Phasing out Delta and Atlas series for new launch vehicle?

[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.