Delta IV Evolution for Exploration

• Delta IV Evolution for Exploration by kfsorensen on 08 Apr, 2006 02:11
• Does anyone have any of the pictures or performance numbers that Boeing was showing last year for evolved versions of Delta IV--the ones specifically modified to support exploration objectives?  I saw the numbers and concepts many times last year but can't find them anymore on either Boeing or NASA websites...
  
  Someone must have them somewhere, even if it's not politically correct to show them anymore.
• #1 by Jim on 08 Apr, 2006 13:52
• Quote

  vanilla - 7/4/2006  10:11 PMDoes anyone have any of the pictures or performance numbers that Boeing was showing last year for evolved versions of Delta IV--the ones specifically modified to support exploration objectives?  I saw the numbers and concepts many times last year but can't find them anymore on either Boeing or NASA websites...Someone must have them somewhere, even if it's not politically correct to show them anymore.

  
  It's at work and I will have to scan it.  I have an Atlas one also.
  
  I am going TDY  to Huntington Beach and won't be back at work until Thurs.
  
• #2 by simonbp on 09 Apr, 2006 05:03
• I've seen at least one, open sourced chart (last year) which had the proposed expansions of the Delta IV - IIRC, the largest was a ~120 Mton to LEO seven core with new engines (not RS-68; I forget what exactly)...
  
  Simon
• #3 by Spacely on 09 Apr, 2006 22:53
• Wasn't that chart in the ESAS report? What I'm most interested in are the O'Keefe plans from mid-2004 that had 4+ launches per moon shot.
  
  If anyone has a nifty link to those (or knows if they're even out there), you'll receive my personal thumbs up.
• #4 by DaveS on 10 Apr, 2006 06:57
• I believe this is the one you're referring to:
  Sorr for the size!
  [img=http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/1558/deltaivgrowth1zi.gif]
• #5 by Jim on 10 Apr, 2006 11:19
• Still want the Atlas ones?
  
• #6 by Jim on 10 Apr, 2006 22:08
• That is the older version.  They found out that solids could not be attached to the side of the vehicle facing the MST.  So there are different variations with solids attached to one side only
• #7 by Spirit on 11 Apr, 2006 19:19
• Yeah, it will also be nice if somebody post the current prices of the rockets. Not only the US but also the Russian and European and others.
• #8 by gladiator1332 on 12 Apr, 2006 18:35
• Is there any talk going around of getting rid of the SDLV plan and going with the EELVs? We're making so many changes to the CaLV (RS-68 engines instead of SSME's) that it makes sense to just derive the whole thing from an EELV. The SRBs are the only thing keeping the SDLV plan alive, as they are needed on both SDLV's. But if they are replaced with EELV CCB's on the CaLV then it no longer makes sense to keep the SRB on the CLV.
  
  So I wonder what is keeping the SDLV alive. I mean we are at the point that NASA is considering landing only two crew members on the Moon in a smaller "Walmart" LSAM, because it has been found that the CaLV and CLV can't do the job. Why throw away a more exciting mission profile just to save two launch vehicle concepts.
• #9 by publiusr on 12 Apr, 2006 19:42
• EELVs are a bad deal for lift. You will face pad delays, ISS assembly woes, 15-18 RS-68s per 100 tons, and still be in no better shape. And that doesn't include the unsurvivable aborts. For CLV duties, maybe you can get away with it. To replace CaLV? Forget it. VSE is to be modular for some commonality for Moon and Mars missions.
  
  1 or 2 CaLVs for the moon, and five or so for Mars missions once you get HLLV flying. You use assembly for Mars. Anyone who thinks EELV will do for Mars missions needs his head examined.
• #10 by dmc6960 on 12 Apr, 2006 20:54
• Jim, you said in the Walmart lander thread that the Lockheed EELV roadmap was on this thread along with the Delta one.  I see the Delta one but I dont see the Lockheed one.  If I'm in the wrong spot hows about a direct link?
• #11 by R&R on 12 Apr, 2006 21:53
• Quote

  publiusr - 13/4/2006  1:42 PM
  
  EELVs are a bad deal for lift. You will face pad delays, ISS assembly woes, 15-18 RS-68s per 100 tons, and still be in no better shape. And that doesn't include the unsurvivable aborts. For CLV duties, maybe you can get away with it. To replace CaLV? Forget it. VSE is to be modular for some commonality for Moon and Mars missions.
  
  1 or 2 CaLVs for the moon, and five or so for Mars missions once you get HLLV flying. You use assembly for Mars. Anyone who thinks EELV will do for Mars missions needs his head examined.

  
  Where did you get 15-18 RS-68s?   NASA has all but decided to use the RS-68 for CaLV because of cost and nothing I've read indicates they would use more than 5 of them.
  
  Just looking at the charts for DIV evolution the basic Heavy gets around 48 metric tons to LEO and can go even higher with just a little tuning of that engine.  The version with 4 GEMs gets roughly 10 tons more but as Jim noted earlier the extra 2 GEMS on the back side doesn't work so figure 5 tons more.  Now it’s over 50 tons and with what are really minor upgrades to regen RS-68 + 2 solids and you're close to 80 tons.  Given the NASA track record for Shuttle and Station when it comes to size of what gets launched the 100 ton CaLV will be way under utilized, I'll bet it ends up with 20 tons or more lift than required.
  
  The reality is that both Delta IV and Atlas V EELV evolutions can do the CaLV job but then it's not a NASA vehicle and doesn't need the thousands of jobs that keep the political support in Washington.
  
• #12 by gladiator1332 on 13 Apr, 2006 04:04
• It appears that it is all because of politics. It is clearly much easier to add CCB's to a Delta IV when compared to redesigning a Shuttle ET to be a first stage powered by the same engines that would power an EELV.
  The CLV and CaLV are quickly turning into "Clean Sheet" designs as with the addition of the RS-68, they are turning into EELV's. Why spend the time and money to turn the SDLV into an EELV when we already have EELV's readily available.
  
  I would like to see Lockheed and Boeing to use their position with NASA to get an EELV for the VSE.
• #13 by gladiator1332 on 13 Apr, 2006 14:54
• Someone posted the Lockheed road map in another thread, rather interesting looking...
  
  
  

  ---

  
• #14 by Spirit on 13 Apr, 2006 15:00
• On the first picture isn't that an Atlas 5 with 3 common core boosters? I have never seen or heard of such a configuration.
• #15 by gladiator1332 on 13 Apr, 2006 15:03
• That is the "Atlas V Heavy", basically their answer to the Delta IV Heavy config. I know it was developed, however, I don't think they ever cut any metal on it, as Lockheed stated around the time of the D4H launch that there was no market for it. If the market were to appear, I believe Lockheed is ready to put it into production.
• #16 by Jim on 13 Apr, 2006 15:54
• Both the D-IV and A-V Heavies were part of the EELV contract.  Boeing won some missions for theirs, So the USAF told LM to only to go to CDR with their version.  SLC-41 is setup to take an Atlas-V Heavy.  LM has stated that they can have one ready in two years
• #17 by Jim on 13 Apr, 2006 15:55
• Quote

  publiusr - 12/4/2006  3:42 PMEELVs are a bad deal for lift. You will face pad delays, ISS assembly woes, 15-18 RS-68s per 100 tons, and still be in no better shape. And that doesn't include the unsurvivable aborts. For CLV duties, maybe you can get away with it. To replace CaLV? Forget it. VSE is to be modular for some commonality for Moon and Mars missions.1 or 2 CaLVs for the moon, and five or so for Mars missions once you get HLLV flying. You use assembly for Mars. Anyone who thinks EELV will do for Mars missions needs his head examined.

  
  Pad delays?  What is the shuttle going thru?  the Shuttle has had two long stand downs and some short ones also (SRB's issues, H2 leaks, etc).  All launch vehicles present and future will have issues that will keep them grounded, even a CaLV.  Just because it is big, doesn't mean it is not going to have problems. 
  
• #18 by Jim on 13 Apr, 2006 16:01
• Quote

  gladiator1332 - 13/4/2006  12:04 AMIt appears that it is all because of politics. It is clearly much easier to add CCB's to a Delta IV when compared to redesigning a Shuttle ET to be a first stage powered by the same engines that would power an EELV. The CLV and CaLV are quickly turning into "Clean Sheet" designs as with the addition of the RS-68, they are turning into EELV's. Why spend the time and money to turn the SDLV into an EELV when we already have EELV's readily available. I would like to see Lockheed and Boeing to use their position with NASA to get an EELV for the VSE.

  
  They have no "position".  They were already shut out.  It is in the ESAS
  
• #19 by Avron on 13 Apr, 2006 23:11
• Quote

  Jim - 13/4/2006  12:01 PM
  
  

  Quote

  gladiator1332 - 13/4/2006  12:04 AM I would like to see Lockheed and Boeing to use their position with NASA to get an EELV for the VSE.

  
  They have no "position".  They were already shut out.  It is in the ESAS
  

  
  Now that we see that the ESAS has a few shortcommings... its time to revisit updating the EELV for this new mission... I would be most amazed if there is not some action at congressional level for this to happen.
  
  Jim, I know that you cannot give absolute numbers of anything in the world of precurement (internal restrictions), but maybe you can have a 'guess' at what it will take time and money wise to move to EELV for CEV.