NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => ULA - Delta, Atlas, Vulcan => Topic started by: VDD1991 on 08/25/2014 09:02 pm
-
With only three more Delta II launches planned and given that the Delta IV is the only variant of the Delta rocket still in production, the question is whether or not if there will ever be a replacement for the Delta II. However, the Antares is the only active American space launch vehicle comparable to Delta II in height, thrust, weight, and payload capacity. It is therefore possible that Orbital Sciences may consider a version of the Antares as a successor to the Delta II that can carry interplanetary spacecraft and join the United Launch Alliance because its Minotaur rockets have been used to launch satellites for the NRO and USAF. In this way, the Minotaur and Antares may be seen as the replacements for the Delta II even though the Minotaur is far smaller than Delta II.
-
I thought there was only two left?
A Delta II replacement does *not* need to be an exact match in height, thrust, weight, and payload capacity. The biggest issue for Antares to be a "Delta II replacement" is probably the lack of an West Coast pad, and the likely engine change in the near future (going all solid?).
The other "Delta II replacement" is of course F9. It already has pads on both coast.
-
what payloads are demanding a Delta II replacement?
-
what payloads are demanding a Delta II replacement?
NASA does have a something like 6-10 missions still awaiting launch services acquisition in the medium-class range.
its Minotaur rockets have been used to launch satellites for the NRO and USAF.
About a year ago a Minotaur was used for NASA's LADEE mission.
And Lars is right, there's no real need for an exact Delta II replacement. Depending on requirements Antares, Falcon9, Minotaur, and even in some cases Athena or Pegasus could replace it as needed.
-
It is therefore possible that Orbital Sciences may consider a version of the Antares as a successor to the Delta II that can carry interplanetary spacecraft and join the United Launch Alliance because its Minotaur rockets have been used to launch satellites for the NRO and USAF.
Orbital can not join " the United Launch Alliance", because it is not an alliance but the name of a company.
-
A Delta II replacement does *not* need to be an exact match in height, thrust, weight, and payload capacity.
The only parameters are cost and capacity. height, thrust, weight,etc don't matter.
. The biggest issue for Antares to be a "Delta II replacement" is probably the lack of an West Coast pad, and the likely engine change in the near future (going all solid?).
And lack of performance for high energy missions.
-
But, polar can be done from Wallops without a need for a Vandenberg pad.
-
A Delta II replacement does *not* need to be an exact match in height, thrust, weight, and payload capacity.
The only parameters are cost and capacity.
A pinch or two of that Delta II reliability wouldn't hurt either.
-
But, polar can be done from Wallops without a need for a Vandenberg pad.
only certain polar, Sun synchronous
-
In this way, the Minotaur and Antares may be seen as the replacements for the Delta II even though the Minotaur is far smaller than Delta II.
Minotaur 4-6, Athena, Antares, and Falcon 9 cover a lot of ground and bracket, if not entirely cover, the Delta 2 envelope. (Falcon 9 is actually overkill.) The Orbital Sciences options seem likely to me to be able to evolve through use of more flexible upper stages in the future.
I agree that reliability is the biggest challenge when it comes to matching Delta 2's record.
- Ed Kyle
-
In this way, the Minotaur and Antares may be seen as the replacements for the Delta II even though the Minotaur is far smaller than Delta II.
Minotaur 4-6, Athena, Antares, and Falcon 9 cover a lot of ground and bracket, if not entirely cover, the Delta 2 envelope. (Falcon 9 is actually overkill.) The Orbital Sciences options seem likely to me to be able to evolve through use of more flexible upper stages in the future.
I agree that reliability is the biggest challenge when it comes to matching Delta 2's record.
- Ed Kyle
Wouldn't Falcon 9 with reused booster be similar in performance to Delta II? I'm guessing that's the mostly likely LV configuration to compete for Delta II type payloads. At least until Antares does something about it's upper stage.
Even if F9R still is a little overkill, it won't really matter if it's price point is at or below Delta II.
-
Curiously, I wonder if after the last Delta II launch if SLC-2E could be leased by Orbital, and if it could be made usable for Antares without a major overhaul?
-
It is therefore possible that Orbital Sciences may consider a version of the Antares as a successor to the Delta II that can carry interplanetary spacecraft and join the United Launch Alliance because its Minotaur rockets have been used to launch satellites for the NRO and USAF.
Orbital can not join " the United Launch Alliance", because it is not an alliance but the name of a company.
LOL! I wonder who would represent "the United Launch Axis" in VDD1991's scenario.
-
In this way, the Minotaur and Antares may be seen as the replacements for the Delta II even though the Minotaur is far smaller than Delta II.
Minotaur 4-6, Athena, Antares, and Falcon 9 cover a lot of ground and bracket, if not entirely cover, the Delta 2 envelope. (Falcon 9 is actually overkill.) The Orbital Sciences options seem likely to me to be able to evolve through use of more flexible upper stages in the future.
I agree that reliability is the biggest challenge when it comes to matching Delta 2's record.
- Ed Kyle
Wouldn't Falcon 9 with reused booster be similar in performance to Delta II? I'm guessing that's the mostly likely LV configuration to compete for Delta II type payloads. At least until Antares does something about it's upper stage.
Even if F9R still is a little overkill, it won't really matter if it's price point is at or below Delta II.
Answer is, as often, "it depends". In this case, its all over the map.
Delta is a charmed LV, declared dead too many times. Don't believe it until the flight vehicles are all used and the pad's dismantled :)
OrbATK has a few ways to go for Delta II class LV in house, but to get the same for low energy / high energy / reliability and market competitively priced launch service - well it's not in sight yet.
If you listen to Musk, then the capacity he claims eats / subsumes the need, which is not all that many launches annually. But he has a long way to go to get there.
Between these two providers, there's enough ambiguity to scare away other providers from addressing this segment.
In the near term, both of these providers (and ULA) will provide services, but not comparable to Delta for a long time, either in cost or reliability or capability (individually yes but not as a group).
-
Delta-IV Lite project has been reawakened from the shelves by ULA as a possible replacement for DII but they have not allocated a budget to finish final development. Boeing and ULA plans to begin further study in 2015.
-
Space Ghost, I thought the even the Delta II no longer provided comparable costs to the Delta II during the GPS build out. Hence the term GPS subsidy.
Also, wouldn't an "Atlas V Lite" make more sense than a Delta IV Lite? The Atlas V core should be cheaper to build than the larger Delta IV core. It is smaller, uses less metal, has a cheaper engine, and does not have to deal with that nasty expensive LH plumbing.
-
Space Ghost, I thought the even the Delta II no longer provided comparable costs to the Delta II during the GPS build out. Hence the term GPS subsidy.
Also, wouldn't an "Atlas V Lite" make more sense than a Delta IV Lite? The Atlas V core should be cheaper to build than the larger Delta IV core. It is smaller, uses less metal, has a cheaper engine, and does not have to deal with that nasty expensive LH plumbing.
yes, but ULA pushing DIV at the moment because of Atlas political issues.
-
Delta-IV Lite project has been reawakened from the shelves by ULA as a possible replacement for DII but they have not allocated a budget to finish final development. Boeing and ULA plans to begin further study in 2015.
Really? Does that mean the AJ-10 is still in contention? Hasn't production of that engine stopped?
P
-
Space Ghost, I thought the even the Delta II no longer provided comparable costs to the Delta II during the GPS build out. Hence the term GPS subsidy.
Also, wouldn't an "Atlas V Lite" make more sense than a Delta IV Lite? The Atlas V core should be cheaper to build than the larger Delta IV core. It is smaller, uses less metal, has a cheaper engine, and does not have to deal with that nasty expensive LH plumbing.
Go a step further. A SpaceX "F9R lite" with Super Draco upper stage will even be cheaper with domestic engines in mass production. Of course the chance we see a F9R lite is next to zilch.
-
Delta-IV Lite project has been reawakened from the shelves by ULA as a possible replacement for DII but they have not allocated a budget to finish final development. Boeing and ULA plans to begin further study in 2015.
Really? Does that mean the AJ-10 is still in contention? Hasn't production of that engine stopped?
P
I thought the Orion's service module main engine is a variant of the AJ-10. So it might be still in production unless there is a stockpile of them in a warehouse somewhere.
-
Go a step further. A SpaceX "F9R lite" with Super Draco upper stage will even be cheaper with domestic engines in mass production. Of course the chance we see a F9R lite is next to zilch.
How? You would be trading a non toxic Kero/Lox upperstage for a pressure fed upper upper stage with multiple Draco thrusters full of hypergolics.
You still need the tanks, the pressurization (actually higher tank pressures, thicker skins), flight computer, IMU, plus hypegolic compatable tanks while assuming the cost savings of deleting the Merlin and LOX capable hardware is enough to make it cheaper. The savings on Delta IV and Atlas V is in moving away from the extra costs associated with the LH unique hardware in the upper stage. The current Falcon by design has already done this.
-
I wonder if there's a way to build a short-tank F5R with a super-extended interstage so the upper stage still aligns with the support equipment on the F9 transporter-erector-launcher. Having a few of those in the FnR fleet wouldn't hurt much....
-
Space Ghost, I thought the even the Delta II no longer provided comparable costs to the Delta II during the GPS build out. Hence the term GPS subsidy.
Also, wouldn't an "Atlas V Lite" make more sense than a Delta IV Lite? The Atlas V core should be cheaper to build than the larger Delta IV core. It is smaller, uses less metal, has a cheaper engine, and does not have to deal with that nasty expensive LH plumbing.
Correct to both. Delta II is labor intensive for historical reasons. Delta IV core only in theory could be cheap as an "evolved" further concept - Boeing was trying to win the competition and over the course of time remedy (at cost) a variety of ... short cuts.
Atlas is quite another story. Again "it depends". On a lot of competing choices. In theory Atlas could give SpaceX a run for the money on same highest reliability/performance ELV's. Yes you could even have an "Atlas V Lite" - to do Delta II class you could use a very economical US. That would be my way of consolidating ULA vehicles into a consistent view for another decade or more.
What I was alluding to was something that doesn't fit with that view. Delta II revised with modern influences one more time. Not quite the same as current Delta II. Why it won't happen is a) the market isn't large enough and b) too limited commonalities.
Where ULA is headed is not in this direction as far as I can see. However some still think Delta II still has some kick left, and while that's highly unlikely given things, stranger things have happened.
Reading reusability into launch economics is hard because we can't cost out the flows yet, and the outliers are significant as to what could happen. Or it all could be a wash.
The new CEO can take it many different ways. Much depends on how the three opinions that matter define the ULA mission soon.
-
Also, wouldn't an "Atlas V Lite" make more sense than a Delta IV Lite?
Since the Delta IV uses Delta II avionics (for now) and that the Delta II upper stage is still "available" (unlike the modified agena stage for the original Atlas V lite proposal)... The Delta IV lite would probably be easier to develop at the moment.
-
Also, wouldn't an "Atlas V Lite" make more sense than a Delta IV Lite?
Since the Delta IV uses Delta II avionics (for now) and that the Delta II upper stage is still "available" (unlike the modified agena stage for the original Atlas V lite proposal)... The Delta IV lite would probably be easier to develop at the moment.
Both would cost too much and take too much time. The original Atlas V "lite" wasn't adequate IMHO.
-
Since the Delta IV uses Delta II avionics (for now) and that the Delta II upper stage is still "available" (unlike the modified agena stage for the original Atlas V lite proposal)... The Delta IV lite would probably be easier to develop at the moment.
Not really, second stage tank production was moved to Italy and ended years ago.
-
Space Ghost, I thought the even the Delta II no longer provided comparable costs to the Delta II during the GPS build out. Hence the term GPS subsidy.
Also, wouldn't an "Atlas V Lite" make more sense than a Delta IV Lite? The Atlas V core should be cheaper to build than the larger Delta IV core. It is smaller, uses less metal, has a cheaper engine, and does not have to deal with that nasty expensive LH plumbing.
Correct to both. Delta II is labor intensive for historical reasons. Delta IV core only in theory could be cheap as an "evolved" further concept - Boeing was trying to win the competition and over the course of time remedy (at cost) a variety of ... short cuts.
I'm sure the development costs are far too high, but...
D IV lite made with Atlas-diameter tanks, and a Sea-Level-modified version of J-2X?
Cheers, Martin
-
Space Ghost, I thought the even the Delta II no longer provided comparable costs to the Delta II during the GPS build out. Hence the term GPS subsidy.
Also, wouldn't an "Atlas V Lite" make more sense than a Delta IV Lite? The Atlas V core should be cheaper to build than the larger Delta IV core. It is smaller, uses less metal, has a cheaper engine, and does not have to deal with that nasty expensive LH plumbing.
yes, but ULA pushing DIV at the moment because of Atlas political issues.
I would call them geopolitical issues.
-
Latest geopolitical stuff is all going in the wrong direction. Reminds me of the bad old days, which am ready for. Admit to a certain desire for more Delta II inventory.
But its mostly gone. For years.
Its amusing to play what if's , but not very realistic. What was the virtues of Delta II also carried along considerable baggage now shed. Not enough timely reinvestment for any difference. Good decision to do so at the time.
The parts don't go together for Delta II in so many ways. You could revise the first stage and engine, but am dubious of solid thrust enhancement at a low enough total cost. Pad flows and integration need to change to also fit a modern cost profile that would be competitive. An all up new low cost high energy second stage would be mandatory, and there are some possibilities now. But the dev costs would be a killer. Time to prove a new stage also not small.
If you did get a viable two-stage concept with ten annual flights, but needed thrust enhancement, revise pad/flame ducts and have strap on boosters, if engine/booster cheap enough? Does it "buy enough"?
That's all I've got, I've walked too far out on the branch and its cracking. Its a long wait for larger scale options. Anything Delta IV related is unlikely to get to a better cost position either.
-
Dumb question (and semi off topic), but would a Delta IV medium core, with 4 strap ons and NO upper stage, make it to LEO with any kind of payload if the RS-68A was flown in partial thrust mode as a sustainer the whole way, or would it still fall short?
P
-
The idea of a Delta IV CBC making orbit has been offered previously:
What about a Delta IV first stage? It should be almost SSTO by itself, and with some solids perhaps it should be doable.
I seem to recall reading that a Delta IV 1st stage could make it to orbit as well.
Nope. Would make it into space, but lacks the isp to make it into orbit. Originally thought it could, but the final production RS-68 was found to not be as good an isp as they had hoped.
A more reasonable approach might be to fly the CBC sub-orbitally and use an off the shelf solid stage (perhaps a STAR-48 variant, perhaps a Castor-30) to insert the payload into orbit.
Anything Delta IV related is unlikely to get to a better cost position
I guess the question is whether ULA could sell a Delta CBC with a solid upper stage at no profit, and then whether doing so would make sense for them in any way. It could for example help suppress new entrants, or it could help maintain an efficient Delta launch cadence during otherwise slow times.
-
With only three more Delta II launches planned and given that the Delta IV is the only variant of the Delta rocket still in production, the question is whether or not if there will ever be a replacement for the Delta II ...
Part of the rationale for COTS new launch vehicle development and CRS was to provide a Delta II replacement for NASA medium launch needs; aka Antares and Falcon 9. (As stated in an ancient GAO report which I can't locate at the moment.) If ULA (or anyone else) thought they had a competitive alternative, we probably would have seen indications of it by now.
-
With only three more Delta II launches planned and given that the Delta IV is the only variant of the Delta rocket still in production, the question is whether or not if there will ever be a replacement for the Delta II ...
Part of the rationale for COTS new launch vehicle development and CRS was to provide a Delta II replacement for NASA medium launch needs; aka Antares and Falcon 9. (As stated in an ancient GAO report which I can't locate at the moment.) If ULA (or anyone else) thought they had a competitive alternative, we probably would have seen indications of it by now.
Many have grumbled about this, in that COTS was unlike CC in having the booster development, and that ULA wasn't allowed to compete here.
Yes Griffin horned in. Multiple issues. But the reason you don't see a Delta II replacement from ULA is strongly related to these concerns, which is why we have both Falcon 9 and Antares.
I don't think either Antares or Falcon 9 1.0 concerned ULA, and the annoyance with COTS was that it didn't fit into the EELV as they might desire (multiple issues).
Falcon 9 1.1 attempts to compete with EELV eyeball to eyeball. Of course they are concerned.
So you could see COTS as a "trojan horse" to have govt funding enable a rival, in the switch of Delta II to EELV.
-
Atlas V core with a Castor 30XL would make a good replacement for the Agena if you want a ULA Delta II category LV.
-
Atlas V core with a Castor 30XL would make a good replacement for the Agena if you want a ULA Delta II category LV.
But a Castor-based upper stage would not be restartable. At Atlas BECO wouldn't you pretty much have to fire the upper stage right away?
So for instance this launch on Delta II:
158 18 May 01 Delta 285 (7925-9.5) NROL-17 (GeoLITE)
(from http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/usmil-rec.txt)
Would it have been possible (without e.g. a STAR-48 third stage)?
-
Atlas V core with a Castor 30XL would make a good replacement for the Agena if you want a ULA Delta II category LV.
But a Castor-based upper stage would not be restartable. At Atlas BECO wouldn't you pretty much have to fire the upper stage right away?
So for instance this launch on Delta II:
158 18 May 01 Delta 285 (7925-9.5) NROL-17 (GeoLITE)
(from http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/usmil-rec.txt)
Would it have been possible (without e.g. a STAR-48 third stage)?
The Castor 30XL stage could coast for a few minutes before firing, as it does on Antares with cold gas thruster control, but such a two-stage vehicle would still be limited to LEO missions. A third stage of some type (Antares plans for a Star 48 or a bipropellant third stage) would be needed for higher energy missions, and that stage would also need to control itself through a coast phase.
- Ed Kyle
-
Atlas V core with a Castor 30XL would make a good replacement for the Agena if you want a ULA Delta II category LV.
But a Castor-based upper stage would not be restartable. At Atlas BECO wouldn't you pretty much have to fire the upper stage right away?
So for instance this launch on Delta II:
158 18 May 01 Delta 285 (7925-9.5) NROL-17 (GeoLITE)
(from http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/usmil-rec.txt)
Would it have been possible (without e.g. a STAR-48 third stage)?
The Castor 30XL stage could coast for a few minutes before firing, as it does on Antares with cold gas thruster control, but such a two-stage vehicle would still be limited to LEO missions. A third stage of some type (Antares plans for a Star 48 or a bipropellant third stage) would be needed for higher energy missions, and that stage would also need to control itself through a coast phase.
- Ed Kyle
Both Star 48 and BTS, such that you could adjust for tale off and correct insertion.
But this might be a pipe dream - thought it was BTS or Star 48 not both.
-
Atlas V core with a Castor 30XL would make a good replacement for the Agena if you want a ULA Delta II category LV.
But a Castor-based upper stage would not be restartable. At Atlas BECO wouldn't you pretty much have to fire the upper stage right away?
So for instance this launch on Delta II:
158 18 May 01 Delta 285 (7925-9.5) NROL-17 (GeoLITE)
(from http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/usmil-rec.txt)
Would it have been possible (without e.g. a STAR-48 third stage)?
The Castor 30XL stage could coast for a few minutes before firing, as it does on Antares with cold gas thruster control, but such a two-stage vehicle would still be limited to LEO missions. A third stage of some type (Antares plans for a Star 48 or a bipropellant third stage) would be needed for higher energy missions, and that stage would also need to control itself through a coast phase.
- Ed Kyle
Both Star 48 and BTS, such that you could adjust for tale off and correct insertion.
But this might be a pipe dream - thought it was BTS or Star 48 not both.
Only on Orbital rockets at this time. Athena reboot allows this one some versions, but Im not sure how up to date my info is on Athena.