-
#120 by Robotbeat on 06 Sep, 2013 21:18
-
Besides, Atlas V is cheaper, probably still cheaper even if you use a domestically built RD-180. And the non-Heavy Atlas V variants are much more powerful than their Delta IV non-Heavy equivalents (as far as number of solids). So either you'd need to develop yet another Delta IV Medium+ variant with yet more solids on it (and thus more probability of failure) or a lot of payloads which currently can use an Atlas V will have to use a Delta IV Heavy.Alternately, and a lot more likely, NRO and DOD would simply switch payloads to DIV variants and say screw it.
@This.
Atlas and Delta are two LV's that really do the same thing, and were inteded for one or the other to win the EELV competition for the exact same role. Maybe one's a little better for some things, and the other's a little better for other things. But they were both designed to meet the USAF's specifications, so I'm assuming they both can.
The problem with going to Delta IV is it throws NASA under the bus. NASA relies on Atlas V for science missions and doesn't even bother with Delta IV. 2 of the CCP providers bid Atlas V as their LV. Then there's the whole situation with Orbital, who need an ORSC engine if they want to fly more COTS missions.
If Russia did block further RD-180 export, Orbital might win by getting access to the US built RD-180. -
#121 by baldusi on 06 Sep, 2013 21:47
-
M(4,4) is already "developed", since they used the (5,4) core for the "common" core. In fact, it has barely 6months extra lead time. That covers upto the 431, which btw, has only been used by commercial payloads. And the M+(5,4) covers upto 531. Only MSL used 541, and 551 was used twice by NASA (New Horizon and Juno) and twice by MUOS. So, M(5,6) could probably cover 551, or they could save the last Atlas for MUOS. But overall, I don't think anything will happen.
Besides, Atlas V is cheaper, probably still cheaper even if you use a domestically built RD-180. And the non-Heavy Atlas V variants are much more powerful than their Delta IV non-Heavy equivalents (as far as number of solids). So either you'd need to develop yet another Delta IV Medium+ variant with yet more solids on it (and thus more probability of failure) or a lot of payloads which currently can use an Atlas V will have to use a Delta IV Heavy.Alternately, and a lot more likely, NRO and DOD would simply switch payloads to DIV variants and say screw it.
@This.
Atlas and Delta are two LV's that really do the same thing, and were inteded for one or the other to win the EELV competition for the exact same role. Maybe one's a little better for some things, and the other's a little better for other things. But they were both designed to meet the USAF's specifications, so I'm assuming they both can.
The problem with going to Delta IV is it throws NASA under the bus. NASA relies on Atlas V for science missions and doesn't even bother with Delta IV. 2 of the CCP providers bid Atlas V as their LV. Then there's the whole situation with Orbital, who need an ORSC engine if they want to fly more COTS missions.
If Russia did block further RD-180 export, Orbital might win by getting access to the US built RD-180. -
#122 by Lobo on 06 Sep, 2013 21:48
-
The problem with going to Delta IV is it throws NASA under the bus. NASA relies on Atlas V for science missions and doesn't even bother with Delta IV.
What NASA science missions does NASA have that can't fly on Delta IV? Just because they are currently using Atlas V, does that mean Delta IV can't be used?
I think they've opted for Atlas V because it has a couple of variants between Delta IV M+ (5,4) and D4H that they have needed, and are cheaper than D4H. But if ULA standardized on Delta IV, it's reasonable to assume that with a higher flight rate, Delta IV priced could come down at least to be similar to the Delta Atlas prices.
So how is that throwing NASA under the bus?
There will also be FH available in the next few years.
2 of the CCP providers bid Atlas V as their LV.
And one if not both could use F9 if Atlas was no longer available. I believe both are LV neutral. Besides, there will only be one CCP winner. There won't be a situation where two providers need Atlas. And assuming that winner isn't SpaceX (if it is, then this is a moot point) Boeing has said outright they could go to F9, and might after two initial flights on Atlas. I would assume the same could go for SNC.
Besides, Boeing wanted Delta for CST-100 originally. CST-100 is slated to initially fly on an Atlas V-412. I can't find any LEO performance to 51.6 deg ISS orbit for it, but is it anything a Delta M+ (5,4) couldn't do? as well? The upper stage is already being man-rated for SLS, and the RS-68A means the booster is close to being man rated.
Although a switch to F9 is most likely due to cost (should be even less than Atlas V) , and F9 will already be man-rated. Elon won't turn them away if he looses the commercial crew competition, but I imagine right now he's not offering F9 to them because currently they are his competition.
Then there's the whole situation with Orbital, who need an ORSC engine if they want to fly more COTS missions.
Orbital probably has enough AJ-26 engines to fill out it's COTS contract. Yes, getting an additional COTS contract could be in jeopardy if they can't get an ORSC engine replacment. But, there are other options than RD-180. They don't currently have RD-180. The AJ-26-500 would be a domestically made AJ-26 tuned up for more thrust, so it should drop right in. AJ-1E6 would be two AJ-26-500's sharing a single turbopump, so it should fit right in to. Again, domestically made. If Aerojet won't make either of those for OSC if OSC gets a COTS contract extension, Cygnus could always fly on Delta IV medium (no SRB's) or F9. If NASA deemed they really needed the capabilities unique to Cygnus, and OSC couldn't continue launching it on Antares, I would think they could adjust the contract to include the launch prices of Delta IV if they didn't want both of their cargo ships flying on F9. (which they may or may not care about)
If Russia did block further RD-180 export, Orbital might win by getting access to the US built RD-180.
Yup, the other option other than AJ-26-500 and AJ-1E6, is Aerojet-Rocketdyne building a domestic copy of RD-180. If USAF wants ULA to maintain Atlas V, Aerojet-Rocketdyne could go that way and supply US-RD-180's to both OSC and ULA.
However, I think the increased engine price of a domestically developed and produce RD-180 (even if it's a copy) could make Atlas more costly, and it would be more cost effective to retire it and ramp up Delta IV production to get those prices down to where the Atlas with the US-RD-180 would cost.
-
#123 by Lobo on 06 Sep, 2013 22:06
-
Besides, Atlas V is cheaper, probably still cheaper even if you use a domestically built RD-180. And the non-Heavy Atlas V variants are much more powerful than their Delta IV non-Heavy equivalents (as far as number of solids). So either you'd need to develop yet another Delta IV Medium+ variant with yet more solids on it (and thus more probability of failure) or a lot of payloads which currently can use an Atlas V will have to use a Delta IV Heavy.
Atlas V is cheaper than Delta IV at current production rates of a few cores of each made per year. And I'm going to -guess- that the cost difference is mainly due to the price difference between what ULA can buy the RD-180 for compared to what they can buy the RS-68A for at current production rates of a handful of each per year.
I'm assuming that costs to make each core and each upper stage is pretty similar, especially now they are all made at the same plant in Decatur.
So, what happens if Atlas is retired, and twice as many D4 CCB's are made per year? (maybe more than twice because some Atlas 541 and 551 would move to D4H....3 cores instead of one)
Even if twice the CCB production rate didn't lower core or upper stage costs any, (because ULA would basically be trading Atlas V cores for Delta IV cores, not gaining more launches per year), the RS-68A production rate would double, or more (more D4H launches).
If the RS-68A production rate doubled or more, then I'd think it's price per unit would come down?
Also, two launch complexes could be retired.
The thing here is, if Atlas were retired, and ULA kept it's current manifest and flight rate, Delta 4 production would double, and the Atlas infrastructure would be closed. That means D4 prices will likely not stay what they are now.
M(4,4) is already "developed", since they used the (5,4) core for the "common" core. In fact, it has barely 6months extra lead time. That covers upto the 431, which btw, has only been used by commercial payloads. And the M+(5,4) covers upto 531. Only MSL used 541, and 551 was used twice by NASA (New Horizon and Juno) and twice by MUOS. So, M(5,6) could probably cover 551, or they could save the last Atlas for MUOS. But overall, I don't think anything will happen.
And that's a good point. There's only a small number of payloads that have every flown on Atlas 541 and 551. Delta IV M+ can cover any Atlas smaller than 541. Only a handful of payloads would need to be moved from 541 or 551 to D4H. And those can be planned for if they aren't already on the manifest. Sounds like there's just one payload on the manifest (MUOS) that would need to have an Atlas saved for it, or be moved to D4H. Future payloads could either be designed to trim down to to an M+(5,4) capacity, or plan for the D4H costs (which should hopefully come down).
Or fly on FH.
-
#124 by Robotbeat on 06 Sep, 2013 23:13
-
Bad guess. There's more to it than just the engines.Besides, Atlas V is cheaper, probably still cheaper even if you use a domestically built RD-180. And the non-Heavy Atlas V variants are much more powerful than their Delta IV non-Heavy equivalents (as far as number of solids). So either you'd need to develop yet another Delta IV Medium+ variant with yet more solids on it (and thus more probability of failure) or a lot of payloads which currently can use an Atlas V will have to use a Delta IV Heavy.
Atlas V is cheaper than Delta IV at current production rates of a few cores of each made per year. And I'm going to -guess- that the cost difference is mainly due to the price difference between what ULA can buy the RD-180 for compared to what they can buy the RS-68A for at current production rates of a handful of each per year. ... -
#125 by joek on 06 Sep, 2013 23:14
-
I think we hashed this out previously in the How Should ULA’s Business Model Change going Forward? thread. Which at one point I posed the question as to why not Delta IV instead of Atlas V as the heir apparent? The simple answer appears to be that (per Jim) Atlas V and Delta IV have unique capabilities, that there is a significant dependence on Atlas V by key customers (specifically, NSS) for the foreseeable future ...
In short, ULA's freedom of movement with respect to Atlas V and Delta IV is seriously constrained, and there is going to be no change for the foreseeable future as ULA has very little say in the matter. The shots are being called by DoD (and further constrained by Boeing and LM); DoD owns the EELV program; DoD provides ULA their bread and butter; DoD funded and signed off on RD-180 Co-Production Successfully Concluded. The most likely outcome if Russia embargoes RD-180 shipments any time in the near future (specifically, before existing Atlas V commitments are met 2017-2018) is that domestic RD-180 production will be started. -
#126 by Lobo on 06 Sep, 2013 23:34
-
I think we hashed this out previously in the How Should ULA’s Business Model Change going Forward? thread. Which at one point I posed the question as to why not Delta IV instead of Atlas V as the heir apparent? The simple answer appears to be that (per Jim) Atlas V and Delta IV have unique capabilities, that there is a significant dependence on Atlas V by key customers (specifically, NSS) for the foreseeable future ...
In short, ULA's freedom of movement with respect to Atlas V and Delta IV is seriously constrained, and there is going to be no change for the foreseeable future as ULA has very little say in the matter. The shots are being called by DoD (and further constrained by Boeing and LM); DoD owns the EELV program; DoD provides ULA their bread and butter; DoD funded and signed off on RD-180 Co-Production Successfully Concluded. The most likely outcome if Russia embargoes RD-180 shipments any time in the near future (specifically, before existing Atlas V commitments are met 2017-2018) is that domestic RD-180 production will be started.
But granted, I think that thread was before Russia was making rumblings about pulling RD-180. This thread is about the potential fall out if they did pull RD-180.
There's a good chance that probably won't happen from what several here have posted, but just in case, that's what we are talking about.
I don't think USAF or DoD can force Russia to sell them to us to maintain the Atlas line. But they can pay Aerojet-Rocketdyne to develop and buld a US version of RD-180 in such an event. True.
I guess USAF/DoD would have to evaluate how important the unique capabilities of Atlas V were to them, and if they wanted to shell out the money to develop and build our own.
In situations like this, where you are evaluating a situation where you have access to both lines unhindered into the forseeable future, then yea, if Atlas has some applications that are more desirable for it's use, it's pretty easy to say that you'll just continue as-is into the forseeable future.
But, if the apple cart gets upset, then sometimes people take another look at how much they really -need- those advantages. Especially if you feel your nose was tweaked in the process.
The other issue is, for the "forseeable" future, USAF and DoD will be using ULA EELV's exclusively. But after 2015, SpaceX has a chance to come in and get some of those launches. If they are successful, and there is an alternate LV to both Delta -and- Atlas, which may or may not have some of the same advantages Atlas does (I don't know if F9 would) then that can change the equation too.
Dropping the money to develop a US made RD-180 might not seem so necessary depending on what role F9 might play just beyond the "forseeable" future.
But, if USAF pays for a US made RD-180, I'm sure AJR will do it. And OSC may try to get it too for Antares. Which would probably mean AJ-1E6 won't go anywhere because a US made RD-180 could cover pretty much anything AJ-1E6 would do. Even as an SLS LRB option.
PS: Speaking of which...where is Jim on the conversation? I'd assumed he'd have swooped in and slapped several of us around by now. :-)
He probably knows better than any how "important" USAF would consider Atlas, and if it's important enough to make a US RD-180 or not. -
#127 by joek on 06 Sep, 2013 23:52
-
But granted, I think that thread was before Russia was making rumblings about pulling RD-180. This thread is about the potential fall out if they did pull RD-180.
My assumption has always been based on a conservative reading of DoD/NSS position that "assured access" assumes the (foreign) supplier may pull the plug. DoD/NSS plans must have always assumed that Russia might "pull the RD-180". To assume or plan otherwise (especially for DoD/NSS) invites a public hanging, and would question why they spent the money for certifying domestic production of the RD-180. -
#128 by arachnitect on 07 Sep, 2013 01:25
-
The problem with going to Delta IV is it throws NASA under the bus. NASA relies on Atlas V for science missions and doesn't even bother with Delta IV.
What NASA science missions does NASA have that can't fly on Delta IV? Just because they are currently using Atlas V, does that mean Delta IV can't be used?
[...]
There will also be FH available in the next few years.
It's not a matter of performance, it's just that NASA simply doesn't deal with Delta IV right now. It's not on NLS II. Is Delta certified for nuclear payloads? These things can all be done, it just takes time and money.
FH is years and years away.
2 of the CCP providers bid Atlas V as their LV.
And one if not both could use F9 if Atlas was no longer available. I believe both are LV neutral. Besides, there will only be one CCP winner.
"Neutral" is a relative term. Many cars have both diesel and petrol versions, but that doesn't mean you can just swap engines between them. Again, they could redo all the wind tunnel work and pad planning if they really had to, but it would be a big setback to two of the providers.If Russia did block further RD-180 export, Orbital might win by getting access to the US built RD-180.
Yup, the other option other than AJ-26-500 and AJ-1E6, is Aerojet-Rocketdyne building a domestic copy of RD-180. If USAF wants ULA to maintain Atlas V, Aerojet-Rocketdyne could go that way and supply US-RD-180's to both OSC and ULA.
Orbital has enough engines for their current contract, but apparently NASA want them to sort out their long term situation before they get more flights. If Orbital are willing to re-engineer Antares for RD-180, they can cost share with Atlas.
However, I think the increased engine price of a domestically developed and produce RD-180 (even if it's a copy) could make Atlas more costly, and it would be more cost effective to retire it and ramp up Delta IV production to get those prices down to where the Atlas with the US-RD-180 would cost.
Without access to the $ numbers we're all just guessing. What I'm trying to convey is that the hassle of realigning the whole program around Delta IV comes with real costs in time and money, and NASA gets particularly hard hit. My guess is that it might be better just to take the cost hit and build the engines here -and if Aerojet/Rocketdyne is going to start building them here, they should offer to bring Orbital on board. -
#129 by Lobo on 07 Sep, 2013 23:41
-
Without access to the $ numbers we're all just guessing. What I'm trying to convey is that the hassle of realigning the whole program around Delta IV comes with real costs in time and money, and NASA gets particularly hard hit. My guess is that it might be better just to take the cost hit and build the engines here -and if Aerojet/Rocketdyne is going to start building them here, they should offer to bring Orbital on board.
Agreed. And yes, I am just guess. I think it's an educated guess as it involves involves the economics of scale and standardization, which bring costs down normally in production. But yes, there'd have to be a study done by people with access to all the numbers and information. And given everything, as you said, it could be that they just opt to go with a domestic RD-180 replacement.
I would guess if that's the case, they we wouldn't see an AJ-1E6 as there'd be no need for it at that point. Or that AJ-1E6 would be specifically developed to be a drop in replacement in size and dimensions for RD-180, just perhaps based a little more on NK heritage than RD heritage.
Don't know that it's really -needed-, but I never really thought both EELV's were needed, just one as per the original plan. But, USAF -wanted- it and paid for it, and so there you go. And the same could very well be the case here.
Personally, whether it's really -needed- or not, I'd very much like to see US launchers flying on US-built engine. Even if it has some Russian heritage.
I think the RS-68 a little better that way as it's a US design in addition. But, it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see us making an RD-180 (or equivalent) rather than importing them.
-
#130 by baldusi on 08 Sep, 2013 00:21
-
Stopping Atlas V use would save two pads upkeep, btw.
-
#131 by EE Scott on 08 Sep, 2013 02:25
-
Atlas V has more flexible avionics, in that it is able to provide longer launch windows in some cases.
I don't know off hand how much that extra flexibility is valued by NASA or DoD.
Can anybody provide more color on this aspect? -
#132 by edkyle99 on 08 Sep, 2013 03:49
-
Atlas V has more flexible avionics, in that it is able to provide longer launch windows in some cases.
My understanding is the Delta IV avionics is going to be, or is being, updated to use, essentially, the Atlas V system. RIFCA, the current Delta IV system, was first used by Delta II in 1995. It was Delta's first ring laser gyro system, and it has done more than "just fine" over the years - all you have to do is marvel at its flight record - but is now a bit outdated.
I don't know off hand how much that extra flexibility is valued by NASA or DoD.
Can anybody provide more color on this aspect?
- Ed Kyle -
#133 by EE Scott on 08 Sep, 2013 04:36
-
Atlas V has more flexible avionics, in that it is able to provide longer launch windows in some cases.
My understanding is the Delta IV avionics is going to be, or is being, updated to use, essentially, the Atlas V system. RIFCA, the current Delta IV system, was first used by Delta II in 1995. It was Delta's first ring laser gyro system, and it has done more than "just fine" over the years - all you have to do is marvel at its flight record - but is now a bit outdated.
I don't know off hand how much that extra flexibility is valued by NASA or DoD.
Can anybody provide more color on this aspect?
- Ed Kyle
Thanks for this background. I had read that they'd base the new phase 2 EELV avionics on the Atlas system, but didn't know they may change the Delta IV over to it. So differences in avionics and flight software are not really factors in any potential choice between the two LVs should the RD-180 cease being offered for sale. -
#134 by baldusi on 08 Sep, 2013 05:09
-
The Common Avionics update is basically to adapt the Atlas V avionics on Delta. But is also required to handle the RL-10C, and is the version that will be used by the Crewed Atlas and ths ICPS. Next ULA project is Common Upper Stage, I believe.
-
#135 by Robotbeat on 08 Sep, 2013 06:27
-
Stopping Atlas V use would save two pads upkeep, btw.
Oh, good, so what happens if one of them blows up, destroying the pad?
Makes more sense to stop Delta IV and switch to domestic kerolox. -
#136 by MATTBLAK on 08 Sep, 2013 07:54
-
It's absolutely amazing to me (or is it?) that in the last few weeks on this site I've seen calls for and suggestions to cancel not just SLS, but now also Atlas V and Delta IV as well..!?
-
#137 by kevin-rf on 08 Sep, 2013 11:35
-
Only the last few weeks? That constant call has been going on for years. No, not even SpaceX or Orbital are immune from it.
-
#138 by MATTBLAK on 08 Sep, 2013 11:55
-
Well; I wouldn't want to be accused of exaggerating - which happens all the time (I rarely actually do so). But I hate being right about this. To paraphrase John Fornaro who came up with "Nothing Firsters" - there are people round here who want to ban or cancel everything. I've seen opinions that range for demanding the cancellation of SLS, Liberty, Atlas V, Delta IV-H and even Antares as well, because of it's possible engine shortage.
Do some people want no one in Space? How did it get to this? (rhetorical). Sigh...
(We'd better watch out - someone might pull the thread-locking trigger any minute
)
-
#139 by Proponent on 08 Sep, 2013 12:14
-
It's about money. The timing is about Syria. The Bear likes to mess with American doves.
SpaceX will never sell engines to anyone, only missions.The odd twist here is that ULA really needs SpaceX to pull off their F9 1.1 launch, and the next few commercial ones, and get certified for DoD launches, because that gives ULA negotiating leverage. They can say: if we have to pay too much more, we can't compete with SpaceX on price. And if you choose not to sell us the RD-180, you are just giving extra business volume to the company who is price-competitive with you on the world market.
Most thought-provoking post I've read in a long time.
Mightn't this just be a Russian domestic political dust-up that has spilled onto the international stage? The scenario would be that Energomash somehow stepped on the toes of somebody powerful, and that somebody is now threatening Energomash. The timing might still about about Syria, in that Energomash's antagonist would have realized that Syria would make Putin particularly receptive to the idea of bashing the US.
What I find attractive about this hypothesis is that it explains the senselessness of the act. The official reason for cutting off the supply RD-180s is to prevent the US military from launching satellites, but all it would actually do is make launches a little more expensive in the short run and stimulate the US rocket-engine industry.
And it would be a really dumb way for Energomash to try to negotiate higher prices, because even at a higher price there's nothing to stop the Russian government from withholding RD-180s in the future. This kind of threat only makes the product less attractive.
But, the parties to a political infight typically don't care about the larger consequences of their actions -- they just want to win the battle. There's a case to be made that the changes in ITAR in 1999 in which the US so effectively shot itself in the foot were motivated in significant part by political domestic squabbles. Maybe the RD-180 threat is something similar.
)