-
Replacement for Delta II
by
VDD1991
on 25 Aug, 2014 21:02
-
With only three more Delta II launches planned and given that the Delta IV is the only variant of the Delta rocket still in production, the question is whether or not if there will ever be a replacement for the Delta II. However, the Antares is the only active American space launch vehicle comparable to Delta II in height, thrust, weight, and payload capacity. It is therefore possible that Orbital Sciences may consider a version of the Antares as a successor to the Delta II that can carry interplanetary spacecraft and join the United Launch Alliance because its Minotaur rockets have been used to launch satellites for the NRO and USAF. In this way, the Minotaur and Antares may be seen as the replacements for the Delta II even though the Minotaur is far smaller than Delta II.
-
#1
by
Lars_J
on 25 Aug, 2014 21:57
-
I thought there was only two left?
A Delta II replacement does *not* need to be an exact match in height, thrust, weight, and payload capacity. The biggest issue for Antares to be a "Delta II replacement" is probably the lack of an West Coast pad, and the likely engine change in the near future (going all solid?).
The other "Delta II replacement" is of course F9. It already has pads on both coast.
-
#2
by
CommercialSpaceFan
on 25 Aug, 2014 22:48
-
what payloads are demanding a Delta II replacement?
-
#3
by
rayleighscatter
on 25 Aug, 2014 23:15
-
what payloads are demanding a Delta II replacement?
NASA does have a something like 6-10 missions still awaiting launch services acquisition in the medium-class range.
its Minotaur rockets have been used to launch satellites for the NRO and USAF.
About a year ago a Minotaur was used for NASA's LADEE mission.
And Lars is right, there's no real need for an exact Delta II replacement. Depending on requirements Antares, Falcon9, Minotaur, and even in some cases Athena or Pegasus could replace it as needed.
-
#4
by
Jim
on 25 Aug, 2014 23:42
-
It is therefore possible that Orbital Sciences may consider a version of the Antares as a successor to the Delta II that can carry interplanetary spacecraft and join the United Launch Alliance because its Minotaur rockets have been used to launch satellites for the NRO and USAF.
Orbital can not join " the United Launch Alliance", because it is not an alliance but the name of a company.
-
#5
by
Jim
on 25 Aug, 2014 23:42
-
A Delta II replacement does *not* need to be an exact match in height, thrust, weight, and payload capacity.
The only parameters are cost and capacity. height, thrust, weight,etc don't matter.
. The biggest issue for Antares to be a "Delta II replacement" is probably the lack of an West Coast pad, and the likely engine change in the near future (going all solid?).
And lack of performance for high energy missions.
-
#6
by
kevin-rf
on 25 Aug, 2014 23:49
-
But, polar can be done from Wallops without a need for a Vandenberg pad.
-
#7
by
Lee Jay
on 25 Aug, 2014 23:51
-
A Delta II replacement does *not* need to be an exact match in height, thrust, weight, and payload capacity.
The only parameters are cost and capacity.
A pinch or two of that Delta II reliability wouldn't hurt either.
-
#8
by
Jim
on 25 Aug, 2014 23:54
-
But, polar can be done from Wallops without a need for a Vandenberg pad.
only certain polar, Sun synchronous
-
#9
by
edkyle99
on 26 Aug, 2014 00:56
-
In this way, the Minotaur and Antares may be seen as the replacements for the Delta II even though the Minotaur is far smaller than Delta II.
Minotaur 4-6, Athena, Antares, and Falcon 9 cover a lot of ground and bracket, if not entirely cover, the Delta 2 envelope. (Falcon 9 is actually overkill.) The Orbital Sciences options seem likely to me to be able to evolve through use of more flexible upper stages in the future.
I agree that reliability is the biggest challenge when it comes to matching Delta 2's record.
- Ed Kyle
-
#10
by
Lobo
on 26 Aug, 2014 15:21
-
In this way, the Minotaur and Antares may be seen as the replacements for the Delta II even though the Minotaur is far smaller than Delta II.
Minotaur 4-6, Athena, Antares, and Falcon 9 cover a lot of ground and bracket, if not entirely cover, the Delta 2 envelope. (Falcon 9 is actually overkill.) The Orbital Sciences options seem likely to me to be able to evolve through use of more flexible upper stages in the future.
I agree that reliability is the biggest challenge when it comes to matching Delta 2's record.
- Ed Kyle
Wouldn't Falcon 9 with reused booster be similar in performance to Delta II? I'm guessing that's the mostly likely LV configuration to compete for Delta II type payloads. At least until Antares does something about it's upper stage.
Even if F9R still is a little overkill, it won't really matter if it's price point is at or below Delta II.
-
#11
by
rayleighscatter
on 26 Aug, 2014 20:33
-
Curiously, I wonder if after the last Delta II launch if SLC-2E could be leased by Orbital, and if it could be made usable for Antares without a major overhaul?
-
#12
by
Sesquipedalian
on 28 Aug, 2014 19:04
-
It is therefore possible that Orbital Sciences may consider a version of the Antares as a successor to the Delta II that can carry interplanetary spacecraft and join the United Launch Alliance because its Minotaur rockets have been used to launch satellites for the NRO and USAF.
Orbital can not join " the United Launch Alliance", because it is not an alliance but the name of a company.
LOL! I wonder who would represent "the United Launch Axis" in VDD1991's scenario.
-
#13
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 28 Aug, 2014 21:50
-
In this way, the Minotaur and Antares may be seen as the replacements for the Delta II even though the Minotaur is far smaller than Delta II.
Minotaur 4-6, Athena, Antares, and Falcon 9 cover a lot of ground and bracket, if not entirely cover, the Delta 2 envelope. (Falcon 9 is actually overkill.) The Orbital Sciences options seem likely to me to be able to evolve through use of more flexible upper stages in the future.
I agree that reliability is the biggest challenge when it comes to matching Delta 2's record.
- Ed Kyle
Wouldn't Falcon 9 with reused booster be similar in performance to Delta II? I'm guessing that's the mostly likely LV configuration to compete for Delta II type payloads. At least until Antares does something about it's upper stage.
Even if F9R still is a little overkill, it won't really matter if it's price point is at or below Delta II.
Answer is, as often, "it depends". In this case, its all over the map.
Delta is a charmed LV, declared dead too many times. Don't believe it until the flight vehicles are all used and the pad's dismantled
OrbATK has a few ways to go for Delta II class LV in house, but to get the same for low energy / high energy / reliability and market competitively priced launch service - well it's not in sight yet.
If you listen to Musk, then the capacity he claims eats / subsumes the need, which is not all that many launches annually. But he has a long way to go to get there.
Between these two providers, there's enough ambiguity to scare away other providers from addressing this segment.
In the near term, both of these providers (and ULA) will provide services, but not comparable to Delta for a long time, either in cost or reliability or capability (individually yes but not as a group).
-
#14
by
russianhalo117
on 28 Aug, 2014 22:34
-
Delta-IV Lite project has been reawakened from the shelves by ULA as a possible replacement for DII but they have not allocated a budget to finish final development. Boeing and ULA plans to begin further study in 2015.
-
#15
by
kevin-rf
on 28 Aug, 2014 23:06
-
Space Ghost, I thought the even the Delta II no longer provided comparable costs to the Delta II during the GPS build out. Hence the term GPS subsidy.
Also, wouldn't an "Atlas V Lite" make more sense than a Delta IV Lite? The Atlas V core should be cheaper to build than the larger Delta IV core. It is smaller, uses less metal, has a cheaper engine, and does not have to deal with that nasty expensive LH plumbing.
-
#16
by
russianhalo117
on 28 Aug, 2014 23:17
-
Space Ghost, I thought the even the Delta II no longer provided comparable costs to the Delta II during the GPS build out. Hence the term GPS subsidy.
Also, wouldn't an "Atlas V Lite" make more sense than a Delta IV Lite? The Atlas V core should be cheaper to build than the larger Delta IV core. It is smaller, uses less metal, has a cheaper engine, and does not have to deal with that nasty expensive LH plumbing.
yes, but ULA pushing DIV at the moment because of Atlas political issues.
-
#17
by
the_roche_lobe
on 28 Aug, 2014 23:46
-
Delta-IV Lite project has been reawakened from the shelves by ULA as a possible replacement for DII but they have not allocated a budget to finish final development. Boeing and ULA plans to begin further study in 2015.
Really? Does that mean the AJ-10 is still in contention? Hasn't production of that engine stopped?
P
-
#18
by
Zed_Noir
on 29 Aug, 2014 00:38
-
Space Ghost, I thought the even the Delta II no longer provided comparable costs to the Delta II during the GPS build out. Hence the term GPS subsidy.
Also, wouldn't an "Atlas V Lite" make more sense than a Delta IV Lite? The Atlas V core should be cheaper to build than the larger Delta IV core. It is smaller, uses less metal, has a cheaper engine, and does not have to deal with that nasty expensive LH plumbing.
Go a step further. A SpaceX "F9R lite" with Super Draco upper stage will even be cheaper with domestic engines in mass production. Of course the chance we see a F9R lite is next to zilch.
-
#19
by
Zed_Noir
on 29 Aug, 2014 00:39
-
Delta-IV Lite project has been reawakened from the shelves by ULA as a possible replacement for DII but they have not allocated a budget to finish final development. Boeing and ULA plans to begin further study in 2015.
Really? Does that mean the AJ-10 is still in contention? Hasn't production of that engine stopped?
P
I thought the Orion's service module main engine is a variant of the AJ-10. So it might be still in production unless there is a stockpile of them in a warehouse somewhere.
