Author Topic: Bigger boosters from OSC?  (Read 17356 times)

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #20 on: 05/16/2007 03:09 AM »
It didn't make sense to continue to develop the small EELVs when the number of payloads was much higher than it is now.  It probably still doesn't make sense.  The DoD shows no compunction about flying DMSP and GPS satellites on EELVs that have a lot of excess capacity; there's no reason NASA couldn't do the same.  You'd think they'd be able to negotiate lower prices given the large overcapacity.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8652
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1123
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #21 on: 05/16/2007 03:34 AM »
I think jim hit the nail on the head, if the 'smallest' EELV (Atlas 401, Delta IV Medium) cost less than a low flight rate Delta II there is no reason not to use an EELV. Especilly if the excess doesn't leave spent stages in orbit. We saw what happened to that proton stage a few months back...

I will probally draw several lightening bolts here, but I always thought lockheeds switching everything from the Atlas II/III to the Atlas V was a beter marketing plan than the boeing keep the Delta II and Delta IV. Doing that drove up the price of the Delta II while eating into the Delta IV volume thus driving up the Delta IV price.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3068
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #22 on: 05/16/2007 10:21 AM »
Could one try to move to launching multiple small sats at one time with EELV? Or are the orbital parameters too different, or is it too costly, schedule wise? Deep space probes need dedicated launches anyway it seems.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32428
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11171
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #23 on: 05/16/2007 11:46 AM »
Quote
meiza - 16/5/2007  6:21 AM

Could one try to move to launching multiple small sats at one time with EELV?
1. Or are the orbital parameters too different, or  2. is it too costly, schedule wise? 3. Deep space probes need dedicated launches anyway it seems.

That is  can of worms.  
1.  most of the time
2.  it does cost more
3. correct

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32428
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11171
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #24 on: 05/16/2007 11:50 AM »
Quote
CFE - 15/5/2007  10:31 PM

The smartest way ahead for NASA would probably be paying for the remaining development on the EELV-Small.  Delta IV with Delta II's second stage shouldn't be too hard to do.  I haven't seen any concept art of Atlas V-Agena, though.  Would ULA still have the tooling to produce an updated Agena?

Not neccessarily true.  The costs of the development with the additional recurring costs  per flight would probably be more than the cost of a Medium vehicle.  Also It would still need a 3rd stage for interplanetaries.

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #25 on: 05/16/2007 04:26 PM »
Quote
Jim - 15/5/2007  10:25 AM

It is not just parts, it is labor and all the facilities.

Have to agree with Jim on this one.  There is some level of hope that the Falcon 9 can move into that niche.

By the way, the USAF launch on demand contract for GPS was for $38M each according to documents available at the time of the original contract.


Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #26 on: 05/21/2007 07:28 PM »
Has anyone ever played with the concept of Delta II cores as strap-ons themselves? I think Hujsak once wrote about something similar in one of his books...

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32428
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11171
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #27 on: 05/21/2007 07:42 PM »
Quote
publiusr - 21/5/2007  3:28 PM

Has anyone ever played with the concept of Delta II cores as strap-ons themselves? I think Hujsak once wrote about something similar in one of his books...

There was a 7 core concept

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #28 on: 05/21/2007 07:58 PM »
And there was a twin-barrel-Delta concept floating around in the early 90ies with two Delta-core-stages in parallel with solid-strap-ons around. Unfortunately, i do not have an illustration.

Offline josh_simonson

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #29 on: 05/21/2007 09:00 PM »
>I will probally draw several lightening bolts here, but I always thought lockheeds switching everything from the Atlas II/III to the Atlas V was a beter marketing plan than the boeing keep the Delta II and Delta IV. Doing that drove up the price of the Delta II while eating into the Delta IV volume thus driving up the Delta IV price.

The leap from Delta II to Delta IV was much farther than from Atlas 3 to Atlas V.  Until ULA the Delta IV's future hadn't been 100% certain either, whereas the Atlas V has been in better shape, buisnesswise.  If Delta IV had been a dud Boeing would be glad they'd kept Delta II.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32428
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11171
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #30 on: 05/21/2007 10:46 PM »
Quote
josh_simonson - 21/5/2007  5:00 PM

>I will probally draw several lightening bolts here, but I always thought lockheeds switching everything from the Atlas II/III to the Atlas V was a beter marketing plan than the boeing keep the Delta II and Delta IV. Doing that drove up the price of the Delta II while eating into the Delta IV volume thus driving up the Delta IV price.

The leap from Delta II to Delta IV was much farther than from Atlas 3 to Atlas V.  Until ULA the Delta IV's future hadn't been 100% certain either, whereas the Atlas V has been in better shape, buisnesswise.  If Delta IV had been a dud Boeing would be glad they'd kept Delta II.

Atlas II/III & V are almost the same market

Delta II  and  Delta IV are not the same market.  Delta II costs are unrelated to the D-IV program.  Delta II would still be in the same situation as it is now, if there was no D-IV

GPS moving off D-II is what is driving up the costs.

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #31 on: 05/21/2007 11:23 PM »
Quote
Jim - 21/5/2007  1:42 PM

Quote
publiusr - 21/5/2007  3:28 PM

Has anyone ever played with the concept of Delta II cores as strap-ons themselves? I think Hujsak once wrote about something similar in one of his books...

There was a 7 core concept

Based on what I've read, it was referred to as "Barbarian," and utilized a cluster of seven Delta first stage tanks plus three Shuttle SRB's.  It was projected to launch SDI payloads that were too big for the Titan series.  Barbarian was a sweet-looking concept, but ultimately proved impractical.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #32 on: 05/22/2007 12:01 AM »
I seem to remember a phto of a four engine Titan Barbarian. No Delta II there at all. This with a photo mock-up from Wade--
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/barianmm.htm

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #33 on: 05/22/2007 05:06 AM »
Here's Mark Wade's page on the McDD "Barbarian" concept:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/baranmdd.htm

And here's a page of space models, with the McDD "Barbarian" near the bottom of the page.  I believe it was built by the renowned space modeler Mat Irvine, who literally wrote the book on space models:
http://sputnik.freehomepage.com/Models/gallery.html
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #34 on: 06/16/2007 08:40 PM »
That is an odd craft.

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #35 on: 06/22/2007 08:20 AM »
Reportedly, Orbital has begun development of a Delta-II-class rocket named Taurus-2

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=4031

Some rumours about a liquid propellant first stage using the NK-33 engine and a solid propellant second stage.




Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #36 on: 06/24/2007 06:33 AM »
Quote
Jim - 21/5/2007  4:46 PM

Atlas II/III & V are almost the same market

Delta II  and  Delta IV are not the same market.  Delta II costs are unrelated to the D-IV program.  Delta II would still be in the same situation as it is now, if there was no D-IV


It should be noted that the standard Delta IV Medium has almost exactly the same performance as the ill-fated Delta III.  Even if the two Delta III failures hadn't scared off potential customers, killing the Delta III made a lot of sense.  Otherwise it would have competed with Delta IV, albeit in a package that was more complex due to the need for multiple solids and two different fuels for the two main stages of Delta III.  

It would appear that the only reason for Delta III's existence was to reduce the risk for Delta IV's upper stage.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #37 on: 06/24/2007 12:53 PM »
Here is a photo from astronautix.com of a Titan Barbaria 1st stage with 4 engines.  

http://astronautix.com/lvs/barianmm.htm

And here is a concep Titan 3L4 with 4 7 segment SRBs and a similar core to the Barbarian.

http://astronautix.com/lvs/titan3l4.htm

And here is my Titan IV version of it with an Apollo Capsule on top.  In the background, a Saturn 1B with 4 7 segment strap ons
, A Saturn VB with 4 SRB strap ons, to the far right, a Saturn C-8.  I like modeling conjectural boosters.

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #38 on: 07/02/2007 08:08 PM »
Great model work!

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Bigger boosters from OSC?
« Reply #39 on: 07/27/2007 08:29 PM »
Quote
Analyst - 15/5/2007 4:34 AM

Quote
Skyrocket - 15/5/2007 11:25 AM
because 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

You are quite right: a Delta II replacement probably won't have any more customers than Delta II has today. The trick is to create an affordable medium launch vehicle that can be financially self-sustaining (including recovery of the development costs, recurring costs, fixed costs, etc.) at a rate of 2-3/year. There is no single solution to this problem - you have to do several different things simultaneously.

By the way, the reason we're doing this is the same reason we did Pegasus in 1987: our satellite projects needed such a launch vehicle.  Believe me, developing a successful new launch vehicle is a lot less fun than it looks!...
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Tags: