By fundamental definition you can only have one single core, but you could envision a single core with three, four, five, or even six boosters which would/could be sequenced by acceleration limit, thrust level, fuel consumption, ignition timing, and resulting separation. The sky's the limit...
referring to the launch portion.Also, leaving the somewhat disorienting semantics of asking "How is this not any different than" aside, Delta IV Heavy is exactly 0% reusable.
No. The Delta II was already cheap at time. It was cheap for NASA because the DOD (20, 25, 11), Globstar (7), Iridium (11) and NASA (15, 19) had bought them in bulk buys. And the DOD required a 40 day call up for GPS, which paid for one launch team. Hence, Delta II was subsidized by GPS. Once GPS moved on, Delta II couldn't compete. It was too complex. 3-9 SRMs for thrust augmentation to be processed and attached. 3 stages with completely different propellants (cryogenic, hypergolic and solid). An unguided spinning solid 3rd stage with ordnance timers and a hypergolic nutation control system was used on most missions. All that cost manpower. There was no sense in spending money to try to make it cheaper. It was going to be replaced by EELVs anyways (which started in 1994). Delta IV was an attempt to simplify a rocket, except they chose LH2 for all stages, which actually caused more costs.A few years ago I read the following book:
The Future of U.S. Rocketry
From Space News. January 27, 1997: "Many would do well reading this treasure of facts covering the development of U.S. launch vehicles. Starting from American Robert Goddard's pioneering work, Hujsak provides an overview of a half-century of booster business. The Atlas, Delta, Titan, space...books.google.com
There---a simplified Delta II type vehicle was called for. If you could hand pick some guys in aerospace---do you think you might get an expendable based on that rocket cheap enough to go up against Falcon?
You mean aside from the part where they land and are reusable?
No, it wouldn't
I am talking about the triple core arraignment. What happens after the cores burnout is irrelevant to the discussion.
No, It would have less performance than the Delta IV Heavy. That is basic rocket science.
ULA looked at a similar concept with their Atlas 5.
Still would be too high of thrust.
It was Lockheed Martin and the design went as far as CDR. The facilities and pad were built to accommodate it. The MLP just needed to add the plumbing.
Last I checked LM was part of ULA, no?
No, ULA is a separate company. LM owns 1/2 half of ULA, but the employees and assets are ULA and not Boeing or LM.Last I checked LM was part of ULA, no?
