New paper on the ULA website: Atlas and Delta Capabilities to Launch Crew to Low Earth Orbit.
Several typos in this paper, seems like they might have cobbled it together from existing papers in a hurry.
Atlas and Delta engineers performed a line-by-line review of NPR 8705.2A requirements and allocated each to the appropriate system responsible for demonstrating compliance (Launch Vehicle and Crew Vehicle, Launch Vehicle only or Crew Vehicle only). Once that was determined, the engineers assessed compliance of their systems to the requirements allocated to the system and the Launch Vehicle. Table 1 shows the results of that assessment.Table title:- Table 1: Atlas and Delta 8705.2B Requirements Assessment Process
I was hoping for a mention of the version of Delta IVH with no upper stage, which is purported to be able to lift the LEO version of Orion. Oh well.
Several typos in this paper, seems like they might have cobbled it together from existing papers in a hurry. I was hoping for a mention of the version of Delta IVH with no upper stage, which is purported to be able to lift the LEO version of Orion. Oh well.
Quote from: EE Scott on 02/11/2010 12:36 pm I was hoping for a mention of the version of Delta IVH with no upper stage, which is purported to be able to lift the LEO version of Orion. Oh well. That wasn't a ULA idea nor do they sanction it.
Is it impractical, or just inadvisable? For Atlas, GNC is all/mostly in the Centaur, right? Is it the same case with the Delta IV, or are there other reasons it's a bad idea to fly without 2nd stage?
What were the reasons behind the idea for Orion as a second stage? Structural loads on the upper stage?
ULA's suggestion of completing LC37A took me by surprise.
Quote from: Downix on 02/11/2010 06:28 pmULA's suggestion of completing LC37A took me by surprise. Then the same LCC and HIF be used. That was OSP's contention. Only those that wanted "NASA" control were suggesting LC-39. Same goes for LC-41, all that is needed is another VIF and MLP
Quote from: Jim on 02/11/2010 07:05 pmQuote from: Downix on 02/11/2010 06:28 pmULA's suggestion of completing LC37A took me by surprise. Then the same LCC and HIF be used. That was OSP's contention. Only those that wanted "NASA" control were suggesting LC-39. Same goes for LC-41, all that is needed is another VIF and MLPI'm looking at LC37A, I'm not sure how or what can be shared between the two beyond the fuel tank to the back. Is there a good diagram or video showing how it works?
Quote from: Downix on 02/11/2010 07:20 pmQuote from: Jim on 02/11/2010 07:05 pmQuote from: Downix on 02/11/2010 06:28 pmULA's suggestion of completing LC37A took me by surprise. Then the same LCC and HIF be used. That was OSP's contention. Only those that wanted "NASA" control were suggesting LC-39. Same goes for LC-41, all that is needed is another VIF and MLPI'm looking at LC37A, I'm not sure how or what can be shared between the two beyond the fuel tank to the back. Is there a good diagram or video showing how it works?The tank farm was designed to be shared. But the real advantage was being close to the existing HIF and LCC.
Sounds good to me, the unmanned from LC37B, manned (and any unmanned which requires tower-access to the cargo) from LC37A.
Quote from: Downix on 02/11/2010 07:25 pmSounds good to me, the unmanned from LC37B, manned (and any unmanned which requires tower-access to the cargo) from LC37A.37B already provides adequate access for unmanned launches (less than a day before launch), just not late enough for a manned launch (less than T-3 hours)