Author Topic: Delta III History  (Read 22872 times)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Delta III History
« on: 08/26/2010 04:00 am »
I'm working on another Thor family history chapter, covering Delta III.  As usual, I've encounter a number of unanswered questions, which I hope some here might be able to address.

I've learned that the Delta Cryogenic Upper Stage (DCUS) that was tested in the vacuum chamber at Plum Brook in Sandusky, Ohio was called the "X-Stage".  This stage was used for a dozen or more propellant loading and engine firing tests during early 1998.  For these tests, the "X-Stage" RL10B-2 engine did not have the carbon-carbon nozzle extensions.  (The extension was tested on another RL10B-2 test-fired in the Arnold vacuum chamber in 1997).

Another second stage was tested at Goddard during the same time period.  These were acoustics tests.  I haven't been able to determine if the Goddard stage was a flight or a ground test stage.  Perhaps a "Y-Stage" etc.?

The first flight Delta III was erected on Pad 17B during June 1998.  I seem to recall an earlier Delta III, possibly using dummy components in part, was stacked to test the rebuilt pad prior to the first launch campaign, but I haven't been able to find anything definitive.  Pad 17B was rebuilt during 1997 for Delta III.  A Delta II launched from 17B in January 1998.   That leaves February through June for pad testing.  Does anyone remember?

Boeing donated a DCUS to the Discovery Science Center in Santa Anna, California, where it is displayed today.  Would this have been the "X-Stage"?  The Goddard stage?  An unflown flight stage?

Finally, does anyone know where the 4-meter Delta composite payload fairings were/are manufactured?

Thanks in advance!

 - Ed Kyle

P.S.  Hard as it is to believe, we just passed the tenth anniversary of Delta 280 (8/23/2000), the final Delta III flight!
« Last Edit: 08/26/2010 04:14 am by edkyle99 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #1 on: 08/26/2010 12:28 pm »


Boeing donated a DCUS to the Discovery Science Center in Santa Anna, California, where it is displayed today.  Would this have been the "X-Stage"?  The Goddard stage?  An unflown flight stage?

Finally, does anyone know where the 4-meter Delta composite payload fairings were/are manufactured?


Unflown stage

ATK in Iuka, MS

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #2 on: 08/26/2010 04:49 pm »


Boeing donated a DCUS to the Discovery Science Center in Santa Anna, California, where it is displayed today.  Would this have been the "X-Stage"?  The Goddard stage?  An unflown flight stage?


Unflown stage


Unflown stage built for flight?  Not a ground test stage?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #3 on: 08/26/2010 05:13 pm »


Boeing donated a DCUS to the Discovery Science Center in Santa Anna, California, where it is displayed today.  Would this have been the "X-Stage"?  The Goddard stage?  An unflown flight stage?


Unflown stage


Unflown stage built for flight?  Not a ground test stage?

 - Ed Kyle

unflown flight stage

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #4 on: 08/26/2010 06:08 pm »
A photo of the stage on display in Santa Ana is available at:
http://www.discoverycube.org/exhibit.aspx?q=12

[EDIT 09 Jun 2013: that link no longer works. Attached is a photo from the wikimedia commons.]
« Last Edit: 06/09/2013 10:36 pm by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #5 on: 08/27/2010 05:25 pm »
A photo of the stage on display in Santa Ana is available at:
http://www.discoverycube.org/exhibit.aspx?q=12

Off topic, but I see that the museum also has an RS-68 engine donated by Boeing and PWR, rigged to "launch"! 
http://www.discoverycube.org/news.aspx?q=141

 - Ed Kyle

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #6 on: 08/27/2010 05:31 pm »
Unflown stage built for flight?  Not a ground test stage?

 - Ed Kyle

unflown flight stage

Interesting.  That surprises me.  I would have guessed that unflown Delta 3 upper stages, or at least parts of them, would have transitioned to Delta 4 Medium.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #7 on: 08/27/2010 06:45 pm »
Ed, thanks for bringing up this topic.
Is there a decent account anywhere of the story of the Delta III upper stage? _Taming Liquid Hydrogen_ describes Centaur, but here it seems a different American team needed to create their own Centaur-equivalent, from scratch, no mean feat. It looks to be a less mass-efficient design, but perhaps more economical than duplicating Centaur's years of evolution in order to work first time and catch up with the Atlas system as a whole in a single step?
   -Alex

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #8 on: 08/27/2010 07:09 pm »
Ed, thanks for bringing up this topic.
Is there a decent account anywhere of the story of the Delta III upper stage? _Taming Liquid Hydrogen_ describes Centaur, but here it seems a different American team needed to create their own Centaur-equivalent, from scratch, no mean feat. It looks to be a less mass-efficient design, but perhaps more economical than duplicating Centaur's years of evolution in order to work first time and catch up with the Atlas system as a whole in a single step?
   -Alex

DCUS was the first entirely new high energy upper stage developed in the US since the 1960s.  There are some bits and pieces of information out there (see links), but since this was not a NASA or USAF project, the complete story probably resides in the halls and libraries of ULA/Boeing/McDonnell Douglas/Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne.  It also exists at Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which built Delta 3's 4 meter tanks, based on the H-2(A) tanks that it builds to this day.  To what extent Mitsubishi controlled some of the DCUS design choices (separate propellant tanks, for example) is a story yet to be told.

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/1998/TM-1998-208477.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980237539_1998410915.pdf
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/1997/TM-107470.pdf
http://rocket.itsc.uah.edu/u/education/files/MAE_695/Reports/09/09_Nozzle_Extension_Assembly.pdf

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 08/27/2010 07:12 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #9 on: 08/27/2010 09:19 pm »
Unflown stage built for flight?  Not a ground test stage?

 - Ed Kyle

unflown flight stage

Delta IV used different sized tanks

Interesting.  That surprises me.  I would have guessed that unflown Delta 3 upper stages, or at least parts of them, would have transitioned to Delta 4 Medium.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #10 on: 08/28/2010 12:27 am »
Delta IV used different sized tanks

Right.  I forgot about that.  The difference is subtle, but noticeable in the following "side-by-side" comparison.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #11 on: 08/29/2010 12:20 am »
Nice side by side pic!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #12 on: 08/29/2010 01:40 am »
O.K. Here is a link to my initial stab at this writeup.

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/thorh13.html

It is not fully linked into my main pages yet.  Think of it as a "beta" version, waiting for comments/corrections/etc..

 - Ed Kyle

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #13 on: 08/30/2010 03:32 am »
Nice work Ed.
You pack a lot of history and info into these articles.
I also liked the amount and selection of images in this latest write up.
Quite an education on Delta for a layperson like myself.

Maybe a Titan series some day?

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #14 on: 08/30/2010 04:08 am »
O.K. Here is a link to my initial stab at this writeup.

Thanks--I enjoyed that.  Lots of twists and turns in that story, and it's great to have them laid out so clearly.

A question about the second Delta III flight.  The nature of the premature engine shutdown sounds potentially violent, yet there's no hint in your report (or anywhere else, to my knowledge) that the engine failure did significant damage to the rest of the vehicle.  Had there, for example, been a cluster of such engines, would a failure like this likely have taken out other engines?

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #15 on: 08/30/2010 04:26 am »
A real compact and detailed overview of the Delta III. I saved to my desktop so as to read and absorb. A really wicked looking SLV. Sorry it didn't continue but suffered the same fate as the earlier Commercial Titan 3.
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline Stan Black

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3135
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #16 on: 08/30/2010 07:53 am »
Ed,

 Very good article. More please!

Stan

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #17 on: 08/30/2010 10:30 am »


A question about the second Delta III flight.  The nature of the premature engine shutdown sounds potentially violent, yet there's no hint in your report (or anywhere else, to my knowledge) that the engine failure did significant damage to the rest of the vehicle.  Had there, for example, been a cluster of such engines, would a failure like this likely have taken out other engines?

It was a shock transient but not a real explosion.  The vehicle avionics are located near the engine mount and they continued to operate nominally.

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #18 on: 08/30/2010 02:28 pm »


A question about the second Delta III flight.  The nature of the premature engine shutdown sounds potentially violent, yet there's no hint in your report (or anywhere else, to my knowledge) that the engine failure did significant damage to the rest of the vehicle.  Had there, for example, been a cluster of such engines, would a failure like this likely have taken out other engines?





It was a shock transient but not a real explosion.  The vehicle avionics are located near the engine mount and they continued to operate nominally.

Wasn't this an issue with the brazing of the cooling tubes? Haas this happened with other engines?
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #19 on: 08/30/2010 04:43 pm »
Wasn't this an issue with the brazing of the cooling tubes? Haas this happened with other engines?

The story is told in depth in the attached failure investigation report!

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #20 on: 08/30/2010 04:48 pm »
Thanks, Ed. Saved and printed.
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #21 on: 08/30/2010 05:14 pm »
I'm intrigued by one potential, possibly rumored, aspect of Delta 3 and how it related to McDonnell Douglas plans for its EELV bid.  I've read, somewhere and I don't remember where and I can't find it now, that McDonnell Douglas designed Delta 3 with plans in mind to eventually replace its first stage and boosters with a big high-thrust kerosene stage - probably 4 meters in diameter like Delta 3's upper stage, which would have comprised its EELV design.  The company was said to have considered NK-33 and, likely, something based on RD-171, and, mostly likely, something new from Rocketdyne. 

In the end, though, the decision was made to go with RS-68.  I would *love* to have been at that meeting!  Surely a new high-thrust kerosene engine and stage would have been cheaper to develop and operate.  Heck, MDAC might have been able to assemble the things in its existing Pueblo, Colorado plant - and maybe even have launched them from existing Delta pads - saving gobs of money.  I have to wonder, too, if the existing Delta 3 upper stage could have served unmodified.  It had to be stretched for Delta 4 Medium.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 08/30/2010 05:22 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #22 on: 09/02/2010 04:46 am »
I'm intrigued by one potential, possibly rumored, aspect of Delta 3 and how it related to McDonnell Douglas plans for its EELV bid.  I've read, somewhere and I don't remember where and I can't find it now, that McDonnell Douglas designed Delta 3 with plans in mind to eventually replace its first stage and boosters with a big high-thrust kerosene stage - probably 4 meters in diameter like Delta 3's upper stage, which would have comprised its EELV design.  The company was said to have considered NK-33 and, likely, something based on RD-171, and, mostly likely, something new from Rocketdyne. 

Playing with this idea a bit shows that a "Delta 3B" first stage with two NK-33 engines, married to the Delta 3 second stage unchanged, would have been able to lift better than 4 tonnes to a 28.5 deg GTO from the Cape (Delta 3 could do 3.8 tonnes, Delta 4M could lift about 3.9 tonnes).  Such a first stage would have been about 26 meters tall if 4 meters in diameter - about the same height as a Delta 2 XELT first stage.  Compare that to a Delta 4 CBC which is 5.1 meters diameter and 32.46 meters tall.  Stretching the second stage to Delta 4M size would have increased this GTO payload to 4.3 tonnes or so.  Good, but short of Atlas 5 capability.

A "Delta 3C" with three NK-33 engines powering the first stage could have done some damage - somewhere in the neighborhood of 5.5 to 5.8 tonnes to a 27.5 deg GTO.  This first stage would have measured 37.4 x 4 meters, a tad longer than a Falcon 9 first stage. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/03/2010 04:56 am by edkyle99 »

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #23 on: 09/03/2010 01:37 am »
That *had* to have been decided after the Rocketdyne acquisition. It's really too bad that the path of least resistance in the last many years has been hydrogen.  Both Boeing MPS who contributed to CBC design and Canoga only had hydrogen experience, so the internal business decision was to go with what they knew.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #24 on: 09/03/2010 04:45 am »
Both Boeing MPS who contributed to CBC design and Canoga only had hydrogen experience, so the internal business decision was to go with what they knew.

The same Canoga that was making RS-27 at the time?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #25 on: 09/03/2010 04:54 am »
That *had* to have been decided after the Rocketdyne acquisition. It's really too bad that the path of least resistance in the last many years has been hydrogen.  Both Boeing MPS who contributed to CBC design and Canoga only had hydrogen experience, so the internal business decision was to go with what they knew.

Boeing acquired Rocketdyne (with Rockwell) in December 1996.  Boeing did not merge McDonnell Douglas until mid-1997.  McDonnell Douglas choose RS-68 sometime before August 1995, when it won one of four preliminary phase EELV study contracts (Boeing was one of the other winners with an SSME-based proposal, along with Lockheed Martin (Atlas) and Alliant Techsystems (LCLS).

NK-33 and RD-180 were in the running for Lockheed Martin's Atlas 2AR (and later Atlas 5).  Boeing was looking at SSME, Alliant was bidding combinations of existing solids.  McDonnell Douglas could not, I suspect, afford to propose bidding development of a brand new engine.  Rocketdyne, meanwhile, had just stopped work on the STME.  Rocketdyne then pitched RS-68, a lower cost development based on its STME work, to McDonnell Douglas.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/03/2010 05:09 am by edkyle99 »

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #26 on: 09/03/2010 06:31 am »
McDonnell Douglas could not, I suspect, afford to propose bidding development of a brand new engine.

But then, if they wanted to do the RP-1 route, wouldn't 3 RS-27As made more sense for the "Delta 3B" than 2 NK-33s?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #27 on: 09/03/2010 06:50 am »
McDonnell Douglas could not, I suspect, afford to propose bidding development of a brand new engine.

But then, if they wanted to do the RP-1 route, wouldn't 3 RS-27As made more sense for the "Delta 3B" than 2 NK-33s?

Even with four RS-27A based engines, the rocket would only have been able to lift 3.3-ish tonnes to GTO x 27.5 deg using the Delta 3 second stage.  Five RS-27A types and a stretched second stage would boost 4.2-ish tonnes to the same orbit. 

Four RS-27A engines and a much bigger upper stage powered by two Centaur-type RL10s would have been able to lift better than 5.5 tonnes to GTO. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #28 on: 06/09/2013 10:49 pm »
As of March 2011, Google Maps street view imagery shows the display at DSC has at least one interpretive sign board providing additional information about the stage. Street view doesn't quite allow reading the text, though. (The one shown in the attached screenshot was taken from Mainplace Drive.)

I've been by there in a Disneyland-bound shuttle van multiple times, but have never been able to stop. Someone who lived nearby, though, could go and photograph those signs. (Hint, hint, hint.)
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #29 on: 06/10/2013 03:55 am »
As of March 2011, Google Maps street view imagery shows the display at DSC has at least one interpretive sign board providing additional information about the stage. Street view doesn't quite allow reading the text, though. (The one shown in the attached screenshot was taken from Mainplace Drive.)

I've been by there in a Disneyland-bound shuttle van multiple times, but have never been able to stop. Someone who lived nearby, though, could go and photograph those signs. (Hint, hint, hint.)
;)
« Last Edit: 06/10/2013 03:59 am by edkyle99 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #30 on: 06/10/2013 04:16 am »
And while we're at it.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/10/2013 04:18 am by edkyle99 »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #31 on: 06/18/2013 05:26 am »
McDonnell Douglas could not, I suspect, afford to propose bidding development of a brand new engine.

But then, if they wanted to do the RP-1 route, wouldn't 3 RS-27As made more sense for the "Delta 3B" than 2 NK-33s?

Even with four RS-27A based engines, the rocket would only have been able to lift 3.3-ish tonnes to GTO x 27.5 deg using the Delta 3 second stage.  Five RS-27A types and a stretched second stage would boost 4.2-ish tonnes to the same orbit. 

Four RS-27A engines and a much bigger upper stage powered by two Centaur-type RL10s would have been able to lift better than 5.5 tonnes to GTO. 

 - Ed Kyle

What about four RS-27A's as the base configuration, and then add GEM-60's as needed for increased payload.  They were developed anyway for the Delta IV. 
What would that do with like eight GEM-60's?

Seems like that would have been the more natural evolution from Delta II but then again, Atlas II to III replaced the RS-58 with the RD-180, so maybe Delta III could replace the RS-27A with NK-33's. 


Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #32 on: 06/18/2013 06:06 am »
McDonnell Douglas could not, I suspect, afford to propose bidding development of a brand new engine.

But then, if they wanted to do the RP-1 route, wouldn't 3 RS-27As made more sense for the "Delta 3B" than 2 NK-33s?

Even with four RS-27A based engines, the rocket would only have been able to lift 3.3-ish tonnes to GTO x 27.5 deg using the Delta 3 second stage.  Five RS-27A types and a stretched second stage would boost 4.2-ish tonnes to the same orbit. 

Four RS-27A engines and a much bigger upper stage powered by two Centaur-type RL10s would have been able to lift better than 5.5 tonnes to GTO. 

 - Ed Kyle

What about four RS-27A's as the base configuration, and then add GEM-60's as needed for increased payload.  They were developed anyway for the Delta IV. 
What would that do with like eight GEM-60's?

Seems like that would have been the more natural evolution from Delta II but then again, Atlas II to III replaced the RS-58 with the RD-180, so maybe Delta III could replace the RS-27A with NK-33's. 


How out dated were the manufacturing technics for the RS-27A's?
They had a low ISP and I believe could not be throttled in flight.

Why not go with Atlas V SRB's instead of the GEM-60's as they have more power?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #33 on: 06/18/2013 12:56 pm »
1.  How out dated were the manufacturing technics for the RS-27A's?
They had a low ISP and I believe could not be throttled in flight.

2.  Why not go with Atlas V SRB's instead of the GEM-60's as they have more power?

1. not

2.  Because Atlas paid for them and they were developed independently.  Delta went to its legacy supplier and asked for what it needed: a GEM-60
Atlas went to Aerojet.  There was a competition in the beginning, remember?
Also what says Delta can handle an Atlas SRB?  Rockets are not Legos

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #34 on: 06/18/2013 04:06 pm »
Rockets are not Legos

You sure about that?

;-)
« Last Edit: 06/18/2013 04:49 pm by Lobo »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #35 on: 06/19/2013 12:01 am »
Someone who lived nearby, though, could go and photograph those signs. (Hint, hint, hint.)
;)

Very cool!

The text is fun to read. It seems to do a pretty good job of explaining what might otherwise be an artifact difficult for museum visitors to interpret. I wonder though about some parts, e.g.: "Delta [...] has been NASA's workhorse for commercial, exploratory and military satellite delivery." That's giving NASA a bit more credit than is probably its due!
« Last Edit: 06/19/2013 12:02 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #36 on: 06/19/2013 10:57 pm »
2.  Why not go with Atlas V SRB's instead of the GEM-60's as they have more power?

2.  Because Atlas paid for them and they were developed independently.  Delta went to its legacy supplier and asked for what it needed: a GEM-60
Atlas went to Aerojet.  There was a competition in the beginning, remember?
Also what says Delta can handle an Atlas SRB?  Rockets are not Legos

From a design standpoint, "what it needed" is an interesting choice.  One would expect the hydrolox rocket to sport more powerful solids than the kerolox.  I suppose the Delta team deliberately targeted slightly lighter payloads, with the thought that Heavy would pick up the NRO fatties and other size outliers?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #37 on: 06/20/2013 01:34 am »
2.  Why not go with Atlas V SRB's instead of the GEM-60's as they have more power?

2.  Because Atlas paid for them and they were developed independently.  Delta went to its legacy supplier and asked for what it needed: a GEM-60
Atlas went to Aerojet.  There was a competition in the beginning, remember?
Also what says Delta can handle an Atlas SRB?  Rockets are not Legos

From a design standpoint, "what it needed" is an interesting choice.  One would expect the hydrolox rocket to sport more powerful solids than the kerolox.  I suppose the Delta team deliberately targeted slightly lighter payloads, with the thought that Heavy would pick up the NRO fatties and other size outliers?

No, the solids were targeted towards commercial comsats.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #38 on: 06/20/2013 05:37 am »
Isn't it also the case that GEM-60s have TVC, whereas Atlas V SRMs don't?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #39 on: 06/20/2013 03:04 pm »
What about four RS-27A's as the base configuration, and then add GEM-60's as needed for increased payload.  They were developed anyway for the Delta IV. 
What would that do with like eight GEM-60's?
This turned out to be an interesting exercise. 

A four x RS27A core really isn't a good match for a GEM-60 boosted two stage design.  A core-alone version would limit the first stage to about 260 tonnes gross.  Topped by a DCUS type second stage, it would lift nearly 4 tonnes to GTO or 10 tonnes to LEO.  GTO payload increases by roughly 1 tonne for each GEM-60 pair added, though the increase tails off after six and the core works best with only three RS-27A engines - and even then one would need to be shut down near the end of the burn to limit g-forces. 

Better performance is provided by a heavier first stage (up to nearly 400 tonnes gross) fitted with only three RS-27A engines and always boosted by GEM-60s.  The heavier core limits end of burn g-forces by itself.  Two boosters gets 6.5 tonnes to GTO or 14.5 tonnes to LEO.  Four gets 7 tonnes and 16 tonnes.  Six does 7.8 t/17t.  Eight, if that is even technically possible, could lift 8.5 t/18t.  This all assumes a second stage with a single RL10B-2 engine.  More LEO payload could be had with a 2xRL10 second stage.

The latter core would not be able to lift itself without solid boosters.  A core-only alternative might be to add two more RS-27 engines and offload some propellant, creating the 4 t/11 t basic version.  A six x RS-27A first stage could weigh 400 tonnes and lift 5 tonnes to GTO or 12-13 tonnes to LEO, but that would need an entirely different thrust section setup than a 3xRS-27A core stage.

But, of course, this all violates the original EELV concept to limit strap on motors.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/20/2013 03:11 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #40 on: 06/20/2013 05:39 pm »
This turned out to be an interesting exercise. 

A four x RS27A core really isn't a good match for a GEM-60 boosted two stage design.  A core-alone version would limit the first stage to about 260 tonnes gross.  Topped by a DCUS type second stage, it would lift nearly 4 tonnes to GTO or 10 tonnes to LEO.  GTO payload increases by roughly 1 tonne for each GEM-60 pair added, though the increase tails off after six and the core works best with only three RS-27A engines - and even then one would need to be shut down near the end of the burn to limit g-forces. 

Better performance is provided by a heavier first stage (up to nearly 400 tonnes gross) fitted with only three RS-27A engines and always boosted by GEM-60s.  The heavier core limits end of burn g-forces by itself.  Two boosters gets 6.5 tonnes to GTO or 14.5 tonnes to LEO.  Four gets 7 tonnes and 16 tonnes.  Six does 7.8 t/17t.  Eight, if that is even technically possible, could lift 8.5 t/18t.  This all assumes a second stage with a single RL10B-2 engine.  More LEO payload could be had with a 2xRL10 second stage.

The latter core would not be able to lift itself without solid boosters.  A core-only alternative might be to add two more RS-27 engines and offload some propellant, creating the 4 t/11 t basic version.  A six x RS-27A first stage could weigh 400 tonnes and lift 5 tonnes to GTO or 12-13 tonnes to LEO, but that would need an entirely different thrust section setup than a 3xRS-27A core stage.

But, of course, this all violates the original EELV concept to limit strap on motors.

 - Ed Kyle

Yea, interesting numbers.

Since EELV required the base LV to not need strap ons, I can see better now why Delta 4 was as different from Delta II/III as it was.  It seemed like just a scaled up Delta II/III would have been more logical.  But that platform is a sustainer core that can't get itself off the ground without SRB's similar to STS, SLS, or Ariane 5.

And RS-27A isn't a great engine to be a booster, as it's an H-1 converted to vacuum optimization.  I imagine making an H-1 like booster engine out of it again would be it's own development project?
So going with a mostly already developed RS-68 might not have been too much different than that?
(if I am interpreting things correctly?)

Although wouldn't TR-107 have been also mostly developed for NLS by Northrup-Grumman, and could Delta IV have used that instead?  It would have been a little more powerful than RD-180, and American designed and built.
Same with RS-84?

The Delta IV would have been very similar to Atlas V then, not sure that'd have been a bad thing?

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #41 on: 06/21/2013 05:16 am »
And RS-27A isn't a great engine to be a booster, as it's an H-1 converted to vacuum optimization.  I imagine making an H-1 like booster engine out of it again would be it's own development project?

I'd have thought it would have been principally a matter of reducing the expansion ratio (shortening the nozzle), which doesn't sound like a big deal to me.
« Last Edit: 06/21/2013 05:16 am by Proponent »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #42 on: 06/21/2013 05:19 am »
But, of course, this all violates the original EELV concept to limit strap on motors.

What where the principal expected benefits of this policy?  No doubt lower overall cost and greater reliability were among them, but how much of each?
« Last Edit: 06/21/2013 05:20 am by Proponent »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Delta III History
« Reply #43 on: 06/21/2013 09:46 am »
But, of course, this all violates the original EELV concept to limit strap on motors.

What where the principal expected benefits of this policy?  No doubt lower overall cost and greater reliability were among them, but how much of each?

greenness was one of the reasons.

Remember this was the original idea

EELV-S  - Delta II/Titan II and GPS/DMSP

EELV-M - Atlas II and DSCS

EELV-H - Titan IV and DSP/MILSTAR/NRO

Things started "evolving".  The NRO started using Atlas IIAS and III for some missions (either breaking up multiple spacecraft launches, spreading out requirements among smaller spacecraft or just using a more efficient launch vehicle for certain orbits). Commercial comsat started getting bigger, necessitating solids on the medium class .   The USAF decide to reduce the number of vehicle configurations by removing the AKM/ABS on the GPS spacecraft and using direct injection.  This eliminated the need for EELV-S and its unique upperstage.  Also, the USAF started using commercial comsat buses for its spacecraft with their integral ABS, this reduced the need for GSO delivery and the EELV-H and the EELV - I, the intermediate class came to be

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0