norm103 - 23/1/2006 4:07 PMdose any one know if this had to do with the Delta IV hav. launch prombles?
Rob in KC - 23/1/2006 9:43 PMPinch of salt in hand, it's a sensationalistic rumor site, not a news site.They've been doing this many times, trying to back it up with claims of exclusives on real accurate stories, at least one of which was taken from this site on the ETs, then claimed as their own exclusive. From that point they became unproffesional. Which I doubt they care about, so long as people keep linking up their "news".
rubicondsrv - 29/1/2006 8:20 AMboth the CLV and atlas V heavy are years away. also I doubt the CLV has the same launch environment as EELV.also CLV will only launch from KSC this causes problems with placeing payloads in polar orbits.
rubicondsrv - 29/1/2006 9:20 AMatlas V heavy are years away
Jim - 3/2/2006 2:53 PMSo you want to take us back to the mid to late 80's with no access to space? There is no two EELV's vs CaLV. One is Air Force/ commercial and the other is NASA. They are not in competition each other.
vanilla - 4/2/2006 9:26 PMCool...most of us figured it was bull. Glad you're here...stick around and let's talk Delta. I'd sure like to see how we could get it into the ESAS as a replacement for the Stick. Not a currently popular opinion, but I think they've majorly underestimated their difficulties with that rocket and that a modified Delta 4 could be competitive. Here's an earlier post I did on the subject:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1258&start=181&posts=190
Jim - 5/2/2006 10:43 AM I won't go into the details on the basic issues on human rating the vehicle since that it an emotional topic, but will list some of them: 1. design safety factor 1.4 vs 1.25; 2. malfunction sensing; 3. backup control of the stack by the astronauts; 4. OSP avionics controlling the stack; 5. redundancy. The show stoppers were 1. performance to orbit, depending on what typeof OSP (except for the stripped down versions) , the Delta IV Heavy had trouble lifting it. 2. The lofted trajectories (due to their primary design of launching to GTO) would subject the astronauts to crushing loads during entry from aborts (fixing this brought you back to #1). Dual or single production lines due to human rating, a single line with one type of standards would have raise the cost of all vehicles produced on the line. And at last, 5. Launch pad mods, dedicated or modify the current ones for dual use. At the minimum, modifying the pads for a crew access tower was $500M, plus the interference with the current mission.
vanilla - 5/2/2006 10:33 AM[Dr. Stanley's already got a new vehicle build on his hands with the Stick. This is much more modest. The Stick is essentially turning into a Delta 4 core stuck on top of an SRB. The design I proposed was expressly conceived to solve the very problems you brought up...the first one being that the Delta 4 now is a GTO design, and that is reflected in the highly-underpowered upper stage, which leads to the lofted trajectory. I've run these trajectories in POST myself. The solution is thrust on the second stage. This means a new build on the second stage, which could be done to SF=1.4, solving that problem. Interstage and intertank can also be beefed up. Changing the safety factor on the tankage shouldn't be the biggest deal either--you've been to the plant, you've seen how they mill the isogrid, bend it, friction-stir weld it, put the domes on, and spray the foam on. We're talking about changing the program that mills the isogrid.The main goal with the re-engining is to slay this dragon of "man-rating". If they're going to put J-2s on the Stick, then we could put them on a Delta. But with a Delta-based solution, both the Air Force and NASA could save money by bringing D4 production more in line with the original goals of the plant, rather than duplicating all the manufacturing hardware again somewhere else. As far as the difficulties of running multiple production lines, that doesn't concern me too much. That plant has so much excess production capability that soon they will be running D4, D2, and Atlas V all together and still looking for more work. A man-rated Delta could easily make its way through the production flow.CEV is too heavy? Yes, but don't worry...I have a solution to that problem too. I can get the gross mass down to probably 2/3 or less than what it is now.$500M to put crew access on the pad? Sounds like bureaucratic padding to me. Von Braun and Rocco Petrone probably could have done it for a tenth of that.
publiusr - 10/2/2006 5:18 PMI am really worried that ULA was just a way to axe MAF. OSP was a way to keep the lifting body folks and the EELV folks employed--and was a way to kill shuttle and any HLLV talk. I love MAF myself and would not be surprised if ULA is trying to kill USA.Another reason I don't trust LockMart any more than I do Boeing. Their first CEV was warmed over OSP nonsense and anybody could see that.Griffin wisely would have none of it, and none of EELV--and wouldn't fund t/Space's laughable little contraption--and all of the sudden you hear all this HLLV bashing articles and Griffin bashing nonsense come out.