-
#560
by
baldusi
on 17 Sep, 2012 15:51
-
With the Fleet Consolidation Program, will the DIVUS get Centaur avionics? Will the Delta IV Heavy get the new unified avionics and the Atlas V fairing?
-
#561
by
WHAP
on 24 Sep, 2012 12:27
-
This thread is a much better read than the Atlas Q&A....more space launch drama...ehhehe.
Not found my question asked so here goes.
Did the Centaur G Prime Influence the Second stage design of the Delta IV?
The General looks are of a "clone" with different materials.
No. The HDCSS was an upgrade of the DCSS of Delta III. The Centaur G Prime had a common bulkhead and HDCSS has separate tanks connected by a truss. Plus they were designed by different contractors.
Maybe different contractors, but not necessarily different
people. However, there are a number of factors that result in the designs looking similar, even with different structural baselines.
-
#562
by
Jim
on 24 Sep, 2012 13:20
-
Maybe different contractors, but not necessarily different people. However, there are a number of factors that result in the designs looking similar, even with different structural baselines.
Different people too. The fat Centaur goes back 20-30 years before Delta iV
-
#563
by
Antares
on 07 Oct, 2012 03:45
-
From a question on the L-15 thread, RS-68 does not test fire with its ablative nozzle - so no need to replace between tests.
-
#564
by
sdsds
on 01 Feb, 2013 22:51
-
On this web page:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/702b.htmlwhere Boeing lists the launch systems compatible with the 702MP, why do they mention, "Atlas, Ariane, Proton and Sea Launch," but not Delta IV?
Is there really some requirement imposed by the 702MP which Delta IV cannot meet? That seems very odd, as it was essentially a requirement that the two EELV systems have very similar capabilities....
-
#565
by
kevin-rf
on 02 Feb, 2013 03:53
-
Well, before ULA Boeing did withdraw the Delta IV from the commercial market, and more likely than not post ULA any EELV launch would fly on an Atlas. Just an educated guess.
To be fair Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are also not yet on the list. Though I suspect a Falcon 9 does not currently have the needed performance.
-
#566
by
sdsds
on 02 Feb, 2013 07:09
-
Well, before ULA Boeing did withdraw the Delta IV from the commercial market
Ah, good point! Thanks for that reminder. The short version is probably, "It's a marketing thing."
-
#567
by
edkyle99
on 03 Feb, 2013 00:10
-
On this web page:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/702b.html
where Boeing lists the launch systems compatible with the 702MP, why do they mention, "Atlas, Ariane, Proton and Sea Launch," but not Delta IV?
Is there really some requirement imposed by the 702MP which Delta IV cannot meet? That seems very odd, as it was essentially a requirement that the two EELV systems have very similar capabilities....
The only Delta able to lift a 6,215 kg Intelsat 27 to the planned Zenit 3SL insertion orbit would be Delta 4 Heavy, which may cost a half-billion dollars. So there you go.
- Ed Kyle
-
#568
by
Jim
on 03 Feb, 2013 12:15
-
The only Delta able to lift a 6,215 kg Intelsat 27 to the planned Zenit 3SL insertion orbit would be Delta 4 Heavy, which may cost a half-billion dollars. So there you go.
- Ed Kyle
What about the Delta M(5,4)?
-
#569
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 03 Feb, 2013 13:03
-
The only Delta able to lift a 6,215 kg Intelsat 27 to the planned Zenit 3SL insertion orbit would be Delta 4 Heavy, which may cost a half-billion dollars. So there you go.
- Ed Kyle
What about the Delta M(5,4)?
Not to the planned 0 deg. inclination GTO...
-
#570
by
Jim
on 03 Feb, 2013 13:08
-
The only Delta able to lift a 6,215 kg Intelsat 27 to the planned Zenit 3SL insertion orbit would be Delta 4 Heavy, which may cost a half-billion dollars. So there you go.
- Ed Kyle
What about the Delta M(5,4)?
Not to the planned 0 deg. inclination GTO...
Neither can Atlas, Ariane, or Proton
-
#571
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 03 Feb, 2013 13:13
-
The only Delta able to lift a 6,215 kg Intelsat 27 to the planned Zenit 3SL insertion orbit would be Delta 4 Heavy, which may cost a half-billion dollars. So there you go.
- Ed Kyle
What about the Delta M(5,4)?
Not to the planned 0 deg. inclination GTO...
Neither can Atlas, Ariane, or Proton
How about comparing with the same delta-v to GTO?
-
#572
by
edkyle99
on 03 Feb, 2013 13:26
-
The only Delta able to lift a 6,215 kg Intelsat 27 to the planned Zenit 3SL insertion orbit would be Delta 4 Heavy, which may cost a half-billion dollars. So there you go.
- Ed Kyle
What about the Delta M(5,4)?
Not to the planned 0 deg. inclination GTO...
Right. Delta 4M+5,4 can only lift 5.85 tonnes to an equivalent energy 0 deg inclination standard GTO orbit (1,500 m/s delta-v from GEO) - at least the one with a basic RS-68. Both of the two most powerful Atlas 5 variants could lift an Intelsat 27 though.
Of course if you could launch a "5,4" from the equator, it could do the job.
- Ed Kyle
-
#573
by
ZachS09
on 07 Mar, 2013 19:06
-
I was thinking of something else. What's with the rarity of RocketCams on the Delta IV's first/second stages? If the EFT-1 launches on time, I've yet to see some RocketCams.
-
#574
by
Jim
on 07 Mar, 2013 19:40
-
I was thinking of something else. What's with the rarity of RocketCams on the Delta IV's first/second stages?
Nobody wants to pay for them
-
#575
by
DaveS
on 28 Apr, 2013 18:48
-
The nozzle extension used on the RL10B-2 engine on the DCSS, is it a two-piece extension or just one? From various photos I have found of it in the stowed config, it looks like it's a two-piece design rather than a single-piece design.
-
#576
by
edkyle99
on 28 Apr, 2013 21:08
-
The nozzle extension used on the RL10B-2 engine on the DCSS, is it a two-piece extension or just one? From various photos I have found of it in the stowed config, it looks like it's a two-piece design rather than a single-piece design.
The deployable extension is connected in one piece, but it consists of two parts (called the "B-cone" and "C-cone"). A third nozzle extension (called the "A-cone") is fixed to the main nozzle. The fixed versus extended division point is seen as the broad black band in the attached image.
- Ed Kyle
-
#577
by
DaveS
on 28 Apr, 2013 21:31
-
The nozzle extension used on the RL10B-2 engine on the DCSS, is it a two-piece extension or just one? From various photos I have found of it in the stowed config, it looks like it's a two-piece design rather than a single-piece design.
The deployable extension is connected in one piece, but it consists of two parts (called the "B-cone" and "C-cone"). A third nozzle extension (called the "A-cone") is fixed to the main nozzle.
- Ed Kyle
Thanks Ed, I thought it might have been something like that as a two-piece deployment mechanism would have introduced as additional failure modes.
-
#578
by
edkyle99
on 28 Apr, 2013 22:02
-
The nozzle extension used on the RL10B-2 engine on the DCSS, is it a two-piece extension or just one? From various photos I have found of it in the stowed config, it looks like it's a two-piece design rather than a single-piece design.
The deployable extension is connected in one piece, but it consists of two parts (called the "B-cone" and "C-cone"). A third nozzle extension (called the "A-cone") is fixed to the main nozzle.
- Ed Kyle
Thanks Ed, I thought it might have been something like that as a two-piece deployment mechanism would have introduced as additional failure modes.
RL-10C, created from rebuilt excess RL-10B-2 engines, will, as I understand it, dispense with the B and C-cone extensions, eliminating the entire extension sequence.
- Ed Kyle
-
#579
by
DaveS
on 28 Apr, 2013 22:14
-
The nozzle extension used on the RL10B-2 engine on the DCSS, is it a two-piece extension or just one? From various photos I have found of it in the stowed config, it looks like it's a two-piece design rather than a single-piece design.
The deployable extension is connected in one piece, but it consists of two parts (called the "B-cone" and "C-cone"). A third nozzle extension (called the "A-cone") is fixed to the main nozzle.
- Ed Kyle
Thanks Ed, I thought it might have been something like that as a two-piece deployment mechanism would have introduced as additional failure modes.
RL-10C, created from rebuilt excess RL-10B-2 engines, will, as I understand it, dispense with the B and C-cone extensions, eliminating the entire extension sequence.
- Ed Kyle
Interesting, so they're going with a fixed nozzle extension? I wonder how all of it is going to fit into the interstage adapter, or is there enough space for the entire nozzle?
Edit:
You don't happen to know the base diameter of each section do you?
