-
ULA to phase out Delta IV in 2018?
by
Lars-J
on 04 Mar, 2015 00:17
-
I came across this article:
http://spacenews.com/ula-targets-2018-for-delta-4-phase-out-seeks-relaxation-of-rd-180-ban/Some quotes:
United Launch Alliance intends to phase out all but the heavy-lift version of its Delta 4 rocket as early as 2018 as it seeks to sharpen its competitiveness in the face of a challenge by SpaceX.
...
“We’re going to take [out] the redundant, more expensive Delta single-stick-line and fly only Atlas until we have NGLS available and until the government decides they’re done with [Delta 4] Heavy,” Bruno said.
...
“Great rocket,” Bruno said of the Delta 4. “But it’s more expensive than the equivalent Atlas rocket.”
The last of the single-stick, or intermediate-class, Delta 4 launches would take place around 2018-2019, Bruno said.
-
#1
by
gongora
on 04 Mar, 2015 00:47
-
Bruno knows how to play politics
-
#2
by
edkyle99
on 04 Mar, 2015 00:56
-
Bruno knows how to play politics
I don't see politics. I see hard-nosed business common sense.
- Ed Kyle
-
#3
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 04 Mar, 2015 01:06
-
Long overdue. And, it would seem that DIV is no longer a "fall back" for AV.
Also wonder if FH flies, and successfully ... if DIVH will have many flights remaining as well.
Perhaps DIV/H pads become NGLV sooner ... than later.
Perhaps AV still flies well past NGLV standing up ...
-
#4
by
Damon Hill
on 04 Mar, 2015 01:19
-
Bruno knows how to play politics
I don't see politics. I see hard-nosed business common sense.
- Ed Kyle
I'm rather disappointed, but have to agree. Just a consequence of SpaceX's success
-
#5
by
Patchouli
on 04 Mar, 2015 01:24
-
I think retiring the Delta IV before NGLS is ready could back fire on them.
Considering politics I figured the Atlas V would be the rocket to retire as I read some where the Delta IV could be cheaper if it flew more often.
The only logical reason I can see other then a knee jerk reaction to Spacex is they wish to use the Delta IV tooling and launch pads for NGLS which makes sense.
He better hope the AR-1 is ready and certified soon as that's the only way I can see this not have a good chance of ending in disaster.
Another back up plan I guess would be to bring an uprated Delta II back in production but this would not cover all Atlas V payloads but would allow stretching the supply of engines if imports are cut off.
-
#6
by
gongora
on 04 Mar, 2015 01:58
-
If ULA actually retired D-IV then the AF will pretty much have to grant ULA waivers to use RD-180 past the deadline.
-
#7
by
edkyle99
on 04 Mar, 2015 02:50
-
A blow to Orbital ATK too, since the elimination of Delta IV Medium means the end of GEM-60.
- Ed Kyle
-
#8
by
Zed_Noir
on 04 Mar, 2015 02:51
-
...
He better hope the AR-1 is ready and certified soon as that's the only way I can see this not have a good chance of ending in disaster.
The AR-1 is a paper engine while the BE-4 is at least three years into development and is the engine of record for the NGLV.
Another back up plan I guess would be to bring an uprated Delta II back in production but this would not cover all Atlas V payloads but would allow stretching the supply of engines if imports are cut off.
Where is the tooling for the Delta II? As well as engine suitable for it? Also there is no launch pad for the Delta II on the East coast.
-
#9
by
MDDevice
on 04 Mar, 2015 03:03
-
Sounds like ULA is pretty sure they'll get that extension on the RD-180 ban. I think, short of a war, congress is likely to grant them that extension.
-
#10
by
cmj9808
on 04 Mar, 2015 04:48
-
Maintaining Delta IV heavy means you need to maintain 3 of 4 Delta IV CBC production lines and two Delta IV launch pads on both coasts with an annual production rate of 3 CBCs and an annual launch rate of 1 for two pads, and you still call it cost-effective?
-
#11
by
sublimemarsupial
on 04 Mar, 2015 07:05
-
Bruno knows how to play politics
I don't see politics. I see hard-nosed business common sense.
- Ed Kyle
It's pure politics. If they phase out Delta, Congress has to relent and let them use RD-180 or else give a monopoly to SpaceX. Its brilliant.
-
#12
by
woods170
on 04 Mar, 2015 08:09
-
Bruno knows how to play politics
I don't see politics. I see hard-nosed business common sense.
- Ed Kyle
It's pure politics. If they phase out Delta, Congress has to relent and let them use RD-180 or else give a monopoly to SpaceX. Its brilliant.
Indeed it is.
-
#13
by
Jim
on 04 Mar, 2015 08:26
-
1. Considering politics I figured the Atlas V would be the rocket to retire as I read some where the Delta IV could be cheaper if it flew more often.
2. The only logical reason I can see other then a knee jerk reaction to Spacex is they wish to use the Delta IV tooling and launch pads for NGLS which makes sense.
3. He better hope the AR-1 is ready and certified soon as that's the only way I can see this not have a good chance of ending in disaster.
4. Another back up plan I guess would be to bring an uprated Delta II back in production but this would not cover all Atlas V payloads but would allow stretching the supply of engines if imports are cut off.
1. It can't fly enough times to be cheaper
2. What says Delta IV pads will be used for NGLS
3. They are going to use the BE-4
4. Not a viable plan, Delta II is gone
-
#14
by
Jim
on 04 Mar, 2015 08:28
-
Maintaining Delta IV heavy means you need to maintain 3 of 4 Delta IV CBC production lines
It is one production line with configurations
-
#15
by
DGH
on 04 Mar, 2015 10:47
-
Since congress wants to tighten the ban on Russian engines not relax it this sounds crazy.
In the last Congressional hearing they stopped just short of asking Boeing to not use Russian engines for launching the CST-100.
I think it is more likely congress will begin to apply the ban to NASA then relax it.
This is a plan for a SpaceX near monopoly.
The only other possibility is some sort of briar patch maneuver.
-
#16
by
woods170
on 04 Mar, 2015 11:21
-
This is a plan for a SpaceX near monopoly.
I call BS on this one. The current legislative language on the ban on RD-180 already permits waivers in case a replacement engine is not ready in time. IMO that back-door will be exploited to keep RD-180 in active duty until the new launcher is ready. IMO The current ULA 'plan' is two-pronged:
- First: try to convince US Congress of easing the ban
- Second: if the first step fails, use the legally provided back-door
-
#17
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 04 Mar, 2015 17:19
-
The SX block buy lawsuit might have had something to do with this, as well as the awkwardness of the AF WRT SX certification.
The cumulative effects may have eroded the DIV's effectiveness at being AV's "live backup". If it cannot fulfill that function, and can only serve as HLV as DIVH when AV 551 can't ... then its usefulness in the EELV business may have come to an end - too much cost for any gain.
And at this point a nice EOL, where govt pays for "indeterminate retirement" with the lingering need for DIVH allowing the remaining stores/warehousing/skills to be paid for, while "assured access" becomes the funding imperative for NGLS.
It is unclear the pad/assets situation. It would make the most sense to have just one pad each at CCAFS/VBG, even to the point of eventually building another VIF to allow overlapping assembly to support increased launch frequency to match SX, assuming ULA is serious about not being in the shadow of a potential fast mover (e.g. anticipating competitive response). Meeting rival's HIF advantage by scaling VIFs strategy.
If all the consideration is to outlast a dubious rival, then what you'd want is to trim back the business to AV ASAP, increase the volume/rate of it as much as possible, and phase in NGLV as it becomes available. In this case, you'd want to shed DIVH's business even to a rival, because it would slow you down otherwise in fitting into a lean, mean launch service soonest that would present the best competitive position already enthroned as king. Long goodbye strategy.
In this case, run, don't walk, away from DIV/H, and leave the other guy holding the HLV bag if required.
Perhaps parts of this may also explain shifts in FH roll out as well.
add:
And the discomfort that the AF sec was referring to. It would make them uncomfortable to "lose" a backup LV, while having to fast march a "know it all" newbie into that role. Also, being caught as well between the potential of losing gradually your heavy launch capability at the same time the "recovery experiment" seems to be somewhat integral to the process of the newer HLV capability stands up. Not to mention losing long term LRE's of heritage to across the board fresh faces, all at once.
Too much indeterminacy.
-
#18
by
LouScheffer
on 04 Mar, 2015 17:37
-
Bruno knows how to play politics
I don't see politics. I see hard-nosed business common sense.
- Ed Kyle
Agree 100%. The Atlas V has problems, too. But you can get a waiver for military launches, or use them on civilian missions, whereas there is no workaround for uncompetitive prices. Best to kill it as quickly as possible and put your resources on building a new, lower-cost, solution.
-
#19
by
edkyle99
on 04 Mar, 2015 17:38
-
Bruno knows how to play politics
I don't see politics. I see hard-nosed business common sense.
- Ed Kyle
It's pure politics. If they phase out Delta, Congress has to relent and let them use RD-180 or else give a monopoly to SpaceX. Its brilliant.
Congress doesn't have to "relent".
The point of NGLS is that it represents ULA fighting to stay in the space launch business without RD-180.
- Ed Kyle
