Build SLS, Scrap an EELV?

[STS-200]

Following up on a comment discussed on the SLS predictions thread, I thought this might be worthy of its own page.

If SLS is completed, there will be 3 US government subsidised launchers. Orbital and SpaceX will enter the medium lift market in a few years, giving you potentially 5 launchers available to US government launches.

The idea is to stop supporting both EELVs, and for the SLS to form the “backup” for national security purposes. I would envision SLS still being a NASA rocket, only to be used by DoD et al. if their usual system is unserviceable.

For this to be physically workable, the SLS must be capable of performing any of the missions that Delta/Atlas can fly. SLS can only launch from the Cape. The critical mission would therefore appear to be the equivalent of a Delta 4 Heavy launch to a low polar orbit. From the payload planners guide, I see that the D4H can put nearly 20,000kg into a 98deg, 800km orbit.

BOTE calculations suggest that a minimum of a J-234H (5 seg, 3 SSME, ACES-70 type upper stage) would be capable of doing this, given that it is possible to reach a 62 degree orbit from the Cape and then use the upper stage to change the plane (This isn’t designed to be elegant, just to provide a worst case backup).

Benefit to DoD: Saves money - Only 1 EELV to support, but backup is still available. Commercial providers may provide other options once they are proven. The surviving EELV gets a free(ish) upgrade in the form of an ACES type upper stage.

Benefit to NASA: SLS acquires some national security credentials, making cancellation less likely. An upper stage is certainly needed to meet DoD trajectory requirements, meaning NASA has to build a BEO capable booster (the J-234H example seems capable of about 35t through TLI, 30t to Mars/NEOs).

Comments or ideas? Is it politically feasible?

[Jim]

Not feasible on many counts.

1.  DOD does not want to get in bed with NASA again

2.  Which EELV?

3.  It doesn't save money, NASA would ask DOD for money.  The DOD does not provide a 100% subsidy to ULA. 

4.  NASA needs EELV's more than SLS.

5.  EELV's do more than just the Heavy mission.

There are many words for this idea, but forum decorum forbids their use.

[STS-200]

Not feasible on many counts.

1.  DOD does not want to get in bed with NASA again

2.  Which EELV?

3.  It doesn't save money, NASA would ask DOD for money.  The DOD does not provide a 100% subsidy to ULA. 

4.  NASA needs EELV's more than SLS.

5.  EELV's do more than just the Heavy mission.

There are many words for this idea, but forum decorum forbids their use.

Some choice words occured to me as I wrote it. I didn't say I thought it was a good idea; just wondering given that SLS is built.

1) I'm sure they dont want to. Might budget cuts change their mind?
2) Chosen by competitive selection (cost,reliability etc.)
3) It certainly doesnt save NASA money - ultimately NASA would be subsidising the "backup" vehicle vehicle rather then the DoD. I was assuming (although fair enough I didnt state it explicitly) that the DoD would not pay for any part of SLS.
4) I agree. I am a payload fan, not a big rocket fan.
5) Absolutely - but does the fact that the backup is ludicrously powerful really matter? Hopefully the other commerical providers can cover much of this medium lift market.

So hypothetically, if NASA are being forced to build SLS anyway...?

[Jim]

Not feasible on many counts.

1.  DOD does not want to get in bed with NASA again

2.  Which EELV?

3.  It doesn't save money, NASA would ask DOD for money.  The DOD does not provide a 100% subsidy to ULA. 

4.  NASA needs EELV's more than SLS.

5.  EELV's do more than just the Heavy mission.

There are many words for this idea, but forum decorum forbids their use.

Some choice words occured to me as I wrote it. I didn't say I thought it was a good idea; just wondering given that SLS is built.

1) I'm sure they dont want to. Might budget cuts change their mind?
2) Chosen by competitive selection (cost,reliability etc.)
3) It certainly doesnt save NASA money - ultimately NASA would be subsidising the "backup" vehicle vehicle rather then the DoD. I was assuming (although fair enough I didnt state it explicitly) that the DoD would not pay for any part of SLS.
4) I agree. I am a payload fan, not a big rocket fan.
5) Absolutely - but does the fact that the backup is ludicrously powerful really matter? Hopefully the other commerical providers can cover much of this medium lift market.

1.  Not in this case.
2.  Can't, each fills a niche need
3.  NASA would not buy into supporting any DOD needs without money to come with it.  DOD requirements on SLS would be substantial.
4.  I mean one EELV can't support DOD and NASA needs
5.  The medium market is what most of what EELV does.  EELV heavy missions are only 1 per year max and one every other year as an average.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Besides, why bother when the USAF is working on the EELV's replacement?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/20/340788/usaf-seeks-reusable-booster-concepts.html


The only reason to eliminate an EELV line right now would be for ULA to save money.

[kraisee]

As a related 'aside':

There are two EELV's specifically to provide redundancy, so that if one should experience problems the other can continue to launch important DoD payloads.   But DoD always wanted to down-select to a single vehicle in the end.   They can't right now because Delta is the only working "Heavy", and they need that performance for certain payloads, and Atlas offers the best value for all their other satellites -- and ther studies indicate it would cost more to remedy this situation than to just leave it alone.

But I keep wondering if Space-X's Falcon-9 isn't close to the verge of providing that backup capability for DoD?

After 3 or 4 more flights to prove their reliability, they are at a price point below $60m, which is significantly lower cost than either existing EELV.

Completely besides the SLS issues, it sounds to me as though DoD may not actually require one of the current EELV's anyway.

I hate to single one out compared to the others, but if Atlas got its Heavy configuration, or if Space-X got theirs, I think Delta-IV's days would become very seriously numbered.


I could very-well see DoD opting to downselect to one EELV (as they were going to do originally), keep Space-X in their back-pocket for redundancy and look forward to SLS offering unique new capabilities entirely courtesy of NASA's coffers, not DoD's.   That scenario sounds more than plausible to me.

Ross.

[Jim]

1.  I hate to single one out compared to the others, but if Atlas got its Heavy configuration, or if Space-X got theirs, I think Delta-IV's days would become very seriously numbered.


2.  I could very-well see DoD opting to downselect to one EELV (as they were going to do originally), keep Space-X in their back-pocket for redundancy and

3. look forward to SLS offering unique new capabilities entirely courtesy of NASA's coffers, not DoD's.   That scenario sounds more than plausible to me.

1.  No, there are requirements for a heavy on both coasts.  Atlas Heavy can not launch from SLC-3

2.  The DOD can not arbitrarily pick Spacex as a backup.   It is not going to drop an EELV and then pick up another.  If anything it will be determined by a competition.  Anyways, the EELV  manifest is over subscribed in 2012 and 2013.

Also the DOD is wary of Spacex and their processes. Changing rockets like software does not work for pedigree.

Also, there are unique DOD requirements that go against Spacex's processes.

In all, Spacex is no where close to being a vehicle of choice for the DOD much less the NASA

3.  The DOD can't use the SLS as is, just like it couldn't do the shuttle.   Use of SLS  is still going to cost the DOD more than just SLS reoccurring costs. 

Again, the DOD heavy hitters when it comes to launch vehicles are going to avoid anything that deals with NASA.

[Downix]

1.  I hate to single one out compared to the others, but if Atlas got its Heavy configuration, or if Space-X got theirs, I think Delta-IV's days would become very seriously numbered.


2.  I could very-well see DoD opting to downselect to one EELV (as they were going to do originally), keep Space-X in their back-pocket for redundancy and

3. look forward to SLS offering unique new capabilities entirely courtesy of NASA's coffers, not DoD's.   That scenario sounds more than plausible to me.

1.  No, there are requirements for a heavy on both coasts.  Atlas Heavy can not launch from SLC-3

2.  The DOD can not arbitrarily pick Spacex as a backup.   It is not going to drop an EELV and then pick up another.  If anything it will be determined by a competition.  Anyways, the EELV  manifest is over subscribed in 2012 and 2013.

Also the DOD is wary of Spacex and their processes. Changing rockets like software does not work for pedigree.

Also, there are unique DOD requirements that go against Spacex's processes.

In all, Spacex is no where close to being a vehicle of choice for the DOD much less the NASA

3.  The DOD can't use the SLS as is, just like it couldn't do the shuttle.   Use of SLS  is still going to cost the DOD more than just SLS reoccurring costs. 

Again, the DOD heavy hitters when it comes to launch vehicles are going to avoid anything that deals with NASA.

I'd think Orbital's Taurus II would be closer a shoe to fit the DoD, but honestly I see it more replacing Delta II for the DoD than Delta IV at this point in the game.

[CitabriaFlyer]

Besides, why bother when the USAF is working on the EELV's replacement?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/20/340788/usaf-seeks-reusable-booster-concepts.html


The only reason to eliminate an EELV line right now would be for ULA to save money.

I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.  You are talking about the same USAF that cannot manage to buy a tanker based on a 25 year old design.  Everyone on this forum will be dead and rotted before the USAF ever flies a reusable launch vehicle.

[Downix]

Besides, why bother when the USAF is working on the EELV's replacement?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/20/340788/usaf-seeks-reusable-booster-concepts.html


The only reason to eliminate an EELV line right now would be for ULA to save money.

I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.  You are talking about the same USAF that cannot manage to buy a tanker based on a 25 year old design.  Everyone on this forum will be dead and rotted before the USAF ever flies a reusable launch vehicle.

Your statement sadly demonstrates a failure to follow what happened with the whole tanker fiasco.  It's a case of corruption, bribery and corporate greed, and nobody in it comes out smelling of roses.

[alexw]

To summarize:

1) Dropping Atlas V:
   a) Atlas is the cheaper and better vehicle (more performance single stick).
   b) Would have to bring back Delta production and pad flow capability previously deliberately downsized.
   c) Maybe some missions performed by the SRBier Atlas Mediums would need a Delta Heavy for equivalent performance? Expensive, slow, rare.
   d) NASA would be hurt, since Delta and DCSS in particular are inferior to Centaur for lightweight, high energy missions.

2) Dropping Delta IV:
  a) Would have to fly Atlas V-Heavy
  b) Would have to modify SLC-3 for West Coast Atlas V-Heavy.
  c) Would have to bring back Atlas production and pad flow capability previously deliberately downsized.
  d) Would have to complete domestic RD-180 production.

3) Taurus II is mostly irrelevant to DOD needs. If they needed plenty more Delta II class vehicles, they would keep ordering Delta II. For the occasional light payload, the extra marginal cost of AV401 is cheaper than supporting Delta II infrastructure.

4) SpaceX is a promising child for the future -- but they are yet a (long) way from:
    a) Demonstrating reliable Falcon 9
    b) Bringing Falcon 9 Heavy online to meet the performance requirements of the bigger Mediums and Heavies.
    c) Demonstrating the consistency and reliability in production, pad ops, flight success, orbital insertion accuracy, and business stability required in which to place the faith of national security needs.
Conclusion: the best option, balancing cost and mission-assurance, is the status quo. Taurus II and Falcon 9 will grow up slowly, flying the smaller, cheaper commercial, NASA SMD, and maybe experimental DOD (ARPA?) demo missions that are more cost-sensitive and willing/compelled to take the risk (vs. not flying at all). Perhaps the situation will look different by 2020.

Speculation: the only real cost savings available to ULA will be going forward with and consolidating on Common Upper Stage / Common (Widebody) Centaur (not ACES), dropping the 4m DCSS and the 4m fairing variants of both Atlas and Delta, keeping DIVHUS for redundancy. (Side effect: also good for NASA.)

How's that?
-Alex

[CitabriaFlyer]

Besides, why bother when the USAF is working on the EELV's replacement?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/20/340788/usaf-seeks-reusable-booster-concepts.html


The only reason to eliminate an EELV line right now would be for ULA to save money.

I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.  You are talking about the same USAF that cannot manage to buy a tanker based on a 25 year old design.  Everyone on this forum will be dead and rotted before the USAF ever flies a reusable launch vehicle.

Your statement sadly demonstrates a failure to follow what happened with the whole tanker fiasco.  It's a case of corruption, bribery and corporate greed, and nobody in it comes out smelling of roses.

Actually I have followed that whole mess rather closely right up to this summer when I was flying combat missions in a tanker built in 1959.  And actually the aircrew who fly these hulks and the maintainers who keep these things flying despite the incredible abuse we put on them do I believe come out smelling like roses (at least figuratively, definitely not literally.) The point I was trying to make in a rather light hearted way is that there are far, far more important acquisition problems that we need to solve in the USAF first.  Specifically, we need new tankers, we need to find the right mix of legacy and gen 5 fighters, we need to think about global strike, we need a replacement of the T-38, we need to continue C5M onversions, and oh yes, we need to keep buying bombs to replace the one we are dropping in battle.  Bottom line, we have other priorities that make USAF participation in any new launch system such a low priority.

[Jim]

To summarize:

1) Dropping Atlas V:
   a) Atlas is the cheaper and better vehicle (more performance single stick).
   b) Would have to bring back Delta production and pad flow capability previously deliberately downsized.
   c) Maybe some missions performed by the SRBier Atlas Mediums would need a Delta Heavy for equivalent performance? Expensive, slow, rare.
   d) NASA would be hurt, since Delta and DCSS in particular are inferior to Centaur for lightweight, high energy missions.

2) Dropping Delta IV:
  a) Would have to fly Atlas V-Heavy
  b) Would have to modify SLC-3 for West Coast Atlas V-Heavy.
  c) Would have to bring back Atlas production and pad flow capability previously deliberately downsized.
  d) Would have to complete domestic RD-180 production.

3) Taurus II is mostly irrelevant to DOD needs. If they needed plenty more Delta II class vehicles, they would keep ordering Delta II. For the occasional light payload, the extra marginal cost of AV401 is cheaper than supporting Delta II infrastructure.

4) SpaceX is a promising child for the future -- but they are yet a (long) way from:
    a) Demonstrating reliable Falcon 9
    b) Bringing Falcon 9 Heavy online to meet the performance requirements of the bigger Mediums and Heavies.
    c) Demonstrating the consistency and reliability in production, pad ops, flight success, orbital insertion accuracy, and business stability required in which to place the faith of national security needs.
Conclusion: the best option, balancing cost and mission-assurance, is the status quo. Taurus II and Falcon 9 will grow up slowly, flying the smaller, cheaper commercial, NASA SMD, and maybe experimental DOD (ARPA?) demo missions that are more cost-sensitive and willing/compelled to take the risk (vs. not flying at all). Perhaps the situation will look different by 2020.

Speculation: the only real cost savings available to ULA will be going forward with and consolidating on Common Upper Stage / Common (Widebody) Centaur (not ACES), dropping the 4m DCSS and the 4m fairing variants of both Atlas and Delta, keeping DIVHUS for redundancy. (Side effect: also good for NASA.)

How's that?
-Alex

2b is not possible, need new pad. 
Need the 4m for smaller missions.

[tnphysics]

Why the new pad?

[Lars_J]

Because the Atlas pad operations are radically different than Atlas V pad operations, I would assume.

Just look at their west coast pads for an example... They have completely different setups.

[Ronsmytheiii]

3) Taurus II is mostly irrelevant to DOD needs. If they needed plenty more Delta II class vehicles, they would keep ordering Delta II. For the occasional light payload, the extra marginal cost of AV401 is cheaper than supporting Delta II infrastructure.

Look at your last sentence.  If DoD does not have to pay for the infrastructure, there is not a reason for lighter payloads to go on the more expensive Atlas 401 than Taurus II.  If Falcon 9 can lift a payload, Taurus II  can roughly do the same.

[alexw]

Speculation: the only real cost savings available to ULA will be going forward with and consolidating on Common Upper Stage / Common (Widebody) Centaur (not ACES), dropping the 4m DCSS and the 4m fairing variants of both Atlas and Delta, keeping DIVHUS for redundancy. (Side effect: also good for NASA.)

Need the 4m for smaller missions.

   Maybe not.

The Common Centaur is focused on the Air Force, NASA science, and commercial requirements with the goal of replacing the Delta IV 4m Upper Stage with the Centaur to achieve greater commonality and to realize cost savings across the EELV fleet.

ULA anticipates recurring cost reductions through consolidating multiple upper-stage and PLF configurations into a common vehicle application across both booster product lines, and through vendor reductions ... for deployment on existing Centaur and Delta DCSS as well as aligned for implementation on the Common Upper Stage.
...
Conceptually, the vehicle diameter is 5.1 m ...
...
First-stage configurations remain unchanged; the Common Upper Stage can be used with all current Atlas V and Delta IV configurations.
...
ULA is also evaluating PLF consolidations from five to one or two 5m configuration ...

Existing ULA fairings:
Atlas: 4.2m (aluminum, Harlingen, TX): LPF, EPF, XEPF
Atlas: 5m (composite, Ruag in Switzerland): short, medium, long
Delta: 4m (composite): 11.7m
Delta: 5m (composite): 14.3m, 19.1m
Delta: 5m (aluminum)

    As I read it, it looks like the business plan is that assuming ACES can't be justified without NASA exploration, the 5.1m diam CUS/CWBC would permit dropping Centaur V1 and DCSS/4m and thus all the 4m fairings across both boosters. That consolidation would pay for the relatively minor development cost of CUS/CWBC, which is not ACES but more like a straightforward update of Centaur V2-ish on the 5.1m tooling. The weight gain from the bigger fairings on the smaller missions would be bought back by the propellant capacity increase from 20mT up to 40mT and the single/dual engine option. (Whether they would build both SE and DE, or the exact form of the RL-10A + RL-10B -> RL-10C remanufactured hybrid, is unclear.) This would be analogous to Delta IV's upcoming consolidation on a genuine CBC, with the weight gain bought back by RS-68A.

   ACES looks like it's not going to happen unless NASA pays, and SLS probably precludes that. CUS/CWBC may pay its own justification.

   There would be obvious synergies with manned LEO markets as well: upper-stage engine-out for Com. Crew (does that help abort scenarios?) and performance gains: the basic non-solid Atlas V to circular LEO would make a big jump from 401 @ 9.8mT to (guessing here from ACES) the new 502 @ ~15mT. That could be a help to CST-100, to Bigelow, to Dreamchaser. High energy missions (including NASA) would benefit as well. To GTO, the existing 431 @ 5.8mT and 551 @ 6.9mT would be replaced by the new 552 @ 11mT. Delta gains as well -- the old M+(5,4) @ 7mT headed to GTO and even the Heavy headed to GSO @ 6.6mT both pick up +2mT.

    This looks like the possibility of significant performance gains across the spectrum, paid for by product line cost consolidation. I think this is very exciting.
 
   Jim, do you think I'm badly misreading the tea leaves? What downsides do you see?

-Alex

[Ben the Space Brit]

FWIW, I can see a trend in the future where Atlas-V is more and more seen as a 'NASA' launcher (because of the number of space probes and commecial crew taxis to the ISS it launches) and Delta-IV is seen more and more as an 'air force' launcher because it launches mostly DoD and NRO payloads.  This may, in the long run, lead to the pen-pushers altering the exact methods by which the two projects are funded so that their funding more reflects the source of most of their work.

Just an additional point - If NASA ultimately decides on a EELV-heritage vehicle (perhaps an Atlas-V Phase 2/3A) for the SLS, then this issue of affording all three doesn't arise so much. This will be because there will be some commonalities through the three systems such some of the tooling for the SLS core and also possibly a common upper stage across all three launchers.

[beb]

And FYI point concerning SpaceX, elsewhere on this forum it was mentioned that DOD had informed SpaceX that the nine engines on the Falcon9 was a showstopper. Soon after SpaceX was talking about their BFE. So until it builds Merlin2 I think SpaceX is out of the military launch busiiness.

[butters]

And FYI point concerning SpaceX, elsewhere on this forum it was mentioned that DOD had informed SpaceX that the nine engines on the Falcon9 was a showstopper. Soon after SpaceX was talking about their BFE. So until it builds Merlin2 I think SpaceX is out of the military launch busiiness.

Yeah, but I'm not sure that Merlin 2 would really make a difference for DoD.  The "too many engines" objection always struck me as a convenient and simple excuse for not using a particular launch vehicle when the real objection is probably something less concrete and more to do with pedigree, processes, personalities, politics, etc...