Perhaps they might feasibly just market the Delta IV Heavy as the only Delta IV and concentrate all other launches on Atlas V?If this was the case, what capabilities would be lost?
If you followed ULA's consolidation process, the Delta IV and Atlas V will share so many systems that the cost to support one over the other will be relatively minor. Delta IV however offers capability not developed in Atlas V, so it would be foolish for them to cancel it.
Quote from: Downix on 04/26/2013 01:49 pmIf you followed ULA's consolidation process, the Delta IV and Atlas V will share so many systems that the cost to support one over the other will be relatively minor. Delta IV however offers capability not developed in Atlas V, so it would be foolish for them to cancel it. Even if they share many systems, they don't share the booster engines or upper stages [yet]That keeps at least RS-68 from any reasonable economics of scale. Sounds like RD-180 is cheap for them even with low flight rate.Same with two different SRB's. The two different sets of core tooling probably doesn't cost any more since it already exits. It's not like there are developing two sets do tooling new at this point.
Not sure how much commonality there is in the upper stages. They even use different RL-10 variants, right?I think a common 5m upper stage for both would help in the long run. Something like ACES or a common Centaur on Atlas 55x would match the D4H to LEO I think Jim said once. Not sure about BLEO.Of course that same stage on D4H would boost its capacity too. As would a pair of GEM 60's on each core. Not sure if there are any payloads for that though. Would have been a nice building block for CxP instead of Ares though.So an Atlas 55x with large 5m upper stage might effectively retire D4H for that payload class, if there is no payloads that need D4H with he new upper stage.
(Atlas V), 4 m (Delta IV medium), and 5 m (new standard Delta IV core). Think about just how much different the transport assets have to be to carry all those varying diameters to the pads. The Atlas V & smaller Delta IV core can be road-transported, while the biggest Delta IV cores require water transportation. This situation to me sounds needlessly complicated, and indeed ULA will be standardizing the Delta IV on the 5 m core & RS-68A in the next few years. I'm still not bullish on ULA's longer-term prospects. They often seem like they're half asleep at the wheel while the new competition is rapidly getting bigger in the rear-view mirror.
Quote from: Hyperion5 on 04/29/2013 12:08 am(Atlas V), 4 m (Delta IV medium), and 5 m (new standard Delta IV core). Think about just how much different the transport assets have to be to carry all those varying diameters to the pads. The Atlas V & smaller Delta IV core can be road-transported, while the biggest Delta IV cores require water transportation. This situation to me sounds needlessly complicated, and indeed ULA will be standardizing the Delta IV on the 5 m core & RS-68A in the next few years. I'm still not bullish on ULA's longer-term prospects. They often seem like they're half asleep at the wheel while the new competition is rapidly getting bigger in the rear-view mirror. Huh? Delta IV has only one core size 5m. The upperstages come in two sizes, 4m and 5m. Atlas V can not be road-transported nor can the non-existent 4m Delta IV.The rest of your post is nonsense base on this major error and others (such as if there was a 5m Atlas it would still use the same existing Atlas infrastructure (pads) and that ULA has already consolidated Atlas and Delta into one factory).As for bullish and sleep at the wheel, I think you have no grounds to make such statements since you can't get the basic information right.
Not sure how much commonality there is in the upper stages. They even use different RL-10 variants, right?
Quote from: Lobo on 04/28/2013 07:44 pmNot sure how much commonality there is in the upper stages. They even use different RL-10 variants, right?That's going to change as excess RL10B-2 engines are converted to RL10C engines for Centaur. In a few years, when the RL10 inventory finally runs out, a new common engine will be developed. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Hyperion5 on 04/29/2013 12:08 am(Atlas V), 4 m (Delta IV medium), and 5 m (new standard Delta IV core). Think about just how much different the transport assets have to be to carry all those varying diameters to the pads. The Atlas V & smaller Delta IV core can be road-transported, while the biggest Delta IV cores require water transportation. This situation to me sounds needlessly complicated, and indeed ULA will be standardizing the Delta IV on the 5 m core & RS-68A in the next few years. I'm still not bullish on ULA's longer-term prospects. They often seem like they're half asleep at the wheel while the new competition is rapidly getting bigger in the rear-view mirror. Huh? Delta IV has only one core size 5m. The upperstages come in two sizes, 4m and 5m. Atlas V can not be road-transported nor can the non-existent 4m Delta IV.
The rest of your post is nonsense base on this major error and others (such as if there was a 5m Atlas it would still use the same existing Atlas infrastructure (pads) and that ULA has already consolidated Atlas and Delta into one factory).
As for bullish and sleep at the wheel, I think you have no grounds to make such statements since you can't get the basic information right.
Quote from: Lobo on 04/28/2013 07:44 pmNot sure how much commonality there is in the upper stages. They even use different RL-10 variants, right?That's going to change as excess RL10B-2 engines are converted to RL10C engines for Centaur. In a few years, when the RL10 inventory finally runs out, a new common engine will be developed. The way things are going, I expect that new engine to come from outside the U.S.. - Ed Kyle
The idea with the 5 m Atlas, if it wasn't clear enough, was to use existing Delta pads and shut down the current Atlas pads.
It's sort of how you learned from forecasting a Romney victory, like many in my field did, that making an accurate political forecast is tough.
As for the factory error, it must be because my sources are out of date, because they're still reporting a manufacturing, assembly and integration plant in existence at Harlingen, Texas along with the main plant at Decatur, Alabama.
It's not that I'd mind seeing a Vinci, RD-0146 or a Japanese hydrolox engine atop an Atlas or Delta, it's just politically I wouldn't predict it. I'm just curious as to why you are predicting it, Ed.