-
#140 by AncientU on 08 Sep, 2013 14:50
-
Not that it matters much to this discussion, but the methane option being explored by SpaceX is likely going to be fuel rich which will be much simpler according to this site a while back (which I cannot find at the moment).
But if it the United States absolutely had to have an oxygen-rich staged combustion engine, it could be done.
Interesting question...-is- there really a need for a US ORSC engine?
SpaceX doesn't think so for their current operations, and are exploring it only for a methane application, where they don't want to use RP-1 or LH2. -
#141 by Lobo on 08 Sep, 2013 15:08
-
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.
What's the latest on that? ACES is what I'd heard they want as a common upper stage for awhile. But now heard something about a common DCSS from Downix I think. Any info out there on that? -
#142 by Lobo on 08 Sep, 2013 15:30
-
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
)
Hmmm...I think you are missing the point that I've been getting at here if you think I've been advocating cancellation of Atlas because I don't want to go anywhere. But Atlas and Delta have both been 100% duplicate systems from the beginning. The EELV program was only supposed to have ONE winner, and that one winner was supposed to have a pretty high production rate in handling all government payloads of that 6-23mt payload range. As well as be available for commercial launches if the winner wanted to.
The decision the keep both along with a lower than expected government flight rate, and foreign launchers low balling their prices, resulted in a pretty anemic flight rate for either over the past decade.
One that either Atlas or Delta could have met by themselves...as was the original plan...and then some. So neither course had any kind of production rate that could introduce any economics of scale.
Now Falcon will be competing for some of that limited government business too, as well as Antares (visa vi COTS).
So it just begs the question, in Atlas actually does suffer a major problem like this in engine supply, is it vital...or even necessary...to keep it being a redundant EELV?
Not that I don't want to go anywhere...quite the opposite. Rather make things more affordable so we can go more places.
If there's good reasons to keep and operate Atlas if we don't get cheap Russian engines any more, that's cool. I don't know. Just asking the question.
-
#143 by Robotbeat on 08 Sep, 2013 15:41
-
Really odd hearing about how Atlas V should be canceled from an SLS advocate. It flies more often than any other vehicle in the US fleet, and ten times more often than SLS will. It has NO engine shortage, and it's engine can be manufactured domestically. It is the cheaper of the two EELVs, and the only vehicle (now that D2 is gone) that is nuclear-certified, and one of only two commercial crew launch vehicles, relied on by two thirds of the current partners. The US DoD needs assured access to space, and that can't be done with a single vehicle. Those are all facts right now, the rest is speculation.
-
#144 by EE Scott on 08 Sep, 2013 16:44
-
I would love to get an insider's perspective on this, I mean a DoD insider. How concerned are the decision makers within DoD about this issue? What are their back up plans?
Currently they have two excellent LVs to work with, which provides many advantages. The biggest downside of course is how much they are paying for the capabilities. But access to space for DoD and NSA, etc., is a such a basic and vital capacity for national security that overpaying for assured access might not be such a bad trade off. Just think where the U.S. was when everything was supposed to be launched from the shuttle, then the shuttle was grounded. So that gives me hope that they will either bite the bullet and start setting up production of RD-180 domestically, or replace with a different U.S. hydrocarbon engine. (F-1B, RS-84, ...). -
#145 by joek on 08 Sep, 2013 17:32
-
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.
While Delta IV prices would undoubtedly decrease, the question is whether there would be a net benefit. The short answer appears to be "no", at least from the EELV program perspective. See the excerpt below from EELV Program Assessment, OSD, September 2010. (Unfortunately much of the presentation is redacted but there are a few other interesting tidbits.)
-
#146 by baldusi on 08 Sep, 2013 20:58
-
If you stop the Delta IV you also end up with single pad per coast. I don't really see you point. BTW, I understand that there's still the flame trench for a second pad on LC-37 (Delta IV's).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. -
#147 by joek on 08 Sep, 2013 21:14
-
But Atlas and Delta have both been 100% duplicate systems from the beginning. The EELV program was only supposed to have ONE winner, and that one winner was supposed to have a pretty high production rate in handling all government payloads of that 6-23mt payload range. As well as be available for commercial launches if the winner wanted to.
The decision the keep both along with a lower than expected government flight rate, and foreign launchers low balling their prices, resulted in a pretty anemic flight rate for either over the past decade.
One that either Atlas or Delta could have met by themselves...as was the original plan...and then some. So neither course had any kind of production rate that could introduce any economics of scale.
This is getting OT, but those assertions are questionable and at minimum require additional context ...
The relevant basis for comparison is Atlas V and Delta IV as they exist, not the "original" EELV requirements or program structure ~1994-1996; that skips about five years of critical history ~1997-2002. The Atlas V and Delta IV programs were both originally required to show that they could meet DoD's requirements. However, could vs. would began to diverge ~1997-1998.
If the original (1994-1996) EELV program plan had been followed, then yes, it is likely that the sole-source winner--who would have received a $1.8B cost-plus contract for engineering, manufacturing and development--would meet all of DoD's requirements. And if the DoD had awarded two of those contracts, then we would have "100% duplication". But that is not what happened.
That "original" plan went out the window in 1998 with the program's restructuring based on competitive commercial acquisition and "best effort" in meeting DoD requirements. Which is why, e.g., LM requested (and was granted) a waiver for constructing a West coast pad in 1999 (LM was getting cold feet due to concerns about commercial demand and competition), why DoD funded the development and first flight of Delta IV heavy (there was obviously no commercial demand to pay for it), and why we don't have an Atlas V heavy today.
Moreover, it was the (*cough*) crash (*cough*) of the commercial launch market that sunk the EELV competitive commercial acquisition strategy, and what brought us to where we are today with ULA. The DoD was projected to be only 30% of the EELV launch market when the critical decisions were made in 1998. While the lower than expected government flight rate and international competitors were contributing factors, they were not the only reasons, and arguably not the primary reasons. -
#148 by Robotbeat on 09 Sep, 2013 03:08
-
Certainly! I think neither should be cut at very least until another vehicle is proven operationally.
If you stop the Delta IV you also end up with single pad per coast. I don't really see you point. BTW, I understand that there's still the flame trench for a second pad on LC-37 (Delta IV's).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.
My point is that I think Atlas V is the cheaper one, both now and probably with domestic rd180 as well. People exaggerate how important just an engine is to the cost of a launch. -
#149 by edkyle99 on 09 Sep, 2013 03:29
-
If you stop the Delta IV you also end up with single pad per coast. I don't really see you point. BTW, I understand that there's still the flame trench for a second pad on LC-37 (Delta IV's).
There is space for a second pad (SLC 37A), but it would have to be built, like SLC 37B, from scratch. Saturn I/IB didn't use a flame trench, instead there were elevated launch stands that were demolished when the site was closed. But a second pad would not be needed. The combined EELV launch rate from Cape Canaveral is only once every 5 to 6 weeks on average.
- Ed Kyle -
#150 by Robotbeat on 09 Sep, 2013 04:31
-
It WOULD be needed for assured access reasons. If a rocket on the pad blew up, for instance, destroying the pad.If you stop the Delta IV you also end up with single pad per coast. I don't really see you point. BTW, I understand that there's still the flame trench for a second pad on LC-37 (Delta IV's).
There is space for a second pad (SLC 37A), but it would have to be built, like SLC 37B, from scratch. Saturn I/IB didn't use a flame trench, instead there were elevated launch stands that were demolished when the site was closed. But a second pad would not be needed. The combined EELV launch rate from Cape Canaveral is only once every 5 to 6 weeks on average.
- Ed Kyle -
#151 by Lars_J on 09 Sep, 2013 04:56
-
It WOULD be needed for assured access reasons. If a rocket on the pad blew up, for instance, destroying the pad.
Yep. I think it is wise for to keep both for assured access, either until A) a new LV replaces either (Delta V? Atlas VI? Something else), or B) another option enters the marketplaces and proves itself. (SpaceX?) -
#152 by Lobo on 09 Sep, 2013 04:58
-
Oh, good, so what happens if one of them blows up, destroying the pad?
Ummm....you rebuild it? -
#153 by edkyle99 on 09 Sep, 2013 04:58
-
There's only one Heavy pad on each coast.
It WOULD be needed for assured access reasons. If a rocket on the pad blew up, for instance, destroying the pad.If you stop the Delta IV you also end up with single pad per coast. I don't really see you point. BTW, I understand that there's still the flame trench for a second pad on LC-37 (Delta IV's).
There is space for a second pad (SLC 37A), but it would have to be built, like SLC 37B, from scratch. Saturn I/IB didn't use a flame trench, instead there were elevated launch stands that were demolished when the site was closed. But a second pad would not be needed. The combined EELV launch rate from Cape Canaveral is only once every 5 to 6 weeks on average.
- Ed Kyle
- Ed Kyle -
#154 by Lobo on 09 Sep, 2013 05:01
-
Really odd hearing about how Atlas V should be canceled from an SLS advocate. It flies more often than any other vehicle in the US fleet, and ten times more often than SLS will.
What does SLS advocacy or no have to do with Atlas?
This point makes no sense...
And, if there two EELV's that launch 10 times as much as SLS will, would not one EELV launch 20 times as much then?
-
#155 by Lobo on 09 Sep, 2013 05:12
-
It has NO engine shortage,
Then why was this thread started?
and it's engine can be manufactured domestically.
Delta's already is.
It is the cheaper of the two EELVs,
Primarily because of the cheap Russians engines, no?
and the only vehicle (now that D2 is gone) that is nuclear-certified
How important is that? (I don't know), and is there any reason Delta couldn't be? (I don't know)
, and one of only two commercial crew launch vehicles, relied on by two thirds of the current partners.
Relied on currently because of the -existing- situation but not dependent on if that situation were to change enough.
The US DoD needs assured access to space, and that can't be done with a single vehicle. Those are all facts right now, the rest is speculation.
As Jim has said before, there was no backup for Titan. So "assured access" to space in having redundant vehicles is current policy, but not an indelible one. As I understand, the main reasons behind USAF floating both EELV candidates was a) Boeing got in trouble for spying on LM secrets b) Both were brand new LV's and USAF didn't want to select just one right off so to avoid an STS situation if there was a problem with the EELV chosen after it was too late to go back and switch to the other.
So, if I understand that correctly, redundancy for assured access it's not "fact" so much as " current policy". In fact, redundant LV's in the same class was actually only started with the EELV competition, and not anything needed prior.
-
#156 by Lobo on 09 Sep, 2013 05:24
-
But Atlas and Delta have both been 100% duplicate systems from the beginning. The EELV program was only supposed to have ONE winner, and that one winner was supposed to have a pretty high production rate in handling all government payloads of that 6-23mt payload range. As well as be available for commercial launches if the winner wanted to.
The decision the keep both along with a lower than expected government flight rate, and foreign launchers low balling their prices, resulted in a pretty anemic flight rate for either over the past decade.
One that either Atlas or Delta could have met by themselves...as was the original plan...and then some. So neither course had any kind of production rate that could introduce any economics of scale.
This is getting OT, but those assertions are questionable and at minimum require additional context ...
The relevant basis for comparison is Atlas V and Delta IV as they exist, not the "original" EELV requirements or program structure ~1994-1996; that skips about five years of critical history ~1997-2002. The Atlas V and Delta IV programs were both originally required to show that they could meet DoD's requirements. However, could vs. would began to diverge ~1997-1998.
If the original (1994-1996) EELV program plan had been followed, then yes, it is likely that the sole-source winner--who would have received a $1.8B cost-plus contract for engineering, manufacturing and development--would meet all of DoD's requirements. And if the DoD had awarded two of those contracts, then we would have "100% duplication". But that is not what happened.
That "original" plan went out the window in 1998 with the program's restructuring based on competitive commercial acquisition and "best effort" in meeting DoD requirements. Which is why, e.g., LM requested (and was granted) a waiver for constructing a West coast pad in 1999 (LM was getting cold feet due to concerns about commercial demand and competition), why DoD funded the development and first flight of Delta IV heavy (there was obviously no commercial demand to pay for it), and why we don't have an Atlas V heavy today.
Moreover, it was the (*cough*) crash (*cough*) of the commercial launch market that sunk the EELV competitive commercial acquisition strategy, and what brought us to where we are today with ULA. The DoD was projected to be only 30% of the EELV launch market when the critical decisions were made in 1998. While the lower than expected government flight rate and international competitors were contributing factors, they were not the only reasons, and arguably not the primary reasons.
Actually, I think it is on topic, as the issue of a possible change in the current Status quo for one of the EELV's is reason to rethink the current situation and look make sure that it would be worth it to start a domestic RD-180 engine program rather than retire Atlas.
Lots of good arguments for keeping Atlas by several on here. I daresay there's some "Atlas homers" here to seem to be taking the thought of retiring it pretty personally.
But regardless, thanks for the additional EELV information. And yes, I was mainly referring to the original EELV program, rather than what it became. 1997-2002 changed things some (more than I knew, again, thanks for the additional information. Always good to learn more! :-) ) but it shouldn't be beyond reason to look at situation today (2013) and see if or how it's changed since 2002. The situation that made keeping both EELV's in 2002 may or may not exist today, and may or may not exist in the next few years. People with far more info that I will have to look at that. But...as this is a discussion forum, we are discussing it here. :-)
It could very well be that in the interim 11 years, the needs of USAF/DoD have changed such that Delta fills one niche, and Atlas another, and having LV's better for those niches is worth USAF paying ULA to maintain both despite low flight rates into the forseeable future?
I just would be curious as to why. (and many here are giving good reasons why that I wasn't aware of).
-
#157 by Lobo on 09 Sep, 2013 05:32
-
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.
While Delta IV prices would undoubtedly decrease, the question is whether there would be a net benefit. The short answer appears to be "no", at least from the EELV program perspective. See the excerpt below from EELV Program Assessment, OSD, September 2010. (Unfortunately much of the presentation is redacted but there are a few other interesting tidbits.)
This is the kind of study that would likely be done to evaluate starting domestic RD-180 production vs retiring Atlas. That's for that. Yea, heavily redacted unfortunately (but thanks for posting it). But from the slide you referenced, it looks like that $1 billion investment in the consolidation to Delta IV only involved a 2nd pad at Cape Canaveral. The question would be, is...is that really necessary given even the consolidated flight rate? As Ed just suggested. And without that, how would that change a break even point?
-
#158 by Robotbeat on 09 Sep, 2013 05:38
-
There is no shortage. Let me simply repeat what the start of the thread actually says, since you forgot:It has NO engine shortage,
Then why was this thread started?...http://rt.com/news/russian-rocket-engine-ban-039/
via Jeff Foust on Twitter, who has this to add:
Before people get too concerned about the RD-180 report, keep in mind that
1) it's just a report;
2) there's a stockpile of engines in US
3) the IP is in place to build RD-180s in the US (the original 90s-era plan). Re-engining the Atlas V isn't a likely near-term option.
...
There is no shortage (hence the stockpile) even if Russia were to cut off new deliveries tomorrow, which they won't. -
#159 by Lobo on 09 Sep, 2013 05:44
-
There's only one Heavy pad on each coast.
It WOULD be needed for assured access reasons. If a rocket on the pad blew up, for instance, destroying the pad.If you stop the Delta IV you also end up with single pad per coast. I don't really see you point. BTW, I understand that there's still the flame trench for a second pad on LC-37 (Delta IV's).
There is space for a second pad (SLC 37A), but it would have to be built, like SLC 37B, from scratch. Saturn I/IB didn't use a flame trench, instead there were elevated launch stands that were demolished when the site was closed. But a second pad would not be needed. The combined EELV launch rate from Cape Canaveral is only once every 5 to 6 weeks on average.
- Ed Kyle
- Ed Kyle
Additionally, how badly damaged could/would one of the pads be?
LC-41would blow up the Atlas mobile launcher, but is there another one there? There's some infrastructure at the pad, but what couldn't be replaced in short order? The Atlas VIF is far enough away it should be safe, and I think that's why it's that far away. Same with LC-37. The tower would be destroyed, would the MST be too? The other facilities there like the Delta HIF should be far enough away they should be ok. How quick could they be back and operational?
Same with the VAFB pads? I think the Atlas pad is very similar to the Cape's, but SLC-6 is a modified Shuttle launch facility, so would the mobile service structures be damaged in the event of a Delta blowing up on the pad? Or are they far enough away? The tower would be blown up likely.
Anyway, my guess is, if there was just one pad on each coast, and one blew up, USAF/DoD would modify their manifest to accommodate repair operations at the pad. For example, are there any usual USAF/DoD payloads that couldn't wait a year to be launched? And if not, are there any that couldn't then be moved to the SpaceX pad, assuming SpaceX gets compliant with USAF launch requirements in the next few years?
)