Author Topic: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral  (Read 51434 times)

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #40 on: 02/09/2012 11:45 pm »


2. Operating cost of a ship would be a lot more than several semis. Just the man-hours cost for the ships'd crew alone.


You are forgetting the escort for the semis.  Two lead vehicles and a follower.  Hotels or RV to sleep in.
Falcon stage have been coming in piecemeal in separate convoys.

A cross-country trip for a 4.2m or smaller diameter thing shaped like a stage is going to be on the order of $25-50,000, including everything (it could be moderately more depending on the details).  Once you get over 4.2m, it gets much harder and much more expensive to ship things by road, and most people consider it infeasible except in very specialized situations.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #41 on: 02/10/2012 02:32 am »
It was a labor intensive vehicle.   The lower flight rates drove up the costs of the subcontracted HW (RS-27, AJ-10, GEMs)

WHY was it labor intensive?

 ??? ??? ???

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #42 on: 02/10/2012 02:45 am »
So, there are two questions or issues here: would it have been feasible to operate Delta II as a standalone produce outside ULA, and is EELV dead if Elon gets any EELV class launches from DoD?
 ???

Thinking about it, SpaceX should able to trucked cores to CCAFS & VAFB at much less cost than the ULA method by ship.

No, your thinking is wrong.  Why do you think SpaceX wants to go reuseable?

Looked at the Gas/Petrol prices?
ULA has the advantage.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #43 on: 02/10/2012 02:50 am »

Thinking about it, SpaceX should able to trucked cores to CCAFS & VAFB at much less cost than the ULA method by ship.

Huh?  Based on what data?

The operating cost of the ship that ULA is using currently.


1.  ULA doesn't operate it.
2.  Do you know the costs?
2.  Do you know a better means to get 5 and 4 meter cores cross country?

1. Didn't say anything about ship ownership. Just the operating cost.

2. Operating cost of a ship would be a lot more than several semis. Just the man-hours cost for the ships'd crew alone.


You still didn't answer the most important question Jim posted. What are other better/cheaper means of transporting a 5m core cross-country?

Only way to bring costs down in the future will be by Rail since you ask.

and startup costs for rail cars might get expensive.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #44 on: 02/10/2012 03:31 am »

Only way to bring costs down in the future will be by Rail since you ask.

and startup costs for rail cars might get expensive.


Wrong, Water is cheaper than rail.  Also, Rail is more size constraining than highways.   Additionally, US spaceflight hardware does not go by train due to humping.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #45 on: 02/10/2012 03:37 am »
It was a labor intensive vehicle.   The lower flight rates drove up the costs of the subcontracted HW (RS-27, AJ-10, GEMs)

WHY was it labor intensive?

 ??? ??? ???

It had 9 solids to had to be built up, mounted and aligned.  The tower was rolled back and forth for first stage and solid installations.  It used pyro sequencer for third stage operations that require build up in the field.  It had many offline facilities to do launch vehicle component checkout. 
« Last Edit: 02/10/2012 10:24 am by Jim »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #46 on: 02/10/2012 09:31 am »

Thinking about it, SpaceX should able to trucked cores to CCAFS & VAFB at much less cost than the ULA method by ship.

Huh?  Based on what data?

The operating cost of the ship that ULA is using currently.


1.  ULA doesn't operate it.
2.  Do you know the costs?
2.  Do you know a better means to get 5 and 4 meter cores cross country?

1. Didn't say anything about ship ownership. Just the operating cost.

2. Operating cost of a ship would be a lot more than several semis. Just the man-hours cost for the ships'd crew alone.


You still didn't answer the most important question Jim posted. What are other better/cheaper means of transporting a 5m core cross-country?

The last point Jim responded with is got nothing to do with my original post.

Which is it's cheaper for SpaceX trucking their cores than ULA moving their cores by ship.

Lee Jay posted this later for his estimate of trucking cost.
A cross-country trip for a 4.2m or smaller diameter thing shaped like a stage is going to be on the order of $25-50,000, including everything (it could be moderately more depending on the details).  Once you get over 4.2m, it gets much harder and much more expensive to ship things by road, and most people consider it infeasible except in very specialized situations.
IIRC Lee Jay's work partly involve moving large wind turbine blades.

So with a US flagged vessel with a crew of 16, I figure the low end of Lee Jay's estimate would about covered the crew cost for about a week or the fuel cost for several days (ship's got a pair of 4000 shp Diesel engines plus other engines). The ship got top speed of 15 knots at sea and 5 knots on a river, so is slower than a truck. To get from Decatur to VAFB involves several weeks of travel through the Panama canal for a distance of 8000 km. It's 3400 km from Decatur to CCAFS.

By the way I agree with Jim that ship transport for 4 to 5 meter cores is cheapest and most efficient option available.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #47 on: 02/10/2012 11:01 am »


2. Operating cost of a ship would be a lot more than several semis. Just the man-hours cost for the ships'd crew alone.


You are forgetting the escort for the semis.  Two lead vehicles and a follower.  Hotels or RV to sleep in.
Falcon stage have been coming in piecemeal in separate convoys.

A cross-country trip for a 4.2m or smaller diameter thing shaped like a stage is going to be on the order of $25-50,000, including everything (it could be moderately more depending on the details).  Once you get over 4.2m, it gets much harder and much more expensive to ship things by road, and most people consider it infeasible except in very specialized situations.
I think you meant 4.2m tall transport. You need floor clearance, the support structure, and some sort of environmental protection. The Atlas V is 3.8m, that gives you just 30cm foe everything. I don't think you can get a lowboy with less than 30cm from the floor, and you haven't put any protection. I think 3.66m is more reasonable. Of course you can do wider for little extra cost.
And let's face it, water transport is cheap. You can take a container from China to Californa for less than it would cost you to take from LA to Denver by truck. Plus, the Delta Mariner can take upto three Delta IV cores. I have no doubt that it's the cheapest option for a Delta IV, bar none. And if you ship the core, the upper stage and the fairing of an Atlas V, it might well be the cheapest, too. Now that ULA is putting as many cores as possible on them, I have no doubt that it's a the cheapest transport bar none. Assuming you don't have to pay for new bridges  :P
Seriously, that's another advantage. See how even in the case of the Mariner accident, the payload suffered no damage. Can you give the same level of protection by truck? We're talking about missions on the billion dollar range. I'm actually making this a question: if you are spending 1.5B on a mission, what transport would you chose?

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #48 on: 02/10/2012 04:50 pm »

Only way to bring costs down in the future will be by Rail since you ask.

and startup costs for rail cars might get expensive.


Wrong, Water is cheaper than rail.  Also, Rail is more size constraining than highways.   Additionally, US spaceflight hardware does not go by train due to humping.

My thinking was mainly about the SpaceX mess of trucking. 
ship engines for test to TX
ship tested engines to CA for install
ship cores to Fla
etc.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #49 on: 02/10/2012 04:53 pm »

Only way to bring costs down in the future will be by Rail since you ask.

and startup costs for rail cars might get expensive.


Wrong, Water is cheaper than rail.  Also, Rail is more size constraining than highways.   Additionally, US spaceflight hardware does not go by train due to humping.

My thinking was mainly about the SpaceX mess of trucking. 
ship engines for test to TX
ship tested engines to CA for install
ship cores to Fla
etc.

not the right sequence

ship engines for test to TX
ship cores to TX  for engine install
ship cores to Fla
« Last Edit: 02/10/2012 04:54 pm by Jim »

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #50 on: 02/10/2012 05:22 pm »
a titanium upperstage

Um, 410 stainless.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #51 on: 02/10/2012 06:13 pm »
It was a labor intensive vehicle.   The lower flight rates drove up the costs of the subcontracted HW (RS-27, AJ-10, GEMs)

WHY was it labor intensive?

 ??? ??? ???

It had 9 solids to had to be built up, mounted and aligned.  The tower was rolled back and forth for first stage and solid installations.  It used pyro sequencer for third stage operations that require build up in the field.  It had many offline facilities to do launch vehicle component checkout. 

I don't doubt that Delta II required more labor than an equivalent capability new-design rocket would have, due to its many years long, step-by-step upgrade heritage, but it is fair to point out that the EELVs also have to have solids added and, in the case of Atlas, have stages sequentially erected on the platform, etc.  On the other hand, the elimination of a solid third stage for EELV does clearly reduce labor and cut costs.

Today's Delta II should be more cost effective than the prior Delta II program on an annual basis, since it would only need one pad at Vandenberg, has no more third stages, and needs no new-build engines, but we may never know.  (I'm talking about total costs, not just costs to NASA.)  The problem is that the low launch rate problem won't go away.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 02/11/2012 12:01 am by edkyle99 »

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #52 on: 02/10/2012 06:18 pm »


2. Operating cost of a ship would be a lot more than several semis. Just the man-hours cost for the ships'd crew alone.


You are forgetting the escort for the semis.  Two lead vehicles and a follower.  Hotels or RV to sleep in.
Falcon stage have been coming in piecemeal in separate convoys.

A cross-country trip for a 4.2m or smaller diameter thing shaped like a stage is going to be on the order of $25-50,000, including everything (it could be moderately more depending on the details).  Once you get over 4.2m, it gets much harder and much more expensive to ship things by road, and most people consider it infeasible except in very specialized situations.
I think you meant 4.2m tall transport.


I meant 4.2m diameter, including the entire payload (enclosures, etc.).

Wind turbine tower base diameter is generally constrained to that diameter (or close to it) for that reason.  They are shipped without enclosures but they are obviously not dragging on the road so height is a touch taller than that.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #53 on: 02/10/2012 07:17 pm »
a titanium upperstage

Um, 410 stainless.

My bad, I was remembering several Delta II second stages that partially survived reentry dropping titanium parts. Research shows they where pressure spheres, not the tanks. Apologies

btw. Ed, can I make a counter point, the Delta was build on the time honored tradition of modifications built upon modifications to improve performance. I can see this increasing, not decreasing the number of man hours required needed to assemble the vehicle with equipment that had been re-purposed to assemble the new and improved vehicle.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline FuseUpHereAlone

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #54 on: 02/10/2012 11:00 pm »
Word on the street is NASA is pulling OCO-2 off Taurus XL... I guess they perfer to have their next satellite in orbit instead of underwater.

If this happens, is Delta II is only launch vehicle (in this class) certified to launch NASA scientific payloads?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #55 on: 02/11/2012 02:01 am »
Word on the street is NASA is pulling OCO-2 off Taurus XL...

Was done a while ago

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #56 on: 02/11/2012 02:02 am »

If this happens, is Delta II is only launch vehicle (in this class) certified to launch NASA scientific payloads?

Delta II is in Taurus class as much is Atlas V is in Delta II class

Offline suncity

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #57 on: 02/11/2012 04:10 pm »
The  Delta II retirement makes me think about Ariane 4, retired and then replaced with Soyuz. I understand that the 2 rockets have pratically the same capacity but Soyuz cost 1/2 of Ariane 4 if the numbers I found after a quick search are correct.
I guess the cost drivers were the fact that Ariane 4 looks like a complicated rocket (same issue as Delta II) plus it uses hypergolics (dangerous to handle and thus costly).

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #58 on: 02/11/2012 04:17 pm »
I wonder how much Red rockets would cost if built by Western labor.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Why Was Delta II So Expensive? EELV Death Spiral
« Reply #59 on: 02/11/2012 04:46 pm »
I wonder how much Red rockets would cost if built by Western labor.
...and Western standards (inc. public safety).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0