That is just more complication we don't need. Chelomei tried to promote cross-feeded for UR-700 and was laughed out of the design Bureau when Glushko became THE Chief Designer.

Keep engines under one core and be done with it. With four SRBs, SDLV HLLV can carry 160 tons to LEO, about as much as Energiya Vulkan. Delta V as it is soetimes called was just propsed as a way to kill HLLV. Boeing has absolutely no intentions at all of building that vehicle. it was just a bait-and-switch to keep NASA paying for its ill-selling Delta IV.

What Boeing really wanted was their bought-and-paid-for friends in NASA (now gone thanks to Griffin) to use ISS assembly methods and multiple Delta IV flights, and they have been trying to sabotage VSE ever since.

It makes no difference whether you use five three core Delta IVs or three five core Delta Vs, or the bigger Deltas--because you will still be paying for a vaster number of expended liquid-fueled engines than three-to-five on HLLV per 120 tons to orbit.

The best option is here:
www.safesimplesoon.com/heavylift.htm

Mike Griffin is an engineer and supports this design, and I choose to support him--not someone bought off by Druyen types undoubtedly still in the beltway.

Delta IV doesn't have an RTLS abort capability either, and cannot fly depressed trajectory like the Stick.


__________________________________________________ _____________________________

Misc. Links
A new program for presenting different products - 3D viewer.
from http://www.rotor3d.com and it seems that it is really cool program.

Free trial version is on their site: http://www.rotor3d.com/install/rotor3d.exe

From the web:
I found the icon they are going to use to represent the SE.

http://civilization4.net/files/info-...e_elevator.png

http://civilization4.net/files/info-images/civilopedia/wonders/space_elevator.png

"Looks to me like the good old maglev to orbit, looks like you guy might have some more work on your hand to once again destroy that misconception."

Oh well. Here is an interesting site
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fna...per_links.html

UN Spacy?
The address of the Office for Outer Space Affairs is:

Room E-0952
Office for Outer Space Affairs
United Nations Office at Vienna
Vienna International Centre
A-1400 Vienna
Austria

Phone: (+43-1) 26060 4951
Fax: (+43-1) 26060 5830

or

OOSA@oosa.un.or.at
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/unisp-3...rum/22sgf6.htm

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/499/1


MISC INFO

Taken from this site which shows Baikonur
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...tart=1&posts=8

The CEV
http://science.howstuffworks.com/cev.htm

A nice site
http://www.gyre.org/

[Musk's big rocket
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/497/1

Ariane M?
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/500/1 Ariane 6

General Info:
http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/spacepdf.htm

Space X
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...view.asp?fid=6
The lawsuit
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...id=866&posts=3

Andrews space plan(e)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...id=958&posts=8

SDLV schedule
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...rt=91&posts=91

I agree that looks simpler than the proposed Delta IV Super Heavy. In mentioning the Delta IV Super Heavy, I was answering the often-stated question "why don't we bring back the Saturn V". The answer is there are better, cheaper options that would still provide roughly Saturn-class payload capability. Actually the latest shuttle-derived HLV even looks vaguely like a Saturn V with two SRBs, esp. considering the five SSMEs and surrounding fairings. It's nearly big as a Saturn V:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle...Launch_Vehicle

Re Delta IV RTLS, I was answering the statement that a shuttle-derived booster would have better engine out capability. I was thinking mainly about Shuttle-C as it's the most closely shuttle-derived proposal.

However the newly proposed HLV is also shuttle-derived, although somewhat less so. Current HLV proposals using five SSMEs and two five-segment SRBs would probably have better engine out capability than the Delta IV Super Heavy.

One advantage of SSMEs is they're well proven. The only in flight shutdown was STS-51F, and that was a spurious overtemp, not a physical problem.

However STS-93 came close to a two-out SSME due to an electrical problem, and simultaneously developed ruptured nozzle cooling tubes that had it worsened would have caused an in flight shutdown. But the issue causing that (injector pins) has been fixed.

Very interesting. I didn't know that. Thanks.

Aren´t the SSMEs very expensive, or was that development costs?

__________________
Join the Illuminati

In general the SSME is considered quite expensive. Some numbers show it's several times the cost of a Saturn V F-1 engine.

The latest proposed Heavy Lift Vehicle would use five SSMEs, which I don't think would be reused.

Like anything, per unit cost decreases as numbers increase. There are probably better engines than the SSME to use, but it's already developed, very reliable, and if modified slightly for one-shot use you'd avoid the high overhead of overhauling and maintaining it.

Also if you're using five SSMEs per shot, manufacturing could presumably be streamlined. However the SSME was not designed for low production cost, whereas other existing engines were.

It's possible an alternative engine like the RS68 would be a better choice:

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rs68.htm

RS-68's and simpler SSMEs are both options. You can fudge a bit with multiple engines and only have to work once--so no headaches like what you have with the orbiter's engines being refurbished. I didn't like the wikipedia articles in that the problems with EELVs are not listed, and the pro-HLV articles I had at www.spacedaily.com and the pro HLLV mega-module article was not listed, but the nonsense article from Wright the rocket racer was published, as if he were Griffins equal.

Bad Engineering if you ask me.

Did you try putting your articles on wikipedia or editing the EELV articles to list the problems?

I thought I had--I'll have to get on that.

The head of the European Space Agency said on Monday that the problems besetting the International Space Station highlighted the need for two or more launchers for future multinational projects in space.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/Space...chers_ESA.html
"We learned a lesson from the ISS, which was not that (international) cooperation was at fault, but that construction cannot depend on a single (type of) launch vehicle," ESA Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain told reporters.
"All partners involved in (future) big projects should think about this, to avoid the repercussions of a single breakdown."

Space Station Problems Show Need For More Launchers: ESA

Pluto's time to shine has finally arrived.
http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/r...4-9659AB344532
New Horizons will be the fastest NASA spacecraft ever, traveling at 36,000 mph after separating from its giant Atlas 5 rocket. It will cross the moon's orbit in just nine hours, compared with the three-day journey of Apollo 11. It will then use Jupiter's gravity to slingshot itself into the outer solar system, reaching a top speed of 47,000 mph.
Even at those speeds, the spacecraft isn't scheduled to reach Pluto until 2015 at the earliest.

Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has said it will launch its Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) with a home-grown cryogenic engine by this year-end, reports PTI.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ISRO_...This_Year.html
"Work is in an advanced stage. May be soon we will have a hot test, and after that we will take a decision. Most probably, the launch will take place by the end of this year," ISRO Chairman G Madhavan Nair told reporters.

The GSLV is already a Delta II /Titan II class rocket--putting it right up there with Tsyclon and Dnepr. Still small but growing towards the older Atlas family in capability.

Atlas V--with a single RD-180 engine--puts out nearly twice the thrust of the old Atlas IIAS equipped with solids!

It is half as strong as its father--the RD-170 Zenit that Sea Launch uses. (Zenit may launch Kliper after all).

I saw the special on the Science Channel last night when they called Atlas America's biggest rocket.

THAT IS DEAD WRONG. Shuttle ranks first, and then (maybe) Delta IV 'heavy' which is to replace Titan IV.

Bad engineering once again.

New Horizons is a fast probe due to its proportions. A good sized Atlas V with a hydrogen upper stage and a solid third stage, and a tiny craft. An HLLV could have launched a heavy, fuel-fat outer planet probe that would have been able to slow itself down and orbit Pluto, or to burn to Europa's surface.

Saturn-V and Energia-Buran are dead, so I'm trying to predict the future record breakers



Angara-5, AngaraUOHB and Angara-KVRB, if all goes well it may soon replace the Proton and Zenit the Angara already had a cold flow test article exhibited at the Paris Air Show, it will fly with a Lox/Kerosene upper stage.

The new SDLV, CaLV, Stick or CLV which are all linked to the project Constellation, to replace the SpaceShuttle and develop a launcher for the 'Apollo on steroids' to the Moon

The future Zenit rockets such as Zenit-Uragan, the Zenit has already been launching many com-sats from the Sea-launch Odyssey Platform. Success rates for Zenit launches may prevent it from getting to launch the new Klipper Shuttle

CZ-5 project or LongMarch-V this will support China's Shenzhou projects and fulfill the requirement for large payload LEO and GEO missions for the next 20–30 years, it will support Chinese Moon ambitions and space station plans, China currently uses the Long March 2 or CZ-2F for manned flights.

Delta-4H, Boeing's Delta-V or Deta Heavy, the problems with this one is that Griffin appears to be favouring a STS derived heavy lift against Boeing and Lockheed's EELVs.

Ariane-VI ( Ariane6 ), Ariane-ATV or Ariane-M which are part of ESA's FLPP developments, ESA has done many missions beyond LEO and to other planets it now aims for Mars with the Aurora-missions. Ariane6 might see them to build an R-56 type launch vehicle for space stations parts or the future Julesverne ATV platforms, while ArianeM will bring Europe to Mars. However the ESA has a much smaller budget than NASA and no experience in manned flight.

Proton-M or ProtonKM-4 the Proton rockets have already launched missions to Mars' moon Phobos, previous Protons have launched Mir segments, and modules of the ISS, Proton has also launched the Lunokhod rovers to the Moon. However just a few days ago a commercial communications satellite on a Proton failed when the rocket's upper stage shut down prematurely.

Atlas V(Heavy), Lockheed's AtlasHLV or Atlas-VH looked like they could be powerful, however it looks they will move away from this as they now have the Stick and HLLV lined up, the drawback of using an EELV to launch the CEV is that neither the Atlas 5 nor the Delta 4 are design for people nor are they manrated.

Links on the possible launchers of the near future

New Zenit family ?
http://www.boris-lux.de/04_types/61_...4_zen/spze.php

SpaceX Falcon1, Falcon-V and Falcon-9 EELV
http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon/f1/status.html

SDLVs : the CaLV ( similar to Zubrin's rocket plan ) and the 'Stick' CLV
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1040

Angara pictures ( Russian site )
http://www.khrunichev.ru/khrunichev/...t.asp?id=13187

Long-March-5 'Beefed-up' CZ-rocket
http://www.newscientistspace.com/art...ce-future.html

Boeing
http://kevinforsyth.net/delta/

next Ariane an R-56 type launch vehicle ?
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Launcher...CI1PGQD_0.html

Proton rocket evolving
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/pro8k82m.htm

Japanese H2 & HTV ( possible development for heavy )
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/h2a/f3/020908rocket.html

India's GSLV ( India is a rising space-power )
http://www.acig.org/exclusives/aero/...ro05_final.htm

Lockheed
http://www.ilslaunch.com/atlas/


Year in Space - 2005
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/thee2005.htm
Launches to orbit reversed the downward trend for the first time in 15 years

Look at this page:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...=1325&posts=29

great link there

CaLV and CEV are the safest bet to break the heavy lift record, the Energia-Buran project is long gone, but it looked like it once had great ability
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/87/...819_space.html
http://www.thespacesite.com/communit...=1677&start=30
Russian officials are very happy with the Chinese goals and the Russians continue to be open to full cooperation on future missions
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4074
China might be planning on building an LM-5 followed by a CZ-6 down in the island of Hainan, they have yet to launch any serious rockets from here but the island may be familiar to some folks because back in April of 2001 GW Bush attempted to send a spy-plane over the island to see what the Chinese were doing.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../11/bn.12.html
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...hou6_day4.html
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewto...t=2565&start=0
Ariane-M was just a European fantasy but an Oural launcher looks possible
http://eu.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19662

Oural may actually cost more over time. It will be winged--where Ariane 5 is just a tube:

HLLV plans from the past
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...d=1866&posts=3

Ariane M again
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...rt=16&posts=23

Sea Dragon
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...d=1544&posts=3

Updated Russian Craft--with pictures
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...d=1836&posts=7

NEP
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...rt=31&posts=38

RLV
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...d=1907&posts=1

Breakthroughs
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
New batteries:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/batteries-0208.html

Space Business Space Elevator
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/busin...0588/index.htm

I think you may be right there

Pentagon to weigh in on US rocket-launch merger
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1735069

The Pentagon approved a joint venture that would leave Decatur as home to the sole production facility for Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. satellite-launch vehicles, Reuters reported Friday, but it imposed so many conditions that the companies may scrap the idea.
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturd...8/merger.shtml
If it goes forward, the United Launch Alliance will add hundreds of aerospace jobs to Decatur's Boeing plant, which now employs 635.
Reuters, quoting analyst Loren Thompson of the defense think tank Lexington Institute, said the Pentagon wants to "aggressively manage" the United Launch Alliance to keep it from becoming a monopoly and to ensure it has adequate capital and expertise.


Prep Begins For Next Ariane 5 Launch
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Pr..._5_Launch.html
Following the Ariane 5 ECA's successful dual-payload launch on March 11, ground teams have begun initial preparations for Arianespace's next heavy-lift launch - currently targeted for mid-May, and intended to carry the Satmex 6 and THAICOM 5 satellites.
"Ariane 2010"
http://www.cite-sciences.fr/actu/num...html/une6.html
http://www.cnes.fr/automne_modules_f...80__L5_N69.pdf
http://www.a330.de/pas/content/OF000.../200004101.pdf.
http://direct.bl.uk/research/3C/4D/RN133964830.html
Ariane 'Twenty-Ten' would see a large LEO payload or perhaps launch 15,000 to 17,000 Kg to GTO