-
#20
by
Jim
on 13 Apr, 2006 23:39
-
We were ready to do it for OSP. The ESAS has the Atlas X (5.4m dia) numbers and the stick timeframe.
-
#21
by
quark
on 14 Apr, 2006 05:01
-
The ESAS cost and schedule numbers for EELV (Atlas and Delta) evolution were grossly overstated. For more realistic cost, divide ESAS by 3 to 4. ESAS used a parametric model developed from Shuttle and Apollo to estimate costs and then added all kinds of unnecessary scope. Recent actual costs from Atlas V and Delta IV programs were ignored.
For example, the performance for an Atlas V HLV was quoted in ESAS to be 19mT to LEO. The Atlas mission planners guide gives 28mT (available at
www.ilslaunch.com). The ESAS "requirement" was 25mT so the cost to use Atlas V HLV was increased assuming a new upper stage engine would have to be developed to meet the "requirement". The schedule risk was also stated to be high because of the engine development.
How ironic that the new baseline for CLV now has a new upper stage engine development and the performance is well below 25mT. While the Atlas V HLV easily meets 25mT with existing RL-10 engines.
-
#22
by
Jim
on 14 Apr, 2006 11:34
-
quark - 14/4/2006 1:01 AMThe ESAS cost and schedule numbers for EELV (Atlas and Delta) evolution were grossly overstated. For more realistic cost, divide ESAS by 3 to 4. ESAS used a parametric model developed from Shuttle and Apollo to estimate costs and then added all kinds of unnecessary scope. Recent actual costs from Atlas V and Delta IV programs were ignored.For example, the performance for an Atlas V HLV was quoted in ESAS to be 19mT to LEO. The Atlas mission planners guide gives 28mT (available at www.ilslaunch.com). The ESAS "requirement" was 25mT so the cost to use Atlas V HLV was increased assuming a new upper stage engine would have to be developed to meet the "requirement". The schedule risk was also stated to be high because of the engine development.How ironic that the new baseline for CLV now has a new upper stage engine development and the performance is well below 25mT. While the Atlas V HLV easily meets 25mT with existing RL-10 engines.
Can't use planner's guide numbers for manned trajectories. The Atlas required either a structurally stable Centaur or a fairing that suspended the Centaur to take it out of the load path.
-
#23
by
Kayla
on 15 Apr, 2006 21:25
-
During OSP the intent was to have the loads bypass the Centaur by using the existing 5.4m payload fairing base module. Since this base module is jettisoned along with the booster, the performance hit is minimal, ~1 mT. Thus Quark is correct that the Atlas HLV performance, satisfying black zones and perceived structure requirements is in excess of 25 mT to orbit. This compares very favorably to CLV’s continually eroding performance, down to ~19 mT based on recent NASA releases.
-
#24
by
wannamoonbase
on 16 Apr, 2006 19:57
-
gladiator1332 - 13/4/2006 10:03 AM
That is the "Atlas V Heavy", basically their answer to the Delta IV Heavy config. I know it was designed, however, I don't think they ever cut any metal on it, as Lockheed stated around the time of the D4H launch that there was no market for it. If the market were to appear, I believe Lockheed is ready to put it into production.
The Atlas V HLV was in the original plans till Boeing won the lions share of first award package and it wasn't worth LM's investment for only a few HLV launches that were way down the road. Also the Atlas V 551 and 552 configurations can loft something like 80% or more of the weight of an HLV. So there weren't many launches that a 551 or 552 couldn't do. The Atlas V so far has been a very slick, clean & reliable vehicle.
This happened early enough in construction that decisions with the MLP were made that would make it hard to modify the current MLP for HLV. But the rest of the facility is sized and capable to handle the HLV. So they may need a new MLP for an HLV but that would be it. Probably a 2 year project.
But if you were going to put the CEV on an EELV you would need a crew access tower and LM & NASA probably wouldn't want to share their human rocket with a lowly unmanned vehicle. So you would likely see a new pad for both the Delta 4 and Atlas V, so probably 1 to 1.5 billion and 3 to 4 years (possibly 5) to complete the pad from time of award. If you could cram it onto the existing SLC41 of SLC37 facility it would save you a good pile of change and a few years.
-
#25
by
Jim
on 16 Apr, 2006 20:41
-
The Atlas V MLP and VIF was made with the HLV in mind. The MLP is scarred for the HLV to make installations easy. It only needs to be outfitted. OSP studies determined pad mods for crew access to be $500-750M and two years
-
#26
by
R&R
on 16 Apr, 2006 23:52
-
wannamoonbase - 17/4/2006 1:57 PM
So you would likely see a new pad for both the Delta 4 and Atlas V, so probably 1 to 1.5 billion and 3 to 4 years (possibly 5) to complete the pad from time of award. If you could cram it onto the existing SLC41 of SLC37 facility it would save you a good pile of change and a few years.
Boeing had a really cool design for a new Pad that had a Clam Shell MST that would remain closed until after Crew ingress. 3 to 4 years for either company to build is not a low ball estimate in fact it's probably large considering how much they learned building what they have now, a lot of redesign along the way (at least for DIV).
-
#27
by
Kayla
on 16 Apr, 2006 23:54
-
At some point NASA needs to decide if they want affordable access to space. Having a dedicated NASA crew only rocket flying a few times a year is an extremely expensive venture. Hence the expected $10B or more non-recurring cost. The RLEP program was told that flying the RLEP2 mission on the CLV would cost $476M. What a bargain.
This makes an EELV HLV (Atlas or Delta) look like a bargain at $200M a launch. Beyond the incredible cost savings, the Atlas and Delta rockets will have built up dozens of launches by the time the CEV is ready to fly, demonstrating their reliability. I personally am tired of paper studies on reliability, shuttle was supposed to have only 1 failure in 10,000. Actually demonstrated reliability is much more meaningful. Atlas is currently at 78 successful launches in a row, including Atlas II, III and now V.
-
#28
by
R&R
on 16 Apr, 2006 23:59
-
Jim - 17/4/2006 2:41 PM
The Atlas V MLP and VIF was made with the HLV in mind. The MLP is scarred for the HLV to make installations easy. It only needs to be outfitted. OSP studies determined pad mods for crew access to be $500-750M and two years
Under ULA I doubt the Atalas V Heavy will ever be built because of the cost and time to first flight. I'd expect to see one of the larger Atlas versions to replace what NASA has planned now become reality. Unfortunately that would need a new Pad but like I've said before NASA could put that vehicle on one of the existing Shuttle MLP's (greatly modified of course) and keep that army going over at LC-39.
-
#29
by
Jim
on 17 Apr, 2006 00:40
-
R&R - 16/4/2006 7:59 PMJim - 17/4/2006 2:41 PMThe Atlas V MLP and VIF was made with the HLV in mind. The MLP is scarred for the HLV to make installations easy. It only needs to be outfitted. OSP studies determined pad mods for crew access to be $500-750M and two years
Under ULA I doubt the Atalas V Heavy will ever be built because of the cost and time to first flight. I'd expect to see one of the larger Atlas versions to replace what NASA has planned now become reality. Unfortunately that would need a new Pad but like I've said before NASA could put that vehicle on one of the existing Shuttle MLP's (greatly modified of course) and keep that army going over at LC-39.
No, the 5.4m Atlas can work off of SLC-41. Atlas won't work on LC-39 and it is LM vehicle, they would work on it.
-
#30
by
Prober
on 16 Jul, 2011 17:01
-
Bump
Delta IV questions
Watched my first live Delta IV GPS IIF-2
Had some questions.
1) This Delta uses the RS-68 with solids. They can do this because of the way the solids flame around the engine in this design?
2) From what I have read of the costs this launch it cost 250 million or more, is that correct?
-
#31
by
Jim
on 16 Jul, 2011 18:33
-
"solid fame design"?
cant say anything about cost
-
#32
by
Blackstar
on 16 Jul, 2011 20:04
-
2) From what I have read of the costs this launch it cost 250 million or more, is that correct?
That seems pretty high. What's your source?
-
#33
by
sdsds
on 16 Jul, 2011 22:27
-
Had some questions.
1) This Delta uses the RS-68 with solids. They can do this because of the way the solids flame around the engine in this design?
The solids are GEM-60's. Delta IV is designed to use solids of this size, up to four of them, without causing harm to the RS-68 nozzle. (Put differently, the RS-68 is rated to tolerate the level of abuse these solids subject it to.) The RS-68 (apparently) is not rated to tolerate the abuse that would come from much larger strap-on solids.
2) From what I have read of the costs this launch it cost 250 million or more, is that correct?
Because of the way EELV contracts work, allocating Delta IV costs to particular launches is difficult. Are you asking what it might cost USAF if they wanted one more launch just like this one? Or what NASA would pay for a launch like this one? Or what a commercial customer might pay for a launch like this one? Maybe you asking what each launch like this might cost a customer who was buying launch services for an entire constellation of satellites? It would be astonishing if the answers to any of the above were the same!
-
#34
by
Prober
on 16 Jul, 2011 23:24
-
Had some questions.
1) This Delta uses the RS-68 with solids. They can do this because of the way the solids flame around the engine in this design?
The solids are GEM-60's. Delta IV is designed to use solids of this size, up to four of them, without causing harm to the RS-68 nozzle. (Put differently, the RS-68 is rated to tolerate the level of abuse these solids subject it to.) The RS-68 (apparently) is not rated to tolerate the abuse that would come from much larger strap-on solids.
2) From what I have read of the costs this launch it cost 250 million or more, is that correct?
Because of the way EELV contracts work, allocating Delta IV costs to particular launches is difficult. Are you asking what it might cost USAF if they wanted one more launch just like this one? Or what NASA would pay for a launch like this one? Or what a commercial customer might pay for a launch like this one? Maybe you asking what each launch like this might cost a customer who was buying launch services for an entire constellation of satellites? It would be astonishing if the answers to any of the above were the same!
I recall one news item SpaceX put out comparing the FalconHeavy to the Delta IV. If memory serves it was 85-130 million. They then said this price was 1/3 the cost of a delta IV launch. Also looked up some threads and found it about right.
-
#35
by
Blackstar
on 17 Jul, 2011 00:20
-
I recall one news item SpaceX put out comparing the FalconHeavy to the Delta IV. If memory serves it was 85-130 million. They then said this price was 1/3 the cost of a delta IV launch. Also looked up some threads and found it about right.
Okay, for starters I would not use one rocket vehicle company as a source for what another company's rocket vehicle costs.
However, I also suspect that they were quoting the Delta IV Heavy version, with three cores.
Delta IV is not a cheap rocket, but I suspect that the basic vehicle is in the $150-$180 million range. Of course, these costs are also spiraling upwards.
-
#36
by
Patchouli
on 17 Jul, 2011 01:30
-
Flight rates really effect cost.
Either EELV would be cheaper if they were used for exploration simply because the flight rates would be increased.
-
#37
by
Blackstar
on 17 Jul, 2011 02:57
-
Flight rates really effect cost.
Either EELV would be cheaper if they were used for exploration simply because the flight rates would be increased.
I suspect there is less elasticity there than we would hope. Put another way, buying a couple of extra rockets a year is not going to have much effect upon costs. The number would probably have to go up substantially before the costs come down even moderately. There's a lot of USAF money pumped into infrastructure support.
This is not a free market.
-
#38
by
Downix
on 17 Jul, 2011 05:08
-
Had some questions.
1) This Delta uses the RS-68 with solids. They can do this because of the way the solids flame around the engine in this design?
The solids are GEM-60's. Delta IV is designed to use solids of this size, up to four of them, without causing harm to the RS-68 nozzle. (Put differently, the RS-68 is rated to tolerate the level of abuse these solids subject it to.) The RS-68 (apparently) is not rated to tolerate the abuse that would come from much larger strap-on solids.
2) From what I have read of the costs this launch it cost 250 million or more, is that correct?
Because of the way EELV contracts work, allocating Delta IV costs to particular launches is difficult. Are you asking what it might cost USAF if they wanted one more launch just like this one? Or what NASA would pay for a launch like this one? Or what a commercial customer might pay for a launch like this one? Maybe you asking what each launch like this might cost a customer who was buying launch services for an entire constellation of satellites? It would be astonishing if the answers to any of the above were the same!
I recall one news item SpaceX put out comparing the FalconHeavy to the Delta IV. If memory serves it was 85-130 million. They then said this price was 1/3 the cost of a delta IV launch. Also looked up some threads and found it about right.
He was against the Delta IV Heavy, and yes, about that. but that is with one DIVH every two years against 24 Falcon launches, so judge for yourself.
-
#39
by
RocketmanUS
on 22 Feb, 2013 01:22
-
Would it be possible to attach 4 Atlas V cores to a Delta IV core with some modifications?