Jim - 2/11/2006 8:44 PMWho is going to paid for the increased number on heavy and 5m Medium + flights if Atlas V goes away
Jim - 2/11/2006 6:34 AMHave to keep both. Delta IV has the heavy and Atlas V doesn'tThere are 5 Atlas V variants that have more performance than a Delta IV M+ (5,4) and less than a Delta IV Heavy. Any mission in this range would be forced to a heavyAtlas V has other positive characteristics that can't be discussed here
Was not the original EELV spec without all the solid configurations? I recall seeing the MLV-A and HLV variants only. It seems that the USAF was prepared to deal with this gap in the initial spec.
Dexter - 3/11/2006 1:07 AMQuoteJim - 2/11/2006 6:34 AMHave to keep both. Delta IV has the heavy and Atlas V doesn'tThere are 5 Atlas V variants that have more performance than a Delta IV M+ (5,4) and less than a Delta IV Heavy. Any mission in this range would be forced to a heavyAtlas V has other positive characteristics that can't be discussed here Was not the original EELV spec without all the solid configurations? I recall seeing the MLV-A and HLV variants only. It seems that the USAF was prepared to deal with this gap in the initial spec.
bombay - 2/11/2006 10:12 PMQuoteJim - 2/11/2006 8:44 PMWho is going to paid for the increased number on heavy and 5m Medium + flights if Atlas V goes awayI don't understand what you're asking. Are you implying that if Atlas V goes away enough Delta IV heavies and 5m + vehicles can't be built to support the manifest? The gov't will pay for what they need. The initial intent was to build and launch a ton of these things, not 3 or 4 per year. Delta alone would have no problem doing this.
edkyle99 - 2/11/2006 9:57 PMQuoteJim - 2/11/2006 4:31 PMAn EELV Medium would be cheaper than a Delta III, that's why there isn't any of those marketed.Delta II program is not going to last much longer either after the USAF turns the pads over to NASA.Since the EELV costs skyrocketed, I don't know what to believe about comparisons like Delta III versus Delta IV Medium, but I do agree that on paper Delta III is a more complicated and heavier machine and so I would expect it to cost more, all other things being equal.But I do think that a very good case can be made to keep Delta II alive for the forseeable future. It is the last U.S. launcher in the 2-6 tonne to LEO (1-2 tonne to GTO) class. Though it is not as cheap as it once was, it does cost less than the EELVs - and a few tens of millions can matter in a science mission budget. It is probably the world's most reliable launch vehicle. There is no question that it is the most reliable proven U.S. launcher. NASA has missions for it through 2011, as I understand it. If Delta IV went away, the payload gap would be between the 6/2 tonnish to LEO/GTO Delta 7925H and the 12/4 tonnish LEO/GTO Atlas V 401. That's a big gap, and a gap that offers an opportunity to build and launch missions for a lot less money than on the bigger EELVs. Someone - NASA probably but maybe others in out of the way Pentagon offices too, will be interested in that range along with the current Delta II range. These someones will inevitably, I believe, need/want to fund Medium launchers in this class. At first, they will only have Delta II to consider, but there will surely be other options in the future. Falcon 5/9 would fill the gap, for example, if SpaceX ever gets them to fly. - Ed Kyle
Jim - 2/11/2006 4:31 PMAn EELV Medium would be cheaper than a Delta III, that's why there isn't any of those marketed.Delta II program is not going to last much longer either after the USAF turns the pads over to NASA.
Dexter - 3/11/2006 10:10 AMBut Delta II is built in Decatur and will be part of ULA. "ULA will save money by reducing infrastructure costs."Or is this another example of eliminating internal competition like Atlas III.We want assured access but we continue to eliminate existing capability in favor of the Air Force's new toys.This is inane!!
Jim - 3/11/2006 6:38 AMQuotebombay - 2/11/2006 10:12 PMQuoteJim - 2/11/2006 8:44 PMWho is going to paid for the increased number on heavy and 5m Medium + flights if Atlas V goes awayI don't understand what you're asking. Are you implying that if Atlas V goes away enough Delta IV heavies and 5m + vehicles can't be built to support the manifest? The gov't will pay for what they need. The initial intent was to build and launch a ton of these things, not 3 or 4 per year. Delta alone would have no problem doing this.If Atlas V goes away, more expensive versions of Delta IV (heavy and 5m Medium +) would be needed to replace them
Jim - 3/11/2006 10:56 AMTrump card NRO likes Atlas. Anyone elses opinions don't matter
Jim - 3/11/2006 6:42 AMQuoteedkyle99 - 2/11/2006 9:57 PMBut I do think that a very good case can be made to keep Delta II alive for the forseeable future. It is the last U.S. launcher in the 2-6 tonne to LEO (1-2 tonne to GTO) class. Though it is not as cheap as it once was, it does cost less than the EELVs - and a few tens of millions can matter in a science mission budget. It is probably the world's most reliable launch vehicle. There is no question that it is the most reliable proven U.S. launcher. NASA has missions for it through 2011, as I understand it. If Delta IV went away, the payload gap would be between the 6/2 tonnish to LEO/GTO Delta 7925H and the 12/4 tonnish LEO/GTO Atlas V 401. That's a big gap, and a gap that offers an opportunity to build and launch missions for a lot less money than on the bigger EELVs. Someone - NASA probably but maybe others in out of the way Pentagon offices too, will be interested in that range along with the current Delta II range. These someones will inevitably, I believe, need/want to fund Medium launchers in this class. At first, they will only have Delta II to consider, but there will surely be other options in the future. Falcon 5/9 would fill the gap, for example, if SpaceX ever gets them to fly. - Ed KyleThere isn't a good case. The science community still wants the Delta II but at 2001 price. NASA soon will have to pickup all the infrastructure costs associated with the Delta II. Add those costs with the costs of restarting the subcontractor product line into the price of a Delta II and you have an EELV.
edkyle99 - 2/11/2006 9:57 PMBut I do think that a very good case can be made to keep Delta II alive for the forseeable future. It is the last U.S. launcher in the 2-6 tonne to LEO (1-2 tonne to GTO) class. Though it is not as cheap as it once was, it does cost less than the EELVs - and a few tens of millions can matter in a science mission budget. It is probably the world's most reliable launch vehicle. There is no question that it is the most reliable proven U.S. launcher. NASA has missions for it through 2011, as I understand it. If Delta IV went away, the payload gap would be between the 6/2 tonnish to LEO/GTO Delta 7925H and the 12/4 tonnish LEO/GTO Atlas V 401. That's a big gap, and a gap that offers an opportunity to build and launch missions for a lot less money than on the bigger EELVs. Someone - NASA probably but maybe others in out of the way Pentagon offices too, will be interested in that range along with the current Delta II range. These someones will inevitably, I believe, need/want to fund Medium launchers in this class. At first, they will only have Delta II to consider, but there will surely be other options in the future. Falcon 5/9 would fill the gap, for example, if SpaceX ever gets them to fly. - Ed Kyle
Jim - 3/11/2006 11:06 AMDo you have proof that I am wrong? What have your NRO contacts told you? I would benefit personally if down select was to Delta
edkyle99 - 3/11/2006 10:59 AMI refuse to believe that a Delta 7320, which weighs 152 tonnes at liftoff and uses LOX/RP and a pressure-fed storable propellant upper stage engine, would cost the same as a 256 tonne all-cryo Delta IV-M to build and launch if the payloads were properly assigned to the launchers according to mass. I also refuse to believe that "Slick Six" costs the same to maintain and operate as the much smaller, simplier SLC-2W Delta II pad, etc.. And yet tomorrow the Air Force will launch a DMSP satellite on a Delta IV-M, a satellite that could most-likely have been orbited by a 7320, wasting 5+ tonnes of payload capacity in the process.
yinzer - 3/11/2006 4:26 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 3/11/2006 10:59 AMI refuse to believe that a Delta 7320, which weighs 152 tonnes at liftoff and uses LOX/RP and a pressure-fed storable propellant upper stage engine, would cost the same as a 256 tonne all-cryo Delta IV-M to build and launch if the payloads were properly assigned to the launchers according to mass. I also refuse to believe that "Slick Six" costs the same to maintain and operate as the much smaller, simplier SLC-2W Delta II pad, etc.. And yet tomorrow the Air Force will launch a DMSP satellite on a Delta IV-M, a satellite that could most-likely have been orbited by a 7320, wasting 5+ tonnes of payload capacity in the process.That's not the right math to be doing. SLC-6 probably costs more to operate than SLC-2W, but the question is, if you have the need to put payloads into polar orbit that weigh more than something than a Delta II out of SLC-2W can lift, do you save more by flying a lower-marginal-cost Delta II and assuming the fixed SLC-2W costs, or by flying the higher marginal cost Delta IV whose fixed costs are already sunk.
Jim - 3/11/2006 10:56 AMTrump card NRO likes Atlas. Anyone else's opinions don't matter. End of discussion