Poll Your favorite orbital launch vehicle!

[Cosmic Penguin]

This question is easy: which current/historic (or even future) launch vehicle (family) is your favorite, and state your reasoning. Note that I have decided to exclude the Space Shuttle from the discussion, simply because I believe it should be put into another class in the kingdom of spaceflight.

So my vote goes to the.....

... Atlas V! The marriage of the brute force Russian kerosene engine technology with the best cutting-edge hydrogen upper stage engine of the world (the American RL-10), and with the flexible dial-a-rocket configuration and a mediocre price, what's not to like about it? Trailing behind are the Ariane 5, the Soyuz, the Delta II and the Zenit rockets.

GPS

 

[N_Molson]

R-7 family. 50 years of loyal commitment to spaceflight (manned or not) and counting.

 

[Scruce]

Titan Family. Fifty years of service (highlighted mainly with the Gemini capsule), stopped a couple of years ago, though there are [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_V"]proposals[/ame] to extend the lifetime more into the 21st century.

Titan IIIC with Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) mockup:

 

[Notebook]

Well, I would woudn't I...:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow"]Black Arrow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Arrow_R3_Stage_1.JPG


Would have liked this to get off the ground:

http://www.spaceuk.org/bstreak/bs/bs_centaur.html

N.

 

[Jarvitä]

Falcon Heavy, known formerly as the Falcon 9 Heavy. 53 tons to LEO at $2200 per kg. From a utilitarian standpoint, if it flies on schedule and has an ok safety record, it is objectively the best orbital launcher for just about every mission profile that fits its capabilities.

 

[Izack]

Another for the Atlas V!

 

[Wonderer]

Just for the looks

 

[IronRain]

I'm going with Scrucie

 

[PhantomCruiser]

I almost said Titan, then Saturn V.
But, a second vote for the Falcon Heavy.
It's an ambitious project, with a lot of things on the "to-do" list. But if SpaceX can pull it off they've got one of the most economical heavy lifters ever created.

 

[Urwumpe]

The S.T.S... damn, excluded?

Then count me in for this one...

It gives "working horse" a completely new meaning

 

[RisingFury]

Falcon Heavy, known formerly as the Falcon 9 Heavy. 53 tons to LEO at $2200 per kg. From a utilitarian standpoint, if it flies on schedule and has an ok safety record, it is objectively the best orbital launcher for just about every mission profile that fits its capabilities.

It won't fly on time (SpaceX is always late) and you can expect the price per weight to increase (at least F1 did), but even so, it would still objectively be the best launcher of its category.

 

[iamwearingpants]

EDIT: I love it possibly because it's one of the first rockets I saw. Or, because MOAR BOOST. How can you go wrong with 9 boosters?

 

[Napalm42]

For me, my first thought was the Energia for its chunky yet interesting design, but then I looked up at the 1:144 scale model sitting in the alcove above my desk.

Saturn V, without it, those handfuls of men would have never seen Earth come up over a foreign horizon (and I wouldn't have had a set of 7 inch tall Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong figures with removable EVA suits as a child.)

 

[T.Neo]

I am stuck between the Soyuz/R-7 family and the Atlas V... the former I would pick for its established track record, its low cost (although this is also due to relatively low labour costs), and the fact that it once reached really high flight rates (something like 40 launches per year).

Atlas V because of its modern use of legacy technologies, marriage of international components, use of modularity and "dial-a-rocket" capability, and popularity with commercial competitors as well as planetary science programs.

Falcon Heavy, known formerly as the Falcon 9 Heavy. 53 tons to LEO at $2200 per kg. From a utilitarian standpoint, if it flies on schedule and has an ok safety record, it is objectively the best orbital launcher for just about every mission profile that fits its capabilities.

$2200/kg only stands if SpaceX's quoted prices meet up with its real prices.

And the mission profiles that fit its capabilities are pretty few and far between- there are no uses for 53 tons to LEO (other than perhaps human BEO missions, but currently people are too preoccupied with SLS with these), and Falcon Heavy is really intended to compete, more-or-less, with the Delta IV Heavy, as well as lift high-orbit payloads that can't be lifted on F9. SpaceX strategy seems to be, instead of developing a hydrolox upper stage, just making a larger lift rocket.

The first Falcon Heavy launch might not be the 53 ton, stretched-tank, crossfeed-enabled monster at all... but a smaller version with perhaps 25-30 tons to LEO capacity. The 53 ton version might be mainly PR.

would still objectively be the best launcher of its category.

More like the only launcher in its category. There's nothing else in its size range.

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

I am stuck between the Soyuz/R-7 family and the Atlas V... the former I would pick for its established track record, its low cost (although this is also due to relatively low labour costs), and the fact that it once reached really high flight rates (something like 40 launches per year).

Atlas V because of its modern use of legacy technologies, marriage of international components, use of modularity and "dial-a-rocket" capability, and popularity with commercial competitors as well as planetary science programs.



$2200/kg only stands if SpaceX's quoted prices meet up with its real prices.

And the mission profiles that fit its capabilities are pretty few and far between- there are no uses for 53 tons to LEO (other than perhaps human BEO missions, but currently people are too preoccupied with SLS with these), and Falcon Heavy is really intended to compete, more-or-less, with the Delta IV Heavy, as well as lift high-orbit payloads that can't be lifted on F9. SpaceX strategy seems to be, instead of developing a hydrolox upper stage, just making a larger lift rocket.

The first Falcon Heavy launch might not be the 53 ton, stretched-tank, crossfeed-enabled monster at all... but a smaller version with perhaps 25-30 tons to LEO capacity. The 53 ton version might be mainly PR.



More like the only launcher in its category. There's nothing else in its size range.

For the R-7 series, it's actually far more than that: the record is 63 launches in 1980. The R-7 series flew more than 40 times every year between 1967 and 1990, a record that few, if any, rocket families in the world has ever remotely reached.
As for the FH, well I must say that while I am deeply interested in it, it ain't launching till it's launching....

 

[FADEC]

Saturn V and Saturn 1b

Saturn V reasoning: because of its size, design/look, power/capability and the resulting sound. There simply is no other LV which beats the sight and sound of a Saturn V launch.

Saturn 1b reasoning: its simply the coolest design ever.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rM1RA2Jmh8&feature=related"]Apollo 15 airborne tracking camera [SILENT] - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Cras]

If you take the STS off the board, then I have to go along and add another vote for the Saturn V.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

I have to say the DeltaIV (Heavy). It's all cryogenic, full 5 meter width, is modular (Common Booster Core) and could be greatly expanded in lift capacity to as much as the Saturn V.

 

[MeDiCS]

Saturn V, although I also like the soviet N1.

 

[T.Neo]

I think the Delta IV has a clunky ground support infrastructure; horizontal integration, then vertical integration, with this big retractable service structure thing...

Not to mention the fact that the CBC is not all that "common" currently, with something like 6 different configurations... apparently because unforseen weight growth caused performance issues after RS-68 thrust/ISP was locked in.

I do like the RS-68 though, but maybe that is just because I am currently working on an addon that uses it. :lol:

and could be greatly expanded in lift capacity to as much as the Saturn V

Yes, but it wouldn't be a Delta IV Heavy then, would it?

It would be a Delta IV... super-lift... thing. Or maybe not even a Delta IV anymore, considering the Saturn-V level vehicle uses both a new tank diameter (7 meters) and new engine (RS-XXX):

But the growth options for the Delta IV are pretty interesting, including things like crossfeed, propellant densification, a regenerative RS-68, and strapping boosters to a three-core arrangement, as well as new upper stage engine(s)- the RL-60, which sadly never got anywhere.

I prefer the Atlas 5 evolution over the Delta evolution possibilities- because it continues the effort for a very practical system along the growth path, as well as retaining a sort of Dial-A-Rocket philosophy:

It requires a new upper stage (ACES- a Centaur derivative, that could fly on the existing 5xx series Atlas), but capitalises on existing infrastructure for 5 meter tankage at Decatur and 8.4 meter tankage at the MAF. And can potentially achieve commonality on a range of launch vehicles from 9 to 140 ton payload capability.

One document/study/presentation out there contains references to a 3 RD-180, 5 meter core version.

If I had to pick my favourite proposal or study for a launch vehicle evolution/launch vehicle family, it would probably be the Atlas V evolution.