Somebody please tell me...

[aero313]

Why is SpaceX considered a "private launcher" while Pegasus and Taurus are "US launchers"??  Both Pegasus and Taurus were developed by Orbital Sciences with private money - upwards of $50M for Pegasus and $25M additional for Taurus.  Yes, the first missions for both were gov't payloads, but in both cases the gov't paid for a launch service, not the whole development.  This is exactly the same situation as SpaceX, where the rocket was developed commercially but the first two missions are gov't payloads.

[Tap-Sa]

Perhaps because both Pegasus and Taurus were built from pre-existing ICBM parts, courtesy of US tax payers.

[Jim]

Tap-Sa - 27/3/2006  5:19 PMPerhaps because both Pegasus and Taurus were built from pre-existing ICBM parts, courtesy of US tax payers.

nope, all new motors.

[Chris Bergin]

aero313 - 27/3/2006  11:10 PM

Why is SpaceX considered a "private launcher" while Pegasus and Taurus are "US launchers"??  Both Pegasus and Taurus were developed by Orbital Sciences with private money - upwards of $50M for Pegasus and $25M additional for Taurus.  Yes, the first missions for both were gov't payloads, but in both cases the gov't paid for a launch service, not the whole development.  This is exactly the same situation as SpaceX, where the rocket was developed commercially but the first two missions are gov't payloads.

We created the seperate sections as per coverage - if the question is in reference to the forum sections.

Remember, the site is just a year old as Orbital are carrying out NASA missions, such as ST-5. SpaceX are a private company working on becoming the likes of Orbital etc. Pegasus is a NASA/US launcher by such missions.

Welcome to the site, but please note your question might of been answered faster if you had created a thread with a specific title, as opposed to the "Somebody please tell me..." which can be hugely annoying if the whole forum was like that

[MartianBase]

aero313 - 27/3/2006  5:10 PM

Why is SpaceX considered a "private launcher" while Pegasus and Taurus are "US launchers"??  Both Pegasus and Taurus were developed by Orbital Sciences with private money - upwards of $50M for Pegasus and $25M additional for Taurus.  Yes, the first missions for both were gov't payloads, but in both cases the gov't paid for a launch service, not the whole development.  This is exactly the same situation as SpaceX, where the rocket was developed commercially but the first two missions are gov't payloads.

The small light weight launchers were developed with the financial backing of the US military, released from Hercules aircraft or supported by the US airforce, Taurus stage zero is adapted from the 1st stage of the Peacekeeper ballistic missile.

[aero313]

MartianBase - 27/3/2006  7:12 PM

The small light weight launchers were developed with the financial backing of the US military, released from Hercules aircraft or supported by the US airforce, Taurus stage zero is adapted from the 1st stage of the Peacekeeper ballistic missile.

That's absolutely untrue.  Pegasus used three brand new solid rocket motors specifically developed for that vehicle.  The development was done with private investment by Hercules (now ATK).  The rest of the vehicle was commercially developed by Orbital.  As for Taurus, the first vehicle used a Peacekeeper first stage.  At the time (1990) the PK motors were still in production and Orbital bought one commercially from Thiokol (with the Air Force's permission).  Subsequent Taurus vehicles (well about half of them) used the Castor 120 that was also commercially developed by Thiokol with a private investment of over $30M.

Actually, Pegasus did use one piece of gov't-developed hardware.  The Stage 2 flexseal was an adaptation of the one developed for the Pershing 2 missile.  I'm sure none of the design techniques or analysis tools or materials used by SpaceX (or Rutan for that matter) were originally developed by the gov't.  Of course, the SpaceX Falcon is just an updated Thor, after all.

[Tap-Sa]

Jim - 28/3/2006  2:47 AM

Tap-Sa - 27/3/2006  5:19 PMPerhaps because both Pegasus and Taurus were built from pre-existing ICBM parts, courtesy of US tax payers.

nope, all new motors.

Strike pre-existing, replace with pre-designed. From what I've read Pegasus used design from the cancelled Midgetman SICBM, to which OSC added wing and tail. Is this information false?

[Tap-Sa]

Here's one source: Access to Space: The Future of U.S. Space Transportation Systems, a US Congress Office of Technology Assessment publication from 1990.

Page 53:

Pegasus. The Lightsat program, initiated by the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA), has created a market for at least one
new small launcher, the Pegasus, capable of
launching between 600 and 900 pounds to
LE0.24 Pegasus is a three-stage, solid-fuel,
inertially guided winged rocket that is launched
from a large aircraft. It is the first all-new U.S.
launch vehicle design since the 1970s, though
it depends heavily on propulsion and systems
originally developed for intercontinental ballistic
missiles; it uses engines designed for the
Midgetman ICBM.

[Jim]

Tap-Sa - 28/3/2006  3:05 AMHere's one source: Access to Space: The Future of U.S. Space Transportation Systems, a US Congress Office of Technology Assessment publication from 1990.Page 53:Pegasus. The Lightsat program, initiated by theDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA), has created a market for at least onenew small launcher, the Pegasus, capable oflaunching between 600 and 900 pounds toLE0.24 Pegasus is a three-stage, solid-fuel,inertially guided winged rocket that is launchedfrom a large aircraft. It is the first all-new U.S.launch vehicle design since the 1970s, thoughit depends heavily on propulsion and systemsoriginally developed for intercontinental ballisticmissiles; it uses engines designed for theMidgetman ICBM.

SICBM - 46" dia
Pegasus - 50" dia

Not the same

[aero313]

Tap-Sa - 28/3/2006  3:33 AM

Strike pre-existing, replace with pre-designed. From what I've read Pegasus used design from the cancelled Midgetman SICBM, to which OSC added wing and tail. Is this information false?

Yes, it is false.  Let me try this one more time.  Pegaus used three brand new solid rocket motors developed specifically for that vehicle.  I worked at Orbital at the time, so I have firsthand information.  Orbital did initially evaluate existing motors and designs, but these non-optimum solutions did not provide the performance and cost benefits Orbital was looking for.  

Yes, Hercules relied on design and production methods that were developed on government programs, but the same can be said for SpaceX and any other small launch vehicle developments (where do you think the design techniques and materials for the SpaceX ablative nozzle came from?).  The one place where the claim that Pegasus benefitted from the gov't has some truth is in the production facilities for the motors.  Hercules (now ATK) has a tremendous solid rocket motor production facility at Magna, UT that was primarily funded by the DoD for ballistic missile production.   Pegasus motors were (and are) manufactured in this facility.  On the other hand, a large part of the increase in Pegasus cost from the initial $6M per flight (sound familiar?) is the fact that ICBM production (and Titan IV strapon production) has dropped significantly from the early 1990s.  This causes Pegasus to carry a much larger share of the facility overhead than was originally planned.

[aero313]

Tap-Sa - 28/3/2006  3:05 AMHere's one source: Access to Space: The Future of U.S. Space Transportation Systems, a US Congress Office of Technology Assessment publication from 1990.Page 53:Pegasus. The Lightsat program, initiated by theDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA), has created a market for at least onenew small launcher, the Pegasus, capable oflaunching between 600 and 900 pounds toLE0.24 Pegasus is a three-stage, solid-fuel,inertially guided winged rocket that is launchedfrom a large aircraft. It is the first all-new U.S.launch vehicle design since the 1970s, thoughit depends heavily on propulsion and systemsoriginally developed for intercontinental ballisticmissiles; it uses engines designed for theMidgetman ICBM.

And you believe everything the government tells you, right?

Here are the facts.  The SICBM stages were designed by three different companies.  Stage 1 came from what was then Thiokol Ogden.  Stage 2 was from Aerojet.  Only Stage 3 was from Hercules.  On the other hand, all three Pegasus stages were designed and built by Hercules.  SICBM used a number of expensive technologies to get performance, such as carbon-carbon nozzles and extendable exit cones on the upper stages.  Pegasus uses carbon phenolic nozzles and single exit cones on each stage.  (As a historical aside, the first SICBM test flight failed due to a crack in the fragile carbon-carbon stage 2 nozzle).  Finally, as was pointed out previously, SICBM is smaller than Pegasus, meaning the tooling is different, the grain design is different, the nozzles are different, etc.

[braddock]

Welcome to the site aero, and I think this is a great first thread.

I largely agree with you.  I think the differentiation is largely in spirit, and state of maturity.

Really, I find a lot of SpaceX's claims are kinda awkwardly constructed.  First all new engine design, except for this one and that one, in this class, etc.  First privately funded vehicle development, if you don't count our $100 million government launch contract, our partnership agreement with NASA, etc.  While I think their work is certainly remarkable, I try to avoid the PR claims in the articles.

Certainly, in SPIRIT, SpaceX is a very different beast.  The Space Exploration Company is coming in from left field with the mission not of becoming a profitable government contractor, but of colonizing Mars, transforming the launch industry, and basically changing the world.  And they have collected just enough talented people, and shown just enough progress, that they may just succeed.

Perhaps instead of classing SpaceX, Rutan, etc into "Private Space Flight", they should be called "Transformational Space Flight", which would likely include Orbital, Sea Launch, etc who are all trying to do things differently.  But it is dangerous to argue semantics.

Frankly, I'd love to hear about the early days of Orbital.

[aero313]

braddock - 28/3/2006  10:51 AM

Welcome to the site aero, and I think this is a great first thread.

I largely agree with you.  I think the differentiation is largely in spirit, and state of maturity.

Really, I find a lot of SpaceX's claims are kinda awkwardly constructed.  First all new engine design, except for this one and that one, in this class, etc.  First privately funded vehicle development, if you don't count our $100 million government launch contract, our partnership agreement with NASA, etc.  While I think their work is certainly remarkable, I try to avoid the PR claims in the articles.

Certainly, in SPIRIT, SpaceX is a very different beast.  The Space Exploration Company is coming in from left field with the mission not of becoming a profitable government contractor, but of colonizing Mars, transforming the launch industry, and basically changing the world.  And they have collected just enough talented people, and shown just enough progress, that they may just succeed.

Perhaps instead of classing SpaceX, Rutan, etc into "Private Space Flight", they should be called "Transformational Space Flight", which would likely include Orbital, Sea Launch, etc who are all trying to do things differently.  But it is dangerous to argue semantics.

Frankly, I'd love to hear about the early days of Orbital.

Thanks braddock.  I'm surprised, however, that you differentiate SpaceX from Orbital in that SpaceX "is coming in from left field with the mission not of becoming a profitable government contractor".  OSC in the 1980s was not exactly a mainstream gov't contractor.  Everyone seems to forget that in the pre-Challenger days there was a commercial market to be made launching GEO comm satellites on the shuttle.  Orbital raised over $50M in private investment to commercially develop the Transfer Orbit Stage with the goal of providing a commercial propulsion system to get these satellites to geo transfer orbit.  Unfortunately Regan banned commercial satellite deployment missions on the shuttle after Challenger and Orbital went to NASA as the only potential customer for it's commercial transfer stage.

Orbital next formed a joint venture with Hercules to commercially develop Pegasus.  Each company put between $25M and 30M into the development.  DARPA paid $6M for the first launch service on Pegasus - as compared to the $8M DARPA paid for the recent launch attempt on SpaceX.  How is this different?  By the way, DARPA paid just under $15M for the first launch service on Taurus after Orbital had put an additional $25M into the development of that vehicle.

Also, be skeptical of Elon's $100M Air Force contract.  That was awarded under the Responsive Small Spacelift (RSS) procurement and it's an IDIQ contract (Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity).  What that means is that there's a set of "catalog" prices for launch services over a period of years, but nothing is firm until a mission is actually exercised.  If you read the actual contract, you'll find that the $100M number comes from taking the value of the assumed but not funded RFP mission model.  The actual firm contract value is something like $30,000 to write a user's guide.  SpaceX isn't alone in misrepresenting an IDIQ contract, however.  Orbital got into trouble with investors a few years ago when it announced the award of a "billion dollar" satellite contract with NASA.  Turns out this was only an IDIQ award from Goddard under the RAPID satellite bus procurement and the POTENTIAL value was UP TO $1B if all options were exercised.  The firm value at the time was something like $50K.

Oh, and speaking of SpaceX claims, one that I've always found amusing is that their fairing design (clamp bands and explosive bolts for separation) has been 100% reliable in flight.  They must have Futron doing the math on that claim as well, since I remember the very famous "angry alligator" photo from Gemini 9 where the clamp band can be seen holding the partially deployed fairing on the docking target.

[josh_simonson]

There's a big difference between an established rocket maker modifying the size of a booster, and developing one from scratch.  Pegasus development was certainly considerably cheaper due to existing (government funded) experience, tooling and testing with similar rockets.

[aero313]

josh_simonson - 28/3/2006  1:44 PM

There's a big difference between an established rocket maker modifying the size of a booster, and developing one from scratch.  Pegasus development was certainly considerably cheaper due to existing (government funded) experience, tooling and testing with similar rockets.

Just out of curiosity, how was OSC an "established rocket maker" in 1987?  What do you consider "considerably cheaper"?  The OSC/Hercules joint venture investment of $50M from 1987-1990 inflates to $75M in today's dollars.   What do you consider "government funded expertise, tooling, and testing"?  The motor fabrication tooling was all purpose-built for the Pegasus motors.  I've already established that they were brand new designs - developed with private investment.  Yes, Hercules did use facilities that were originally paid for by the gov't.  The wing and fins were also brand new designs - by Scaled Composites in fact.  The avionics was brand new, and contrary to what Elon claims, Pegasus first used a networked distributed avionics design in 1990.  

If you think SpaceX is not using technology and experience that the gov't originally developed, you're being naive.  Friction stir welding of propellant tanks was perfected for the Delta IV program.  Aluminum lithium was used on the shuttle external tank.  Elon brags about the fact that their fairing design is copied from that of the Agena.  Pintle injectors come from TRW (lawsuit notwithstanding).  Graphite ablative nozzles were developed for ICBM programs.   Barber Nichols used gov't-developed techniques to design and build their turbopump.  Oh, and where do you think all the analysis codes and tools that SpaceX used for propulsion design, thermal analysis, structural analysis, and performance analysis were developed and verified?

I'm not saying that leveraging the gov't investment is a bad thing, in fact it's a smart thing to do.  I just don't understand why Orbital is denounced for doing it and SpaceX for some reason isn't.

[blairf]

Thanks for that on Orbital's history - always learing! The difference to me is that SpaceX clearly share the space cadet dream; big rockets, manned spaceflight, citizen astronauts, orbital hotels, Mars - the lot.

Also Orbital has morphed into a pretty hard core Missle Defence/Govt pork outfit. It probably doesn't help their case with space cadets that, by some accounts, they are responsible for the current SNAFU with Dawn (bolloxed design, cost over runs etc).

For what it's worth I am always amazed that Rutan and Scaled are held up as alt-space paraagons. Scaled is half owned by Northrup and most of their work is in composites for drones and other mixed assorted thing that shot.

[aero313]

blairf - 28/3/2006  6:16 PM

Thanks for that on Orbital's history - always learing! The difference to me is that SpaceX clearly share the space cadet dream; big rockets, manned spaceflight, citizen astronauts, orbital hotels, Mars - the lot.

That was also the case at Orbital in the first ten years.  Dave Thompson was a much bigger space cadet than Elon will ever be.  The difference is that Dave didn't have a ton of dot.com money and needed to figure out how to do it with other people's money.  Frankly, that's not necessarily a bad thing.  Unfortunately reality set in after a few Pegasus failures, as did the need to show a profit for stockholders when the company went public.  

If you're interested in the early years of Orbital, get a copy of the Harvard Business School case study.

Also Orbital has morphed into a pretty hard core Missle Defence/Govt pork outfit.

To be honest, that's one of the reasons I bailed out.  Orbital is going to be in a world of hurt when MDA gets reigned in after 2008.

For what it's worth I am always amazed that Rutan and Scaled are held up as alt-space paraagons. Scaled is half owned by Northrup and most of their work is in composites for drones and other mixed assorted thing that shot.

Actually, didn't Burt buy the company back several years ago?

[Tap-Sa]

aero313 - 28/3/2006  6:01 PM
 
Here are the facts. ...

Thank you for correcting the facts! Clearly you know them well while I'm just at the mercy of what comes up from Google etc.

Still, when a private venture subcontracts an aerospace firm to build three stage solid rocket while said firm is deeply involved in developing three stage solid rocket for the government it is difficult to avoid thinking that a) the two projects share a lot of design and b) the 'synergy' flows in the direction where tax payer's buck buys work that helps the private project 'for free' rather than vice versa. But technically almost all aerospace knowhow that also SpaceX utilizes now is at some point in history bought by tax payers.

I agree what blairf wrote about SpaceX and OSC. It seems that Elon is putting up a genuine, somewhat philanthropic attempt to achieve CATS, or at least bring it closer to reality. OSC strikes me as a firm which has no problems if it launches just one Pegasus a year (or less) as long as somebody with very deep pockets (like US gov) can pay them high enough $/lb to keep their business afloat.

[blairf]

For what it's worth I am always amazed that Rutan and Scaled are held up as alt-space paraagons. Scaled is half owned by Northrup and most of their work is in composites for drones and other mixed assorted thing that shot.

Actually, didn't Burt buy the company back several years ago?[/QUOTE]

http://www.aviationnow.com/shownews/03paris/topstor3_18.htm
is from the 03 Paris Air Show, I vaguely remember rummaging around in some on line Northrop accounts when I first read the news and finding a fairly tidy sum changed hands. Who knows maybe he has bought it back in the last three years?

By the way here is an extract from the Harvard review mentioned above
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4703&t=entrepreneurship

Quite a read - Orbital's story seems to be a fine allegory. A Ben Bova inspired start-up that dreams of privatising the final frontier ends up launching missles to be shot down by other missles. Sheesh

[aero313]

Tap-Sa - 28/3/2006  6:57 PM

Still, when a private venture subcontracts an aerospace firm to build three stage solid rocket while said firm is deeply involved in developing three stage solid rocket for the government it is difficult to avoid thinking that a) the two projects share a lot of design and b) the 'synergy' flows in the direction where tax payer's buck buys work that helps the private project 'for free' rather than vice versa. But technically almost all aerospace knowhow that also SpaceX utilizes now is at some point in history bought by tax payers.

I certainly won't argue that, but how is what OSC did any different from SpaceX using Barber Nichols to design and build their turbopumps while BN is also doing the same for gov't-funded programs, or having Spincraft fabricate tank domes using techniques and facilities paid for on the Delta program?  

I agree what blairf wrote about SpaceX and OSC. It seems that Elon is putting up a genuine, somewhat philanthropic attempt to achieve CATS, or at least bring it closer to reality.

I've always had a problem with the concept of CATS.  Where exactly do you draw the line at gov't support?  It's not OK to use commecially developed Pegasus motors because they're "tainted" with ICBM cooties, but it's OK to use analysis codes, materials, and design techniques validated on those same programs?  Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

OSC strikes me as a firm which has no problems if it launches just one Pegasus a year (or less) as long as somebody with very deep pockets (like US gov) can pay them high enough $/lb to keep their business afloat.

First, keep in mind that most Pegasus payloads cost upwards of $50M for the satellite.  If that were your money, would you rather risk it on an unproven low-cost rocket or would you be willing to spend more on a rocket in which you had insight (and in some cases oversight) to the flight assurance process.  Pegasus was $6M a copy at one time.  Several failures and partial successes resulted in process changes that increased both cost and reliability.  Unfortunately there's also the flight rate isse with launch vehicles - as price goes up launch rate goes down, which makes price go up, which makes launch rate go down, etc, etc.  Let's see what happens to the SpaceX price after the first half dozen launches.  Elon's got 175 employees now.  At SoCal salaries and rents that must add up to around $20M a year in labor and overhead costs.  That tells me he has to fly 4-5 rockets a year to break even (when you add in the materials and parts costs).  That breakeven doesn't include any recovery of his $100M investment, either.  If he doesn't launch 5 (and certainly won't this year) either he has to raise the price or he's losing money.  Maybe his motives are purely philanthopic (although that's not how he got where he is today), but at some point he flat runs out of money.  Clearly he's betting that he gets the launch rate up to a sustainable level before that, but history isn't on his side.  OSC went through this same problem on Pegasus, which is one reason why it isn't $6M a copy anymore.

One final thought.  There are a lot more Honda Civics sold than Yugos.  Sometimes reliability trumps low price.

[Propforce]

aero313 - 28/3/2006  11:23 AM

josh_simonson - 28/3/2006  1:44 PM

There's a big difference between an established rocket maker modifying the size of a booster, and developing one from scratch.  Pegasus development was certainly considerably cheaper due to existing (government funded) experience, tooling and testing with similar rockets.

Just out of curiosity, how was OSC an "established rocket maker" in 1987?  What do you consider "considerably cheaper"?  The OSC/Hercules joint venture investment of $50M from 1987-1990 inflates to $75M in today's dollars.   .

I largely agree with Aero.  As such, I do think Delta IV should be consider as "private launcher" for the EXACTLY SAME LOGIC !!

The Delta IV launch vehicle family, including the factor, transportation ship, and launch pads (both CCAFS and VAFB), was largely developed using the BOEING INTERNAL FUNDS !!!  The Air Force gave then McD A/ now Boeing ~$500M which is peanuts compared to over @2.5 BILLION DOLLARS that Boeing put in with its OWN MONEY!!!  

So I think we should call the Delta IV as "private launcher" whereas the Atlas V as "US Launcher".

[aero313]

Propforce - 28/3/2006  8:46 PM

I largely agree with Aero.  As such, I do think Delta IV should be consider as "private launcher" for the EXACTLY SAME LOGIC !!

The Delta IV launch vehicle family, including the factor, transportation ship, and launch pads (both CCAFS and VAFB), was largely developed using the BOEING INTERNAL FUNDS !!!  The Air Force gave then McD A/ now Boeing ~$500M which is peanuts compared to over @2.5 BILLION DOLLARS that Boeing put in with its OWN MONEY!!!  

So I think we should call the Delta IV as "private launcher" whereas the Atlas V as "US Launcher".

OK, I'm not sure if you're being facetious here or not.  Bottom line is that the gov't put exactly NO money into the development of Pegasus.  Not sure how the "EXACTLY SAME LOGIC" applies to a $500M development contract.  DARPA paid $6M for a launch service (just like the $8M they paid Elon).  Note that when I say launch service, OSC was resposible for delivery of the satellite to orbit.  Unlike conventional launches, the gov't did not take title to the Pegasus rocket.  It's just like hiring a trucking company.

Note that the $6M didn't even cover the cost of that first flight, let alone recouping any of the development cost.   Yes, the gov't paid for the Hercules facilities where the motors were manufactured - the gov't also got the majority of use out of them for other programs.  Today, the Pegasus program is actually carrying a share of the overhead to keep the Magna plant alive until Minuteman IV kicks in.  The gov't also paid for the development and production of the Agena fairing that Elon used as the model for the SpaceX fairing.  Does that count as gov't subsidy?  How is this different from basing Pegasus nozzles on ICBM designs?  What about Elon using an Air Force C5 to fly his LOX dewars back to Hawaii?  What about the fact that beneath the marketing puffery, Falcon 1 is basically a 1950s Thor with updated manufacturing methods?

The bottom line is that all launch vehicle companies are "a little pregnant" with some (and usually much) government funded technology.  That goes for Elon, Carmack, Bezos, Andy Beal, Rocketplane, Kistler, et al.  Even John Garvey (bless his heart).  They all use technology orginally developed by the gov't, most of it from missile programs.  It's just different shades of grey.  Trying to draw a line to say that this one is gov't supported and that one isn't is naive at best.  That's also why I was never terribly impressed by the logic behind CATS.  Unless your name is Robert Goddard, your launch vehicle has been gov't (and taxpayer) subsidized.

Oh, and should someone try to point out that SpaceX didn't have any launch contracts when they started development of their rocket, well neither did OSC.  The DARPA Pegasus contract came nearly a year after the start of Pegasus development.

[Jim]

Propforce - 28/3/2006  7:46 PM

aero313 - 28/3/2006  11:23 AM

josh_simonson - 28/3/2006  1:44 PMThere's a big difference between an established rocket maker modifying the size of a booster, and developing one from scratch.  Pegasus development was certainly considerably cheaper due to existing (government funded) experience, tooling and testing with similar rockets.

Just out of curiosity, how was OSC an "established rocket maker" in 1987?  What do you consider "considerably cheaper"?  The OSC/Hercules joint venture investment of $50M from 1987-1990 inflates to $75M in today's dollars.   .

I largely agree with Aero.  As such, I do think Delta IV should be consider as "private launcher" for the EXACTLY SAME LOGIC !!The Delta IV launch vehicle family, including the factor, transportation ship, and launch pads (both CCAFS and VAFB), was largely developed using the BOEING INTERNAL FUNDS !!!  The Air Force gave then McD A/ now Boeing ~$500M which is peanuts compared to over @2.5 BILLION DOLLARS that Boeing put in with its OWN MONEY!!!  So I think we should call the Delta IV as "private launcher" whereas the Atlas V as "US Launcher".

That is totally wrong

Both were/are competitors for the EELV program.  If it wasn't for the gov't requirements, there wouldn't be a Delta IV or Atlas V.  The gov't funded all phases leading up to development and then contributed $500M towards development.  The contractors could put in their own money for the development at their discretion.  The gov't then held another competition for Buy 1, which they will pay or paid for the vehicles and launch sites used.

LM sized their vehicle so it could use some existing infrastructure.  Boeing chose all new infrastructure.  These were business decisions, one contractor just made the better one.  LM used the Atlas III program to qualify most of the hardware for Atlas V.  Boeing tried to do some with Delta III

Delta IV had only one commercial customer and is no longer seeking them, focusing on gov't missions.  

Atlas has yet to fly an "EELV" mission.

Delta IV is more gov't vehicle than anything.

[Tap-Sa]

aero313 - 29/3/2006  3:30 AM
 
I've always had a problem with the concept of CATS.  Where exactly do you draw the line at gov't support?  It's not OK to use commecially developed Pegasus motors because they're "tainted" with ICBM cooties, but it's OK to use analysis codes, materials, and design techniques validated on those same programs?  Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

Personally I don't give a rats rear end how CATS gets achieved as long as it does. If some future fully gov't payed Minuteman VII turns out to be so cheap to manufacture that it allows, say three digit $/kg price then by all means lets use it!

What is CATS and where's the line you mentioned? I think the three digit pricetag is relatively good starting point. It's impossible to avoid 100% gov't support, as you wrote about needing to be Goddard for that. IMO the line gets crossed when gov't somehow continues to directly subsidize operative vehicle. Example of this is building launch vehicles from decomissioned ICBM parts, manufacturer probably buys them for peanuts compared to what the government originally paid for them. Not to mention the Russian converted ICBMs.

You've demonstrated that technically speaking SpaceX's Falcon is not that much different from Pegasus, and have a valid point that latter may be under wrong topic at this site. Whether it changes place that's up to Chris the sitekeeper. But I doubt that this enlightening thread would propel your average space cadets into making waves next time Pegasus/Taurus/Minotaur flies. The cadets want to see change, higher flight rates at cheaper rates, more action up there. Does not look like OSC has/is going to offer anything to help with that, unlike SpaceX which has published plans up to EELV class. It will be interesting to see whether those plans work out or fail as unsubstantiated hubris.

One final thought.  There are a lot more Honda Civics sold than Yugos.  Sometimes reliability trumps low price.

Had to so some digging to find out what Yugo was. These Serbian wonders weren't marketed here, Russian Ladas were the counterpart. After carefully studying their advertising I discovered the obvious failure; nobody noticed the car

With some (well, a lot) wishful thinking Falcon line will become the Civic of space transportation while Russian Volnas be the Yugos.

[aero313]

Tap-Sa - 29/3/2006  11:20 AM

Had to so some digging to find out what Yugo was. These Serbian wonders weren't marketed here, Russian Ladas were the counterpart.

Sorry about the confusion.  Yugos were sold in the US for a few years, mainly to provide fodder for jokes.  The concensus among car enthusiast magazines was that you'd be better off buying a three year old Honda than a new Yugo.

[aero313]

Tap-Sa - 29/3/2006  11:20 AM

What is CATS and where's the line you mentioned?

http://www.space-frontier.org/Projects/CatsPrize/

The CATS Prize (Cheap Access To Space) was an X-prize-like competition for a cheap "Non-governmental Development" orbital launch vehicle.  The rules included items like:

"There shall be no substantial use of Government derived designs or surplus hardware used for the propulsion system or vehicle airframe."

Although, apparently, use of gov't-derived analysis tools, materials, etc was OK.  I find this hypocritical and I also agree with you that the metric should be cost to orbit, not the source of the launcher.

[Propforce]

Jim - 28/3/2006  6:53 PM

Propforce - 28/3/2006  7:46 PM  I largely agree with Aero.  As such, I do think Delta IV should be consider as "private launcher" for the EXACTLY SAME LOGIC !!The Delta IV launch vehicle family, including the factor, transportation ship, and launch pads (both CCAFS and VAFB), was largely developed using the BOEING INTERNAL FUNDS !!!  The Air Force gave then McD A/ now Boeing ~$500M which is peanuts compared to over @2.5 BILLION DOLLARS that Boeing put in with its OWN MONEY!!!  So I think we should call the Delta IV as "private launcher" whereas the Atlas V as "US Launcher".

That is totally wrong.  Both were/are competitors for the EELV program.  If it wasn't for the gov't requirements, there wouldn't be a Delta IV or Atlas V.  The gov't funded all phases leading up to development and then contributed $500M towards development.  The contractors could put in their own money for the development at their discretion.  The gov't then held another competition for Buy 1, which they will pay or paid for the vehicles and launch sites used.   LM sized their vehicle so it could use some existing infrastructure.  Boeing chose all new infrastructure.  These were business decisions, one contractor just made the better one.  LM used the Atlas III program to qualify most of the hardware for Atlas V.  Boeing tried to do some with Delta III.  Delta IV had only one commercial customer and is no longer seeking them, focusing on gov't missions.  Atlas has yet to fly an "EELV" mission.  Delta IV is more gov't vehicle than anything.

You're mistaken.

If you had followed closely in the early EELV competition days, circa 1995~1996, you'd note that it was the boom day of dot.com era with many satellite constellations being planned.  At the time, you'd recalled there was a race to market between the land-based vs. space-based wireless access (cell phone, internet, cable vs Direct TV, etc.)

Then McDonnell Douglas could have never been able to justify its Delta IV launch infrastructure if it had been solely based on the EELV manifest alone.  No mangement can justify this kinda of capital spending with a government contract alone.  If fact, at the time, the company was planning on capturing a significant share of commercial market, launching Delta IVs as often as once every 2 weeks, and the entire design philosophy focused on economic of scale and what makes sense from a business perspective.  

If you had followed the Delta IV development closely, surely you'd noticed that in its Decatur factory; the entire vehicle assembly line was design for high production rate, able to move 1 foot per minute and to assemble & test a vehicle stages in less than 2 weeks.  It's Delta Mariner ship transport via waterway instead of the interstate.  It's horizontal integration approach at the HIF in CCAFS.  Why would a company spend this kinda of their own money if they had only relying 2~3 launches per year from the Air Force instead of many times higher on commercial launches???  If you had followed its design process closely, you'd note that Boeing trained their engineers on business rationale for the Delta IV program.  Any design is supported by analysis of "payback period" and internal rate of return (IRR), etc.  A concpet that most engineers in this industry and at NASA could never comprehend.    

Delta IV's decision to focus on government launches was largely driven by the market reality with the collaps of dot.com, and the ability for the land-based wireless industry get to the market first therefore dried up the fundings for many of these constellation business plans.   Plus the fact that, now McDonnell Douglas was absorbed into Boeing, a commercial Delta would conflict with its Sea Launch business which could afford a lower cost for commercial customer who does not require Delta IV type of reliability.

But what has evolved in the past 10 years does not neglect the fact that Delta IV was designed, developed, and built largely on its own money.  More so if you consider the investment made in Delta III which later was adopted and grew into the Delta IV 2nd stage.  Lockheed at the time already had Proton, so they did not pursue Atlas V for commercial market hence delayed the Atlas V Heavy development.  

Delta IV was built largely as a private venture but now is dedicated EELV provider.

[Propforce]

aero313 - 28/3/2006  6:31 PM

The bottom line is that all launch vehicle companies are "a little pregnant" with some (and usually much) government funded technology.  That goes for Elon, Carmack, Bezos, Andy Beal, Rocketplane, Kistler, et al.  Even John Garvey (bless his heart).  They all use technology orginally developed by the gov't, most of it from missile programs.  It's just different shades of grey.  Trying to draw a line to say that this one is gov't supported and that one isn't is naive at best.  

Thank you.  Yes I was being somewhat facetious, but I did wanted to bring up a point which you summarized very well above.  

But technically, I could say that Delta III and IV are 'private launches' with the same logic you provided for the OSC launches.  $500M sounds like a lot of money, but compared to the total development cost for both Delta III and IV, it's a drop in the bucket especially if you consider the Delta III received no payment until the first launch with a commercial customer, and even then the price was largely discounted.

[Jim]

Wrong again.  If there was no EELV program, there wouldn't be a Delta IV program.  The US gov't was the kickoff customer.   Boeings investment doen't change that it still was a gov't program Heritage Boeing pushed heritage MDD to produce it like an airplane. 

Atlas V always has pursuing the commercial customer.  That's why they have the ability to able add 1-5 solid motors.  The Heavy version is a gov't requirement, just like the DIV heavy, there will never be commercial customer.  Atlas III was developed for the commercial market just like the Delta III.

Atlas can survive and flourish with the Proton, but Delta IV can't with Sealaunch?

I know this didn't work:
"you'd note that Boeingtrained their engineers on business rationale for the Delta IV program.Any design is supported by analysis of "payback period" and internalrate of return (IRR), etc."

The CBC's coming of the line need a lot of rework and there still are design deficiencies needed to be fix.  The most glaring shortall is

Atlas builds one type of booster.  Any booster that come off the line can handle 1-5 solid motors or 4 or 5m fairing.  Delta has specifics tanks that make up a CBC for 4 m or 5m fairing or 0, 2 or 4 SRM's.

[aero313]

Propforce - 29/3/2006  1:52 PM

But technically, I could say that Delta III and IV are 'private launches' with the same logic you provided for the OSC launches.  $500M sounds like a lot of money, but compared to the total development cost for both Delta III and IV, it's a drop in the bucket especially if you consider the Delta III received no payment until the first launch with a commercial customer, and even then the price was largely discounted.

At the risk of turning this into an EELV-bashing thread, I've got a slightly different take on your position.

First, I DO consider the Delta III and Atlas III to be commercially-developed launchers.  They were growth versions of prior vehicles that MacDac and Martin developed on their own nickel to capture the market for commercial GEO comm satellites that had outgrown the Delta II and Atlas II.  I fully support that decision, by the way.

Now along comes the Air Force with the goal of finding a lower-cost way to launch the multi-billion dollar NRO satellites that at that time required the Titan IV/Centaur at about $500M per launch.  EELV was originally conceived to be this Titan IV replacement and as most will recall, there was to be a competion between Lockmart and Boeing to select a single vehicle.  Unfortunately (and as with all launch vehicles) the Air Force quickly realized that two or three Titan IV-class missions a year wouldn't provide enough flights to achieve the cost reduction goals for EELV.  As a result, the program added the medium-class missions, thereby subsuming the market for the Atlas III and Delta III vehicles.  This, of course, completely killed any chance that the commercial investment in those vehicles would be recovered.  Far be it for LockMart and Boeing to turn down gov't development money.  Besides, it's always more fun to develop a new launch vehicle than to operate an existing one, plus paper rockets ALWAYS have better performance and lower costs than real ones with flight history.  It also didn't help that the Huntington Beach folks forgot how to develop a new launch vehicle after decades of Delta IIs (2 1/2 failures in 3 Delta III launch attempts...).  

Anyway, lobbying pressure convinced Congress to fund both EELVs, further diluting the mission model.  Unfortunately the EELV contractors were forced to maintain the mission model fallacy in order to justify their fantasy pricing, which is why Boeing built the Decatur facility with the capability to process 40 (!?!) core vehicles a year!  Never mind that there have never been anywhere near that many flights in that class in the history of spaceflight.

Of course the Teal Group predictions on future launch rate were wrong (Have they ever been right?  Remember in the early 90s when Teal and FAA both built annual launch rate predictions by essentially counting each Iridium and Globalstar spacecraft as one launch?) and the bottom fell out.  Now both EELV contractors have massive standing army and facilities costs.  Naturally LockMart and Boeing got their extra $100M/year welfare payments from the Air Force.

Just stop and think about it for a second.  The predicted increase cost increase over the life of the EELV program is what, $15 billion or so and counting?  Assume for a moment that Congress had not spent the $2B initial EELV development and had simply taken that money and the $15M overrun and used it to buy Titan IVs.  At $500M per Titan launch, the two NRO missions a year could have been covered for almost a decade and we'd still be over $15B ahead!  Meanwhile, we could have let the commercially developed Atlas III and Delta III cover the medium class missions.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion the EELV program smacks of the worst of Gov't white collar welfare.

By the way, while we're talking about Gov't-funded boondoggles, how about the money wasted on SLC-3E.  The Gov't spent $350M in the mid-1990s to rebuilt that pad to accommodate the Atlas III for NRO missions.  There were exactly THREE launched from the rebuilt pad.  Now it's being rebuilt again for Atlas V.  AAAAUUUURRRRGGGGHHH!

[Jim]

I am not an EELV basher for the record.  I think an EELV derivative would make a good CLV. I did work OSP and thought we were on the right track.  I am currently working on EELV class and Delta II missions.

I think the more the merrier when it becomes to LV providers

[Propforce]

Jim - 29/3/2006  11:52 AM

Wrong again.  If there was no EELV program, there wouldn't be a Delta IV program.  The US gov't was the kickoff customer.   Boeings investment doen't change that it still was a gov't program Heritage Boeing pushed heritage MDD to produce it like an airplane. 

You have strong opinions that's not backed up by facts.  The fact remains that it was McDD decision to pursue this as private venture.  In fact, the decision went back to the Delta III which was way before the EELV program.  

Atlas V always has pursuing the commercial customer.  That's why they have the ability to able add 1-5 solid motors.  The Heavy version is a gov't requirement, just like the DIV heavy, there will never be commercial customer.  

Hmmm... so where are these Atlas V commercial customers?  Where is the Atlas V Heavy?  Why wasn't Lockheed punished by the Air Force for not meeting the requirements?  

CBC's coming of the line need a lot of rework and there still are design deficiencies needed to be fix.  The most glaring shortall is

..... is what? What rework and design deficiencies are you talking about?  How is this an argument about being educated on making a business case?  What launch vehicles does not require reworks and upgrade, Shuttle, Titan, Apollo?  What initial design has never later consider "deficiencies" by the new team?  

FYI.  There will always be "deficiencies" and "rework" by the launch site team, this is why there's a team at launch site just like there are T&V people at the factory catching little details and mistakes.

Atlas builds one type of booster.  Any booster that come off the line can handle 1-5 solid motors or 4 or 5m fairing.  Delta has specifics tanks that make up a CBC for 4 m or 5m fairing or 0, 2 or 4 SRM's.

Why is that a problem?  I take a sheet of aluminum and punch in the CAM tape for the right design... VOILA.. I get a new tank with minimum dry weight.  maximizing payload performance, kinda like how Michael Dell builds his computers.  Is that bad???  

[dmc6960]

Propforce - 29/3/2006  3:29 PM

Jim - 29/3/2006  11:52 AM

Atlas builds one type of booster.  Any booster that come off the line can handle 1-5 solid motors or 4 or 5m fairing.  Delta has specifics tanks that make up a CBC for 4 m or 5m fairing or 0, 2 or 4 SRM's.

Why is that a problem?  I take a sheet of aluminum and punch in the CAM tape for the right design... VOILA.. I get a new tank with minimum dry weight.  maximizing payload performance, kinda like how Michael Dell builds his computers.  Is that bad???  

If you want economies of scale, it is bad.  A CBC that needs different designs for fairings and SRM's is more of a NSCBC - Not-So-Common-Booster-Core.  It is like an automobile company not designing their car chassis to accept both types of engines they want to offer with the car.  So a second chassis must be designed, tooled, and built.  However then that second chassis now needs a different suspension, so the engineering, design, tooling, and manufacturing process must be put into that too.  That cost really adds up, especially when its all meant to go into the same car body.  Ideally the chassis would be designed to take both engines, use the same suspension, and just need different engine mounts to accomodate them both.  Much cheaper.

I realize that the initial design for the the EELV's did not include strap-ons, but if a single redesign is incorperated that allows all CBC's to accept any fairing or strap-on arrangement, the cost savings would overtake any small losses in vehicle performance for a less-equipped model.  Trying to get the absolute most out of every combination is over-engineering.  It is actually one thing that Elon Musk has specificly stated he will not do with the Falcon.  The Falcon 5 was originally going to be designed to take 5 Merlin engines, 2 Kestrel upper stage engines, and be sized exactly for its task.  With deciding to develop Falcon 9, the vehicle had to be way upsized.  Calculations then showed that removing 4 engines (to again have a total of 5), and only partially filling the fuel tanks, it could achieve similar performance to the original Falcon 5 design - far from an engineering ideal - but still good enough for a market in its lifting range.  Once in production, they will only be producing one vehicle, one set of tooling, one engineered plan.  KISS.

[aero313]

dmc6960 - 29/3/2006  5:10 PM

It is like an automobile company not designing their car chassis to accept both types of engines they want to offer with the car.  So a second chassis must be designed, tooled, and built.  However then that second chassis now needs a different suspension, so the engineering, design, tooling, and manufacturing process must be put into that too.  That cost really adds up, especially when its all meant to go into the same car body.  Ideally the chassis would be designed to take both engines, use the same suspension, and just need different engine mounts to accomodate them both.  Much cheaper.

Actually, consider the Chevy pickup line.  They have the 1500, 2500, and 3500.  All use the same basic body, but in fact it is NOT efficient for all three truck series to use the same frame and suspension.  The heavier duty trucks use a beefier frame and stronger springs, axles, and control arms.  The hard points (that is, the places where the body shell, engine mounts, suspension mounts, etc bolt to the frame) are all in the same places so they can use the same assembly lines, but the actual parts are tailored to the application.

In fact, in most cases, the mass and complexity penalty of "modularity" is more than outweighed by the performance benefits.  The modular PC is frequently held up as a model for modular launchers, but the PC doesn't need to lift it's own weight.  The cost of including modularity for add-in cards is not that great.  Contrast this to a laptop, which for the most part does not have modularity.

The fundamental problem is that mass fraction really matters in a launch vehicle - much more so than in a PC, truck, or airplane.

Trying to get the absolute most out of every combination is over-engineering.

Actually, it should always be a cost-benefit trade.  A more expensive customized solution may make financial sense.  The important metric ISN'T dollars per pound to orbit.  The important figure is life cycle cost to do a mission.  To stretch the analogy above, the launch vehicle is just the delivery truck.  Sometimes it makes sense to spend more money for an air-ride truck than to make your cargo beefier to survive delivery in a standard truck.  In my experience in the launch vehicle world, it is almost always cheaper (in the overall scope of mission cost) to change the launcher to accommodate the satellite than the other way around.   The thing that most people lose sight of is that in the scheme of mission life cycle costs, the cost of launch - even at EELV prices - is probably 20% of the total mission cost.  This, by the way, is why NASA would rather pay $20M for a Pegasus that's been through their mission success review process than $6M for an unproven and unreviewed SpaceX Falcon 1.  That also doesn't account for the intangible costs when a NASA mission fails due to the launch vehicle, resulting in political and media criticism.  (By the way, Elon's $6M number does not include the costs of actually executing a NASA mission - costs that ARE in the Pegasus number. )

It is actually one thing that Elon Musk has specificly stated he will not do with the Falcon.  The Falcon 5 was originally going to be designed to take 5 Merlin engines, 2 Kestrel upper stage engines, and be sized exactly for its task.  With deciding to develop Falcon 9, the vehicle had to be way upsized.  Calculations then showed that removing 4 engines (to again have a total of 5), and only partially filling the fuel tanks, it could achieve similar performance to the original Falcon 5 design - far from an engineering ideal - but still good enough for a market in its lifting range.  Once in production, they will only be producing one vehicle, one set of tooling, one engineered plan.  KISS.

Elon has said a lot of things that are naive or misleading.  If the Falcon 9 structure, with it's significantly higher payload capacity, were really used for a smaller Falcon 5 class mission, the weight penalty would be enormous.  Remember that this structure weight will be primarily in the upper stage, which is exactly a 1:1 loss of payload to orbit.  I also submit that even at a wildly optimistic 10 launches a year, you will not see very great economies of scale.  As for partially filling the tanks, it's trivial to keep tank diameter the same and simply set up the tooling to allow different lengths to be fabricated.  The cost difference will be negligible, but the performance difference of using a lighter, shorter tank will result in more profit from that vehicle.  Why would you not do that?  Ford can machine their modular engines with 6, 8, or 10 cylinders all on the same assembly line.  Would you use a V-10 block and only put in 6 pistons for an economy car?

[Jim]

WRT to CBC or CCB's.  LM can assign any core to any mission.  If during the mission integration cycle the payload comes in heavy, just add a solid.  As for Delta once a Medium+(4,2) always a 4,2.  A plain Medium can't be upgraded.  So early in the production cycle, it has to be determined was it is going to be.

[Jim]

Propforce - 29/3/2006  3:29 PMYou have strong opinions that's not backed up by facts.  The fact remains that it was McDD decision to pursue this as private venture.  In fact, the decision went back to the Delta III which was way before the EELV program.  Hmmm... so where are these Atlas V commercial customers?  Where is the Atlas V Heavy?  Why wasn't Lockheed punished by the Air Force for not meeting the requirements?  

The EELV program goes way back to the late 80's.  Before Boeing, before RIFCA, before Delta III. I was in the AF.

All except for two (NASA) Atlas V have been  commercial (5).    Next one is commercial.  AF told LM not to make the Heavy, but then again they requested LM to do west coast. 

The DIV  Medium fails to meet the EELV requirements, it can't get 10K to GTO

LM now has the lion's share of the EELV missions

[Propforce]

With all due respect this IS rocket science.

This industry does not do mass production, it does not have the business volume to support such.  It does not NEED to imitate what PC industry or auto industry design practice because we subscribe to a different business model.  

Aero has it right.  Payload performance is king.  When you consider the payload weight delivered to orbit is less than 5% of vehicle's gross take off weight (GLOW), every piece of structure is analyzed and reduced to within allowable margin of safety.  For the 2nd stage the dry weight to payload trade is 1:1, and X:1 for the first stage depending on the each launch vehicle but the X is not a very large number.  Take a look around at the Atlas V factory, are there any extra CCB laying around because they just crank them out without a mission designation???  Every single CCB tank is accounted for each specific mission.  In fact, each RD-180 and/or each RL-10 are tagged for specific missioin based on it's specific ATP value.  It would be foolish for Lockheed to do otherwise.

Commonality (plug & play) is achieved in the component & subsystem level with onboard computer & avionic boxes, pneumatic & propulsion subsystems, separation devices and FTS.  This is where economic of scale comes in.

The big part of mission planning for a launch provider is working with each payload customer, and this process starts as early as 2~3 years before launch.  Payload attachment & interfaces to the PAF are carefully coordinated to ensure payload does not need extra environmental qualifications (vibration, acoustics, etc.).  

[Jim]

Propforce - 29/3/2006  6:15 PMWith all due respect this IS rocket science. This industry does not do mass production, it does not have the business volume to support such.  It does not NEED to imitate what PC industry or auto industry design practice because we subscribe to a different business model.  Aero has it right.  Payload performance is king.  When you consider the payload weight delivered to orbit is less than 5% of vehicle's gross take off weight (GLOW), every piece of structure is analyzed and reduced to within allowable margin of safety.  For the 2nd stage the dry weight to payload trade is 1:1, and X:1 for the first stage depending on the each launch vehicle but the X is not a very large number.  Take a look around at the Atlas V factory, are there any extra CCB laying around because they just crank them out without a mission designation???  Every single CCB tank is accounted for each specific mission.  In fact, each RD-180 and/or each RL-10 are tagged for specific missioin based on it's specific ATP value.  It would be foolish for Lockheed to do otherwise.Commonality (plug & play) is achieved in the component & subsystem level with onboard computer & avionic boxes, pneumatic & propulsion subsystems, separation devices and FTS.  This is where economic of scale comes in.The big part of mission planning for a launch provider is working with each payload customer, and this process starts as early as 2~3 years before launch.  Payload attachment & interfaces to the PAF are carefully coordinated to ensure payload does not need extra environmental qualifications (vibration, acoustics, etc.).  

Wrong.

Preaching to the choir.  I do mission integration for a living.

MRO swapped out Centaurs at L-7 months and almost did the same with the CCB.  LM does have capability to do the swaps.  The next launch used CCB orginally designated for another mission.  They actually brag about their "plug and play" capability wrt to CCB's and Centaurs.  I agree perfornance is king, but with the EELV class LV, there excess lift capability for most missions.  LM CCB's will all be the same.  Only exception is if they build a heavy

[James Lowe1]

Heated discussion is fine, so pre-emptive note of ensuring everyone remains civil.

[Propforce]

Jim - 29/3/2006  3:37 PM

The EELV program goes way back to the late 80's.  Before Boeing, before RIFCA, before Delta III. I was in the AF.

You may have been in the Air Force then, but you're confusing "studies" with the actual "programs".  In the late 80's, there was ELV and MLV, but there was no EELV as a program.

Here's some history on the EELV program.

http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=189&ArchiveIssueID=24
EELV history
In August 1995, the U.S. government awarded $30-million contracts to four companies, with the aim of ultimately selecting one EELV builder. In December 1996, it down-selected to two, McDonnell Douglas (subsequently acquired by Boeing) and Lockheed Martin. As the ratio of government to commercial launches shifted significantly toward commercial, the Air Force revised its plan to allow both contractors to proceed into engineering, manufacturing, and development (EMD).

In October 1998, the government awarded $500 million each to Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Development costs are shared between the contractors and the government, resulting in a national, dual-use launch service. By using very small integrated product teams interfacing directly with the contractors, the government is moving away from its traditional role of conducting oversight from large program offices. The EMD module gives the government detailed acquisition data and system development insight from both contractors. The government program office has virtually unlimited access to all but some highly sensitive and proprietary cost and pricing data.

The Air Force simultaneously awarded initial launch service contracts to both firms: $1.38 billion to Boeing for 19 launches and $650 million to Lockheed Martin for nine launches. These contracts also had several innovative features. For example, the government bought only launch services, not hardware. In addition, some provisions allowed for cost-effective launch postponements or delays if needed, and guaranteed the most competitive pricing for U.S. government launches.

The strategy enabled two further benefits: competition and assured access to space. Competition throughout the life cycle of the program is key to achieving the 25% reduction in recurring cost. And two providers using a standard payload interface maintain payload interchangeability between Atlas V and Delta IV and enhance assured access to space.

Common terms and conditions define the commercial business relationship and apply to all EELV launch services. Benefits include a single standard of quality, full funding traceability by mission and source of funds, quantity discounts for economically efficient buys, a single streamlined government-to-contractor interface, and real-time sharing of lessons learned. Each launch service is carried out via a separate contract delivery order with its own mission-unique statement of work and specifications established by the mission owner. Each delivery order for a launch service has a standard 24-month period of performance. Individual launch services plans, however, are highly flexible and can be tailored to spacecraft customer needs.

Aerospace America March 2002

All except for two (NASA) Atlas V have been  commercial (5).    Next one is commercial.  AF told LM not to make the Heavy, but then again they requested LM to do west coast. 

I stand corrected.   Astronautics showed the past launch history.  http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm

The DIV  Medium fails to meet the EELV requirements, it can't get 10K to GTO.  

That's not true.  You need to go back to the AF ORD and take a new look at the GTO payload requirement.

Take a look at Atlas V payload capability http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm

Look at Delta IV M (5,4) payload capabiliity.  http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delium54.htm

I don't want to post Air Force payload requirement is, but clearly even the Delta IV Medium+ (5.2) meet this requirement.  http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delium52.htm  So does a Delta IV Medium+ (4.2) http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delium42.htm

[Jim]

Original GTO requirement for the medium vehicle (no solids, this was a requirement) is 10K 

[Jim]

Jim - 29/3/2006  7:30 PMOriginal GTO requirement for the medium vehicle (no solids, this was a requirement) is 10K

The EELV program office existed before '95.  There were EELVstudies before that .   The SOW and the RFP for the 95 contract were started in 92-93 timeframe.  All the contractors were involve with commenting on the SOW

[Propforce]

Jim - 29/3/2006  5:05 PM

Wrong.

Preaching to the choir.  I do mission integration for a living.

Well... I am impressed.  

MRO swapped out Centaurs at L-7 months and almost did the same with the CCB.  LM does have capability to do the swaps.  The next launch used CCB orginally designated for another mission.  They actually brag about their "plug and play" capability wrt to CCB's and Centaurs.  I agree perfornance is king, but with the EELV class LV, there excess lift capability for most missions.  LM CCB's will all be the same.  Only exception is if they build a heavy

Yes.  Case like that happens all the time.  Engines can be swapped if the other one also meet mission requirements, so can tanks, avionic boxes, and the list goes on.  But you didn't read my point correctly.  How many of those engines/ tanks were sitting there with NO MISSIONs designated?  

[Propforce]

aero313 - 29/3/2006  12:46 PM

At the risk of turning this into an EELV-bashing thread, I've got a slightly different take on your position.

First, I DO consider the Delta III and Atlas III to be commercially-developed launchers.  They were growth versions of prior vehicles that MacDac and Martin developed on their own nickel to capture the market for commercial GEO comm satellites that had outgrown the Delta II and Atlas II.  I fully support that decision, by the way.

Actually I do agree with you on that.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion the EELV program smacks of the worst of Gov't white collar welfare.

Well... what the EELVs have evolved in the last few years have taken a totally different path, mainly due to the dry-up commercial launch market, and the foreign launchers that do not need to meet NRO's stringent launch reliability requirements.

What both companies, Boeing and Lockheed, are saying by forming a ULA is in fact "Mr. Air Force, you wanted EELV for assured access to space, so now it's your baby.  Support it (PAY for it) or we're shutting it down since we can't make any money with it".  Unfortunately that's the business reality decided by the CEOs.  They did the same with the Shuttle contract by forming the USA: "these people are YOURS, keep them employed or fire them, it's up to you Mr. NASA".

[Jim]

Propforce - 29/3/2006  7:38 PM

Jim - 29/3/2006  5:05 PMWrong.

Preaching to the choir.  I do mission integration for a living.

Well... I am impressed.  

MRO swapped out Centaurs at L-7 months and almost did the same with the CCB.  LM does have capability to do the swaps.  The next launch used CCB orginally designated for another mission.  They actually brag about their "plug and play" capability wrt to CCB's and Centaurs.  I agree perfornance is king, but with the EELV class LV, there excess lift capability for most missions.  LM CCB's will all be the same.  Only exception is if they build a heavy

Yes.  Case like that happens all the time.  Engines can be swapped if the other one also meet mission requirements, so can tanks, avionic boxes, and the list goes on.  But you didn't read my point correctly.  How many of those engines/ tanks were sitting there with NO MISSIONs designated?  

one CCB and about 10 RD-180's

[Propforce]

Jim - 29/3/2006  6:32 PM
one CCB and about 10 RD-180's

Yeah right.  One CCB that was not slated to a mission coming down.  OK, if you say so....   Talk to your guys back in Denver.

I can see you need 10 RD-180's sitting around as you need to assure the Air Force you have enough just in case the political climate change in Russia.

[Jim]

Propforce - 30/3/2006  2:00 AM

Jim - 29/3/2006  6:32 PMone CCB and about 10 RD-180's

Yeah right.  One CCB that was not slated to a mission coming down.  OK, if you say so....   Talk to your guys back in Denver.I can see you need 10 RD-180's sitting around as you need to assure the Air Force you have enough just in case the political climate change in Russia.

They keep one extra in the production flow so that they can react quickly to a commercial requirement.  The contract for the next mission was only signed a late last year (maybe Dec).  If is it a spacecraft bus that has already flown, LM has launched within 6 months of turn on.

[Tap-Sa]

Propforce - 30/3/2006  3:15 AM
  each RD-180 and/or each RL-10 are tagged for specific missioin based on it's specific ATP value.  

Pardon my ignorance but what is 'ATP value' ?

[Jim]

aero313 - 29/3/2006  2:46 PM By the way, while we're talking about Gov't-funded boondoggles, how about the money wasted on SLC-3E.  The Gov't spent $350M in the mid-1990s to rebuilt that pad to accommodate the Atlas III for NRO missions.  There were exactly THREE launched from the rebuilt pad.  Now it's being rebuilt again for Atlas V.  AAAAUUUURRRRGGGGHHH!

It was Atlas IIAS's.

 But if you look at this way.  TitanIV production line was shut down.  The cost of one was more than  $200M (it would be greater with a production line restart) and Atlas $100M.  You can probably make a business case that it was cheaper to go with the Atlas and new pad.

[Jim]

Propforce - 29/3/2006  6:15 PM .  In fact, each RD-180 and/or each RL-10 are tagged for specific missioin based on it's specific ATP value.  It would be foolish for Lockheed to do otherwise.  

Cherry picking is not required any more.  They have plenty of margin. If not, add a solid

[aero313]

Tap-Sa - 30/3/2006  7:24 AM

[Pardon my ignorance but what is 'ATP value' ?

ATP is acceptance test procedure.  On the Titan program Martin and the Air Force would test each engine and cherry pick the ones with the best performance for use on the missions that had the least margin.

[Propforce]

Jim - 30/3/2006  5:40 AM
Cherry picking is not required any more.  They have plenty of margin. If not, add a solid

You don't have that much margin.  Not without the SRMs.

[aero313]

Jim - 30/3/2006  8:37 AM

It was Atlas IIAS's.

You're right.  Sorry about that.

But if you look at this way.  TitanIV production line was shut down.  The cost of one was more than  $200M (it would be greater with a production line restart) and Atlas $100M.  You can probably make a business case that it was cheaper to go with the Atlas and new pad.

That's not correct.  The decision to upgrade SLC-3E was made in 1992, with the Titan program still very much in production.  IOC was 1997 and first launch was a NASA EOS mission in 1999 (followed by the NRO missions in 2003 and 2004).

[Jim]

Propforce - 30/3/2006  1:06 PM

Jim - 30/3/2006  5:40 AMCherry picking is not required any more.  They have plenty of margin. If not, add a solid

You don't have that much margin.  Not without the SRMs.

Cherry picking was done for NRO payloads on Titan IV, which probably will apply for the DIV heavy.  With the range of lift capabilty in the intermediate range, spacecraft no longer are maxing out the capability.  If you at the EELV manifest, you see missions with 1-4 solids, meaning they are greater than the EELV Medium vehicles.  Original EELV concept had only 3 vehicles: small, medium and heavy, all with no SRM's.  Small was dropped, since it eliminated a configuration and spacecraft slated to fly on it, had their AKM's removed and are now to be directly inserted into their op orbit.  Meanwhile, commercial comsats got bigger and the EELV contractors added SRM's to help capture/prevent losing the market.  DOD took advantage of this and some of their medium satellites got bigger.  Anyways, if they lose more margins, they can add a solid and not fly at the hairy edge.

[Propforce]

Well... it is what it is today.  In this business, it's the chicken or the egg thing.  Eventually everyone wants to maximize payload to orbit, and we start to design ourself into a box.    

[Jim]

It has been or going great flying on an EELV from NASA's point of view.  MRO had good margin.  SDO, LRO and MSL will have a lot.  GOES had so much that they are going to a 3rd burn with the 2nd stage.

[Tap-Sa]

What about New Horizons? Did it push Atlas V to it's limits?

[Jim]

Tap-Sa - 30/3/2006  3:38 PMWhat about New Horizons? Did it push Atlas V to it's limits?

They had many ways to fly the mission and they could have used a Delta IV heavy.  The margin varied daily and whether it was going direct or via Jupiter.  Also it had a solid 3rd stage, which means the dispersions the spacecraft has to deal are  larger.

[Jim]

aero313 - 30/3/2006  2:13 PM

Jim - 30/3/2006  8:37 AMIt was Atlas IIAS's.

You're right.  Sorry about that.

But if you look at this way.  TitanIV production line was shut down.  The cost of one was more than  $200M (it would be greater with a production line restart) and Atlas $100M.  You can probably make a business case that it was cheaper to go with the Atlas and new pad.

That's not correct.  The decision to upgrade SLC-3E was made in 1992, with the Titan program still very much in production.  IOC was 1997 and first launch was a NASA EOS mission in 1999 (followed by the NRO missions in 2003 and 2004).

Just want to revisit this after shaking some cobwebs loose.  SLC-3E upgrade decision was pre EELV, and  the NRO had a requirement for a certain class vehicle on the west coast.  EELV came along and provided another solution, addtionally Atlas II production was discontinued.  Yes, money was wasted, but hindsight is 20/20

[aero313]

Jim - 31/3/2006  8:05 AM

SLC-3E upgrade decision was pre EELV, and  the NRO had a requirement for a certain class vehicle on the west coast.  EELV came along and provided another solution, addtionally Atlas II production was discontinued.  Yes, money was wasted, but hindsight is 20/20

Yeah, these were supposed to be the NRO's new "smallsats", where "small" meant Atlas II class vs. Titan IV class...  I guess everything is relative.

[Propforce]

Jim - 29/3/2006  5:05 PM
MRO swapped out Centaurs at L-7 months and almost did the same with the CCB.  

You got me curious now.  What was the reason for swapping out both stages?

[Jim]

Propforce - 31/3/2006  2:45 PM

Jim - 29/3/2006  5:05 PMMRO swapped out Centaurs at L-7 months and almost did the same with the CCB.  

You got me curious now.  What was the reason for swapping out both stages?

Block II avionics wasn't ready so the Centaur was swapped out with one with Block I avionics.  CCB was going to be for the same reason but was decided against.  There was one other CCB issue and I can't recall it yet.