CFE - 11/5/2007 11:26 PM1. Space News ran a recent story about Orbital Sciences considering the development of a bigger booster in the 4-5mT range. This is exciting if it plays out, because it means a true replacement for Delta II (albeit on the low side of Delta II's performance envelope.)2. I have to ask, if OSC is designing a Delta-class booster, what configuration will emerge. I suspect it might look like a Taurus, with an extra Castor 120 added under the stack. I haven't run the numbers on such an ungainly, five-stage vehicle, so I don't know what kind of performance it has to offer. Another possible configuration would use the first three stages of Peacekeeper with the upper two stages of Pegasus/Minotaur.
CFE - 11/5/2007 11:26 PMI have to ask, if OSC is designing a Delta-class booster, what configuration will emerge. I suspect it might look like a Taurus, with an extra Castor 120 added under the stack. I haven't run the numbers on such an ungainly, five-stage vehicle, so I don't know what kind of performance it has to offer. Another possible configuration would use the first three stages of Peacekeeper with the upper two stages of Pegasus/Minotaur.Then again, designing rockets isn't as easy as playing Legos, and my wacky configurations might not be feasible. OSC has learned this lesson the hard way on at least one occasion.
Jim - 12/5/2007 8:31 AM2. Why do you assume solids? Also your PK variant is already called a Minotaur IV/V
Analyst - 15/5/2007 10:12 AMWhy not keep Delta II? Does anyone believe a new vehicle will be cheaper and more reliable? I don't.Analyst
Skyrocket - 15/5/2007 11:25 AMbecause there are not enough customers: Delta II will be no longer economic, when it is used only for a handful of NASA launches.
Analyst - 15/5/2007 11:34 AMQuoteSkyrocket - 15/5/2007 11:25 AMbecause there are not enough customers: Delta II will be no longer economic, when it is used only for a handful of NASA launches.And a replacement will have more customers? I don't buy this logic.Analyst
Analyst - 15/5/2007 4:34 AMQuoteSkyrocket - 15/5/2007 11:25 AMbecause there are not enough customers: Delta II will be no longer economic, when it is used only for a handful of NASA launches.And a replacement will have more customers? I don't buy this logic.Analyst
Analyst - 15/5/2007 4:12 AMWhy not keep Delta II? Does anyone believe a new vehicle will be cheaper and more reliable? I don't.Analyst
aero313 - 15/5/2007 5:17 PMThe most cost effective plan would seem to be for another company to license the Delta II production capability from Boeing and just keep building it. The problem is part obsolecence. If NASA is serious about this, they might want to explore this option (or maybe the already are).
CFE - 11/5/2007 11:26 PMSpace News ran a recent story about Orbital Sciences considering the development of a bigger booster in the 4-5mT range. This is exciting if it plays out, because it means a true replacement for Delta II (albeit on the low side of Delta II's performance envelope.)I have to ask, if OSC is designing a Delta-class booster, what configuration will emerge. I suspect it might look like a Taurus, with an extra Castor 120 added under the stack. I haven't run the numbers on such an ungainly, five-stage vehicle, so I don't know what kind of performance it has to offer. Another possible configuration would use the first three stages of Peacekeeper with the upper two stages of Pegasus/Minotaur.Then again, designing rockets isn't as easy as playing Legos, and my wacky configurations might not be feasible. OSC has learned this lesson the hard way on at least one occasion.
Skyrocket - 15/5/2007 11:49 AMQuoteaero313 - 15/5/2007 5:17 PMThe most cost effective plan would seem to be for another company to license the Delta II production capability from Boeing and just keep building it. The problem is part obsolecence. If NASA is serious about this, they might want to explore this option (or maybe the already are).I do not see, how another company could build a cheaper Delta II, when there are only low-volume orders.
simonbp - 15/5/2007 9:54 PMConsidering that SpaceX dropped the Falcon 5 (which would have been a low-cost successor to Delta II) quoting no market, I'd wager that there isn't a lot of hurry at OSC to do something similar...Simon
aero313 - 15/5/2007 3:36 PMWhen you add the nonrecurring development cost of a new rocket, the cost of a couple of failed test flights, the lost opportunities while waiting for the bugs to be worked out of the new vehicle, the new payload analysis and test required for a new (and yet unverified set of launch environments), and the cost of the NASA personnel who now have to get up to speed on a new vehicle, then divide that by the realistic mission model, you probably get a fully amortized per-unit cost that's quite a bit higher that the Delta II. This assumes, of course, that some dot-com "hundred millionaire" doesn't fund the full development out of his personal checking account...