LIVE: GOES-O - Delta IV, June 27, 09

[Ronsmytheiii]

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. – On Complex 37 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, the GOES-O and Delta IV second stage begin rolling out of the Horizontal Integration Facility aboard a transporter.

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4

[Ronsmytheiii]

[Ronsmytheiii]

Delta IV going vertical:

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4

[William Graham]

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. – On Complex 37 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, the GOES-O and Delta IV second stage begin rolling out of the Horizontal Integration Facility aboard a transporter.

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4

Pictures show the first and second stages of the rocket. Spacecraft won't be installed until it is vertical. For some reason NASA published the wrong image descriptions.

[Nick L.]

Cool, I always liked the M+ Delta IVs. I remember how much of a fiasco GOES-N was, hope this one "goes" smoother.

This'll be the first single-stick (as opposed to Heavy) D-IV flown under ULA.

[William Graham]

This says a lot about why Delta IV is not competitive. The launch date is April 28 and the booster has to be erected in late February!

IIRC, weren't they once targeting one month between arrival at the HIF and launch?

What went wrong?

[Ronsmytheiii]

This says a lot about why Delta IV is not competitive. The launch date is April 28 and the booster has to be erected in late February!

IIRC, weren't they once targeting one month between arrival at the HIF and launch?

What went wrong?

I couldn't point to an exact place, however isn't there a requirement that the LV be ready for a contingency launch in about a month?  So with a long gap in between launches it makes sense to put your LV on standby way early on the launch pad compared to normal processing.

The Only reason Atlas V would not have to go to the pad early is due to the vertical processing on the table mount, while Delta IV is processed on the launch pad.

[MKremer]

This says a lot about why Delta IV is not competitive. The launch date is April 28 and the booster has to be erected in late February!

IIRC, weren't they once targeting one month between arrival at the HIF and launch?

What went wrong?

Cost-cutting, perhaps? (need more time to complete necessary processing, launch preps and testing with less personnel than originally expected)

[Antares]

This says a lot about why Delta IV is not competitive. The launch date is April 28 and the booster has to be erected in late February!

IIRC, weren't they once targeting one month between arrival at the HIF and launch?

What went wrong?

Recall the classic juxtaposition of the artist's concept of the shuttle from the 70s sitting on its wheels in a hangar vs the reality of an OPF where you can't even see the bird.  It's the same thing: an overoptimistic ops concept.

Also, I think the launch-within-a-month requirement was for Delta II rather than EELV.  The original concepts for EELV were about one every two weeks if needed.  I don't think it's all a lack of staffing.  It's just not as efficient as they thought it was going to be.  This is pretty much universal across all rockets.

[TrueGrit]

Delta IV processing is slower due to three things:
- Additional processing requirements (i.e. WDR for each rocket prior to launch)
- Processing taking longer than original planned (i.e. actually 3 shifts not 2)
- Reduced resources (no 3rd shift)

As it stands Delta IV launches are staffed for 3 months for a Med/M+ launch...  Takes longer to process a Heavy.

[edkyle99]

Delta IV processing is slower due to three things:
- Additional processing requirements (i.e. WDR for each rocket prior to launch)
- Processing taking longer than original planned (i.e. actually 3 shifts not 2)
- Reduced resources (no 3rd shift)

As it stands Delta IV launches are staffed for 3 months for a Med/M+ launch...  Takes longer to process a Heavy.

I suppose that there isn't any hurry.  Only four Delta IV launches are projected for 2009, and one has already happened.

 - Ed Kyle

[Nick L.]

Delta IV processing is slower due to three things:
- Additional processing requirements (i.e. WDR for each rocket prior to launch)
- Processing taking longer than original planned (i.e. actually 3 shifts not 2)
- Reduced resources (no 3rd shift)

As it stands Delta IV launches are staffed for 3 months for a Med/M+ launch...  Takes longer to process a Heavy.

You mean they weren't originally planning to do a WDR for each launch?

[TrueGrit]

Yep...  original Delta IV plan was ship and shoot...  no cryo testing prior to launch.

[William Graham]

Delta IV processing is slower due to three things:
- Additional processing requirements (i.e. WDR for each rocket prior to launch)
- Processing taking longer than original planned (i.e. actually 3 shifts not 2)
- Reduced resources (no 3rd shift)

As it stands Delta IV launches are staffed for 3 months for a Med/M+ launch...  Takes longer to process a Heavy.

I suppose that there isn't any hurry.  Only four Delta IV launches are projected for 2009, and one has already happened.

 - Ed Kyle

That's probably a symptom rather than a cause.

[edkyle99]

I suppose that there isn't any hurry.  Only four Delta IV launches are projected for 2009, and one has already happened.

 - Ed Kyle

That's probably a symptom rather than a cause.

I believe that ULA could up the launch rate if needed - but it isn't going to be needed as near as I can tell.  Atlas V costs less and flies more, but it sits in its processing hanger for a long time too, and also has a WDR, etc.

 - Ed Kyle

[Ronsmytheiii]

I suppose that there isn't any hurry.  Only four Delta IV launches are projected for 2009, and one has already happened.

 - Ed Kyle

That's probably a symptom rather than a cause.

I believe that ULA could up the launch rate if needed - but it isn't going to be needed as near as I can tell.  Atlas V costs less and flies more, but it sits in its processing hanger for a long time too, and also has a WDR, etc.

 - Ed Kyle

Launch rates could increase if

a) Ares I is dumped and Delta IV is chosen as the LV

or

b) the market place demands a replacement for Delta II, which would be Delta IV Lite

both have a medium probability of happening at best, however in an either or situation that does lead to a good possibility of at least one event to increase the flight rate.

[edkyle99]

Launch rates could increase if

a) Ares I is dumped and Delta IV is chosen as the LV

or

b) the market place demands a replacement for Delta II, which would be Delta IV Lite

both have a medium probability of happening at best, however in an either or situation that does lead to a good possibility of at least one event to increase the flight rate.

I don't see either a) or b) happening.  Most of the Delta II "market" is already shifting to the EELVs, with Atlas V handling the majority.  The remainder, such as it is, will be handled by Minotaur IV, Taurus II, and/or Falcon 9.

 - Ed Kyle

[TrueGrit]

While the EELVs can take some blame for launch delays they are not all to blame...  The SVs are just as responsible for the continuing EELV launch delays.  In fact of the launches scheduled over the next two years only two (GOES-O/P) are built and sitting in storage.  All the others are still at the SV supplier and not ready to go...  So what good does it do to increase launch rate if the SV isn't ready to go?

And don't take my word on it.  Most of all of the reports and complaints of slipping schedules and increasing costs for space procureement has been focued on the SV side of the house.  I would be surprised if there was a single SV procurement during the Bush-admin that came in close to budget or schedule.  I know of multiple Delta IV payloads that have had 2+ yr slips due to SV issues.  And a couple that are indefinate hold and may never launch.

[TrueGrit]

Medium LV market is right now in complete disarray...  Mostly because the government launch rate has gone from ~8 to 1 per year.  That has killed the Delta II buissness model, increasing costs to near EELV levels.  That same launch rate has made it unlikely ULA can close the buissness case to invest in a EELV Small.  The more streamlined approach of TaurusII and/or Falcon9 could find some success.  But an average of 1 launch per year it's not a lot of buissness to share.

This could change, but only if the NASA and DoD science and R&D funding is restored.  The funding for the wars abroad, continuing SV procurement challenges, and Ares have killed the Medium LV market.  The Obama-admin could address these funding killers...  But I sense more than likely they will take any money saved and use it to pay down the now $1.5-til deficeit (can't believe I jsut typed til and defiect in the same sentance).  A government run health care system and alternative energy are the admin priorities not a healthly space industry.

[Analyst]

There are many reasons:

- EELVs are not as simple to manufactue and process than advertised,
- most DoD programs are a mess, massively delayed and reduced satellite numbers,
- ULA / LM / Boeing all don't care about commercial launches, which are available (Ariane, Proton), they are not competitive,
- NASA science missions are cut for budget reasons, mostly but not only to pay for CxP dreams.

In short: Suboptimal vehicles meeting not enough demand.

Analyst