heavy, I
thought Lockheed had abandoned any heavy lift version since the large
solids they have can almost equal it.

Since an Atlas V Heavy could be built at any time (probably requiring
a new mobile launch platform, though), I imagine Lockmart's just waiting
for a mission that requires one.

I wonder if a couple of Atlas V CCBs could loft a Delta 4 CBC to
altitude ignition? Probably don't quite have the thrust.


I am a little disappointed that it does not have an MB-60 instead of a
Centaur. I guess we still have to wait for the first MB-60.

The MB-60 isn't ready yet; it should provide for some payload growth,
especially for the heavier 5 meter upper stage. I imagine Boeing wants
to go with this engine, which is designed as a drop-in replacement for
the RL10, since they own Rocketdyne.

The equivalent RL60 should begin full-up testing this fall.

--Damon

Reed Snellenberger wrote in
.190:

"Kim Keller" wrote in
m:


The booster erection technique only works with a center booster.
There's no way to erect a booster to the strap-on positions on the
launch mount.


What? No hold-down posts on the outer positions, or is it a problem
with not having a suitable transporter/erector to do the job?

I think what Kim means is that the Heavy variant is fully assembled
in the horizontal position and moved to the launch pad; a tilt platform
raises the stack to the vertical position on the launch stand. That's
what I've seen in images on the Boeing web page and in the payload
user's guide. Only the payload/shroud and solid strap-ons are added
on the pad after the Delta IV is erected, in all vehicle versions.

And thanks for the link -- I'm off to the Delta website to see if
they've got a bigger version of that picture of the Heavy with that
technician standing in front of it :-)

I have a few photos of the elements in the HIF at
http://home.cfl.rr.com/kkeller2/


Nice -- in the 005 picture, is that the individual CBMs for the Heavy,
or three individual D-IVs? I'm guessing the former, since the CBM on
the right doesn't have attachment points on the right side, whereas
the other two do (and other structures indicate that they're all in
the same relative orientation).

Correct; there wouldn't be any need to have three CBCs on the floor at
the same time otherwise. I'd like to have better views of the upper
attach points to see how that's done; I assume they're on the intertank
structure.

Fascinating photos, Kim!

--Damon, whose AW&ST issue didn't show up in the mail today