Somebody please tell me...

[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