-
Remaining Delta IIs?
by
rocketnerd
on 01 Sep, 2010 15:43
-
Does anyone know what the story is with the remaining Delta IIs? I've heard that there are several "white tails" out there.
What funding were these built under? What state of production are they in?
Curious to know if there are possibilities of these boosters flying before Taurus II shows up on the scene.
-
#1
by
Jim
on 01 Sep, 2010 17:19
-
Does anyone know what the story is with the remaining Delta IIs? I've heard that there are several "white tails" out there.
What funding were these built under? What state of production are they in?
Curious to know if there are possibilities of these boosters flying before Taurus II shows up on the scene.
There are five or so.
Boeing paid for them. All the subcontract hardware is built and delivered. The fairings and first stage tanks are not built.
ULA will have to paid for SLC-17 and SLC-2 maintenance after GRAIL and NPP.
-
#2
by
Antares
on 01 Sep, 2010 17:22
-
5 white tails exist. Not sure how many solids are available.
The big problem is the infrastructure cost. The pads and processing buildings are government-owned and would require someone to support the cost to maintain them once the current manifest flies out.
-
#3
by
kevin-rf
on 01 Sep, 2010 17:48
-
Kinda reminds me of the twelve left over Thrust Augmented Thors at the start of the shuttle program. I believe they never flew, though the turbines from them where used to kick start the Delta II program back in the Eighties. Did they salvage anything else from those Thors?
Thor/Delta seems to have a history of left over birds... all the Thor IRBM's that came back from England (and reused), the left over Thrust Augmented Thors at the start of Shuttle, The Delta III leftovers, and now five final Delta II's.
-
#4
by
Space Invaders
on 01 Sep, 2010 18:08
-
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but since those rockets have already been built and they're not getting the construction money back anyway, why don't they offer launches at discount prices? Even a launch with 0% profit would compensate for the manufacturing costs.
-
#5
by
Jose
on 01 Sep, 2010 18:29
-
Jim and Antares, are these 5 Delta IIs in addition to the 4 that are scheduled to launch in the next 13 months?
-
#6
by
Jim
on 01 Sep, 2010 18:33
-
Jim and Antares, are these 5 Delta IIs in addition to the 4 that are scheduled to launch in the next 13 months?
in addition
-
#7
by
Jim
on 01 Sep, 2010 18:35
-
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but since those rockets have already been built and they're not getting the construction money back anyway, why don't they offer launches at discount prices? Even a launch with 0% profit would compensate for the manufacturing costs.
Because it would cost more to complete them
-
#8
by
rocketnerd
on 01 Sep, 2010 21:53
-
Because it would cost more to complete them
I'm not quite sure I understand that logic. It seems there is a sunk cost associated with building them several years ago that's already been covered. I understand that there are new costs associated with hardware completion and pad maintenance/standing army (assuming that the missions are long after Grail or NPP).
But...if a fast-turnaround mission wanted to get on orbit by late 2011 (suspend disbelief for a minute), or re-manifest itself from a different booster, it seems that any price that ULA/Boeing charges beyond the costs associated with finishing the hardware and executing the launch campaign is pure profit. I have a hard time believing that that price can't be
significantly less than any other booster remotely close to that size class.
Seems they could be offering a discount ride and still making a bunch of cash. Not true?
-
#9
by
William Graham
on 01 Sep, 2010 22:53
-
There was a rumour a few months back that SBSS might move to Delta II if the problems with the Minotaur IV weren't resolved, although in the end that came to nothing.
I seem to remember reading that all the remaining Delta IIs are of the Heavy configuration.
-
#10
by
Jim
on 02 Sep, 2010 02:10
-
Because it would cost more to complete them
I'm not quite sure I understand that logic. It seems there is a sunk cost associated with building them several years ago that's already been covered. I understand that there are new costs associated with hardware completion and pad maintenance/standing army (assuming that the missions are long after Grail or NPP).
But...if a fast-turnaround mission wanted to get on orbit by late 2011 (suspend disbelief for a minute), or re-manifest itself from a different booster, it seems that any price that ULA/Boeing charges beyond the costs associated with finishing the hardware and executing the launch campaign is pure profit. I have a hard time believing that that price can't be significantly less than any other booster remotely close to that size class.
Seems they could be offering a discount ride and still making a bunch of cash. Not true?
They are not "built", the pieces exist but they are not assembled, no first stage tanks should have been a hint. Most of the costs is in the remaining tasks, assembly, integration and operations. Hardware is cheap, labor isn't. ULA hasn't expended than much funds, to date.
-
#11
by
Art LeBrun
on 02 Sep, 2010 02:33
-
Kinda reminds me of the twelve left over Thrust Augmented Thors at the start of the shuttle program. I believe they never flew, though the turbines from them where used to kick start the Delta II program back in the Eighties. Did they salvage anything else from those Thors?
Thor/Delta seems to have a history of left over birds... all the Thor IRBM's that came back from England (and reused), the left over Thrust Augmented Thors at the start of Shuttle, The Delta III leftovers, and now five final Delta II's.
Another missile that had utility left was scrapped in the quantity of 35 in the early 1980's: Atlas F. I kinda wonder if that lead to the Titan II conversions to 23Gs and flights 1988 -2003.
-
#12
by
jjnodice
on 02 Sep, 2010 04:19
-
Any chance one of the extras could end up in a museum?
Are there any complete Delta IIs on display?
-
#13
by
Jim
on 02 Sep, 2010 11:14
-
Any chance one of the extras could end up in a museum?
Are there any complete Delta IIs on display?
there aren't any complete vehicles
-
#14
by
kevin-rf
on 02 Sep, 2010 13:44
-
Another missile that had utility left was scrapped in the quantity of 35 in the early 1980's: Atlas F. I kinda wonder if that lead to the Titan II conversions to 23Gs and flights 1988 -2003.
Should probably start a thread on unused vehicles at the end of various programs...
All the unused Titan I's and II's.
All the Thor's and Atlas's that found a new life.
What happened to all the Redstones?
What happened to all the SLBM's?
There are long threads on the unused Saturn's.
-Where have all the Rockets gone, long time passing, Gone to the Ocean every one, long flight ago (Yeah the coffee hasn't kicked in yet)
-
#15
by
jjnodice
on 02 Sep, 2010 17:38
-
Any chance one of the extras could end up in a museum?
Are there any complete Delta IIs on display?
there aren't any complete vehicles
Thanks for the answer Jim.
-
#16
by
sdsds
on 02 Sep, 2010 18:06
-
The fairings and first stage tanks are not built.
"Up next we have lot number 664, a set of five hypergolic upper stages, in factory new condition. With extensive flight heritage, these beauties are 2.4 m in diameter and utilize the famous Aerojet AJ10 engine, known around the world for its unparalleled reliability.
"Are there any bids?"
Seriously, at one point wasn't there the notion of a "Delta IV Lite" configuration that would use these in place of the cryogenic second stage? Alternately, at 7 tons fully loaded could they be pressed into service as third stages atop a standard Delta IV Medium?
-
#17
by
Aeroman
on 02 Sep, 2010 18:29
-
Could these upper stages also be used for a "Lite" initial upper stage for the new SLS system proposed by the Senate?
-
#18
by
kevin-rf
on 02 Sep, 2010 18:50
-
Does the Delta IV use the same flight avionics as the White Tails? Is there anything that can be re-purposed by ULA?
Considering the standing armies that are needed to fly a rocket, a good analogy might be bullets verse the rifle that fires it.
As long as you still have the rifle (Pads, GSE) and still know how to fire it (Standing Army) you can use up your left over ammo, but if you sell your old gun (re-train the Standing Army) and buy a new gun it really makes no sense to figure out how to use those last five bullets. The gun (buying and maintaining) cost way more than the bullets.
-
#19
by
sdsds
on 03 Sep, 2010 20:58
-
Could these upper stages also be used for a "Lite" initial upper stage for the new SLS system proposed by the Senate?
Maybe if you clustered all five spares for use on a single launch? At 7 tons each, that would be 35 tons, taking about half the SLS LEO capability and leaving 35 tons available for a spacecraft. With 4.45 tons of thrust per stage, that would make 22.5 tons of thrust total, for an initial T/W ratio of 0.32.
-
#20
by
marsavian
on 17 May, 2011 16:52
-
-
#21
by
baldusi
on 17 May, 2011 19:01
-
Those five heavies may yet ride into space due to rising Atlas V costs and Taurus XL failures ...
http://spacenews.com/civil/110516-nasa-add-delta2-list-launchers.html
They would have to price compete with the Taurus II and Falcon 9, though. And eat all the infrastructure price from 2012 onward (which I think was close to 20M per year). So in just 2 years a Falcon 9 would be cheaper
just from the infrastructure cost.
Of course you have to take the reliability into account. I guess it's the only Category 3 rated vehicle in its class.
-
#22
by
edkyle99
on 17 May, 2011 19:06
-
Those five heavies may yet ride into space due to rising Atlas V costs and Taurus XL failures ...
http://spacenews.com/civil/110516-nasa-add-delta2-list-launchers.html
They would have to price compete with the Taurus II and Falcon 9, though. And eat all the infrastructure price from 2012 onward (which I think was close to 20M per year). So in just 2 years a Falcon 9 would be cheaper just from the infrastructure cost.
Of course you have to take the reliability into account. I guess it's the only Category 3 rated vehicle in its class.
My understanding of the article was that NASA, in the wake of the double Taurus XL failures costing $700 million, wants a certified reliable rocket. Taurus 2 and Falcon 9 aren't going to be "certified" for awhile. Delta 2 fits the bill, though the Agency will have to pay. Sometimes the more expensive thing is worth it.*
- Ed Kyle
*Sometimes. I've had a run of back luck with appliances recently. Printer (cheap). TV (free). Clothes dryer(good actually, but very old). Wireless router(cheap). All within the past few months. I've tried to replace them with quality choices, but, like NASA, I've found the pickings slim in our current world of cheap-stuff-made-elsewhere.
-
#23
by
notherspacexfan
on 17 May, 2011 19:20
-
They would have to price compete with the Taurus II and Falcon 9, though. And eat all the infrastructure price from 2012 onward (which I think was close to 20M per year).
They would only need VAFB
-
#24
by
Antares
on 17 May, 2011 19:34
-
And the processing hangars at CCAFS.
-
#25
by
Jim
on 17 May, 2011 19:38
-
And the processing hangars at CCAFS.
those have been shutdown.
-
#26
by
robertross
on 17 May, 2011 22:33
-
Because it would cost more to complete them
I'm not quite sure I understand that logic. It seems there is a sunk cost associated with building them several years ago that's already been covered. I understand that there are new costs associated with hardware completion and pad maintenance/standing army (assuming that the missions are long after Grail or NPP).
But...if a fast-turnaround mission wanted to get on orbit by late 2011 (suspend disbelief for a minute), or re-manifest itself from a different booster, it seems that any price that ULA/Boeing charges beyond the costs associated with finishing the hardware and executing the launch campaign is pure profit. I have a hard time believing that that price can't be significantly less than any other booster remotely close to that size class.
Seems they could be offering a discount ride and still making a bunch of cash. Not true?
They are not "built", the pieces exist but they are not assembled, no first stage tanks should have been a hint. Most of the costs is in the remaining tasks, assembly, integration and operations. Hardware is cheap, labor isn't. ULA hasn't expended than much funds, to date.
Considering the benefits of having a sustained workforce build an additional 5 Delta II should also help reliability/quality, and allow for 'slightly' quicker throughput as well as some costs savings.
-
#27
by
Antares
on 17 May, 2011 22:48
-
And the processing hangars at CCAFS.
those have been shutdown.
Have the white tails already been processed past that point? Where are they? And the solids?
-
#28
by
Jim
on 18 May, 2011 00:35
-
And the processing hangars at CCAFS.
those have been shutdown.
Have the white tails already been processed past that point? Where are they? And the solids?
A. For GRAIL and Aquarius all the testing is on the pad. DMCO was shutdown after STSS Demo
b. I believe the white tails are not "real" vehicles. They have all the subcontracted hardware but the first stage and 2nd stage structure, fairing and interstage have not been built.
-
#29
by
edkyle99
on 18 May, 2011 00:43
-
b. I believe the white tails are not "real" vehicles. They have all the subcontracted hardware but the first stage and 2nd stage structure, fairing and interstage have not been built.
Could the first stage tank panels have been formed, but not welded together? The panels looked something like those seen in the attached photo. I think that it took three panels to build the sidewalls of each tank.
Of course there is also a thrust structure, an intertank section, the tank ends, etc., for each rocket.
- Ed Kyle
-
#30
by
Jim
on 18 May, 2011 00:49
-
Could the first stage tank panels have been formed, but not welded together? The panels looked something like those seen in the attached photo. I think that it took three panels to build the sidewalls of each tank.
Of course there is also a thrust structure, an intertank section, the tank ends, etc., for each rocket.
- Ed Kyle
Boeing/ULA built the vehicles just in time for launch
-
#31
by
edkyle99
on 18 May, 2011 13:37
-
Could the first stage tank panels have been formed, but not welded together? The panels looked something like those seen in the attached photo. I think that it took three panels to build the sidewalls of each tank.
Of course there is also a thrust structure, an intertank section, the tank ends, etc., for each rocket.
- Ed Kyle
Boeing/ULA built the vehicles just in time for launch
Which leads to the question - where is the tooling? My recollection is that the isogrid (milling?) equipment was at Huntington Beach, even after Delta assembly (tank welding jigs?) went to Pueblo.
- Ed Kyle
-
#32
by
Jim
on 18 May, 2011 14:34
-
Which leads to the question - where is the tooling? My recollection is that the isogrid (milling?) equipment was at Huntington Beach, even after Delta assembly (tank welding jigs?) went to Pueblo.
- Ed Kyle
Everything went to Decatur. The last several (10?) NASA Delta II's were built in Decatur.
-
#33
by
Lurker Steve
on 18 May, 2011 21:33
-
Those five heavies may yet ride into space due to rising Atlas V costs and Taurus XL failures ...
http://spacenews.com/civil/110516-nasa-add-delta2-list-launchers.html
They would have to price compete with the Taurus II and Falcon 9, though. And eat all the infrastructure price from 2012 onward (which I think was close to 20M per year). So in just 2 years a Falcon 9 would be cheaper just from the infrastructure cost.
Of course you have to take the reliability into account. I guess it's the only Category 3 rated vehicle in its class.
Only 20 Million per year ? Doesn't NASA save at least that much on a single mission by using the Delta II instead of the oversized Altas V ?
-
#34
by
Antares
on 19 May, 2011 02:53
-
Prices for future Delta IIs are not known yet. All previous Delta IIs had been bought years ago (like 2004ish). NASA now owns the active Delta II pads, so those costs should be taken into account for comparison with other launch options.
-
#35
by
Prober
on 08 Jun, 2011 05:07
-
And the processing hangars at CCAFS.
those have been shutdown.
Have the white tails already been processed past that point? Where are they? And the solids?
A. For GRAIL and Aquarius all the testing is on the pad. DMCO was shutdown after STSS Demo
b. I believe the white tails are not "real" vehicles. They have all the subcontracted hardware but the first stage and 2nd stage structure, fairing and interstage have not been built.
So the real work is on the 9th level of the tower? I find the Delta launch very interesting, wish i could see the setup closeup.
just from the infrastructure cost.