-
Could you envisage a situation where ULA only produces the Atlas V
by
Star One
on 25 Apr, 2013 18:43
-
With the military, even the NRO, seemingly moving towards smaller craft is there going to be an ongoing need for a large launcher such as the Delta IV?
ULA seem to be concentrating their manned efforts on the Atlas V and there doesn't seem to much in the way of payloads that it can't handle from interplanetary to Earth resources. So will it eventually be the case that it reaches a situation where the decide to only support and produce the Atlas V?
-
#1
by
William Graham
on 25 Apr, 2013 19:19
-
Atlas and Delta have more or less the same payload capacity - the difference is that the DIV Heavy was built and the Atlas V Heavy wasn't. The real reasons for having two EELVs are redundancy and to allow more launches to take place.
That said, in a few years, if it proves reliable and can maintain a high enough flight rate, I think Falcon 9/Heavy could start taking enough EELV-class contracts to become a threat to one of the existing rockets. Falcon is hardly established though, and with commercial launches and Dragon fitting in government payloads as well could be an issue...it should be clearer in a few years time.
-
#2
by
sdsds
on 25 Apr, 2013 20:58
-
ULA is openly committed to consolidating the two launch systems to the extent that's at all practical. They are having success with that, and the eventual result will be that the
marginal cost of continuing to fly Delta IV will be relatively low.
Specifically:
- consolidation of production locations
- consolidation of production techniques
- consolidation of transport infrastructure (Delta Mariner)
- consolidation of upper stage engines
- consolidation of entire upper stages
- consolidation of launch procedures
- (?) consolidation of launch personnel (?)
And then the big one:
- consolidation of bureaucratic executive management overhead
-
#3
by
Downix
on 26 Apr, 2013 13:49
-
If you followed ULA's consolidation process, the Delta IV and Atlas V will share so many systems that the cost to support one over the other will be relatively minor. Delta IV however offers capability not developed in Atlas V, so it would be foolish for them to cancel it.
-
#4
by
vapour_nudge
on 27 Apr, 2013 01:58
-
Perhaps they might feasibly just market the Delta IV Heavy as the only Delta IV and concentrate all other launches on Atlas V?
If this was the case, what capabilities would be lost?
-
#5
by
Star One
on 28 Apr, 2013 08:36
-
Perhaps they might feasibly just market the Delta IV Heavy as the only Delta IV and concentrate all other launches on Atlas V?
If this was the case, what capabilities would be lost?
Well if they are interchangeable in capabilities it would seem a sensible course to follow.
-
#6
by
Lobo
on 28 Apr, 2013 19:44
-
If you followed ULA's consolidation process, the Delta IV and Atlas V will share so many systems that the cost to support one over the other will be relatively minor. Delta IV however offers capability not developed in Atlas V, so it would be foolish for them to cancel it.
Even if they share many systems, they don't share the booster engines or upper stages [yet]
That keeps at least RS-68 from any reasonable economics of scale. Sounds like RD-180 is cheap for them even with low flight rate.
Same with two different SRB's.
The two different sets of core tooling probably doesn't cost any more since it already exits. It's not like there are developing two sets do tooling new at this point.
Not sure how much commonality there is in the upper stages. They even use different RL-10 variants, right?
I think a common 5m upper stage for both would help in the long run. Something like ACES or a common Centaur on Atlas 55x would match the D4H to LEO I think Jim said once. Not sure about BLEO.
Of course that same stage on D4H would boost its capacity too. As would a pair of GEM 60's on each core. Not sure if there are any payloads for that though. Would have been a nice building block for CxP instead of Ares though.
So an Atlas 55x with large 5m upper stage might effectively retire D4H for that payload class, if there is no payloads that need D4H with he new upper stage.
-
#7
by
Hyperion5
on 29 Apr, 2013 00:08
-
If you followed ULA's consolidation process, the Delta IV and Atlas V will share so many systems that the cost to support one over the other will be relatively minor. Delta IV however offers capability not developed in Atlas V, so it would be foolish for them to cancel it.
Even if they share many systems, they don't share the booster engines or upper stages [yet]
That keeps at least RS-68 from any reasonable economics of scale. Sounds like RD-180 is cheap for them even with low flight rate.
Same with two different SRB's.
The two different sets of core tooling probably doesn't cost any more since it already exits. It's not like there are developing two sets do tooling new at this point.
I don't know Lobo, it sure seems like there'd be a lot of extra costs associated with the tooling to make rockets of multiple diameters. Right now ULA is making rockets of 2 diameters, those being 3.81 m (Atlas V) and 5 m (new standard Delta IV core). Think about just how much different the transport assets have to be to carry all those varying diameters to the pads. Apparently neither can be road-transported to their pads. Then you have the tooling for the 4 m US on the Delta, which is yet another cost and line you have to maintain. It seems to me what you want is only one diameter of tooling at one plant. The one I'd use would be the 5 m tooling. It might not be the top choice of others here, but it'd let you simply modify the Delta pads for any eventual "Atlas" successor to both the Atlas V & Delta IV.
Not sure how much commonality there is in the upper stages. They even use different RL-10 variants, right?
I think a common 5m upper stage for both would help in the long run. Something like ACES or a common Centaur on Atlas 55x would match the D4H to LEO I think Jim said once. Not sure about BLEO.
Of course that same stage on D4H would boost its capacity too. As would a pair of GEM 60's on each core. Not sure if there are any payloads for that though. Would have been a nice building block for CxP instead of Ares though.
So an Atlas 55x with large 5m upper stage might effectively retire D4H for that payload class, if there is no payloads that need D4H with he new upper stage.
Back to the thread topic, I think the premise is wrong. ULA keeps talking about going to a wide-body booster for the Atlas V and using a common upper stage eventually. I frankly don't think the result could properly be called an Atlas V, but Atlas VI. Here's how I'd envision things evolving to only producing an "Atlas".
Atlas V-------------------------------------------------Delta IV
|
Atlas VI
~400 mt
5 m core with additional propellants vs Atlas V core
inherits Delta IV 5 m US
more powerful AJ-1-E6 replaces RD-180
uses modernized Atlas avionics
uses new common US engine (RL-10C or other successor)
man-rated
The answer to me is to chop down to one tooling size, that being the 5 meter tooling for the biggest Deltas. You then use that to create an Atlas V-Delta IV lovechild, up the thrust and ditch the political issues with an AJ-1-E6, and trim down to only one plant. It'd cause Congressmen to go nuts in at least a couple of districts, but this would at least turn ULA into a more rational company. The best part is your transport infrastructure would already be in place and you could shut down the old Atlas pads. You'd have to add some modifications if you're flying crews from the Delta pads, but that's not an insurmountable obstacle. Now sure the resulting rocket would look a bit stubby, but it'd be very capable and reliable. It might even be a slightly safer setup given the main engine would feature significantly lower chamber pressure.
-
#8
by
Jim
on 29 Apr, 2013 04:04
-
(Atlas V), 4 m (Delta IV medium), and 5 m (new standard Delta IV core). Think about just how much different the transport assets have to be to carry all those varying diameters to the pads. The Atlas V & smaller Delta IV core can be road-transported, while the biggest Delta IV cores require water transportation. This situation to me sounds needlessly complicated, and indeed ULA will be standardizing the Delta IV on the 5 m core & RS-68A in the next few years. I'm still not bullish on ULA's longer-term prospects. They often seem like they're half asleep at the wheel while the new competition is rapidly getting bigger in the rear-view mirror.
Huh? Delta IV has only one core size 5m. The upperstages come in two sizes, 4m and 5m.
Atlas V can not be road-transported nor can the non-existent 4m Delta IV.
The rest of your post is nonsense base on this major error and others (such as if there was a 5m Atlas it would still use the same existing Atlas infrastructure (pads) and that ULA has already consolidated Atlas and Delta into one factory).
As for bullish and sleep at the wheel, I think you have no grounds to make such statements since you can't get the basic information right.
-
#9
by
russianhalo117
on 29 Apr, 2013 13:08
-
(Atlas V), 4 m (Delta IV medium), and 5 m (new standard Delta IV core). Think about just how much different the transport assets have to be to carry all those varying diameters to the pads. The Atlas V & smaller Delta IV core can be road-transported, while the biggest Delta IV cores require water transportation. This situation to me sounds needlessly complicated, and indeed ULA will be standardizing the Delta IV on the 5 m core & RS-68A in the next few years. I'm still not bullish on ULA's longer-term prospects. They often seem like they're half asleep at the wheel while the new competition is rapidly getting bigger in the rear-view mirror.
Huh? Delta IV has only one core size 5m. The upperstages come in two sizes, 4m and 5m.
Atlas V can not be road-transported nor can the non-existent 4m Delta IV.
The rest of your post is nonsense base on this major error and others (such as if there was a 5m Atlas it would still use the same existing Atlas infrastructure (pads) and that ULA has already consolidated Atlas and Delta into one factory).
As for bullish and sleep at the wheel, I think you have no grounds to make such statements since you can't get the basic information right.
Thanks for correcting him, i was going to last night but fell asleep last night before I could do so.
-
#10
by
edkyle99
on 29 Apr, 2013 13:33
-
Not sure how much commonality there is in the upper stages. They even use different RL-10 variants, right?
That's going to change as excess RL10B-2 engines are converted to RL10C engines for Centaur. In a few years, when the RL10 inventory finally runs out, a new common engine will be developed. The way things are going, I expect that new engine to come from outside the U.S..
- Ed Kyle
-
#11
by
russianhalo117
on 29 Apr, 2013 13:51
-
Not sure how much commonality there is in the upper stages. They even use different RL-10 variants, right?
That's going to change as excess RL10B-2 engines are converted to RL10C engines for Centaur. In a few years, when the RL10 inventory finally runs out, a new common engine will be developed.
- Ed Kyle
RL-10A-4 completed its last production run several years ago and RL-10C is to fly starting sometime early next year, but it might take ULA PAO and site webmaster awhile to take note of this and update their information to reflect this switch.
-
#12
by
Hyperion5
on 29 Apr, 2013 15:42
-
(Atlas V), 4 m (Delta IV medium), and 5 m (new standard Delta IV core). Think about just how much different the transport assets have to be to carry all those varying diameters to the pads. The Atlas V & smaller Delta IV core can be road-transported, while the biggest Delta IV cores require water transportation. This situation to me sounds needlessly complicated, and indeed ULA will be standardizing the Delta IV on the 5 m core & RS-68A in the next few years. I'm still not bullish on ULA's longer-term prospects. They often seem like they're half asleep at the wheel while the new competition is rapidly getting bigger in the rear-view mirror.
Huh? Delta IV has only one core size 5m. The upperstages come in two sizes, 4m and 5m.
Atlas V can not be road-transported nor can the non-existent 4m Delta IV.
Ah, well I got mixed up when I read a number of sources referring to a Delta IV 4,2 lifting more than a Delta IV 5,2. I thought they were referring to core size and US, but evidently not. It unfortunately was not totally clear from the sources I read.
The rest of your post is nonsense base on this major error and others (such as if there was a 5m Atlas it would still use the same existing Atlas infrastructure (pads) and that ULA has already consolidated Atlas and Delta into one factory).
The idea with the 5 m Atlas, if it wasn't clear enough, was to use existing Delta pads and shut down the current Atlas pads. You would have to modify things obviously, like adding a kerosene supply and ways to get crew up to the tower if the rocket's a manned launcher. As for the factory error, it must be because my sources are out of date, because they're still reporting a manufacturing, assembly and integration plant in existence at Harlingen, Texas along with the main plant at Decatur, Alabama.
As for bullish and sleep at the wheel, I think you have no grounds to make such statements since you can't get the basic information right.
Well we all have to live and learn from errors like misinterpreting sources. Though to be fair, Jim, this isn't my field, so I don't mind trying to learn from my errors as I go along. It's sort of how you learned from forecasting a Romney victory, like many in my field did, that making an accurate political forecast is tough.
-
#13
by
Hyperion5
on 29 Apr, 2013 16:00
-
Not sure how much commonality there is in the upper stages. They even use different RL-10 variants, right?
That's going to change as excess RL10B-2 engines are converted to RL10C engines for Centaur. In a few years, when the RL10 inventory finally runs out, a new common engine will be developed. The way things are going, I expect that new engine to come from outside the U.S..
- Ed Kyle
If it's coming from outside the USA that would limit the choices to French, Russian and Japanese engines (AFAIK). While politically I cannot see DoD rockets having a non-American upper stage engine, technically it's probably feasible. I do wonder why you see the engine from coming from outside the US the way things are going, Ed. Could you please explain your reasoning on that?
It's not that I'd mind seeing a Vinci, RD-0146 or a Japanese hydrolox engine atop an Atlas or Delta, it's just politically I wouldn't predict it. I'm just curious as to why you are predicting it, Ed.
-
#14
by
Jim
on 29 Apr, 2013 16:07
-
The idea with the 5 m Atlas, if it wasn't clear enough, was to use existing Delta pads and shut down the current Atlas pads.
easier to use existing Atlas infrastructure and mod it for 5m than use Delta IV pad.
-
#15
by
Jim
on 29 Apr, 2013 16:08
-
It's sort of how you learned from forecasting a Romney victory, like many in my field did, that making an accurate political forecast is tough.
That was more of a wish
-
#16
by
Jim
on 29 Apr, 2013 16:10
-
As for the factory error, it must be because my sources are out of date, because they're still reporting a manufacturing, assembly and integration plant in existence at Harlingen, Texas along with the main plant at Decatur, Alabama.
Harlingen just makes some subassemblies for ULA and it has contracts with other companies for non LV work.
-
#17
by
Star One
on 29 Apr, 2013 17:39
-
Not sure how much commonality there is in the upper stages. They even use different RL-10 variants, right?
That's going to change as excess RL10B-2 engines are converted to RL10C engines for Centaur. In a few years, when the RL10 inventory finally runs out, a new common engine will be developed. The way things are going, I expect that new engine to come from outside the U.S..
- Ed Kyle
Why do you expect this to come from outside the US?
-
#18
by
edkyle99
on 29 Apr, 2013 18:31
-
It's not that I'd mind seeing a Vinci, RD-0146 or a Japanese hydrolox engine atop an Atlas or Delta, it's just politically I wouldn't predict it. I'm just curious as to why you are predicting it, Ed.
PWR hasn't developed a new engine since RS-68, an effort that began nearly two decades ago. PWR is on the verge of being merged into Aerojet, a company currently focused on essentially rewiring Russian-built engines. Neither company seems motivated to develop a new U.S. built engine. Rocketdyne bowed out of the Atlas competition rather than develop a new engine during the 1990s, giving the work to Energomash. A few years back, P&W actually proposed an RL10 replacement that would have been based on a Russian engine.
This year to date there have been 20 orbital launch attempts world-wide. Only
one of those was powered off the pad by U.S. built rocket engines.
The trend seems clear to me.
- Ed Kyle
-
#19
by
LouScheffer
on 30 Apr, 2013 12:02
-
Not sure how much commonality there is in the upper stages. They even use different RL-10 variants, right?
That's going to change as excess RL10B-2 engines are converted to RL10C engines for Centaur. In a few years, when the RL10 inventory finally runs out, a new common engine will be developed.
- Ed Kyle
I'm surprised the DOD is allowing a common stage. I thought they explicitly wanted different stages to minimize the chance of both being grounded due to the same cause. We saw this just last year, when the Delta version of the RL-10 was grounded, but the Atlas version could continue to launch. If this incidence had happened with a common stage, it could have grounded all launches for the duration of the investigation.
-
#20
by
edkyle99
on 30 Apr, 2013 18:19
-
I'm surprised the DOD is allowing a common stage. I thought they explicitly wanted different stages to minimize the chance of both being grounded due to the same cause. We saw this just last year, when the Delta version of the RL-10 was grounded, but the Atlas version could continue to launch. If this incidence had happened with a common stage, it could have grounded all launches for the duration of the investigation.
Plans only call for a common engine, not a stage, at this point, though there are longer-term proposals for a common stage.
EELV already crossed that bridge, when production of both vehicles was assigned to one company (ULA). ULA will naturally be driven to cut costs by increasing commonality between vehicles. RL10C is one path. Shared staffing was another. Common avionics will likely follow. Avionics will be a big step because it will mean dropping a long-time U.S. launch vehicle avionics contractor.
- Ed Kyle
-
#21
by
strangequark
on 01 May, 2013 00:46
-
PWR hasn't developed a new engine since RS-68, an effort that began nearly two decades ago.
J-2X, or are you not counting it until it flies?
-
#22
by
edkyle99
on 01 May, 2013 02:27
-
PWR hasn't developed a new engine since RS-68, an effort that began nearly two decades ago.
J-2X, or are you not counting it until it flies?
It is still in an early R&D phase. I wouldn't count it until it passed flight qualification tests, which would not happen until shortly before it flew.
- Ed Kyle
-
#23
by
Hyperion5
on 01 May, 2013 02:58
-
It's sort of how you learned from forecasting a Romney victory, like many in my field did, that making an accurate political forecast is tough.
That was more of a wish
Wishes do not make for good predictions I find. It's like how I wished Medvedev would rebel against Putin and turn the 2012 Russian presidential race into an actual race. That was a wish I should have known would not come true. The best, or at least the best-known in the short-term political forecasting business is statistician Nate Silver, who ran 538.com and correctly called the 2012 election better than almost any other pundit. Anything over about a couple of years in the future, and the statistical odds on a correct forecast by the experts nose-dives. Five years out, the top minds' best estimates are no more accurate than a monkey flipping a coin and you predicting the results.
Given how hard it is to predict things just six months in advance, I am often amazed people think intelligence agency predictions for the coming year are to be trusted. The most infamous example of this going wrong was the CIA saying in 1978 that Iran was "definitely" not in a pre-revolutionary state. Boy did we come to regret that one. Then there's the really stupid moments, like when Congress condemns the CIA for not forecasting a coup. Well of course they couldn't forecast it! Does Congress seriously think people plotting coups are going to make it easy for others to notice their activities?
It's not that I'd mind seeing a Vinci, RD-0146 or a Japanese hydrolox engine atop an Atlas or Delta, it's just politically I wouldn't predict it. I'm just curious as to why you are predicting it, Ed.
PWR hasn't developed a new engine since RS-68, an effort that began nearly two decades ago. PWR is on the verge of being merged into Aerojet, a company currently focused on essentially rewiring Russian-built engines. Neither company seems motivated to develop a new U.S. built engine. Rocketdyne bowed out of the Atlas competition rather than develop a new engine during the 1990s, giving the work to Energomash. A few years back, P&W actually proposed an RL10 replacement that would have been based on a Russian engine.
This year to date there have been 20 orbital launch attempts world-wide. Only one of those was powered off the pad by U.S. built rocket engines.
The trend seems clear to me.
- Ed Kyle
Given you're predicting a foreign-built US engine, just which one did you have in mind? I personally would be looking at the Vinci due to its outstanding Isp & restart capability. If the Russians added the restart capability of the RD-0146D to its RD-0146 cousin, that would be quite tempting. Last I checked an RD-0146 is only 1.39 m in diameter, would would make fitting a quartet of them onto an Atlas or Delta straightforward. If the economics worked out that'd be a pretty ideal setup, given you could handle engine-out issues with that many engines. I'd even predict the reliability would be potentially better by a good margin than the reliability of ULA upper stages today.
-
#24
by
Jim
on 01 May, 2013 03:11
-
Given you're predicting a foreign-built US engine, just which one did you have in mind? I personally would be looking at the Vinci due to its outstanding Isp & restart capability. If the Russians added the restart capability of the RD-0146D to its RD-0146 cousin, that would be quite tempting. Last I checked an RD-0146 is only 1.39 m in diameter, would would make fitting a quartet of them onto an Atlas or Delta straightforward. If the economics worked out that'd be a pretty ideal setup, given you could handle engine-out issues with that many engines. I'd even predict the reliability would be potentially better by a good margin than the reliability of ULA upper stages today.
No it wouldn't because it would be limited to just one engine (no quartet since it is just replacing the RL-10 and wrong mixture ratio) and therefore could be no better, much less by a good margin.
-
#25
by
Hyperion5
on 01 May, 2013 04:53
-
Given you're predicting a foreign-built US engine, just which one did you have in mind? I personally would be looking at the Vinci due to its outstanding Isp & restart capability. If the Russians added the restart capability of the RD-0146D to its RD-0146 cousin, that would be quite tempting. Last I checked an RD-0146 is only 1.39 m in diameter, would would make fitting a quartet of them onto an Atlas or Delta straightforward. If the economics worked out that'd be a pretty ideal setup, given you could handle engine-out issues with that many engines. I'd even predict the reliability would be potentially better by a good margin than the reliability of ULA upper stages today.
No it wouldn't because it would be limited to just one engine (no quartet since it is just replacing the RL-10 and wrong mixture ratio) and therefore could be no better, much less by a good margin.
Sorry I didn't clarify this. I was assuming a new upper stage being designed that could handle it and carry more propellants. If you could put 2X the amount of propellant up top thanks to all the added thrust, I'd certainly expect the result to out-perform by a good margin. Any of the engines Ed suggests that aren't RL-10s are going to require changes. A single Vinci setup might be one of the simpler options, though it'd require some big stage modifications or an all-new US as well.
-
#26
by
vapour_nudge
on 21 Apr, 2015 00:22
-
Perhaps they might feasibly just market the Delta IV Heavy as the only Delta IV and concentrate all other launches on Atlas V?
If this was the case, what capabilities would be lost?
This thread appeared to be on the money with predictions. Worth a quick browse to see what we were all thinking two years back
-
#27
by
Robotbeat
on 01 May, 2015 00:20
-
Yes. Aerojet's domestic RD-180 is developed instead of Vulcan. Atlas V gets some upper stage upgrades and maybe another SRB. No need for Delta IV Heavy.
-
#28
by
Llian Rhydderch
on 15 May, 2015 05:02
-
Yes.
ULA board (Boeing/LockMart) fail to commit requisite development funding to the long-term success of Vulcan.
The Borg US space industrial complex retakes the minds of Bruno and senior ULA execs, while Congress and/or AR do something with a new engine, or a US-produced RD-180, on a traditional Atlas V. ULA drops Delta IV and Delta IV Heavy as too expensive to win (even) US government work in the next national-missions contract, given F9 and FH exist. ULA can exist with a sub-optimal solution as the US military will buy an expensive option to maintain two suppliers for the monopsonistic "defence" missions.
It would be too bad, as the space industry badly needs real competition; but it is a possibility.
-
#29
by
Kaputnik
on 17 May, 2015 20:33
-
This year to date there have been 20 orbital launch attempts world-wide. Only one of those was powered off the pad by U.S. built rocket engines.
The trend seems clear to me.
- Ed Kyle
7 out of 25 launches powered by U.S. built engines to date in 2015.
How's that trend looking?
