Phasing out Delta and Atlas series for new launch vehicle?

[BackInAction]

Question for the forum: Would it make sense for both the Delta and Altas rocket series be phased out and a new launch vehicle created in its place using the same/very similiar tooling?  I imagine certification costs would be very expensive and have no idea how the laws would need to be modified to allow ULA to launch such a vehicle (if they would still be the ones in charge of it).  The reason I see why this might be considered would be with the potential phasing out of the RD-180 on Atlas, the cost of the Delta series, and the proposed low costs of the Falcon series making these two rocket series no longer attractive on several levels.  Could something similar to a modular Angara series be created from the Atlas and Delta tooling in a low cost fashion to compete with Falcon rocket series?

[edkyle99]

Question for the forum: Would it make sense for both the Delta and Altas rocket series be phased out and a new launch vehicle created in its place using the same/very similiar tooling? 

No! 

The EELVs entered service only a few years ago.  They are, as near as I can tell, meeting their customer requirements and have proven highly reliable.  Nothing to sneeze at.  Cost is a concern, but throwing away EELV development to start over certainly won't cut costs.  A better path is incremental improvement of the existing product over time, especially on the cost-cutting side where possible.  The latter may ultimately see these rockets merge more and more, toward a common upper stage and avionics, etc.

 - Ed Kyle

[joek]

Agree EELV incremental development is preferred, with possible consolidation to a single vehicle.  However, a 2010 report suggests a replacement may be under consideration, or at least that line of thinking may be influencing current decision-making.  See attached; NB: "new launch vehicle".

[Oli]

$1bn for consolidation to Delta IV? In that case a RD-180 replacement may indeed be the cheaper option...

[quanthasaquality]

Delta IV and Atlas V are military rockets. They are expensive, but each has had at least 20? consecutive successful launches. They do a 3 cluster to launch the occasional heavy military satellite. Both rockets were designed in the late 90s, so are thus mostly technologically up to date. The RD-180 manufacturing license expires in 2022. Congress is in the process of forcing a downselect to the Delta IV. Thank you Rogozin for suggesting trampoline based transportation.

There isn't anything on the horizon to replace the Delta IV, and it will probably be flying for a few more decades.

[Coastal Ron]

Delta IV and Atlas V are military rockets.

The original Air Force assumption was that the U.S. Government would only be about 30% of the total demand for EELV's (Atlas V & Delta IV), so I would say it's a misnomer to call them "military rockets" when they were designed from the beginning to be usable for commercial and government customers.

[john smith 19]

Question for the forum: Would it make sense for both the Delta and Altas rocket series be phased out and a new launch vehicle created in its place using the same/very similiar tooling?  I imagine certification costs would be very expensive and have no idea how the laws would need to be modified to allow ULA to launch such a vehicle (if they would still be the ones in charge of it).  The reason I see why this might be considered would be with the potential phasing out of the RD-180 on Atlas, the cost of the Delta series, and the proposed low costs of the Falcon series making these two rocket series no longer attractive on several levels.  Could something similar to a modular Angara series be created from the Atlas and Delta tooling in a low cost fashion to compete with Falcon rocket series?

NO.

The joker in the pack is the DoD's insistence on "assured access" to space. They want diversity.

This is ironic given both upper stages use an RL10. A failure here grounds both types. This has been known since day 1. A realistic approach would be to accept that commonality means you fly stuff more often, so you can apply statistics to failure modes. 1 launch gives you 1 data point. Launch the same "something" on every launch and you start to rack up failure statistics.

ULA announced (but so far unfunded) strategy is a common upper stage that fits either LV and saves costs by merging the two supply chains.

No doubt they expect the US taxpayer to foot the bill as usual. 

[Burninate]

A joint venture like this is designed to do two things:  eliminate duplicated efforts in redundant parts, and eliminate competitive pricing with a monopolistic cartel.

Right now there are different  (but similar) solid rockets, different (but similar) upper stages, different (but similar) payload fairings, different (but similar) diameter core structures...  About the only thing that isn't duplicated effort is the first stage tankage and motors, which are sufficiently different that they're not fungible.

I'm not sure what the DoD gets out of all this expensive redundancy, that they wouldn't get from inexpensive stockpiling.

[Jim]

ULA announced (but so far unfunded) strategy is a common upper stage that fits either LV and saves costs by merging the two supply chains.

No doubt they expect the US taxpayer to foot the bill as usual. 

Untrue

[simonbp]

ULA announced (but so far unfunded) strategy is a common upper stage that fits either LV and saves costs by merging the two supply chains.

No doubt they expect the US taxpayer to foot the bill as usual. 

Untrue

Got proof?

It would be great if ULA were actually spending their own money on upgrades. But the only upgrade the EELVs have had since the formation of ULA is RS-68A, which was very much funded by the taxpayers.

[Jim]

ULA announced (but so far unfunded) strategy is a common upper stage that fits either LV and saves costs by merging the two supply chains.

No doubt they expect the US taxpayer to foot the bill as usual. 

Untrue

Got proof?

It would be great if ULA were actually spending their own money on upgrades. But the only upgrade the EELVs have had since the formation of ULA is RS-68A, which was very much funded by the taxpayers.

Common Avionics, common payload adapters, etc.  There are many, they just don't get visibility.

Forgot one, common upper stage engine.

[mmeijeri]

Could something similar to a modular Angara series be created from the Atlas and Delta tooling in a low cost fashion to compete with Falcon rocket series?

Isn't that what Atlas Phase 2 would be?

[edkyle99]

Congress is in the process of forcing a downselect to the Delta IV.

News to me.  Has anyone else heard such a thing?

 - Ed Kyle

[sublimemarsupial]

Congress is in the process of forcing a downselect to the Delta IV.

News to me.  Has anyone else heard such a thing?

 - Ed Kyle

That is putting it rather dramatically, but McCain is pushing to disallow Russian engines for DoD launches, which would defacto downselect to Delta IV for the EELV program...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34810.0

[Proponent]

... unless a replacement for the RD-180 is built, which ULA is studying and some in Congress want to fund publicly.

[Oli]

Having lots of commonality between Delta and Atlas kind of defeats the purpose of having two different rockets, not?

[mmeijeri]

Not if FH becomes operational, which isn't certain yet.

[Oli]

Not if FH becomes operational, which isn't certain yet.

If both Atlas and Delta have the same upper stage for example, then in the case of a problem with the US both rockets will be grounded. If FH becomes operational, one EELV is definitely superfluous.

[edkyle99]

Not if FH becomes operational, which isn't certain yet.

If both Atlas and Delta have the same upper stage for example, then in the case of a problem with the US both rockets will be grounded. If FH becomes operational, one EELV is definitely superfluous.

Only if it can perform all of the EELV missions.  How long can the upper stage coast and how many restarts?  Centaur and DCSS can do long coasts and more than two restarts if needed.  What about vertical payload integration, and other integration issues required for EELV work?  This would all need to be demonstrated repeatedly and proven reliable - and cost effective - before the Pentagon would even begin to think about beginning to consider phasing out an EELV.  By the time all of that happens, the RD-180 issue will likely have been resolved one way or the other.  Delta 4 might be more vulnerable to Falcon Heavy than Atlas 5. 

 - Ed Kyle

[sublimemarsupial]

Not if FH becomes operational, which isn't certain yet.

If both Atlas and Delta have the same upper stage for example, then in the case of a problem with the US both rockets will be grounded. If FH becomes operational, one EELV is definitely superfluous.

Only if it can perform all of the EELV missions.  How long can the upper stage coast and how many restarts?  Centaur and DCSS can do long coasts and more than two restarts if needed.  What about vertical payload integration, and other integration issues required for EELV work?  This would all need to be demonstrated repeatedly and proven reliable - and cost effective - before the Pentagon would even begin to think about beginning to consider phasing out an EELV.  By the time all of that happens, the RD-180 issue will likely have been resolved one way or the other.  Delta 4 might be more vulnerable to Falcon Heavy than Atlas 5. 

 - Ed Kyle

The point was if ULA goes to a single common upper stage (instead of Centaur and DCSS) then you lose the redundancy that currently exists by having separate Atlas V and Delta IV vehicles. As Jim is so fond off pointing out on the SpaceX threads, F9's engine out doesn't matter a whole lot because most of the flight is done on a single engine on the upper stage. If both Atlas V and Delta IV move to a common upper stage, why does it matter which booster is used to get it up above the atmosphere in the first place? There would be very little redundancy added by maintaining both boosters, as an upper stage problem (which Jim has claimed is much more likely over and over) would ground both vehicles just the same.

[edkyle99]

This "assured access" business has always seemed a bit of a misnomer, and entirely unnecessary IMO.   

There already IS no "assured access" for Heavy missions - only Delta 4 Heavy can do them.  There already is a lot of upper stage commonality with RL10, and soon the differences will be even less.  There already is a common final assembly factory, which was barely missed by a mile-wide F4 tornado a few years ago.   

There is no reason that EELV payloads can't wait out a several month long failure investigation to fly.  That was done with Titan 4, with Shuttle, with all of the smaller Atlas and Titan and Delta and Thor rockets for decades.

 - Ed Kyle

[Oli]

Only if it can perform all of the EELV missions.

Sure, might never happen.

This "assured access" business has always seemed a bit of a misnomer, and entirely unnecessary IMO.   

So assuming there is no need for a new rocket in the next 15 years, the reasonable course of action would be to either
a) consolidate to Delta now
b) start developing a RD-180 replacement and consolidate to Atlas from 2019 onwards.

[Avron]

Only if it can perform all of the EELV missions.

Sure, might never happen.

This "assured access" business has always seemed a bit of a misnomer, and entirely unnecessary IMO.   

So assuming there is no need for a new rocket in the next 15 years, the reasonable course of action would be to
a) consolidate to Delta now
b) start developing a RD-180 replacement and consolidate to Atlas from 2019 onwards.

Why is that the best option?

[mmeijeri]

So assuming there is no need for a new rocket in the next 15 years, the reasonable course of action would be to
a) consolidate to Delta now
b) start developing a RD-180 replacement and consolidate to Atlas from 2019 onwards.

Delta Phase 2 might be the best option if RD-180 becomes a real problem.

[Oli]

Only if it can perform all of the EELV missions.

Sure, might never happen.

This "assured access" business has always seemed a bit of a misnomer, and entirely unnecessary IMO.   

So assuming there is no need for a new rocket in the next 15 years, the reasonable course of action would be to
a) consolidate to Delta now
b) start developing a RD-180 replacement and consolidate to Atlas from 2019 onwards.

Why is that the best option?

I meant either a) or b), sorry.

Of course option b) might not pay off until 2027 like option a), in that case one must decide whether to go directly to an Atlas successor with the new engine.

[Avron]

Only if it can perform all of the EELV missions.

Sure, might never happen.

This "assured access" business has always seemed a bit of a misnomer, and entirely unnecessary IMO.   

So assuming there is no need for a new rocket in the next 15 years, the reasonable course of action would be to
a) consolidate to Delta now
b) start developing a RD-180 replacement and consolidate to Atlas from 2019 onwards.

Why is that the best option?

I meant either a) or b), sorry.

Of course option b) might not pay off until 2028 like option a), in that case one must decide whether to go directly to an Atlas successor with the new engine.

No "c" ? or "d'..  not that public option counts one cent.

[Oli]

No "c" ? or "d'..  not that public option counts one cent.

Whatever, point is that Atlas only or Delta only would be cheaper in the long term.

[TrevorMonty]

I thought there were hints of a replacement LV by the ULA representative in the Launch Vehicle Update video.
They asked SpaceX and Orbital about reusable LVs but not ULA which is a pity.

Watch video see what you think.

 http://new.livestream.com/AIAAvideo/Space2014

[ChrisWilson68]

The vehicles that supplant Delta IV and Atlas V are unlikely to be developed by ULA.  Those new vehicles will have to compete with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy.  Once they've shown the way, competitors will arise, but ULA isn't well-positioned to make the radical break with past practices that competing with SpaceX will require.  ULA might as well just get as much business as they can for Delta IV and Atlas V while they can, then wind down their operations.

[TrevorMonty]

I can't ULA winding up just because there is serious competition. The block buy gives them time to come up with a more competitive LV.

[abaddon]

Why is this thread in "Commercial Spaceflight General" and not the ULA section?

I don't see a point in "phasing out" both the Atlas V or Delta IV until there is something at least somewhat in the wings to replace them.  Moving to a single LV is marginally more plausible but the Atlas V has the RD-180 issue and the Delta IV is more expensive and less reliable.

Seems like we are a long way away from ULA potentially fielding a new LV.

[butters]

My understanding is that the charter which created ULA prohibits the company from developing of any new expendable launch vehicles. They are allowed to develop reusable launch vehicles, including reusable variants of the Atlas V and/or Delta IV (although it's hard to imagine how that would be accomplished).

Some of this might be side-stepped by disingenuous naming, i.e. this essentially brand-new vehicle shall be known as "Atlas V Phase 2". But the intention was that ULA would be formed as a joint-venture for a specific purpose and will not be a diversified or even permanent player in the launch industry. ULA was designed to live and die with the EELV program. How it will play out in reality could be a different story.

[JasonAW3]

The development of some form of reusable launch system ought to be a goal for ULA.

Part of what has limited commercial space access is the cost of launch vehicles.

Having to consolidate 20 or more satillites on a single launch is symptomatic of a problem that has been creeping up on the industry for decades.  Expensive, expendable rockets have, in most ways, artificially limited the actual number of launches that COULD be achieved, by making satillite launches so expensive, only larger corporations, or the government, willing to spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars ona single launch, could afford to launch payloads.

There are universities, scientific groups and even individuals who would be more than willing to pay for a launch and orbit their payloads, IF the cost were sufficently low enough to do so.  Colleges are only now able to send small sats and micro sats into space, as the electronics needed to build small basic satillites has become cheap enough that sharing the payload cost for one or more satillites on a flight, has become practical.

Should launch prices be lowered by the use or reusable launchers, larger and more complex satillites will come about, performing missions on the level of the earlier NASA space flights.

The market is in it's infancy and has been held back for decades, and ULA along with SpaceX, Orbital, and several other companies, now have the opprotunity to make up in quantity and quality, for a market that is getting ready to explode.

[Jim]

The development of some form of reusable launch system ought to be a goal for ULA.

not with the charter of the company

[strangequark]

The development of some form of reusable launch system ought to be a goal for ULA.

not with the charter of the company

Do you ever see ULA being allowed more independence to develop new LVs, or would you anticipate their dissolution when the Atlas and Delta lines run their course?

[TrevorMonty]

If ULA are not allowed to develop a new LV they long term prospects are not good. They will always have a piece if government manifest but it maybe greatly reduced. Their operating costs will not be halved even if their flight rate/ revenue is. As Ms Shotwell stated if your company is not growing then it is most likely dying.

[Avron]

If ULA are not allowed to develop a new LV they long term prospects are not good. They will always have a piece if government manifest but it maybe greatly reduced. Their operating costs will not be halved even if their flight rate/ revenue is. As Ms Shotwell stated if your company is not growing then it is most likely dying.

ULA has both BA and LMT.. they should be able to find the talent from both to make a dent in SPX el al. .. the culture however may work against that option.

[mmeijeri]

not with the charter of the company

Although they have been doing some limited work on first stage engine recovery experiments.

[Lars_J]

not with the charter of the company

Although they have been doing some limited work on first stage engine recovery experiments.

If by 'limited work' you mean a paper study.

[mmeijeri]

If by 'limited work' you mean a paper study.

Some experiments too, described in the papers.