The long-awaited Delta-4-Heavy test flight has just taken off -- WOW

The long-awaited Delta-4-Heavy test flight has just
blasted off from Cape Canaveral, looks good so far.

Boeing is the manufacturer -- a good day for them.

The liftoff video is mighty impressive, see
http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/l...vy_webcast.htm

This is the new rocket that is most often talked about
as the booster for NASA's new human spaceship, the
'Crew Exploration Vehicle' (CEV) of 'Project Constellation'.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...xt_launch.html

This version can carry fourteen tons into orbit -- twice the size of
Russia's 'Soyuz' rocket. It's not quite as heavy as a full payload
on the space shuttle, but is a lot cheaper.

Better -- this rocket architecture can be upgraded with more
strap-on boosters, to get to the twenty to twenty five tons.
That's a lot more than the space shuttle can deploy.

It's big enough to assemble space vehicles in orbit that can carry
astronauts back to the moon.

Still ten years before NASA puts astronauts into the new capsule
and launches them -- but it will look a lot like what we just saw.

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...
The long-awaited Delta-4-Heavy test flight has just
blasted off from Cape Canaveral, looks good so far.

Boeing is the manufacturer -- a good day for them.

The liftoff video is mighty impressive, see
http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/l...vy_webcast.htm

This is the new rocket that is most often talked about
as the booster for NASA's new human spaceship, the
'Crew Exploration Vehicle' (CEV) of 'Project Constellation'.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...xt_launch.html

This version can carry fourteen tons into orbit -- twice the size of
Russia's 'Soyuz' rocket. It's not quite as heavy as a full payload
on the space shuttle, but is a lot cheaper.

I beg to differ. Man-rated with a CEV capsule the cost will probably exceed
$250million a flight. That's half that of a Shuttle flight which can carry
a lot more load and is a lot more flexible. OTOH a capsule wil lbe much
safer and the U.S. space program can't afford another fatal accident.


Better -- this rocket architecture can be upgraded with more
strap-on boosters, to get to the twenty to twenty five tons.
That's a lot more than the space shuttle can deploy
It's big enough to assemble space vehicles in orbit that can carry
astronauts back to the moon.

But it still falls far short of Saturn V (100 tons or so in LEO). Maybe a
new booster should be considered.

"Henk Boonsma" wrote in message
news:1103705741.afb815c5f01358ea878db6b682439df9@t eranews...

But it still falls far short of Saturn V (100 tons or so in LEO). Maybe a
new booster should be considered.

The method of returning to the Moon would determine the LV requirements.
Remember that there was a short-lived concept called LSR (Lunar Surface
Rendezvous) where an automated lander would transport return propellant for
the next, 'manned' vehicle. This would have allowed a vehicle with an LEO
payload of about 37 tonnes to be used - Saturn C3 from memory.

D-IV can be scaled up to over 50 tonnes LEO payload with only a few changes
to the current design (engines, avionics would be the same, but a new core
would be needed with two engines and twice the propellant load, plus four
CBC's - I have been working on an idea which would have needed an
aproximately 8 metre diameter core, Boeing has 'confirmed' [indirectly] that
the New Booster Core would be 7.7 metres diameter). It could be done in
less than five years and total program costs would be in the order of $25
billion (five billion a year for five years), not the $170 billion NASA says
the 'Bush Plan' will cost.

--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

Alan Erskine wrote: this is funny and true

--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge


Mrs. Santa Claus got raped: People v. Alan Erskine
it was the night before christmas but Alan Erskine
don't like christmas or Santa Claus so he went to
the north pole and killed Santa Claus and raped
Mrs. Santa Claus then ****ed rudoff the red nose
reindeer all night long.


Santa Claus Dec 21, 12:01 pm show options

Newsgroups: sci.space.history, sci.space.shuttle, sci.space.policy,
alt.survival, aus.bicycle
From: "Santa Claus" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 21 Dec 2004 12:01:57 -0800
Local: Tues, Dec 21 2004 12:01 pm
Subject: Mrs. Santa Claus got raped: People v. Alan Erskine
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse


wrote:



I can't believe it, but this is actually funny!
Someone is spending

WAAAAAYYYYYY too much time in the
egg nog!!!!


LOL ... more like Grgich Hills Cabernet Sauvignon or
Stags Leap Estate Reserve Merlot or Cabernet Sauvignon

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:56:04 +0100, in a place far, far away, "Henk
Boonsma" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

the U.S. space program can't afford another fatal accident.

Nonsense.

If that's true, we've no hope of becoming a spacefaring species. Or
at least nation.

On 22 Dec 2004 21:53:44 GMT, (bob haller) wrote:

RTF guarantees another bad day

How so? There are no "guarantees" either way in manned spaceflight, from
what I've seen of it.

anoither bad accident will ground the program permanetely....

Are you secretly hoping for this, as you are openly hoping for a catastrophic
Progress launch failure?

Dale

Are you secretly hoping for this, as you are openly hoping for a catastrophic
Progress launch failure?

Dale

No dont want anything bad to happen to a shuttle.... people can die...

But progress somehow detonating on the pad at ignition...

Demans the station and with a bit of luck ends useless station and shuttle all
at once

Now take that 10 BILLION a year just in US $$ and lets go somewhere!
..
..
End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts....

(bob haller) wrote in
:

Now take that 10 BILLION a year just in US $$ and lets go somewhere!

You're grossly exaggerating. It's more like $6.634 billion.

(bob haller) wrote in
:


You're grossly exaggerating. It's more like $6.634 billion.


Shuttle budget is 5 billion a year.

No, four-point-something billion.

so ISS is 1.634 billion? I thought it was around 4 bllion?

Two billion.