>>For them space has always been sort of a hobby type of business, other than their very successful SeaLaunch business that is! <br /><br />Agree. Boeing is transferring the entire Delta business to the new United Lunch Alliance, where Delta IV may not have much of a future, since ULA will also operate the Atlas V.<br /><br />Regarding the 5 meter CEV, it would fit perfectly on the existing Delta IV Heavy. Of course it's not likely to happen, since the Launch Systems Architecture Study found that <br /><br />1) To launch the CEV on the Delta IV an entirely new pad and servicing facilities would have to be constructed. In reality CX-17 is underutilized now and would only need an additional swingarm for crew access, <br /><br />2) A new upper stage would be needed because the current stage has a design load safety factor of 1.25 (DOD spec) and NASA wants 1.4 (even though the Delta IV is already flying and the actual flight loads could be measured with strain guages, and of course load variations and vibration are much lower with liquids than solids. <br /><br />Even with these questionable expenses the Delta IV still had the same launch cost as the SRB-based CEV launch vehicle. This seems less than believeable since the CLV hasn't even been designed, let alone built, and will certainly have cost overruns. So to eliminate the EELVs, <br /><br />4) The LSAS found that while the single-core EELVs were "reliable", the CEV would have to use "the unreliable triple-core EELVs" <br />Why three identical liquid fueled core stages, each sufficiently reliable, would make an unreliable launch vehicle was not stated. If anyone knows where the reliability figures for the ESAS come from, I'd be interested.<br /><br />I've seen most of the Delta IV facilities, from the transport ship to the mobile service tower. It is all 'clean sheet' design and extremely efficient and the only modern rocket made entirely in the US. Unfortunately it cannot compete with Russian manufacturing costs. Sealau