Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

ERRORIST · 2004-11-19 19:27:03

Why not beryllium tankage?

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-19 19:35:15

even more expensive, heavier, probobly not as strong as Lithium

ftlwright · 2004-11-23 07:26:43

Why not beryllium tankage?

Beryllium is really, really nasty stuff. Minimal gain for high cost.

http://http://www.beryllium411.org/?src=googlead]chronic beryllium disease

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-23 08:50:23

Ah your right, I didn't think about the toxticity...

Having a few hundred or thousand pounds of that burning up in the atmosphere when the 1st stages are dumped would make a rather unpleasent toxic cloud.

Rxke · 2004-11-23 11:01:50

...While lithium is used in anti depression drugs, good news for them moody fishies!

Trebuchet · 2004-11-24 20:29:56

...While lithium is used in anti depression drugs, good news for them moody fishies!

Maybe we could make those lithium tanks burn up over the Middle East. There's a lot of people who seem to need a bit of lithium in that area.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-11-24 22:29:19

Having a few hundred or thousand pounds of that burning up in the atmosphere when the 1st stages are dumped would make a rather unpleasent toxic cloud.

That's one of the problems I have with this style of rocket, the waste of materials, you'd think it would be better financially and environmentally not to be developing/using rockets that discard the majority of its parts either to burn in the atmosphere or become space junk. I don't have an amazing alternative on the drawing board though be nice if I did!

Graeme

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-25 09:04:23

Most of the material used in the rockets of today aren't that bad though, consisting primarily of aluminum, iron, carbon and such. Nothing really environmentally unfriendly.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-11-25 09:34:06

Most of the material used in the rockets of today aren't that bad though, consisting primarily of aluminum, iron, carbon and such. Nothing really environmentally unfriendly.

But then you've got the pollution from making these items, if we had totally reusable units the pollutants from production are not a major problem as its a one off. Its when you are making things over and over as throw away items that the problems are. The energy to produce the materials, then the energy to make the materials into parts will all come from sources that are unlikely to be friendly to the environment.
We don't know what effect an increase aluminium, carbon etc would have on the environment in the long term.

Graeme

Trebuchet · 2004-11-25 09:46:25

We don't know what effect an increase aluminium, carbon etc would have on the environment in the long term.

No, we don't. We also don't have the time or money needed to conduct such a study and delay manned flight even longer. We need to go, and we need to go *now*. You cannot keep the political will to fund vaporware for decades; the sooner hardware is orbiting the better. Besides, if the sheer amount of aluminum/carbon/etc which has been vaporized on re-entry since the 1950's hasn't caused any noticable problems, there likely aren't any.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-11-25 11:32:10

Yes we need to go, I'm not anti-manned missions, but saying we have to go so any means will do and damn the consequences is not an acceptable view.

Graeme

Trebuchet · 2004-11-25 11:55:02

There is a point beyond which more studies to rule out marginal possibilities passes from caution to procrastination. Worrying about the environmental effects of some os the most common elements in nature definitely falls in the 'unnecessary delay' area.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-11-25 12:51:10

I don't accept 'space at any cost' - sorry. But my main point in environmental terms was following the discussion regarding beryllium and lithium alongside the usual aluminium and carbon. Plus 54 years or so worth of increased atmospheric aluminium and carbon will still be working their way through the system, we may not now what impact they'll have for years.

Graeme

Rxke · 2004-11-25 12:59:57

GraemSkinner has a point, ever read thos horror-stories from the Kazach steppes, where the Russian boosters tend to crash down. Granted, they use downright toxic stuff, but still.
Remote place, not much research into secondary effects... Very convenient. Sounds a bit like the sea.
It's not ok to think it'll probably dilute into the sea, far from shore when you plan to increase launches. It might very well end up on your plate in the form of (happy) fish.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-11-25 13:06:05

I've been studying climate change recently, so its still fairly fresh in the mind :;): the bit that worries me is how little we really know about the cause and effect on our environment from different chemicals.
Although I'm concerned about the impact on our environment I'm still all for manned missions - just wish I could be on one!

Graeme

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-26 09:53:42

If the world hasn't ended from all the American, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Chinese, Indian, Israeli, and other launches over these years, then adding a few more launches a year for a Lunar or Martian program isn't going to hurt the environment.

Anyway, as far as the "eeeevil chemicals!" bit, take a look around... Aluminum and iron oxides are a major componet of the soil, the carbon composit parts will burn up into carbon dioxide and a little soot, which leaves... Not much. The risk of environmental damage posed by a relativly small increase in rocket launches is small enough that it can simply be ignored.

If we obey the Precautionary Principle or get sucked in to "proving" we aren't doing any harm, then spaceflight will end... There is no way you can prove beyond all doubt, so the irrational, regressionist, man-hating environmentalists will never be satisfied.

BWhite · 2004-11-26 10:13:45

If the world hasn't ended from all the American, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Chinese, Indian, Israeli, and other launches over these years, then adding a few more launches a year for a Lunar or Martian program isn't going to hurt the environment.
Anyway, as far as the "eeeevil chemicals!" bit, take a look around... Aluminum and iron oxides are a major componet of the soil, the carbon composit parts will burn up into carbon dioxide and a little soot, which leaves... Not much. The risk of environmental damage posed by a relativly small increase in rocket launches is small enough that it can simply be ignored.
If we obey the Precautionary Principle or get sucked in to "proving" we aren't doing any harm, then spaceflight will end... There is no way you can prove beyond all doubt, so the irrational, regressionist, man-hating environmentalists will never be satisfied.

I agree with this.

China burning coal to heat apartment blocks will release billions of times more nasty waste than any handful of space missions, even if we launch as many rockets as I want to launch.

:;):

GraemeSkinner · 2004-11-26 10:16:47

If the world hasn't ended from all the American, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Chinese, Indian, Israeli, and other launches over these years, then adding a few more launches a year for a Lunar or Martian program isn't going to hurt the environment.

I mentioned I was concerned we did not know what impact they would have not that I thought the world was about to end, thats the type of interpretation tabloid media normally takes on these issues isn't it?

Anyway, as far as the "eeeevil chemicals!" bit, take a look around... Aluminum and iron oxides are a major componet of the soil, .....

Soil yes, atmosphere no.

If we obey the Precautionary Principle or get sucked in to "proving" we aren't doing any harm, then spaceflight will end... There is no way you can prove beyond all doubt, so the irrational, regressionist, man-hating environmentalists will never be satisfied.

As long as you are not calling me a irrational, regressionist, man-hating environmentalists I'll comment. My original post to this thread was along the lines of we should be looking to use more reusable crafts for manned missions not throwing things away to be destroyed in the environment, I hate to quote my original post but it was simply "That's one of the problems I have with this style of rocket, the waste of materials, you'd think it would be better financially and environmentally not to be developing/using rockets that discard the majority of its parts..."
I have never suggested we should end all space flight now as we don't know what impact it will have on the environment.

Graeme

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-22 23:58:57

http://spaceflightnow.com/delta/d310/]Delta 4 falls short

Graeme

SpaceNut · 2004-12-23 06:01:05

Well actually the first stage shut off early and the second stage had to make up for it.

Spacetoday

Delta 4's first stage — three identical core boosters — shut down eight seconds earlier than expected. To compensate, the upper stage fired longer than planned during the second of three burns needed to place the primary payload, a demonstration satellite, into geosynchronous orbit, and as a result ran out of propellant during the final burn.
Delta IV Heavy is designed to carry 50,000 pounds into low-Earth orbit and about 29,000 pounds to geostationary orbit, an altitude used by communication satellites and other spacecraft that is about 22,300 miles above Earth.

military stepped in to pay about $141 million

spaceflight

22,000 pounds for Trans Lunar Injection routes to the moon and 17,600 pounds on Mars-bound trajectories.

According to other resource articles it seems that the airforce is happy enough with preformance as to go ahead and to pay for the launch of this demostrator flight.

I wonder if the side boosters are reused? They were monitored until they seperated from the central core.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-23 06:09:04

Well actually the first stage shut off early and the second stage had to make up for it.

It still ended up short of its planned mark from what I've seen, how do the Delta IV's time shut off's? (It's likely in one of the articles but I'm fighting flu at the moment).

Graeme

SpaceNut · 2004-12-23 06:15:43

I would assume by computer clock cycles which do have errors for they rely on programming technique as well as the actual crystal or oscillator accuracy.

I hope you feel better soon and discontinue drinking the water? I know from my own home where Iron and magnesium are very high that it is unwise to ingest any amount long term.
If you where to distill it then it would be ok.

Ad Astra · 2005-02-21 10:34:07

Aviation Week is getting into the act, talking about http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-scri … 5top]Delta IV upgrades for Project Constellation. Apparently Boeing is throwing its eggs into the Delta IV basket in spite of concerns about human-rating. I also loved the way the article explains the vehicle's insulation burning at ignition and during part of ascent. I wonder what the astronauts think about that.

I would rather hold out for LockMart and see what the Atlas V heavy (if built) can do. On paper it's a more capable rocket using denser (and cheaper) kerosene propellant. I want to see LockMart build the beast. Having two heavy launchers in the Air Force stable will stimulate competition and give NASA more options for the VSE.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-21 11:01:01

Whats wrong with the insulation scorching a little bit? You hardly need it at all during acent, its mainly for fuel storage on the pad.

The Atlas-V heavy would have to reach a pretty high throw weight for it to be competitive with a "super" Delta-IV HLV. It would also bennefit less from improved technology.

Fuel cost is also entirely trivial versus vehicle and launch costs.

Ad Astra · 2005-02-21 14:52:30

The Atlas V has a more powerful first stage engine. In theory (as long as we're talking about a heavier upper stage for the Delta IV) you could put a larger upper stage on an Atlas V heavy and place a larger payload in orbit.

It's interesting to note that the CEV is designed for four occupants and weighs 20 tonnes, versus three occupants and 34 tonnes for the Apollo CSM + escape rocket. I like the idea that modern materials and avionics can result in weight savings over Apollo, but I'm leery of emasculating the CEV by keeping its crew to just four instead of six.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-11-19 19:27:03

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#52 2004-11-19 19:35:15

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#53 2004-11-23 07:26:43

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#54 2004-11-23 08:50:23

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#55 2004-11-23 11:01:50

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#56 2004-11-24 20:29:56

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#57 2004-11-24 22:29:19

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#58 2004-11-25 09:04:23

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#59 2004-11-25 09:34:06

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#60 2004-11-25 09:46:25

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#61 2004-11-25 11:32:10

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#62 2004-11-25 11:55:02

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#63 2004-11-25 12:51:10

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#64 2004-11-25 12:59:57

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#65 2004-11-25 13:06:05

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#66 2004-11-26 09:53:42

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#67 2004-11-26 10:13:45

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#68 2004-11-26 10:16:47

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#69 2004-12-22 23:58:57

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#70 2004-12-23 06:01:05

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#71 2004-12-23 06:09:04

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#72 2004-12-23 06:15:43

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#73 2005-02-21 10:34:07

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#74 2005-02-21 11:01:01

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

#75 2005-02-21 14:52:30

Re: Delta IV Heavy and Beyond

Board footer