-
#180
by
Rugoz
on 08 Feb, 2013 13:48
-
Well, officially the idea is that DoD needs both Atlas and Delta, because 1) if one is grounded, the other is still available to launch most of DoD's payloads
Sorry but what does "grounded" mean in this context? Normally you keep up production of the "old" launcher until the new one has sufficiently proven itself, so there should be no risk of "grounding".
Personally, I think that even if the EELVs had been downselected to one (which with the early wins Boeing had, it likely would've been Delta IV), that we wouldn't actually be in much better of a position as far as launch prices are concerned.
Just looked up the numbers, Delta IV medium (5,4) is $170m for 6.56t to GTO, which admittedly doesn't compare very favourably to Ariane 5 ($200m), or Proton ($110m). But if you could bring it down to $130 or so...what are the expensive parts?
-
#181
by
Jim
on 08 Feb, 2013 14:02
-
IMHO depends entirely on what ULA is able to do to remain competitive 2018+ without significant support from their parents between now and then, which at present doesn't appear to look good.
that isn't true.
a. ULA doesn't get any support from its parents and hasn't for several years
b. it does look good for being competitive
-
#182
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 08 Feb, 2013 14:03
-
As matters stand, I think the only thing keeping Delta-IV's nose above the water is the fact that DoD seems to prefer the type and Delta-IVH is currently the only operation vehicle of its type available from US launch providers.
Well then scrap Atlas, uses a russian engine anyway.
Delta can't do human launch, so Atlas is needed for Commercial Crew. That's the delightful situation in which we find ourselves: D-IVH is needed for heavy launch and Atlas-V is needed for crew launch.
-
#183
by
Jim
on 08 Feb, 2013 14:05
-
... two completely different EELV's was not necessarily forever. Per the DoD in 2006, "for the foreseeable future", "because they are relatively new, unproven systems with limited flight experience", and "until the Department can certify assured access to space through reliance in a single vehicle".
That's interesting. I wonder whether DoD could ever truly "certify assured access to space through reliance in a single vehicle."
Never was a valid requirement. There was no backup for Titan IV and there is no backup for Delta IV Heavy
-
#184
by
Proponent
on 08 Feb, 2013 14:10
-
Sorry but what does "grounded" mean in this context? Normally you keep up production of the "old" launcher until the new one has sufficiently proven itself, so there should be no risk of "grounding".
In this context, an LV is "grounded" if either it failed on its most recent flight and the failure mode hasn't yet been fixed, or an element of the LV that it shares with the other LV failed on the other LV's most recent flight and hasn't been fixed yet.
Just looked up the numbers, Delta IV medium (5,4) is $170m for 6.56t to GTO, which admittedly doesn't compare very favourably to Ariane 5 ($200m), or Proton ($110m). But if you could bring it down to $130 or so...what are the expensive parts?
Regarding prices, I believe -- need to check this -- that based on the most recent purchase, the EELVs are actually quite a bit more expensive than the numbers you've found.
-
#185
by
Proponent
on 08 Feb, 2013 14:16
-
Never was a valid requirement. There was no backup for Titan IV and there is no backup for Delta IV Heavy
So what, pray tell, is the justification for keeping both EELVs on line?
-
#186
by
Rugoz
on 08 Feb, 2013 14:50
-
-
#187
by
russianhalo117
on 08 Feb, 2013 17:04
-
It becomes more of a matter that ULA's internal fate, future sustainability, and viability hinges a great deal on Boeing and Lockheed Martin resolving their differences and agreeing on pursuing a common upper stage for both launcher systems. That is sort of a logical step one. further steps could include switching to 5 metre Atlas stages, common new generation lightweight fairings, common stage zero solid rocket booster motors, common launch pads capable of both vehicles, common launcher processing center for both vehicles, common universal Launch Control Centres, etc. Standardization where ever possible for both systems must occur to further reduce associated costs. Atlas V and Delta IV must standardize to the point where Atlas and Delta IV first stages must be interchangeable depending upon the mission, while every other element that makes up a vehicles stack is the identical. The only primary difference for the first stage other than slight stage height difference, should be the fuel (RP-1 or LH2) and their associated engines.
That is my take on the situation and that is only a beginning of a long list cross system standardization that needs to occur to become sustainable.
-
#188
by
Proponent
on 08 Feb, 2013 17:28
-
If sustainability is the issue, wouldn't it be simpler and more effective to simply eliminate one of the two vehicles?
-
#189
by
kevin-rf
on 08 Feb, 2013 17:46
-
If sustainability is the issue, wouldn't it be simpler and more effective to simply eliminate one of the two vehicles?
EELV is not about sustainable, it's about assured access.
-
#190
by
Jim
on 08 Feb, 2013 18:03
-
It becomes more of a matter that ULA's internal fate, future sustainability, and viability hinges a great deal on Boeing and Lockheed Martin resolving their differences
Boeing and LM differences have no bearing on this matter. It is up to ULA.
-
#191
by
edkyle99
on 08 Feb, 2013 18:04
-
And now similar logic is being used to keep two commercial crew providers in the game.
The only lesson we can learn from history is that the lessons never seem to be learned.
That's a bit harsh; I think we have learned a bit, and commercial crew's approach reflects it. The EELV program and providers were confident there was a commercial market, and thus convinced themselves that the original plan for down-select to one was unnecessary or short-sighted The commercial crew program has made clear that down-select to one provider is very likely.
Frustratingly, it was the EELV manufacturers themselves who helped kill the commercial market. Both were involved in international launch ventures (Sea Launch and International Launch Services) that used Russian or Ukrainian rockets. Both built commercial satellites launched on those and other rockets. Both lobbied the U.S. government to remove quotas that had existed on Proton. At the end of 2000, they won and the quotas were removed entirely. You can plot the annual numbers of U.S. launched commercial satellites and almost see the moment it happened.
Boeing and Lockheed prospered from the decision, because they got to sell more satellites. They simultaneously reap more rewards by building even more expensive satellites to fly on EELVs. The EELVs lost money, but now ULA is probably gradually helping to recover some of those losses via. higher prices.
And the U.S. government did it to itself!
- Ed Kyle
-
#192
by
Jim
on 08 Feb, 2013 18:10
-
common launch pads capable of both vehicles, common launcher processing center for both vehicles,
Not going to happen since they are unique to the cores and the cores are not going to change.
It makes no sense to develop a common core that only differs on propellant and engines. There is no requirement for specific propellant or engines. So there is a need or drive to go to one core, it will be a "common" core and will eliminate the other one. Will look more like an Atlas since it will be easier to adapt.
-
#193
by
Jim
on 08 Feb, 2013 18:14
-
Frustratingly, it was the EELV manufacturers themselves who helped kill the commercial market. Both were involved in international launch ventures (Sea Launch and International Launch Services) that used Russian or Ukrainian rockets. Both built commercial satellites launched on those and other rockets. Both lobbied the U.S. government to remove quotas that had existed on Proton. At the end of 2000, they won and the quotas were removed entirely. You can plot the annual numbers of U.S. launched commercial satellites and almost see the moment it happened.
Boeing and Lockheed prospered from the decision, because they got to sell more satellites. They simultaneously reap more rewards by building even more expensive satellites to fly on EELVs. The EELVs lost money, but now ULA is probably gradually helping to recover some of those losses via. higher prices.
Actually, it wasn't the EELV manufacturers, it was the companies who didnt have a launch business (Boeing and Lockheed), who made the deals with the Russians. It just happened that those companies later merged or bought the companies (MCD and Martin) that were the EELV contractors
-
#194
by
Jim
on 08 Feb, 2013 18:16
-
common universal Launch Control Centres,
Can't happen until common avionics and common propellants/core.
-
#195
by
muomega0
on 08 Feb, 2013 18:22
-
As matters stand, I think the only thing keeping Delta-IV's nose above the water is the fact that DoD seems to prefer the type and Delta-IVH is currently the only operation vehicle of its type available from US launch providers.
Well then scrap Atlas, uses a russian engine anyway.
Delta can't do human launch, so Atlas is needed for Commercial Crew. That's the delightful situation in which we find ourselves: D-IVH is needed for heavy launch and Atlas-V is needed for crew launch.
the simple fix as Jim stated is to move to a common core, offload prop to increase the payload mass, top off the tanks in LEO, effectively doubling (or more) the payload capacity. of course, much cheaper if the depot is utilized for Exploration BEO.
Oops, need a lightweight capsule.
Well conceptually simple.
-
#196
by
russianhalo117
on 08 Feb, 2013 18:23
-
common universal Launch Control Centres,
Can't happen until common avionics and common propellants/core.
Yep I know and that is what should move towards. Having different and incompatible everything generally leads to higher costs. Streamlining where possible is what is needed.
-
#197
by
Zed_Noir
on 08 Feb, 2013 18:48
-
It becomes more of a matter that ULA's internal fate, future sustainability, and viability hinges a great deal on Boeing and Lockheed Martin resolving their differences and agreeing on pursuing a common upper stage for both launcher systems. That is sort of a logical step one. further steps could include switching to 5 metre Atlas stages, common new generation lightweight fairings, common stage zero solid rocket booster motors, common launch pads capable of both vehicles, common launcher processing center for both vehicles, common universal Launch Control Centres, etc. Standardization where ever possible for both systems must occur to further reduce associated costs. Atlas V and Delta IV must standardize to the point where Atlas and Delta IV first stages must be interchangeable depending upon the mission, while every other element that makes up a vehicles stack is the identical. The only primary difference for the first stage other than slight stage height difference, should be the fuel (RP-1 or LH2) and their associated engines.
That is my take on the situation and that is only a beginning of a long list cross system standardization that needs to occur to become sustainable.
If I understand your take. You are basically asking someone to start funding the Atlas VI (AKA Atlas phase 2) program. IMO, if that happens, the Delta IV Heavy and the D-IV family became redundant.
IIRC from the AV user guide. Atlas P2 single stick with 6 SRB can lift about 40 mT to LEO. You might cross some Congressional critters who support SLS, since the triple-core Heavy version of the Atlas P2 can lift about 75 mT to LEO. So will be in competition with the SLS for the HLV role.
Sounds more like an EELV follow-on new LV with very iffy funding IMO, unless both the current ongoing 50+ mT LV projects fizzles out.
-
#198
by
russianhalo117
on 08 Feb, 2013 19:07
-
It becomes more of a matter that ULA's internal fate, future sustainability, and viability hinges a great deal on Boeing and Lockheed Martin resolving their differences and agreeing on pursuing a common upper stage for both launcher systems. That is sort of a logical step one. further steps could include switching to 5 metre Atlas stages, common new generation lightweight fairings, common stage zero solid rocket booster motors, common launch pads capable of both vehicles, common launcher processing center for both vehicles, common universal Launch Control Centres, etc. Standardization where ever possible for both systems must occur to further reduce associated costs. Atlas V and Delta IV must standardize to the point where Atlas and Delta IV first stages must be interchangeable depending upon the mission, while every other element that makes up a vehicles stack is the identical. The only primary difference for the first stage other than slight stage height difference, should be the fuel (RP-1 or LH2) and their associated engines.
That is my take on the situation and that is only a beginning of a long list cross system standardization that needs to occur to become sustainable.
If I understand your take. You are basically asking someone to start funding the Atlas VI (AKA Atlas phase 2) program. IMO, if that happens, the Delta IV Heavy and the D-IV family became redundant.
IIRC from the AV user guide. Atlas P2 single stick with 6 SRB can lift about 40 mT to LEO. You might cross some Congressional critters who support SLS, since the triple-core Heavy version of the Atlas P2 can lift about 75 mT to LEO. So will be in competition with the SLS for the HLV role.
Sounds more like an EELV follow-on new LV with very iffy funding IMO, unless both the current ongoing 50+ mT LV projects fizzles out.
It will probably happen eventually. Change will be increasing pushed for a more efficient system, but how and when is unknown at this time but it will be jolted forward when the involved parties are shocked into another reality check, well you will get it that is why this thread and some others post what needs to happen. Cannot really figure out what I want to say at the moment. But similar yes.
-
#199
by
Xplor
on 08 Feb, 2013 20:14
-
Frustratingly, it was the EELV manufacturers themselves who helped kill the commercial market. Both were involved in international launch ventures (Sea Launch and International Launch Services) that used Russian or Ukrainian rockets. Both built commercial satellites launched on those and other rockets. Both lobbied the U.S. government to remove quotas that had existed on Proton. At the end of 2000, they won and the quotas were removed entirely. You can plot the annual numbers of U.S. launched commercial satellites and almost see the moment it happened.
Boeing and Lockheed prospered from the decision, because they got to sell more satellites. They simultaneously reap more rewards by building even more expensive satellites to fly on EELVs. The EELVs lost money, but now ULA is probably gradually helping to recover some of those losses via. higher prices.
Actually, it wasn't the EELV manufacturers, it was the companies who didnt have a launch business (Boeing and Lockheed), who made the deals with the Russians. It just happened that those companies later merged or bought the companies (MCD and Martin) that were the EELV contractors
And these satellite manufactures lost a large share of the market to European options, thanks in part to ITAR.
