You are not logged in.
Take a look at this:
http://starshipmodeler.net/cgi-bin/phpB … ...#319079
"Whether any of the Delta or Atlas Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle options will be acceptable for the CEV manned role remains to be seen. "
"The Astronaut Office at the Johnson Space Center is not keen on any of these options (AW&ST June 14, 2004, p. 15). The astronauts have taken a position that "human rating should be designed in, not appended on." The Office is calling for an order of magnitude reduction in the risk of fatalities on ascent, and has expressed concern that an EELV--be it Delta or Atlas--may not be safe enough even with upgrades. "
One more time...
This is your brain on Delta IV:
http://www.aviationnow.com/media/images … ...5_L.jpg
--any questions?
Now they have a monopoly.
Atlas III I loved. The RD-180 (a two nozzle half-strength RD170 with two--not four nozzles) was good under a balloon tank.
That original Atlas design is dead, coming after the last sustainer Atlas.
When they lopped off two nozzles and put it under Atlas V--the lift-off was also painfully slow--just like Delta IV 'heavy.'
The wide body Atlas V with Two RD-180s is not much better than Zenit with one, four-nozzle RD-170.
Not buying it.
Two engines isn't enough for engine out.
Two recoverable five segment solids and three RS-68/SSMEs?
I'll clear the pad and have real hydrogen engine out.
And Keep the ET in orbit:
Space Dev's idea seems more realistic.
I am one of the few who likes a big orbiter.
Mini-spaceplanes on top of EELVs will be torn off from pitch-loads and bending moments. Take a look at page 55 of this months Pop Sci (with Bigelow's 2010 station on the cover)
You will note that the orbital version of Dream Chaser is SIDE mount, and looks very like a mini hybrid version of Energiya Buran.
I loved Energiya myself. The liquid fueled strap-ons (ZENITS) were EELVs in their own right in 1985, when they first flew.
With RD-0120s on the ET, the orbiter was a parasite that could be exchanged with large payload pods.
With side mounting allowing outsized articles to be carried (within reason) large disk shaped aerobrakes could be carried.
Five 100 ton pods and ISS would be done.
If we had that design, we could release orbiter sized X-43 hypersonic boilerplates from the back of 747 orbiter ferry, then release in space from the ET--allowing the ET to stay in orbit for spacehab use--as the hypersonic boilerplate re-enters for prolonged test with active cooling.
Seymour Bogdonoff at Princeton--a hypersonics guru--under stands the need for large scale tests.
In other words--Energiya should have been our STS.
Imagine if we had been flying that since 1981--with Columbia in Gorky park.
We'd probably have 14 astronauts still with us.
Energiya did not bankrupt the USSR, contrary to what some may say. N-1 cost as much, and the Soviets survived it and got stronger.
The CCCP went bankrupt when they fought Muslims in parts of the world where they had no business.
Sound familiar?
Kistler has the N-1's curse on it from using those NK-33/43 engines--just like SLC-6
Give it up--its jinxed.
JSF is not needed in this climate. It can no more shoot down an ICBM than a Curtis Jenny--and an F-4 with gun pods can down rogue airliners. Typical Blue-Suit waste.
The Delta IV has a lot of problems.
Let us say that you could double Delta IV to 40 tons by placing two more CBC's on it north-south as well as east-west.
The problem is that you save no money.
Whether you launch five three-core Delta IVs or three five-core Delta Vs at 40 tons a pop--you are still throwing away 15 RS-68 engines to put 100-120 tons in LEO in multiple flights of a rocket with no engine-out.
A rocket that is becoming a real pad-sitter like Titan IV.
Give me three RS-68s simpler SSME's under one ET, and I put 100 tons up there in one shot--with engine out. By the time I expend 15 RS-68s--I have 500 tons in LEO (five launches) not 100.
In other worlds, ISS would have been done in five HLLV flights that have no more RS-68s than a Delta IV heavy. Cancel one EELV and put HLLV in its place--for it will have similar cost.
Even if Shuttle derived were to cost a billion a shot (not likely) it still costs less than Delta IV heavy at 220 million or so.
One billion for 100 tons is 200 million for every 20 tons.
But HLLV still costs less. The real savings is in fewer high-energy upper-stages expended and less time on the pad.
HLLV is the way to go---Period.
Thank you very much for championing the cause of Heavy-Lift here. I wrote Heavy Lift Is Needed, Cut The Umbilical, and EELV's Are A Bad Deal
The lack of Engine-Out in the Delta IV--which must rise 1,000 feet straight up and can subject crews to 25 g during abort is all the reason to avoid the lemon that is the Delta IV.
That and its undershooting its orbit by 10,000 miles. It isn't a bad sensor. I am hearing that a vortex baffle set up a flow that failed to keep the sensor wet.
Its painful raise from the pad set up extensive charring as well.
See below:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1 … icle/185/1
"The Aldridge Commission suggested that a heavy-lift vehicle was necessary, calling it an “enabling technology” for implementing the vision, yet also suggested that heavy-lift vehicles might be developed commercially..."
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05z … -05za.html
http://www.space.com/spacenews/business … 40412.html
Michael Griffin, NASA’s associate administrator for exploration from 1991-1993, says the most logical approach, all things considered, is to spend the $3 billion or $4 billion it would cost to build a shuttle-derived heavy lifter and forget about EELV-driven approaches.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1 … icle/150/1
"This examination shows there is no significant cost savings by pursuing the use of numbers of medium-lift vehicles when compared to the development of a new, shuttle-derived heavy lift booster. The development of such a heavy-lift booster supports the President’s space vision by providing the capability of lofting heavy payloads to the Moon in support of the construction of a lunar base as well as providing the capability to conduct other missions. I believe the development of a heavy booster in conjunction with the appropriate use of medium-lift boosters and modular spacecraft represents the most effective strategy for the US manned space program."
Log onto http://www.starshipmodeler.net]http://www.starshipmodeler.net
and look at the real-space forum for some space links--and nice models
