Could you envisage a situation where ULA only produces the Atlas V

[edkyle99]

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

[strangequark]

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?

[edkyle99]

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

[Hyperion5]

  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. 

[Jim]

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.

[Hyperion5]

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. 

[vapour_nudge]

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

[Robotbeat]

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.

[Llian Rhydderch]

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.

[Kaputnik]

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?