Author Topic: Delta IV Phase out  (Read 14575 times)

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Delta IV Phase out
« on: 01/23/2006 07:49 am »
Anyone know about this:  http://www.usspacenews.com/


So Long Delta IV
January 23, 2006

USAF, NASA and Boeing will announce (if ULA is formed) later this year the retirement of the Delta IV rocket family. The principle reason will be continuing quality issues with
the rocket.  The infrastructure Boeing made for delta IV in Decatur Alabama will be used for Atlas V.  The USAF will use CLV or Atlas V for all EELV launches. The RS-69 will still
fly just maybe on CLV.


Offline Rocket Nut

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #1 on: 01/23/2006 10:17 am »
I guess there is no real need for competition.  

On a personal note...it's too bad, the delta was the closest pad to the free viewing area on the Banana River.  And that triple body launch was really spectacular.  I was hoping to see more of them.

I wonder if the Boeing strike had any input to this decision...


Cheers,

Larry

Offline rubicondsrv

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Liked: 225
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #2 on: 01/23/2006 03:19 pm »
I can see them phasing out the heavier single core deltas for atlas V. but not the lighter delta IV medium or small. also the DOD will not be happy about funding the developement of a new heavy LV to replace the DIV heavy.

Offline norm103

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #3 on: 01/23/2006 08:07 pm »
dose any one know if this had to do with the Delta IV hav. launch prombles?

Offline Rocket Nut

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #4 on: 01/23/2006 09:02 pm »
Quote
norm103 - 23/1/2006  4:07 PM

dose any one know if this had to do with the Delta IV hav. launch prombles?

Just for the record, Boeing has asked for a retraction saying it's untrue.

Cheers,

Larry

Offline braddock

  • NSF Private Space Flight Editor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #5 on: 01/23/2006 10:08 pm »
ULA is still awaiting both official Pentagon approval (dispite rumors to the contrary a couple weeks ago), and FTC approval.  They'd better be quick to subdue any news of canceling the Delta IV.  The whole concept of the ULA as pitched to DoD was to keep both vehicles flying, instead of one company killing their program and leaving DoD with no backup in the event of a grounding.

Offline Rob in KC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 99
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #6 on: 01/24/2006 02:43 am »
Pinch of salt in hand, it's a sensationalistic rumor site, not a news site.

They've been doing this many times, trying to back it up with claims of exclusives on real accurate stories, at least one of which was taken from this site on the ETs, then claimed as their own exclusive. From that point they became unproffesional. Which I doubt they care about, so long as people keep linking up their "news".

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #7 on: 01/24/2006 01:35 pm »
Quote
Rob in KC - 23/1/2006  9:43 PM

Pinch of salt in hand, it's a sensationalistic rumor site, not a news site.

They've been doing this many times, trying to back it up with claims of exclusives on real accurate stories, at least one of which was taken from this site on the ETs, then claimed as their own exclusive. From that point they became unproffesional. Which I doubt they care about, so long as people keep linking up their "news".

Because rumours are jucy stuff! Aslo, seeing as how most of these rumours come from within the agency or the companies involved, they offer a window in the internal debates of the moment...

Simon ;)

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #8 on: 01/28/2006 01:40 pm »
They've now got a link to a Huntsville Times article that seems to confirm the fact: http://www.al.com/technology/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/business/113827083128900.xml&coll=1

Simon ;)

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #9 on: 01/28/2006 02:04 pm »
Not long before they are sacked.

Asking for advertising dollars from info they are posting there from confidential information. They'll be found out and sacked.

Offline rubicondsrv

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Liked: 225
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #10 on: 01/28/2006 05:49 pm »
As others have already said the USAF is not likely to allow a elemination of Delta IV.

Offline Rocket Guy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1349
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #11 on: 01/28/2006 08:48 pm »
Keep one thing in mind...if you have just one launch vehicle, and you have a failure, you're going to be in big trouble.g

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #12 on: 01/29/2006 02:24 am »
but if the CLV can fill the role of alternative...

Offline rubicondsrv

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Liked: 225
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #13 on: 01/29/2006 01:20 pm »
both the CLV and atlas V heavy are years away.
also I doubt the CLV has the same launch environment as EELV.
also CLV will only launch from KSC this causes problems with placeing payloads in polar orbits.

Offline BogoMIPS

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #14 on: 01/29/2006 03:07 pm »
Quote
rubicondsrv - 29/1/2006  8:20 AM

both the CLV and atlas V heavy are years away.
also I doubt the CLV has the same launch environment as EELV.
also CLV will only launch from KSC this causes problems with placeing payloads in polar orbits.

I would have to agree... I doubt Delta IV's retirement will occur until a viable replacement is less than 6 months away.

As for the polar launch options, I would imagine that since NASA needs to make infrastructure changes to support CLV/CaLV launches from KSC, they (or USAF) could make similar changes at Vandenburg if the need presented itself.  

Wasn't there an article on here somewhere about the current state of SLC-6?

Offline rubicondsrv

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Liked: 225
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #15 on: 01/29/2006 04:22 pm »
the shuttle pad at vandenburg has been converted for use by delta IV.
the only way i can see delta IV going awat is if another US build EELV type launcher becomes availible as the USAF wants two families of launchers in case of a problem with one.

Offline Rocket Guy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1349
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #16 on: 01/29/2006 09:12 pm »
Quote
rubicondsrv - 29/1/2006  9:20 AM

atlas V heavy are years away

The Atlas V Heavy is open for buyers, but no one has expressed interest yet according to LM. They stated last year that if someone needs one it would be ready to fly in 30 months time.

Offline rubicondsrv

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Liked: 225
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #17 on: 01/29/2006 09:21 pm »
wich is almost 3 years assuming that there are not any unforseen problems.
I don't think that USAF will want one launcher as there only option fotr there payloads.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #18 on: 01/29/2006 10:37 pm »
Yet but what is the lead time for purchasing a EELV-H launch? It's going to take a long time to build the payload probably more than 30 months, so if anyone really wants an Atlas-H

Offline rubicondsrv

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Liked: 225
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #19 on: 01/29/2006 10:46 pm »
the payloads are already being built.
the main reason that I dont think that USAF will allow the switch is that it would mean that a failure of any atlas V could delay all there launches for a long time.
in the past they have had several different launchers with each performing a different task. a failre of one dose not lead to problems with the others.
that is the reason thad there are two EELVs if there is a problem with one you can continue launces with the other.

Offline Daniel Handlin

  • NSF CEV/SDLV Editor
  • Member
  • Posts: 51
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #20 on: 02/01/2006 12:36 am »
It seems like an unlikely move to me, if only because it's awfully reminiscent of the USAF resistance to putting all their eggs in the Shuttle 'basket' in the 1980s. Via the same logic it would be foolhardy to rely solely on the Atlas V Heavy or even the whole Atlas V family.

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #21 on: 02/03/2006 05:54 pm »
I would rather have one HLLV and one EELV--- than two EELVs and no heavy lift.

We already have a glut of these "up-to-twenty-tons-but-no-more" vehicles.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #22 on: 02/03/2006 06:53 pm »
So you want to take us back to the mid to late 80's with no access to space?  There is no two EELV's vs CaLV.  One is Air Force/ commercial and the other is NASA.   They are  not in competition each other.

Offline Daniel Handlin

  • NSF CEV/SDLV Editor
  • Member
  • Posts: 51
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #23 on: 02/04/2006 01:38 am »
Quote
Jim - 3/2/2006  2:53 PM

So you want to take us back to the mid to late 80's with no access to space?  There is no two EELV's vs CaLV.  One is Air Force/ commercial and the other is NASA.   They are  not in competition each other.

We need both. There will be the 5-ton commercial satellites for the Delta 4s and Atlas 5s and there will be the 100-ton real space stations and lunar exploration cargo shipments. Both sizes of booster are necessary to complement each other. I think we need to keep the Delta and Atlas for Air Force launches, other small launches, and for redundancy in case of a booster family problem, and also to develop the CLV and CaLV so we can finally have a robust manned space program. It's not a competition. Cooperation is necessary between the USAF and NASA, and even between the "Small Booster is good and Big Dumb Booster are bad" and the "Heavy-lift good, medium-lift evil" crowds (though that could be hard to manage).

Offline Delta Manager

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #24 on: 02/05/2006 01:37 am »
Hey everyone. Superb website.

I just wanted to post that the story from the website linked with this story is 100 percent false.

Thank for for your time.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #25 on: 02/05/2006 02:43 pm »
Quote
vanilla - 4/2/2006  9:26 PM

Cool...most of us figured it was bull.  Glad you're here...stick around and let's talk Delta.  I'd sure like to see how we could get it into the ESAS as a replacement for the Stick.  Not a currently popular opinion, but I think they've majorly underestimated their difficulties with that rocket and that a modified Delta 4 could be competitive.  Here's an earlier post I did on the subject:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1258&start=181&posts=190

As Dr. Stanley stated all those mods you suggested would be a new vehicle.  One thing I see on this site is everybody is trying to play Lego's with the current hardware that exists.  It isn't that easy.  On OSP,  EELV's were the ride of choice, but adapting them for the mission proved to be very difficult.  I won't go into the details on the basic issues on human rating the vehicle since that it an emotional topic, but will list some of them:  1.  design safety factor 1.4 vs 1.25; 2.  malfunction sensing; 3. backup control of the stack by the astronauts; 4.  OSP avionics controlling the stack;  5.  redundancy.     The show stoppers were 1.  performance to orbit, depending on what typeof OSP (except for the stripped down versions) , the Delta IV Heavy had trouble lifting it.  2.  The lofted trajectories (due to their primary design of launching to GTO) would subject the astronauts to crushing loads during entry from aborts (fixing this brought you back to #1).  Dual or single production lines due to human rating, a single line with one type of standards would have raise the cost of all vehicles produced on the line.  And at last, 5.   Launch pad mods, dedicated or modify the current ones for dual use.  At the minimum, modifying the pads for a crew access tower was $500M, plus the interference with the current mission.

CEV is much heavy that an OSP, any EELV trying to launch it would be almost a new build.  There are some Atlas wide body variants that looked good but the Americanization of the RD-180 is an issue.  Your J-2 Delta IV would only be a Delta IV only in Body diameter because of your mods.  The second stage is designed for a 20K RL-10 and you want use something with 10x more power.  Also there are only 4 attach points for GEM-60's, and you want to put 4-6 large ones?  The pad can't handle more solids.

Also Boeing is really hurting with regards to money invested in Delta IV.  The have not turned a profit and  they stopped long ago on any upgrades such as the Advanced Upperstage (AUS with MB-60) and the Medium 4,4 because the business model showed that they wouldn't recover their money.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #26 on: 02/05/2006 03:02 pm »
Quote
Jim - 5/2/2006  10:43 AM

 I won't go into the details on the basic issues on human rating the vehicle since that it an emotional topic, but will list some of them:  1.  design safety factor 1.4 vs 1.25; 2.  malfunction sensing; 3. backup control of the stack by the astronauts; 4.  OSP avionics controlling the stack;  5.  redundancy.     The show stoppers were 1.  performance to orbit, depending on what typeof OSP (except for the stripped down versions) , the Delta IV Heavy had trouble lifting it.  2.  The lofted trajectories (due to their primary design of launching to GTO) would subject the astronauts to crushing loads during entry from aborts (fixing this brought you back to #1).  Dual or single production lines due to human rating, a single line with one type of standards would have raise the cost of all vehicles produced on the line.  And at last, 5.   Launch pad mods, dedicated or modify the current ones for dual use.  At the minimum, modifying the pads for a crew access tower was $500M, plus the interference with the current mission.


Jim,
Great post thanks, I was looking forward to the answer on what it would take to human-rate an existing vehicle

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #27 on: 02/05/2006 04:20 pm »
Quote
vanilla - 5/2/2006  10:33 AM

[
Dr. Stanley's already got a new vehicle build on his hands with the Stick.  This is much more modest.  The Stick is essentially turning into a Delta 4 core stuck on top of an SRB.  The design I proposed was expressly conceived to solve the very problems you brought up...the first one being that the Delta 4 now is a GTO design, and that is reflected in the highly-underpowered upper stage, which leads to the lofted trajectory.  I've run these trajectories in POST myself.  The solution is thrust on the second stage.  This means a new build on the second stage, which could be done to SF=1.4, solving that problem.  Interstage and intertank can also be beefed up.  Changing the safety factor on the tankage shouldn't be the biggest deal either--you've been to the plant, you've seen how they mill the isogrid, bend it, friction-stir weld it, put the domes on, and spray the foam on.  We're talking about changing the program that mills the isogrid.

The main goal with the re-engining is to slay this dragon of "man-rating".  If they're going to put J-2s on the Stick, then we could put them on a Delta.  But with a Delta-based solution, both the Air Force and NASA could save money by bringing D4 production more in line with the original goals of the plant, rather than duplicating all the manufacturing hardware again somewhere else.  As far as the difficulties of running multiple production lines, that doesn't concern me too much.  That plant has so much excess production capability that soon they will be running D4, D2, and Atlas V all together and still looking for more work.  A man-rated Delta could easily make its way through the production flow.

CEV is too heavy?  Yes, but don't worry...I have a solution to that problem too.  I can get the gross mass down to probably 2/3 or less than what it is now.

$500M to put crew access on the pad?  Sounds like bureaucratic padding to me.  Von Braun and Rocco Petrone probably could have done it for a tenth of that.

What so special about the Delta IV plant.?  MAF has the same capabilities and so Denver (for now).  Man rating is not just about the engines or the design.  The logistics and processes involved in keeping track of all hardware and materials that go into a man rated vehicle is horrendous.  

Right now Boeing is having trouble integrated two product lines, which will soon be 3.  A 4th would be too much.  the factory was made to crank out one type of rocket, not a smorgasbord.  I am dating myself here but it is much like what happened to McDonald's.  They could crank out alot of burgers in the days of old, but since they mucked up the menu, you have to wait for everything.

The $500M included "manrating" the pad.  

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #28 on: 02/10/2006 10:18 pm »
I am really worried that ULA was just a way to axe MAF. OSP was a way to keep the lifting body folks and the EELV folks employed--and was a way to kill shuttle and any HLLV talk. I love MAF myself and would not be surprised if ULA is trying to kill USA.
Another reason I don't trust LockMart  any more than I do Boeing. Their first CEV was warmed over OSP nonsense and anybody could see that.

Griffin wisely would have none of it, and none of EELV--and wouldn't fund t/Space's laughable little contraption--and all of the sudden you hear all this HLLV bashing articles and Griffin bashing nonsense come out.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: Delta IV Phase out
« Reply #29 on: 02/11/2006 05:15 am »
Quote
publiusr - 10/2/2006  5:18 PM

I am really worried that ULA was just a way to axe MAF. OSP was a way to keep the lifting body folks and the EELV folks employed--and was a way to kill shuttle and any HLLV talk. I love MAF myself and would not be surprised if ULA is trying to kill USA.
Another reason I don't trust LockMart  any more than I do Boeing. Their first CEV was warmed over OSP nonsense and anybody could see that.

Griffin wisely would have none of it, and none of EELV--and wouldn't fund t/Space's laughable little contraption--and all of the sudden you hear all this HLLV bashing articles and Griffin bashing nonsense come out.


You are way off base.  
MAF and ULA have nothing in common.
ULA and USA are joint ventures of the same two companies (Boeing and Lockheed).
EELV did not need OSP.  They existed before it and after it.  
The OSP concepts were capsules (only a few of the early ones were lifting bodies).   CEV will not be much different than the heavier OSP concepts.
The CLV and CaLV concepts were developed by a team of the manned spaceflight groups of Lockheed and Boeing with ATK.  They were actually causing the companies to compete against themselves.


Tags:
 

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