Delta IV Heavy inaugural launch


The first flight of a Delta IV Heavy launch vehicle featuring 3 CBCs or Common Booster Cores, each powered with a single, cryogenic RS-68 engine.The launch, which occured in December 2004 was a partial failure when (due to cavitation in CBC propellant lines) sensors incorrectly detected propellant depletion and shut down the engines several seconds prematurely. The upper stage wasn't able to compensate completely and the demo payload was left in a lower than planned orbit.







Channel: Howto
Uploaded: October 24, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Author: ugowar

Length: 00:06:46
Rating: 4.716216
Views: 32753

Tags: delta iv heavy first launch

Embed Code:
Video Comments:
ugowar (November 21, 2009 at 3:23 pm)
To save cost. Theoretically, they would be the same as the core booster which would mean you just crank out cores, but RS-68 didn't meet all its performance targets (hence the ongoing RS-68A upgrade) so each CBC is actually unique, optimized for different loads it experiences.

It's a neat concept using 3 same cores - Atlas V HLV would really have identical cores and offer greater performance than Titan IV with its big and expensive solid rocket motors.
rakrupski (November 21, 2009 at 3:00 pm)
Why are the strap-ons liquid fueled?
ugowar (November 20, 2009 at 9:26 am)
Yes. Also clear by the huge fireball of helium and hydrogen that engulfs the rocket during the ignition sequence.
rakrupski (November 20, 2009 at 6:26 am)
Does that use the RS-68 hydrogen engines? I assume so... given the visible hydrogen burn-off igniter sparks visible at the 0:34 mark...
ugowar (November 14, 2009 at 11:47 pm)
1) That would be the fueled Altair, again where does the requirement of launching it fueled come from?

2) Reality check, there is no Altair anymore. It got "defunded" by the Constellation program because the Ares program continues to suck the air out of the room, also making Orion drop safety features just so Ares I can make its performance targets. Ares is a dead end and its cancellation is all but certain.
ugowar (November 14, 2009 at 11:44 pm)
This obsession with heavy lift and doing it like Apollo-style is the only way is completely limited and not thinking outside the box. Do you know what happened to Apollo and Saturn V? They got cancelled because they were too expensive to operate. Yet NASA still thinks doing the same thing again will be different this time. Spending 35 billion on a EELV heavy class vehicle and another 80 billion on a heavy lifter is ludicrous. There will be no exploration that way, only a few more flags planted.
ugowar (November 14, 2009 at 11:39 pm)
Yes, I'm talking about "paper rockets" because that's what Ares V is and will remain in this economic climate. Or do you think NASA will really get to spend 80+ billion dollars on developing such a monstrosity that would be unsustainable to operate and wouldn't amortize its development cost for decades due to low flight rate? There is no need for 180 ton lifters to LEO as a Mars ship can and should be made workable with modules no larger than 50 tons. The majority of the mass will be propellant.
Gatedialer (November 14, 2009 at 9:46 pm)
No, they can't.

Altair weighs 50 tons. EDS probably weighs 60 tons.

Atlas 5 heavy or D4H can't lift both, not to mention both are very wide and would require extreme width fairings to fit the CBC or Atlas core.
sfcbjs (November 14, 2009 at 9:26 pm)
Then there is always Atlas 5 heavy lift boosters. Either Atlas or Delta can be modified to lift the Altare lander and Earth orbit escape rocket.
Gatedialer (November 14, 2009 at 9:23 pm)
We're talking about rockets for future use and you're complaining about "Paper Rockets"?.

D4H can replace Ares 1, but no rocket, short of the Saturn V, can replace Ares V. Propellant depots are a good idea that won't be put in place until after major exploration starts. Infrastructure first can't and won't work.

Also, you need a heavy lifter for lunar and martian landers, and building a martian spacecraft in only several launches is far cheaper than dozens of launches.

1