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.
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.
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
And the processing hangars at CCAFS.
And the processing hangars at CCAFS.
those have been shutdown.
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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
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.
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 ?
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.
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.