What about using liqid engines for CEV booster?

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"most modern mobile ICBM's are in fact solid fueled, because they are transportable, and erect and launch quickly. "</font><br /><br />Lets not forget storability. You make a solid missile, seal it into a silo, forget it there for a decade or two, then someone presses that big red button and the missile shoots out as if packaged yesterday.

 

[drwayne]

Yep - and not having to deal with dangerous, toxic fuel and oxidizer is a plus too.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[darkenfast]

In reply to the whole thread, I would like to opine that the combination of an SRB/Liquid Upper Stage does allow for flexibility in launch scenarios. The physics of getting up and out of the lower atmosphere does not really vary, it's in the upper stages that you need the ability to tailor a specific launch. That said, I would love to see a change to all LH/LOX engines for environmental reasons. But, it just ain't gonna happen in the forseeable (and fundable) near future.

 

[propforce]

<i>"... Note that I am just talking about the military, ICBM perspective, which is not, strictly speaking, on topic...."</i><br /><br />Well... again, this goes back to how big of payload does one need to carry. For ICBM, not very big to get a big BANG !!! <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />Military missiles/ ICBMs have different requirements than <i>launch vehicles</i>, such as delivering high value nationial asset ISR satellites. Note that the Griffin proposed CLV (with a single stick SRB and a SSME 2nd stage) is not very flexible. First, the SSME will only have 1-burn which leaves the CEV to do the 2nd burn in order to circularize the orbit. This takes away payload capability on the CEV. The SRB also will give a much rougher ride which puts the penalty on the payload attachment, e.g., CEV to LV interface, and make the CEV qualification that much tougher. This is not small deal as most satellite designers are VERY keenly aware. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<i>"... All the other good things are nice about solids, but no matter cost, crew size, ease of transport, or danger of operation, the military needs a FAST response time above all else. A missile is of no value if it is a glowing hole in the ground. ..."</i><br /><br />Well, you can always ask the bad guys to give you a 2-hour head-up notice before they launch their attack ... as a professional courtesy !! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

That is also one of the nicer advantages of the SSME's. Their exhaust is basically water vapor! <br /><br /> Now, if a re-start capability is needed for the second stage, then I would recommend using the J2S, which like the J2's themselves was designed to have that capability. Even if it only had about half the thrust of the SSME. then use at least two, after all 5 were used for the second stage of the Saturn 5! By the way, the exhaust of the J2S like the SSME is also only water vapor. Heck this way you could have a completely environmentaly friendly vehicle, using already proven technology!!