-
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
-
#20
by
edkyle99
on 04 Mar, 2015 17:48
-
Maintaining Delta IV heavy means you need to maintain 3 of 4 Delta IV CBC production lines
It is one production line with configurations
Gotta wonder how this will effect Heavy costs, but eliminating Medium does allow for the elimination of the 4-meter diameter upper stage, the 4-meter fairing, and the GEM-60s.
If only a few Heavies remain, ULA could buy all of the RS-68 engines needed at once and close out that sub-contract as well.
- Ed Kyle
-
#21
by
Lobo
on 04 Mar, 2015 18:03
-
A blow to Orbital ATK too, since the elimination of Delta IV Medium means the end of GEM-60.
- Ed Kyle
Unless they are used as an augmentation option for Antares (although with some sort of high energy upper stage), Antares is able to establish a business model other than just CRS.
-
#22
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 04 Mar, 2015 18:19
-
Maintaining Delta IV heavy means you need to maintain 3 of 4 Delta IV CBC production lines
It is one production line with configurations
Gotta wonder how this will effect Heavy costs, but eliminating Medium does allow for the elimination of the 4-meter diameter upper stage, the 4-meter fairing, and the GEM-60s.
If NGLV is another "configuration" for the same production line, perhaps not much effect. Might even be an advantage, because you replace DIV mediums with NGLV production volumes, and pretty much keep doing what you did before, just better.
If only a few Heavies remain, ULA could buy all of the RS-68 engines needed at once and close out that sub-contract as well.
Assuming you get to fly them, and that they are the ones you wish to fly with (e.g. RS-68 vs RS-68A). Otherwise you may be stuck with expensive inventory, awaiting an indefinite "fly out", not unlike Delta II.
A blow to Orbital ATK too, since the elimination of Delta IV Medium means the end of GEM-60.
- Ed Kyle
Unless they are used as an augmentation option for Antares (although with some sort of high energy upper stage), Antares is able to establish a business model other than just CRS.
Antares LV, pad, acoustics/overpressure, and TEL not designed for this. Too much cost, too little gain.
Weakest parts of Antares strategy (assuming no losses from current strategy) are lack of high energy restartable US and greater range of useful launch azimuths.
-
#23
by
Lobo
on 04 Mar, 2015 18:42
-
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?
Yup. So I don't know that it really helps them much. But I think this part is interesting:
"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"
Once FH is flying, the government may decide they are done with Delta 4H. Or at least, they'll agree to let ULA retire Delta IV entirely once there's a comparable LV available. The government won't let ULA do that until FH is flying and fully certified for DoD paylaods. D4H has only ever flown 8 times. And one of those was it's demostration flight and one was the Orion demo flight. So only 6 USAF/DoD payloads ever that needed it.
Looking here, it doesn't appear there are even any payloads manifested for it. And only a few more single stick Delta IV launches manifest through the end of the decaded. At least none that have been officially announced anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Thor_and_Delta_launches_(2010%E2%80%932019)
So I wouldn't be surprised if this move will actually include D4H by 2018-2019, unless FH isn't flying and/or certified for DoD payloads by then. I believe ULA is probably, in an odd way, hoping FH gets certified so that USAF will let them full retire Delta IV and they can start using those assets to develop NGLV which I'll wager will use the D4 core tooling. That'll let them develop NGLV in parallel while continuing to operate Atlas, so they can do the switchover with little inturruption to manifest.
If there's an issue wtih FH certification, USAF will require ULA to maintain D4H readiness which would delay NGLV likely. Which is why they are only officially announcing the retirement of the D4M after if flies out it's current manifest. Once FH is certified in a year or two with USAF, they'll probably announce the retirement of D4H as well.
Then I think they'll restructure and streamline around the NGLV so as to be comepetative with SpaceX for both commercial and government paylaods and cut down to just one pad on east coast.
Be intersting to see if they would set up NGLV to launch from the Delta Pads so they could modfy them while Atlas continues to operate? And then retire the Atlas pads? Or if they'll modify the Atlas Pads for NGLV, and retire the Delta pads? That might be hard to allocate time for at LC-41, because unlike Delta IV, Atlas has a pretty busy manifest in 2016 and 2017 at LC-41, and I'd assume 2018 and 2019 and on would be similar. 9-10 launches per year makes it tough to shut down long enough to modify the pad. (SLC-3 would be much easier) They could build a 2nd VIF at LC-41 though, and then modify the Atlas VIF once NGLV is operating from the other and have two VIF's at there. Their current level of business, plus some additional commerical business that NGLV I think will be going after, could warrant two VIF's there anyway. I doubt a single facility will be able to launch NGLV at a faster rate than about once per month. 12 per year max with just one facility and ULA will likely expect to launch more than that with a single standard LV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(2010%E2%80%9319)
-
#24
by
Lobo
on 04 Mar, 2015 18:47
-
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.
You beat me to this. Yea, I think ULA wants to shed D4 and D4H ASAP. D4H payloads have always been rare, and not sure if there are any more monifested for the next few years even. But USAF/DoD will want that capability available for them, and thus force ULA to maintain it until there's a comparable alternative. At which time USAF/DoD -should- release them to retire it and focus and AV and NGLV.
-
#25
by
Star One
on 04 Mar, 2015 18:52
-
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.
You beat me to this. Yea, I think ULA wants to shed D4 and D4H ASAP. D4H payloads have always been rare, and not sure if there are any more monifested for the next few years even. But USAF/DoD will want that capability available for them, and thus force ULA to maintain it until there's a comparable alternative. At which time USAF/DoD -should- release them to retire it and focus and AV and NGLV.
Well Solar Probe+ could well need one.
-
#26
by
TrevorMonty
on 04 Mar, 2015 19:03
-
Payloads for D4H take years to plan design and build. The DOD should know now what payloads are expected up to early 2020s for D4H.
On side note it would be nice to know if ULA are planning a heavy version of NGLV.
-
#27
by
Jim
on 04 Mar, 2015 19:03
-
No Delta IV pad for NGLS
-
#28
by
Lobo
on 04 Mar, 2015 19:04
-
Maintaining Delta IV heavy means you need to maintain 3 of 4 Delta IV CBC production lines
It is one production line with configurations
Gotta wonder how this will effect Heavy costs, but eliminating Medium does allow for the elimination of the 4-meter diameter upper stage, the 4-meter fairing, and the GEM-60s.
If only a few Heavies remain, ULA could buy all of the RS-68 engines needed at once and close out that sub-contract as well.
- Ed Kyle
Depends. Jim would probably know this best, but are there any USAF/DoD payloads in the pipe that are D4H class that are already awarded to ULA? If not, then there may not be another D4H launch unless something goes sideways on the FH certification. So it may not effect price at all if no more fly. ;-)
ULA may not want to commit to such a payload unless forced to if they can give that to FH, unless they can launch before D4M is retired. So all Delta can be retired together.
Additionally, once SpaceX is certified and there's a redundant launch provider, ULA may be allowed to retire D4M even sooner than 2018-2019. At least officially, there's only one D4M manifested for 2016 and two for 2017. Could those 3 payloads be moved to Atlas, and then Delta fully retired as soon as SpaceX is certified as the redundant space access?
Were I ULA, I think I'd want to shut down Delta as soon as allowed so as to focus fully on operating only Atlas, and developing NGLV.
-
#29
by
Lobo
on 04 Mar, 2015 19:08
-
-
#30
by
Lars-J
on 04 Mar, 2015 19:11
-
No Delta IV pad for NGLS
How are they going to transition from Atlas V to NGLS then? I assume they want a bit of an overlap. I can see it working somewhat on SLC41 which is a clean pad (add a VIF?), but on the west coast it seems like once you make the change you have to stick with it.
Or perhaps the logical thing to do is to keep flying Atlas V from VAFB until NGLS has flow successfully a few times from CCAFS.
-
#31
by
ugordan
on 04 Mar, 2015 19:12
-
-
#32
by
Lobo
on 04 Mar, 2015 19:16
-
No Delta IV pad for NGLS
Jim,
I think you'd said similar things in the past. Which is why I said they might upgrade Atlas pads for NGLV rather than upgrade the Delta pads for it.
A question though, VAFB has a slow enough manifest typically that I think they could fairly easily schedule a 6 month gap or something to modify SLC-3 for NGLV. But LC-41 is much more busy. 9-10 launches per year for 2016 and 2017. If 2018, 2019, and 2020 are similar, could they afford a manifest gap long enough to modify the LC-41 VIF? Or would they opt to build a new NGLV VIF next to it so there's no gap in manifest while they are finishing up and testing NFLV? Then convert the Atlas VIF to NGLV so as to have two facilites there to double the pontial launch rate of the one standardized LV?
With ULA standarized on a single lower cost LV they become more competative in the commerical market so their launch rate for LC-41 could go up. LC-41 is already almost at it's maximum capacity of around 1 launch per month isn't it? (Is that it's max launch rate?) I'd think a 2nd VIF there to double their launch rate would be desirable in that case so building it while winding down Atlas would seem like possibly a desirable thing?
-
#33
by
Lobo
on 04 Mar, 2015 19:27
-
No Delta IV pad for NGLS
How are they going to transition from Atlas V to NGLS then? I assume they want a bit of an overlap. I can see it working somewhat on SLC41 which is a clean pad (add a VIF?), but on the west coast it seems like once you make the change you have to stick with it.
Or perhaps the logical thing to do is to keep flying Atlas V from VAFB until NGLS has flow successfully a few times from CCAFS.
I would think this. With a 2nd LC-41 VIF built for NGLV, they can fly from both coasts until all the bugs are worked out of NGLV. Once they are confident in it, a manifest gap could be arranged for SLC-3's conversion, and the Atlas VIF at LC-41 could be converted while operating NGLV from the new VIF next to it as LC-41 is a clean pad and desined to accomodate multiple VIF's with that pad.
-
#34
by
Lobo
on 04 Mar, 2015 19:35
-
Says it's currently manifested for an Atlas V-551, with a note that it might be moved to another LV.
What other LV and why? Is the AV-551 too marginal for it or something?
http://spacenews.com/41380solar-probe-plus-nasas-mission-to-the-fires-of-hell-trading-atlas-5-for/
Ahhh, interesting.
Sounds like the payload hasn't been awarded yet, and NASA's leaving the door open for FH. Of course ULA would like to get that payload if they are maintaining Delta anyway. But I could see possibly ULA opting to let SpaceX have it and shed that D4 cost sooner rather than later, to help get NGLV flying sooner, if USAF would allow them to do so.
-
#35
by
shooter6947
on 04 Mar, 2015 19:36
-
I don't get how they're even allowed to do this. Don't we (the government) pay them like $1B a year to maintain two production lines to ensure access to space? How about we cut off their subsidies in exchange for the loss of DIV and let them play on a level field.
-
#36
by
Kryten
on 04 Mar, 2015 19:39
-
I don't get how they're even allowed to do this. Don't we (the government) pay them like $1B a year to maintain two production lines to ensure access to space? How about we cut off their subsidies in exchange for the loss of DIV and let them play on a level field.
With Falcon 9 approaching certification, there'll soon be no need for ULA to provide ensured access on their own.
-
#37
by
redliox
on 04 Mar, 2015 19:48
-
-
#38
by
M_Puckett
on 04 Mar, 2015 19:55
-
I vote Titan V.
-
#39
by
ZachS09
on 04 Mar, 2015 20:10
-
I vote Titan V.
I thought the Titan rockets were too expensive than the Atlas V and Delta IV. Plus, I also thought that the Titan rocket era was officially over.
-
#40
by
M_Puckett
on 04 Mar, 2015 20:21
-
So what does name have to do with expense? It's irreverent.
-
#41
by
bunker9603
on 04 Mar, 2015 20:44
-
-
#42
by
shooter6947
on 04 Mar, 2015 20:52
-
Apparently they will have a name for this new vehicle
I vote Uranus! Or maybe we should save that for the SLS
-
#43
by
obi-wan
on 04 Mar, 2015 21:02
-
Says it's currently manifested for an Atlas V-551, with a note that it might be moved to another LV.
What other LV and why? Is the AV-551 too marginal for it or something?
http://spacenews.com/41380solar-probe-plus-nasas-mission-to-the-fires-of-hell-trading-atlas-5-for/
NASA paid 375 million to launch Orion...I had no idea the Delta launches were that expensive.
Putting aside the DIV Heavy, which is a special case, why is the Delta line on a head-to-head comparison against the corresponding Atlas variant more expensive? (and how much more expensive is it, anyway?) They are similar technologies developed at about the same time; I've heard the Atlas avionics is more "modern" than the Delta, and apparently the RD-180s were (at least originally) less expensive than the RS-68, but does that really account for the differences?
Since I'm asking questions anyway, since ULA is a wholly-owned joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed, how does a decision to phase out Delta affect Boeing's involvement? Do they get profits from ULA sales of Atlas in perpetuity, or does ULA phase out the Boeing ownership and revert to being Lockheed? (There certainly seems to be an implicit assumption that all of the intellectual property going into NGLV is coming from the Atlas side, rather than Delta...)
-
#44
by
Lars-J
on 04 Mar, 2015 21:05
-
Apparently they will have a name for this new vehicle
I vote Uranus! Or maybe we should save that for the SLS
Discussion about the naming of the new launch vehicle should probably go the thread dedicated to it - already discussed there:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35754.0
-
#45
by
Lobo
on 04 Mar, 2015 21:29
-
-
#46
by
kevin-rf
on 04 Mar, 2015 21:32
-
Delta IV is more expensive for two reasons. LH compatible hardware drives up the first stage cost and first stage is larger.
-
#47
by
Lobo
on 04 Mar, 2015 21:36
-
I don't get how they're even allowed to do this. Don't we (the government) pay them like $1B a year to maintain two production lines to ensure access to space? How about we cut off their subsidies in exchange for the loss of DIV and let them play on a level field.
With Falcon 9 approaching certification, there'll soon be no need for ULA to provide ensured access on their own.
Yea, I'd expect that subsidy to ULA to maintain a second, mostly just redundant, LV will start to wind down once SpaceX is certified. Until that time, they will keep Delta active and operational as USAF is demanding they do and paying them to.
Having that go away will probably be good for ULA in the long run as they then will have the freedom to restructure as necessary to be more competative in the commercial market than they've been allowed to be so far. They can broaden their business model and not be so completely reliant on government contracts.
Like Shuttle legacy, there's a lot of baggage that's being drug along thus far. They'll now be free to cut some of that loose.
-
#48
by
spacenut
on 04 Mar, 2015 21:42
-
As said, one reason for the higher Delta IV cost is the liquid hydrogen tanks are more expensive and the associated equipment, valves, etc. is more expensive. They also have to be insulated. Lox and liquid methane are only a few degrees different so they actually can use the same type of equipment for handling so the new rocket will use methane. K1 Kerosene used by Atlas is what it is, so no cooling is needed. Second stages are smaller so less liquid hydrogen equipment and handling.
-
#49
by
kevin-rf
on 04 Mar, 2015 22:52
-
I also believe the RS-68 costs more than the RD-180. Exchange rates aside, an LH engine requires a larger LH turbo pump than a comparable Kero turbo pump. That should also add to the cost. (Though I have no clue how much oxidizer rich staged combustion drives up the cost. It can not be cheap )
I forgot about the added cost of spray foaming everything. Thanks.
-
#50
by
notsorandom
on 05 Mar, 2015 01:24
-
Atlas is just a better rocket. It would have won the EELV competition had the Delta not underbid. We already know that story though. The two rockets do represent an interesting snapshot of the industry in the 90s. The way the program was set up there was not going to be money for any groundbreaking technology development. There wasn't the expertise in RP-1 engines that exists now. The newest engines were LH2 and that is where the expertise was. So Boeing tried to develop a cheap to design and produce LH2 engine. With 20/20 hindsight we can see that was something of an oxymoron. LM found a good deal on an ORSC engine with a cheap development due to its commonality with the RD-170 family and built by labor at a favorable exchange rate. The US and Russia were on better terms back then. It is fun to think about what rocket LM might have come up with had the RD-180 never come along. There were some interesting designs for improved Atlases over the years.
-
#51
by
woods170
on 05 Mar, 2015 08:58
-
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.
NO! WAY!
ULA CEO says so. So it's more like: H*LL YES!
-
#52
by
DGH
on 05 Mar, 2015 10:30
-
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
Congress does not want to relax restrictions they want to make them stronger.
The existing waiver only applies if no American rocket can launch it.
SpaceX will sue to enforce this.
Falcon 9 can launch all the smaller satellites already and by 2019 will be able to launch a good chunk of mediums.
Falcon Heavy should also be available by 2019. So the larger satellites can also go to Space X or Delta Heavy.
The new ULA rocket is not expected to be certified till at least 2022 if anything goes wrong you could be talking about 2025.
Also where is the savings?
They are agreeing to maintain 2 launch pads and the production facility and staff for both since they will still do Delta Heavy.
ULA could get lucky but the risks are extreme.
-
#53
by
Jim
on 05 Mar, 2015 10:49
-
NASA paid 375 million to launch Orion...I had no idea the Delta launches were that expensive.
That wasn't the cost of the Delta. That included Orion costs. LM bought the DIV
-
#54
by
Jim
on 05 Mar, 2015 10:58
-
Putting aside the DIV Heavy, which is a special case, why is the Delta line on a head-to-head comparison against the corresponding Atlas variant more expensive? (and how much more expensive is it, anyway?) They are similar technologies developed at about the same time; I've heard the Atlas avionics is more "modern" than the Delta, and apparently the RD-180s were (at least originally) less expensive than the RS-68, but does that really account for the differences?
Since I'm asking questions anyway, since ULA is a wholly-owned joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed, how does a decision to phase out Delta affect Boeing's involvement? Do they get profits from ULA sales of Atlas in perpetuity, or does ULA phase out the Boeing ownership and revert to being Lockheed? (There certainly seems to be an implicit assumption that all of the intellectual property going into NGLV is coming from the Atlas side, rather than Delta...)
Delta IV had a new LH2 engine, larger core, LH2 facilities for core, 2 upper stages, 6 different core configuration, new pad. Atlas V basically used the Atlas II upper stage and made use of some existing Titan facilities.
The Atlas and Delta product lines have merged and there is no real separation of the money stream. Boeing and LM will share the revenue from all vehicles, no matter who designed it.
-
#55
by
woods170
on 05 Mar, 2015 11:23
-
Congress does not want to relax restrictions they want to make them stronger.
That's an assumption, currently not supported by facts or new actions, other than a few big words being shouted in US Congress. Talk is cheap, new legislation is everything. Until new legislation is in place that actually strengthens the current restrictions, I will call BS on your statement.
The existing waiver only applies if no American rocket can launch it.
Wrong interpretation. Here is what the waiver actually says: “if needed for national security and if space launch services cannot be obtained at a fair and reasonable price without the use” (of the RD-180)
Under the current certification program, SpaceX will be eligible to bid on roughly half of the national security launches. The version of Falcon 9 being certified cannot lift the other half. So, by logic there would still be at least two launch services providers needed to cover the entire range of national security launches. Two providers does not equate to a SpaceX monopoly.
SpaceX will sue to enforce this.
They already tried, and lost. The settlement between USAF and SpaceX did not even come close to 'giving' to SpaceX what the lawsuit originally intended to achieve.
Besides: you don't work for SpaceX, so any statement you make about what SpaceX will do, or won't do, is your assumption, and therefore pointless.
Falcon 9 can launch all the smaller satellites already...
Nope, it can't 'already'. F9 is currently not certified to launch any national security payloads. If all things continue to go well, it will be certified later this year. But right now, F9 is not certified.
...and by 2019 will be able to launch a good chunk of mediums.
That's again, your assumption, not a fact.
Falcon Heavy should also be available by 2019. So the larger satellites can also go to Space X or Delta Heavy.
There is absolutely no guarantee that by 2019 Falcon Heavy will be certified to fly national security payloads. FH is substantially different from Falcon 9 v1.1. It has already been hinted by USAF officials that, in order to fly national security payloads on FH, it will require separate certification. That could possibly resulte in another two year process and another set of demonstration launches.
Also, the ULA CEO has indicated that ULA will continue to offer Delta IV-Heavy for national security payloads as long as USAF sees fit to use that vehicle. So, for heavy-class launcher there will, by definition, not be a SpaceX monopoly any time soon. So, again, there is nothing to support your statement.
The new ULA rocket is not expected to be certified till at least 2022 if anything goes wrong you could be talking about 2025.
That is an assumption being made by both you and the news reporters. You and them don't have insight into how closely USAF will tie itself to the development of the new ULA vehicle. If ULA and USAF decide to go the Atlas-5/Delta-IV way, there is at least the possibility that the new vehicle will be certified as early as 2020. And since the current legislation has allowed ULA to purchase engines for all national security launches through 2019 (meaning to the end of 2019).... there will likely not be much of a gap, let alone a situation to create a SpaceX monopoly on national security launches.
But, I will give you a break. Let's suppose your scenario plays true and a SpaceX monopoly would come into existence, simply because Atlas V and NGL would not be available (yet). Any such monopoly could only come into existence with the exit of Atlas V. So, that would be around 2020 in your scenario.
ULA are too good to let a certification process for the new launcher be delayed by three years (under your worst-case scenario of 2025). The 2022 scenario for certification of NGL would be the latest reasonable date under your scenarion.
That means the supposed SpaceX monopoly would exist for only a few years, unlike the monopoly ULA has had on national security launches since it's inception in 2006, and will continue to have until at least the start of 2016 (close to a decade).
Also where is the savings?
They are agreeing to maintain 2 launch pads and the production facility and staff for both since they will still do Delta Heavy.
ULA could get lucky but the risks are extreme.
The savings are in getting rid of the separate production lines for the single-stick 4-meter upper stage and the GEM-60 solid boosters. With only a handfull of Delta IV-Heavy launches planned thru 2022 (let's assume your scenario of NGL certification) for national security purposes, ULA can scale down substantially on the production facility (particularly staff). A clever stockpile of RS-68 will also allow for early closure of that production line.
The risks are not extreme. If they were, ULA would not have made the announcement.
Apart from that, your assumption that phasing-out of Delta IV creates a SpaceX monopoly is not supported by any fact.
-
#56
by
Jim
on 05 Mar, 2015 11:28
-
Also, the NGLS will likely use the Delta IV core tooling
-
#57
by
TrevorMonty
on 05 Mar, 2015 13:56
-
From the article that started this thread.
Bruno has said the BE-4 could debut on the NGLS by 2019 but that the vehicle would not be certified to carry national security payloads until 2022 or 2023.
-
#58
by
woods170
on 05 Mar, 2015 14:23
-
From the article that started this thread.
Bruno has said the BE-4 could debut on the NGLS by 2019 but that the vehicle would not be certified to carry national security payloads until 2022 or 2023.
That is under the scenario that USAF would not be involved with development of the NGLS, at all, and would do certification afterwards. Basically the same scenario that applies to the current Falcon 9 certification.
Should ULA decide to do NGLS development with close USAF supervision, the outcome will change, as Jim has pointed out multiple times.
Right now, NGLS is in early phase of development and USAF is (apparently) not closely involved (yet), judging from Bruno's remarks. However, that could change. I'm not saying it will change, but it could.
-
#59
by
Lobo
on 05 Mar, 2015 23:23
-
Atlas is just a better rocket. It would have won the EELV competition had the Delta not underbid. We already know that story though. The two rockets do represent an interesting snapshot of the industry in the 90s. The way the program was set up there was not going to be money for any groundbreaking technology development. There wasn't the expertise in RP-1 engines that exists now. The newest engines were LH2 and that is where the expertise was. So Boeing tried to develop a cheap to design and produce LH2 engine. With 20/20 hindsight we can see that was something of an oxymoron. LM found a good deal on an ORSC engine with a cheap development due to its commonality with the RD-170 family and built by labor at a favorable exchange rate. The US and Russia were on better terms back then. It is fun to think about what rocket LM might have come up with had the RD-180 never come along. There were some interesting designs for improved Atlases over the years.
Yea, there was still a "LH2 is the miracle fuel" mentality back then. The real sad thing is there was no domestic RP-1 engine to even go to to offer. The next gen RP-1 engines partially developed for SLI wouldn't come along until the late 90's. But imagine if there's been a TR-107 or RS-84 engine to offer for an EELV? Topped with Centaur or DCSS or something else, would have made a fine all-domestic Atlas V with a bit more performance. And if they had been selected winner of the EELV competition, then it would have been in production by the time ESAS came along, and would have made a very viable engine for a HLV (assuming Shuttle Derived politics could have been over come). As it was there was only Russian built RP-1 engines flying and any RP-1 HLV would have needed a new engine development. That actually wouldn't have been that hard because TR-107 and RS-84 had been partially developed and those programs only recently cancelled with the cancellation of SLI. But it did make it easier to put the thumb on the scale for Shuttle Derived.
-
#60
by
Lobo
on 05 Mar, 2015 23:26
-
Atlas V basically used the Atlas II upper stage and made use of some existing Titan facilities.
Are the MSS's at LC-41 and SLC-3 modified Titan MSS's? Or were the Titan one's removed and new Atlas ones built?
-
#61
by
Lobo
on 05 Mar, 2015 23:30
-
The savings are in getting rid of the separate production lines for the single-stick 4-meter upper stage and the GEM-60 solid boosters. With only a handfull of Delta IV-Heavy launches planned thru 2022 (let's assume your scenario of NGL certification) for national security purposes, ULA can scale down substantially on the production facility (particularly staff). A clever stockpile of RS-68 will also allow for early closure of that production line.
Are there -any- D4H launches planned through 2022? I couldn't find any manifested publically. Do you have a source for manifested future D4H launches?
-
#62
by
Lobo
on 05 Mar, 2015 23:33
-
From the article that started this thread.
Bruno has said the BE-4 could debut on the NGLS by 2019 but that the vehicle would not be certified to carry national security payloads until 2022 or 2023.
But they can start going after commercial payloads as soon as it's flying. I gather the "New ULA" will be going after SpaceX's commercial business just as SpaceX is going after ULA's government business.
-
#63
by
DaveS
on 05 Mar, 2015 23:40
-
Atlas V basically used the Atlas II upper stage and made use of some existing Titan facilities.
Are the MSS's at LC-41 and SLC-3 modified Titan MSS's? Or were the Titan one's removed and new Atlas ones built?
There's no MSS at SLC-41. SLC-41 is a clean pad. And SLC-3W is a former Atlas II pad, not Titan. The two Titan pads at VAFB was SLC-4W/E.
-
#64
by
Lobo
on 06 Mar, 2015 00:32
-
Atlas V basically used the Atlas II upper stage and made use of some existing Titan facilities.
Are the MSS's at LC-41 and SLC-3 modified Titan MSS's? Or were the Titan one's removed and new Atlas ones built?
There's no MSS at SLC-41. SLC-41 is a clean pad. And SLC-3W is a former Atlas II pad, not Titan. The two Titan pads at VAFB was SLC-4W/E.
That's right... I already know that about LC-41. I brain farted there for a minute wondering about how much Titan Legacy was used there. Yea, there's a VIF, not a MSS at LC-41.
Thanks for the clarification on the SLC-3.
-
#65
by
TrevorMonty
on 06 Mar, 2015 00:34
-
From the article that started this thread.
Bruno has said the BE-4 could debut on the NGLS by 2019 but that the vehicle would not be certified to carry national security payloads until 2022 or 2023.
But they can start going after commercial payloads as soon as it's flying. I gather the "New ULA" will be going after SpaceX's commercial business just as SpaceX is going after ULA's government business.
They may need to heavily discount first few flights, to attract customers. ULA have a great record but this will be an unproven LV.
-
#66
by
mkent
on 06 Mar, 2015 00:45
-
Are there -any- D4H launches planned through 2022? I couldn't find any manifested publically. Do you have a source for manifested future D4H launches?
There are four Heavies in the block buy.
-
#67
by
Lobo
on 06 Mar, 2015 16:18
-
From the article that started this thread.
Bruno has said the BE-4 could debut on the NGLS by 2019 but that the vehicle would not be certified to carry national security payloads until 2022 or 2023.
But they can start going after commercial payloads as soon as it's flying. I gather the "New ULA" will be going after SpaceX's commercial business just as SpaceX is going after ULA's government business.
They may need to heavily discount first few flights, to attract customers. ULA have a great record but this will be an unproven LV.
SpaceX got a lot of customers early on by offering good pricing. I'm sure ULA can do that same thing. And although it's a new LV, ULA themselves have a very good track record of reliable launches so I think that will help them too, whereas SpaceX was completely unproven.
-
#68
by
Lobo
on 06 Mar, 2015 16:37
-
Are there -any- D4H launches planned through 2022? I couldn't find any manifested publically. Do you have a source for manifested future D4H launches?
There are four Heavies in the block buy.
Interesting. I wonder what payloads they are for?
-
#69
by
edkyle99
on 06 Mar, 2015 18:34
-
Atlas V basically used the Atlas II upper stage and made use of some existing Titan facilities.
Are the MSS's at LC-41 and SLC-3 modified Titan MSS's? Or were the Titan one's removed and new Atlas ones built?
There's no MSS at SLC-41. SLC-41 is a clean pad. And SLC-3W is a former Atlas II pad, not Titan. The two Titan pads at VAFB was SLC-4W/E.
That's right... I already know that about LC-41. I brain farted there for a minute wondering about how much Titan Legacy was used there. Yea, there's a VIF, not a MSS at LC-41.
Thanks for the clarification on the SLC-3.
They did use the existing SLC 41 exhaust duct, rail tracks, and other basic structures, which simplified launch site development. SpaceX gained the same benefits at SLC 40.
- Ed Kyle
-
#70
by
Patchouli
on 07 Mar, 2015 03:12
-
One risk we have not covered with the NGLV is will Blue Origin keep their end of the deal if the present tech bubble bursts early in development?
Amazon and Blue Origin most likely will survive the next tech crash but there may be some tightening of the purse strings on Bezo's part.
Can ULA fund NGLV on their own if necessary?
But then again Jeff Bezos did found BO soon after the first crash and Amazon has a clear profit model so maybe not.
Though on it looking like they're betting the farm on NGLV maybe not as they will be keeping the Delta IV-H so a single stick vehicle could be brought back in service if if needed and I think the tooling for the Delta II and RS-27 still exist.
Plus most of NGLV might be Delta IV and Atlas V derived hardware same tank tooling,same avionics,etc.
I think if it does fly it'll probably be more related to Delta IV then Atlas V.
-
#71
by
Jim
on 07 Mar, 2015 03:25
-
No. It will be closer to Atlas and delta II is gone
-
#72
by
Patchouli
on 07 Mar, 2015 04:17
-
Yea, there was still a "LH2 is the miracle fuel" mentality back then. The real sad thing is there was no domestic RP-1 engine to even go to to offer. The next gen RP-1 engines partially developed for SLI wouldn't come along until the late 90's. But imagine if there's been a TR-107 or RS-84 engine to offer for an EELV? Topped with Centaur or DCSS or something else, would have made a fine all-domestic Atlas V with a bit more performance. And if they had been selected winner of the EELV competition, then it would have been in production by the time ESAS came along, and would have made a very viable engine for a HLV (assuming Shuttle Derived politics could have been over come). As it was there was only Russian built RP-1 engines flying and any RP-1 HLV would have needed a new engine development. That actually wouldn't have been that hard because TR-107 and RS-84 had been partially developed and those programs only recently cancelled with the cancellation of SLI. But it did make it easier to put the thumb on the scale for Shuttle Derived.
Well they had options other then the RD-180 they could have brought the F-1 back in production using modern tooling or used four x RS-27s.
The former would have out performed the RD-180 by a large margin the latter would have been lower performance but Rocketdyne might have been able to sell the RS-27 for a lower price if production was higher.
The RD-180 was cheap simply because of the dollar to ruble exchange rates at the time and the Russians were hungry for any business they could get.
But the TR-107 and RS-84 were the engines they really needed for a next generation launch vehicle at the time.
The TR-107 in particular looks like it could have been a very affordable for an engine in it's thrust class and it's high enough thrust you'd only need one for a MLV.
In retrospect cancelling SLI was big mistake.
-
#73
by
AncientU
on 07 Mar, 2015 13:37
-
So ULA are going into the competition for the next 28 core block buy with a retiring D-IV, no heavy, and a AV with an embargoed Russian engine (and a promise of a certified single-stick NGLV -- flying on an engine made by someone who has never flown to space -- in the early 20s)...
Good luck.
-
#74
by
Patchouli
on 07 Mar, 2015 16:01
-
So ULA are going into the competition for the next 28 core block buy with a retiring D-IV, no heavy, and a AV with an embargoed Russian engine (and a promise of a certified single-stick NGLV -- flying on an engine made by someone who has never flown to space -- in the early 20s)...
Good luck.
If I was a shareholder I would be rather nervous about the move.
Though the Atlas V is a cheaper rocket about around 100million for an Atlas 401 vs 164 million for a Delta IV medium.
I suspect commercial crew has some bearing on the decision as the Delta is not enormously more expensive then Atlas considering it's flight rate is only about half that of the former.
They'd have to start over on the crew rating program if they phased out Atlas V and kept the Delta IV.
I'd be less worried if they were doing a rapid Spacex style development on the BE4 and AR1 engines , if the Delta II rockets were being kept or if the new engine was something much more conservative from a proven aerospace company such as a F-1B.
Though I suspect nothing is concrete at this point as a lot depends on volatile political and economic conditions.
-
#75
by
Hauerg
on 07 Mar, 2015 16:13
-
So ULA are going into the competition for the next 28 core block buy with a retiring D-IV, no heavy, and a AV with an embargoed Russian engine (and a promise of a certified single-stick NGLV -- flying on an engine made by someone who has never flown to space -- in the early 20s)...
Good luck.
If it turns out that their lineup is still that shaky at that time there will be no tender for a block buy.
Methinks.
-
#76
by
gongora
on 07 Mar, 2015 16:36
-
So ULA are going into the competition for the next 28 core block buy with a retiring D-IV, no heavy, and a AV with an embargoed Russian engine (and a promise of a certified single-stick NGLV -- flying on an engine made by someone who has never flown to space -- in the early 20s)...
Good luck.
If I was a shareholder I would be rather nervous about the move.
...
ULA has two shareholders, they're both huge aerospace companies, and none of this would be happening without their consent.
-
#77
by
kch
on 07 Mar, 2015 16:45
-
So ULA are going into the competition for the next 28 core block buy with a retiring D-IV, no heavy, and a AV with an embargoed Russian engine (and a promise of a certified single-stick NGLV -- flying on an engine made by someone who has never flown to space -- in the early 20s)...
Good luck.
"No heavy"? From whence cometh *that*?
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.
-
#78
by
AncientU
on 07 Mar, 2015 17:16
-
So ULA are going into the competition for the next 28 core block buy with a retiring D-IV, no heavy, and a AV with an embargoed Russian engine (and a promise of a certified single-stick NGLV -- flying on an engine made by someone who has never flown to space -- in the early 20s)...
Good luck.
"No heavy"? From whence cometh *that*?
Going to two launch pads... impossible if Delta continues.
Keeping the least launched vehicle -- D-IVH -- long term means no reduction in production lines, workforce, etc. Cost of most expensive vehicle -- D-IVH again -- goes up...
ULA won't propose *that*
-
#79
by
arachnitect
on 07 Mar, 2015 18:26
-
So ULA are going into the competition for the next 28 core block buy with a retiring D-IV, no heavy, and a AV with an embargoed Russian engine (and a promise of a certified single-stick NGLV -- flying on an engine made by someone who has never flown to space -- in the early 20s)...
Good luck.
"No heavy"? From whence cometh *that*?
Going to two launch pads... impossible if Delta continues.
Keeping the least launched vehicle -- D-IVH -- long term means no reduction in production lines, workforce, etc. Cost of most expensive vehicle -- D-IVH again -- goes up...
ULA won't propose *that*
They will keep DIV-H online until they have the new upper stage for NGLV
-
#80
by
AncientU
on 07 Mar, 2015 19:24
-
When is that planned to be available?
-
#81
by
LastStarFighter
on 07 Mar, 2015 19:40
-
They will keep DIV-H online until they have the new upper stage for NGLV
Or until the Air Force says they don't want it anymore
"Denver-based ULA will continue building the Delta 4 Heavy as long as its Air Force customer desires" said Tory Bruno
I'm guessing ULA wanted to shut it down with the single stick and the Air Force asked them to keep it around until there is something that can replace it.
-
#82
by
Kryten
on 07 Mar, 2015 19:45
-
Does the talk of 'Air Force customer desires' mean the NRO have no further payloads for DIVH, or is that just not something they would mention?
-
#83
by
arachnitect
on 07 Mar, 2015 20:18
-
When is that planned to be available?
Don't know exactly. They'll probably start working on it once the new booster is flying or at least almost complete.
-
#84
by
AncientU
on 07 Mar, 2015 21:06
-
Does ULA dropping Delta free Boeing to bid Delta IV/H independently of ULA on the next block buy?
ULA win would be 50% to Boeing, Boeing win would be 100% to Boeing. At that point, the Delta IV record could stand on its own merit... And be able to cover all payload range. Wouldn't have nuclear qual, though.
What are the legalities of LM and Boeing parting ways on ULA?
Would LM have to buy Boeing's 50% share?
The alternative to these options is Boeing dropping the Delta line which seems a waste since it is American-made and fully certified.
-
#85
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 07 Mar, 2015 21:58
-
So ULA are going into the competition for the next 28 core block buy with a retiring D-IV, no heavy, and a AV with an embargoed Russian engine (and a promise of a certified single-stick NGLV -- flying on an engine made by someone who has never flown to space -- in the early 20s)...
Good luck.
"No heavy"? From whence cometh *that*?
Going to two launch pads... impossible if Delta continues.
Keeping the least launched vehicle -- D-IVH -- long term means no reduction in production lines, workforce, etc. Cost of most expensive vehicle -- D-IVH again -- goes up...
ULA won't propose *that*
They will keep DIV-H online until they have the new upper stage for NGLV
You are correct that the issue is a more capable US rather than a clustered first stage LV.
However, the issue that gets you to that point also keeps you from same. You tend to stick with US once you have proven them, and they are harder to significantly upgrade the longer you rely on them - look to Ariane V's US over its flight history.
So the new US happens last, way far down the road.
Also keep in mind what Jim told you up thread - stage fabrication is on a configurable assembly line. It doesn't cost as much to keep alive DIV/H to build, and Ed Kyle indicated that ending the supply lines with adequate inventory results in savings. So those aren't the issues.
The cost of keeping DIVH is the launch facilities/GSE/pad(s). And since the launch campaigns are so long for these in general, its live time not mothballing that you're dealing with.
It is more likely that if FH starts to fly, then to ULA its the trade off of "assurance revenue" vs total cost of DIVH that they'll look at. It would not surprise me that they'd start lobbying then for upping the amount to keep DIVH going or else allow them to shut it down, as there's no future in it. They'd not be able to endure the wait for a new US, it would take too long.
AF likely would push back with waiting for 3 FH flights at a minimum with acceptable performance results before letting them walk away from those two facilities. Who knows, maybe they'd sell them to, say, OA?
-
#86
by
John-H
on 08 Mar, 2015 03:45
-
What happens if the Air Force wants to use DVH and ULA says that it is losing them too much money? Can the Air Force order them to keep it, or can ULA charge as much as they can get off with?
John
-
#87
by
Zed_Noir
on 08 Mar, 2015 06:54
-
So ULA are going into the competition for the next 28 core block buy with a retiring D-IV, no heavy, and a AV with an embargoed Russian engine (and a promise of a certified single-stick NGLV -- flying on an engine made by someone who has never flown to space -- in the early 20s)...
Good luck.
"No heavy"? From whence cometh *that*?
Going to two launch pads... impossible if Delta continues.
Keeping the least launched vehicle -- D-IVH -- long term means no reduction in production lines, workforce, etc. Cost of most expensive vehicle -- D-IVH again -- goes up...
ULA won't propose *that*
They will keep DIV-H online until they have the new upper stage for NGLV
You are correct that the issue is a more capable US rather than a clustered first stage LV.
However, the issue that gets you to that point also keeps you from same. You tend to stick with US once you have proven them, and they are harder to significantly upgrade the longer you rely on them - look to Ariane V's US over its flight history.
So the new US happens last, way far down the road.
Also keep in mind what Jim told you up thread - stage fabrication is on a configurable assembly line. It doesn't cost as much to keep alive DIV/H to build, and Ed Kyle indicated that ending the supply lines with adequate inventory results in savings. So those aren't the issues. The cost of keeping DIVH is the launch facilities/GSE/pad(s). And since the launch campaigns are so long for these in general, its live time not mothballing that you're dealing with.
It is more likely that if FH starts to fly, then to ULA its the trade off of "assurance revenue" vs total cost of DIVH that they'll look at. It would not surprise me that they'd start lobbying then for upping the amount to keep DIVH going or else allow them to shut it down, as there's no future in it. They'd not be able to endure the wait for a new US, it would take too long.
AF likely would push back with waiting for 3 FH flights at a minimum with acceptable performance results before letting them walk away from those two facilities. Who knows, maybe they'd sell them to, say, OA?
Are you suggesting ULA walk away from the Delta IV pads? AIUI the NGLV is suppose to use those pads.
-
#88
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 08 Mar, 2015 08:12
-
So ULA are going into the competition for the next 28 core block buy with a retiring D-IV, no heavy, and a AV with an embargoed Russian engine (and a promise of a certified single-stick NGLV -- flying on an engine made by someone who has never flown to space -- in the early 20s)...
Good luck.
"No heavy"? From whence cometh *that*?
Going to two launch pads... impossible if Delta continues.
Keeping the least launched vehicle -- D-IVH -- long term means no reduction in production lines, workforce, etc. Cost of most expensive vehicle -- D-IVH again -- goes up...
ULA won't propose *that*
They will keep DIV-H online until they have the new upper stage for NGLV
You are correct that the issue is a more capable US rather than a clustered first stage LV.
However, the issue that gets you to that point also keeps you from same. You tend to stick with US once you have proven them, and they are harder to significantly upgrade the longer you rely on them - look to Ariane V's US over its flight history.
So the new US happens last, way far down the road.
Also keep in mind what Jim told you up thread - stage fabrication is on a configurable assembly line. It doesn't cost as much to keep alive DIV/H to build, and Ed Kyle indicated that ending the supply lines with adequate inventory results in savings. So those aren't the issues. The cost of keeping DIVH is the launch facilities/GSE/pad(s). And since the launch campaigns are so long for these in general, its live time not mothballing that you're dealing with.
It is more likely that if FH starts to fly, then to ULA its the trade off of "assurance revenue" vs total cost of DIVH that they'll look at. It would not surprise me that they'd start lobbying then for upping the amount to keep DIVH going or else allow them to shut it down, as there's no future in it. They'd not be able to endure the wait for a new US, it would take too long.
AF likely would push back with waiting for 3 FH flights at a minimum with acceptable performance results before letting them walk away from those two facilities. Who knows, maybe they'd sell them to, say, OA?
Are you suggesting ULA walk away from the Delta IV pads? AIUI the NGLV is suppose to use those pads.
Most people assume that the Atlas V pads will be used.
-
#89
by
LastStarFighter
on 08 Mar, 2015 08:22
-
What happens if the Air Force wants to use DVH and ULA says that it is losing them too much money? Can the Air Force order them to keep it, or can ULA charge as much as they can get off with?
John
I don't think the Air Force can order them to keep anything. The Air Force can tell ULA they want to keep the D4H around cause they have a need for it, which i think Tory is eluding too. So ULA will just charge what it costs them to keep the D4H alive for as long as the Air Force asks them too. I'm guessing the moment the Air Force feels they have a capable enough replacement (be it a FH or ULA NGLV) they will discontinue funding the D4H.
-
#90
by
edkyle99
on 08 Mar, 2015 14:40
-
Does ULA dropping Delta free Boeing to bid Delta IV/H independently of ULA on the next block buy?
ULA win would be 50% to Boeing, Boeing win would be 100% to Boeing. At that point, the Delta IV record could stand on its own merit... And be able to cover all payload range. Wouldn't have nuclear qual, though.
What are the legalities of LM and Boeing parting ways on ULA?
Would LM have to buy Boeing's 50% share?
The alternative to these options is Boeing dropping the Delta line which seems a waste since it is American-made and fully certified.
Boeing already dropped, or tried to drop, the Delta line. It lost at least $1 billion on the Delta 4 program and wanted out. ULA was formed in part to keep Delta 4 active.
Boeing could probably drop out of ULA ownership one day, but I've heard no hints that such a thing is likely. Dropping out would probably make its primary customer, the Pentagon, unhappy.
- Ed Kyle
-
#91
by
AncientU
on 08 Mar, 2015 20:45
-
Does ULA dropping Delta free Boeing to bid Delta IV/H independently of ULA on the next block buy?
ULA win would be 50% to Boeing, Boeing win would be 100% to Boeing. At that point, the Delta IV record could stand on its own merit... And be able to cover all payload range. Wouldn't have nuclear qual, though.
What are the legalities of LM and Boeing parting ways on ULA?
Would LM have to buy Boeing's 50% share?
The alternative to these options is Boeing dropping the Delta line which seems a waste since it is American-made and fully certified.
Boeing already dropped, or tried to drop, the Delta line. It lost at least $1 billion on the Delta 4 program and wanted out. ULA was formed in part to keep Delta 4 active.
Boeing could probably drop out of ULA ownership one day, but I've heard no hints that such a thing is likely. Dropping out would probably make its primary customer, the Pentagon, unhappy.
- Ed Kyle
Thanks for the insight... Didn't know Boeing wanted out around time ULA was formed.
Do you think the Pentagon would care after the Delta line stops flying(including Heavy)?
Is Pentagon approval needed for ULA to drop single stick Deltas, too?
Has it already been obtained?
Sorry for all the questions, but it is difficult to comprehend that ULA has been getting $1B/yr from the Pentagon for launch assurance (flexibility) and now they're dropping the unembargoed line of EELVs.
-
#92
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Mar, 2015 20:54
-
They haven't dropped Delta IV, yet. Also, remember how long Delta II has hung on.
Dropping Delta IV makes sense, especially in a world where that $1billion/year goes away.
-
#93
by
edkyle99
on 08 Mar, 2015 21:47
-
Do you think the Pentagon would care after the Delta line stops flying(including Heavy)?
Is Pentagon approval needed for ULA to drop single stick Deltas, too?
Has it already been obtained?
Sorry for all the questions, but it is difficult to comprehend that ULA has been getting $1B/yr from the Pentagon for launch assurance (flexibility) and now they're dropping the unembargoed line of EELVs.
The Pentagon needs to be assured that certain payloads can get to certain orbits during a given time frame. In the end it doesn't really care which launch system does the job, as long as it meets the certification criteria, etc.
It
is a bit breathtaking to contemplate that the EELV program, which looked like the end-all, be-all Pentagon launch system for decades, is going to end up being largely dismantled after less than two decades of service.
- Ed Kyle
-
#94
by
deltaV
on 09 Mar, 2015 02:06
-
By around 2020 two new heavy launch vehicles will likely have had test launches: Falcon Heavy and ULA's next gen launcher (which will presumably have a heavy variant). The Air Force currently has two reasons to keep Delta IV around: it provides redundancy for Atlas V for light and medium payloads and it can lift heavy payloads that Atlas cannot. Once FH and ULA's new launcher are certified I would think they would provide ample backup for Atlas V -- the new launchers may not be as certain as Atlas but the chances of all three launchers going bad at the same time seems acceptably low. The ability of these new launchers to serve as Delta IV Heavy replacement is less clear since Atlas V isn't available as backup for heavy payloads so the Air Force would need to fully trust the new launchers. I wonder if the Air Force would be willing to accept a couple of years without any fully trusted heavy launcher being available if it enabled them to end Delta IV early. How important is the ability to launch heavy payloads?
-
#95
by
Newton_V
on 09 Mar, 2015 02:25
-
I wonder if the Air Force would be willing to accept a couple of years without any fully trusted heavy launcher being available if it enabled them to end Delta IV early. How important is the ability to launch heavy payloads?
Answer to your first comment is: No. I highly doubt it. (I assume you're talking about heavy only).
2nd Question: Very. I don't believe FH has the same capability to GSO-type orbits that Delta IV Heavy has.
I think there were 4? Delta IV heavies in the block buy. Based on past flight rate, that should last quite a few years.
-
#96
by
John-H
on 09 Mar, 2015 02:25
-
When did redundancy become essential anyway? There is no redundancy for Delta V Heavy. The original plan for the EELV was to have only one non-redundant supplier. Sometimes it appears that the real issue is a reluctance to down select and disappoint one supplier.
John
-
#97
by
Newton_V
on 09 Mar, 2015 02:36
-
When did redundancy become essential anyway? There is no redundancy for Delta V Heavy. The original plan for the EELV was to have only one non-redundant supplier. Sometimes it appears that the real issue is a reluctance to down select and disappoint one supplier.
John
It's not anymore, it's too expensive. At Delta IV Heavy's flight right (once every 2 years or so), redundancy is not needed. The LV would be ready for flight again (assuming a failure and complete "resolution") before another payload would be ready anyway.
There's a lot of information online as to why 2 contractors were selected for EELV (wiki for one).
-
#98
by
notsorandom
on 09 Mar, 2015 15:06
-
Yea, there was still a "LH2 is the miracle fuel" mentality back then. The real sad thing is there was no domestic RP-1 engine to even go to to offer. The next gen RP-1 engines partially developed for SLI wouldn't come along until the late 90's. But imagine if there's been a TR-107 or RS-84 engine to offer for an EELV? Topped with Centaur or DCSS or something else, would have made a fine all-domestic Atlas V with a bit more performance. And if they had been selected winner of the EELV competition, then it would have been in production by the time ESAS came along, and would have made a very viable engine for a HLV (assuming Shuttle Derived politics could have been over come). As it was there was only Russian built RP-1 engines flying and any RP-1 HLV would have needed a new engine development. That actually wouldn't have been that hard because TR-107 and RS-84 had been partially developed and those programs only recently cancelled with the cancellation of SLI. But it did make it easier to put the thumb on the scale for Shuttle Derived.
Well they had options other then the RD-180 they could have brought the F-1 back in production using modern tooling or used four x RS-27s.
The former would have out performed the RD-180 by a large margin the latter would have been lower performance but Rocketdyne might have been able to sell the RS-27 for a lower price if production was higher.
The RD-180 was cheap simply because of the dollar to ruble exchange rates at the time and the Russians were hungry for any business they could get.
But the TR-107 and RS-84 were the engines they really needed for a next generation launch vehicle at the time.
The TR-107 in particular looks like it could have been a very affordable for an engine in it's thrust class and it's high enough thrust you'd only need one for a MLV.
In retrospect cancelling SLI was big mistake.
The RS-68 was the result of some interesting trades. I think it can be somewhat difficult to separate hindsight out of an look at decisions made in the past. While the TR-107 and RS-84 were good looking engines to us now they were in some ways the antithesis of what the EELVs were about. The collective wisdom at the time was that if you wanted to make a cheap launcher you needed a cheap engine. The way to do that was though to be reducing the number of parts, using an ablative rather then regeneration cooled engine bell, simple gas generator cycle, and sacrificing ISP to make a cheaper engine. Performance, reusability, and pushing the technological edge with a new combustion cycle were traits which would have pushed the development and recurring costs up. Using LH2 had as I understand it two main advantages, first is that the expertise in engine design was in LH2, and secondly that if the engine is going to have a lower performance that LH2 gives more room for it to be degraded while still having a decently preforming system. With a Vac ISP of 414 the RS-68A has a very poor ISP compared to other large LH2 engines but that is still much higher than any RP-1 engine. Some of these same design philosophies can be seen in SpaceX's Merlin. They also use a gas generator cycle, and the first version used an ablative bell. Also they started out with a lower thrust, ISP, and chamber pressure.
-
#99
by
Proponent
on 09 Mar, 2015 15:39
-
Most people assume that the Atlas V pads will be used.
Really? Surely Delta rather than Atlas tankage will be used, on account of methane's low density. Therefore, I would think that physical interfaces would make LC-37B easier to use. Furthermore, 37B is already kitted out to handle a cryogenic fuel.
-
#100
by
edkyle99
on 09 Mar, 2015 16:22
-
Most people assume that the Atlas V pads will be used.
Really? Surely Delta rather than Atlas tankage will be used, on account of methane's low density. Therefore, I would think that physical interfaces would make LC-37B easier to use. Furthermore, 37B is already kitted out to handle a cryogenic fuel.
I'm wondering about this myself. With cost-cutting seemingly the driver behind NGLS, it seems likely to me that ULA would not want to be stuck with the higher costs of SLC 6 (especially) and SLC 37 compared to the Atlas sites. On the other hand, is it even possible for ULA to keep flying Atlas while switching over to NGLS on the same pads? Heck, maybe ULA will switch to an Atlas pad on one coast and a Delta pad on the other. All I know for sure is that the choices, if any have been made, have not been announced to the public.
- Ed Kyle
-
#101
by
Lobo
on 09 Mar, 2015 16:36
-
They will keep DIV-H online until they have the new upper stage for NGLV
Or until the Air Force says they don't want it anymore
"Denver-based ULA will continue building the Delta 4 Heavy as long as its Air Force customer desires" said Tory Bruno
I'm guessing ULA wanted to shut it down with the single stick and the Air Force asked them to keep it around until there is something that can replace it.
@this. D4H support will be retained until FH is fully certified by USAF/DoD. Then it will go away once USAF/DoD feels comfortable with FH and ULA will likely develop an upgraded Centaur for NGLV that will give it D4H capability with some Atlas SRB augmentation. I'm guessing other than any payloads that might be currently (but not announced )manifested for it, ULA will want to retire D4H along with all of Delta as soon as they are allowed. The faster they do that the faster they can streamline their operations and get NGLV flying. NGLV will probably use the 5m Delta tooling, so I don't think they can start even bending metal on it until they know the last Delta core has come off the assembly line...which won't be until USAF/DoD says it has.
-
#102
by
Lobo
on 09 Mar, 2015 16:54
-
When did redundancy become essential anyway? There is no redundancy for Delta V Heavy. The original plan for the EELV was to have only one non-redundant supplier. Sometimes it appears that the real issue is a reluctance to down select and disappoint one supplier.
John
Yea, Jim has made that point before. There's no backup to D4H, although there very easily could have been with AVH if USAF/DoD had ever ordered one. There was no backup to Titan IV.
I think the retention of both Atlas and Delta had more to do with the situation with the solen IP by Boeing during the competition which probably should have just lead to Boeing being dropped and fined/punished/ordered to pay LM some restitutions or whatever, and going forward with just Atlas V and developing the AVH instead of D4H.
But, ULA's Bruno has said in interviews specifically that there is a requirement for reduntant access by USAF/DoD, and only now that SpaceX is about to offer that redundancy can they retire Delta. So I don't really understand it all exactly.
-
#103
by
Lobo
on 09 Mar, 2015 17:07
-
Most people assume that the Atlas V pads will be used.
Really? Surely Delta rather than Atlas tankage will be used, on account of methane's low density. Therefore, I would think that physical interfaces would make LC-37B easier to use. Furthermore, 37B is already kitted out to handle a cryogenic fuel.
I'm wondering about this myself. With cost-cutting seemingly the driver behind NGLS, it seems likely to me that ULA would not want to be stuck with the higher costs of SLC 6 (especially) and SLC 37 compared to the Atlas sites. On the other hand, is it even possible for ULA to keep flying Atlas while switching over to NGLS on the same pads? Heck, maybe ULA will switch to an Atlas pad on one coast and a Delta pad on the other. All I know for sure is that the choices, if any have been made, have not been announced to the public.
- Ed Kyle
I believe the plan was to upgrade the Atlas pads for Atlas Phase 2, had anyone every ordered it. Per this Atlas growth Chart.
Building Atlas Phase 2 wouldn't have meant Delta IV was cancelled, so I can't think they meant AVP2 would be launched from Delta pads in any way. NGLV will likely be 5m as AVP2 would have been.
LC-41 would be particularly easy as they just need a new MLP. SLC-3 might require some more extensive upgrades for the wider core. Looks like AVP2-heavy could have launched form existing Atlas Pads too? I'd assume with more extensive modifications? Again, Jim would be the best source I'm sure.
-
#104
by
LastStarFighter
on 09 Mar, 2015 17:11
-
D4H support will be retained until FH is fully certified by USAF/DoD.
I agree... Assuming the FH can fully replace the D4H. We know FH can to LEO without question. But do we know above LEO? I don't think there is enough information out there to know what FH can really do to higher energy orbits. But on that same note we don't know what NGLV can do either (or when). I'm looking forward to finding out for both though.
-
#105
by
baldusi
on 09 Mar, 2015 17:18
-
Most people assume that the Atlas V pads will be used.
Really? Surely Delta rather than Atlas tankage will be used, on account of methane's low density. Therefore, I would think that physical interfaces would make LC-37B easier to use. Furthermore, 37B is already kitted out to handle a cryogenic fuel.
I'm wondering about this myself. With cost-cutting seemingly the driver behind NGLS, it seems likely to me that ULA would not want to be stuck with the higher costs of SLC 6 (especially) and SLC 37 compared to the Atlas sites. On the other hand, is it even possible for ULA to keep flying Atlas while switching over to NGLS on the same pads? Heck, maybe ULA will switch to an Atlas pad on one coast and a Delta pad on the other. All I know for sure is that the choices, if any have been made, have not been announced to the public.
- Ed Kyle
Atlas V has the MLP, which allows for LV abstaction. If they add the CH4 lines, and a custom MLP, they could even share the VIF. The Delta IV pads would require a complete rebuild. Not to mention SLC-6 humongous cost.
-
#106
by
Robotbeat
on 09 Mar, 2015 17:36
-
Well, judging from the 13 tons to trans-Mars injection, then Falcon Heavy should be plenty good enough even to high energy. The only exception would be EXTREMELY high energy like New Horizons, but DoD doesn't care about that (and a small kick stage will do just fine for those cases).
-
#107
by
Jim
on 09 Mar, 2015 17:46
-
Most people assume that the Atlas V pads will be used.
Really? Surely Delta rather than Atlas tankage will be used, on account of methane's low density. Therefore, I would think that physical interfaces would make LC-37B easier to use. Furthermore, 37B is already kitted out to handle a cryogenic fuel.
I'm wondering about this myself. With cost-cutting seemingly the driver behind NGLS, it seems likely to me that ULA would not want to be stuck with the higher costs of SLC 6 (especially) and SLC 37 compared to the Atlas sites. On the other hand, is it even possible for ULA to keep flying Atlas while switching over to NGLS on the same pads? Heck, maybe ULA will switch to an Atlas pad on one coast and a Delta pad on the other. All I know for sure is that the choices, if any have been made, have not been announced to the public.
- Ed Kyle
Atlas V has the MLP, which allows for LV abstaction. If they add the CH4 lines, and a custom MLP, they could even share the VIF. The Delta IV pads would require a complete rebuild. Not to mention SLC-6 humongous cost.
The VIF mods just require larger holes on some of the lower platforms
-
#108
by
Lobo
on 09 Mar, 2015 18:12
-
The VIF mods just require larger holes on some of the lower platforms
Would that be the same for the MSS at SLC-3? Or would that be a more difficult modification than LC-41?
-
#109
by
TrevorMonty
on 09 Mar, 2015 23:09
-
-
#110
by
AncientU
on 10 Mar, 2015 00:07
-
Latest article on RD180 ban.
http://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-sounds-alarm-over-ban-on-russian-rocket-engines/
In crafting the ban, Congress carved out exemptions for engines ordered under ULA’s so-called block-buy contract, a sole-source order of a combined 36 Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rocket cores that was made in 2013. The law also exempts engines that were either paid for in full or legally committed to by ULA as of Feb. 1, 2014.
based on the documentation provided to the Department by ULA thus far, it appears that only a very small number of those engines actually met the statutory language
“This prohibition therefore restricts the ability of ULA to compete effectively for EELV Phase 1A and early Phase II missions inconsistent with the timelines in NDAA Section 1604 for developing additional competitive launch capabilities.”
EELV Phase 1A refers to the initial competitive phase of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program, which ULA has had all to itself since its establishment in 2006. The Air Force expects to put as many as nine missions up for bid during Phase 1A, which runs from 2015 through 2017. Under the following phase, referred to as Phase 2 in Hoyler’s statement, all missions would be put out for bid.
ULA certainly can still 'compete' by offering the Delta IV... originally sold as launch assurance if something should take out the Atlas V. It's a proven reliable launch vehicle that can cover all/most payloads that will be up for competition.
-
#111
by
Lars-J
on 10 Mar, 2015 01:08
-
ULA certainly can still 'compete' by offering the Delta IV... originally sold as launch assurance if something should take out the Atlas V. It's a proven reliable launch vehicle that can cover all/most payloads that will be up for competition.
Of course they can. And they have the $1 billion/year for "assured access". What they heck are they using it for?? Instead the Air Force whines they might have to use a competitor. Staggering.
-
#112
by
Newton_V
on 10 Mar, 2015 02:36
-
ULA certainly can still 'compete' by offering the Delta IV... originally sold as launch assurance if something should take out the Atlas V. It's a proven reliable launch vehicle that can cover all/most payloads that will be up for competition.
Of course they can. And they have the $1 billion/year for "assured access". What they heck are they using it for?? Instead the Air Force whines they might have to use a competitor. Staggering.
They're using it for exactly what your first sentence says. Assured access. And it's also <700 million. Why don't people automatically add 50% to every SpaceX cost quoted??
SpaceX used politics to ban the RD-180. Not one senator ever heard of or knew of what an RD-180 was until SpaceX used the political system to get what they want. SpaceX put ULA in a bind. ULA is reacting. What are you complaining about? When assured access (Delta IV) goes away, so does the 700 million. You think ULA wants to keep pads open for 1 launch every 3 years (SLC-6), or even LC-37?
-
#113
by
LastStarFighter
on 10 Mar, 2015 03:52
-
Not one senator ever heard of or knew of what an RD-180 was until SpaceX used the political system to get what they wanted
Still amazes me that RD180's got called out in congressional language. I could understand an embargo on everything from Russia but this definitely seemed suspicious.
-
#114
by
QuantumG
on 10 Mar, 2015 03:53
-
Not one senator ever heard of or knew of what an RD-180 was until SpaceX used the political system to get what they wanted
Still amazes me that RD180's got called out in congressional language. I could understand an embargo on everything from Russia but this definitely seemed suspicious.
What business did ya think SpaceX was in?
-
#115
by
Lars-J
on 10 Mar, 2015 06:46
-
ULA certainly can still 'compete' by offering the Delta IV... originally sold as launch assurance if something should take out the Atlas V. It's a proven reliable launch vehicle that can cover all/most payloads that will be up for competition.
Of course they can. And they have the $1 billion/year for "assured access". What they heck are they using it for?? Instead the Air Force whines they might have to use a competitor. Staggering.
They're using it for exactly what your first sentence says. Assured access. And it's also <700 million. Why don't people automatically add 50% to every SpaceX cost quoted??
SpaceX used politics to ban the RD-180. Not one senator ever heard of or knew of what an RD-180 was until SpaceX used the political system to get what they want. SpaceX put ULA in a bind. ULA is reacting. What are you complaining about? When assured access (Delta IV) goes away, so does the 700 million. You think ULA wants to keep pads open for 1 launch every 3 years (SLC-6), or even LC-37?
I don't add 50% to every number - I'm just using widely cited information.
If it is wrong, then please correct it. And please be more specific than "<700 million". I would love to see more accurate numbers.
-
#116
by
DGH
on 10 Mar, 2015 09:22
-
Latest article on RD180 ban.
http://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-sounds-alarm-over-ban-on-russian-rocket-engines/
In crafting the ban, Congress carved out exemptions for engines ordered under ULA’s so-called block-buy contract, a sole-source order of a combined 36 Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rocket cores that was made in 2013. The law also exempts engines that were either paid for in full or legally committed to by ULA as of Feb. 1, 2014.
based on the documentation provided to the Department by ULA thus far, it appears that only a very small number of those engines actually met the statutory language
“This prohibition therefore restricts the ability of ULA to compete effectively for EELV Phase 1A and early Phase II missions inconsistent with the timelines in NDAA Section 1604 for developing additional competitive launch capabilities.”
EELV Phase 1A refers to the initial competitive phase of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program, which ULA has had all to itself since its establishment in 2006. The Air Force expects to put as many as nine missions up for bid during Phase 1A, which runs from 2015 through 2017. Under the following phase, referred to as Phase 2 in Hoyler’s statement, all missions would be put out for bid.
ULA certainly can still 'compete' by offering the Delta IV... originally sold as launch assurance if something should take out the Atlas V. It's a proven reliable launch vehicle that can cover all/most payloads that will be up for competition.
ULA increased Delta IV production for this very reason in May 2014.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1405/19delta4/#.VP7B4Xk5A5tSo ULA should have no problem offering Delta IV since they started producing the engines years before they where needed.
-
#117
by
AncientU
on 10 Mar, 2015 11:29
-
Answer:
...five...
Question:
Why is Sec AF lobbying for better competitive conditions for ULA?
Although the Air Force cited specific concerns only about ULA’s ability to compete for future business, the statement would seem to raise questions as to whether the company has enough exempted RD-180s on hand or on order to execute the existing block-buy contract.
It's the law Ms. Secretary. Salute and execute your orders.
(The army of real lobbyists will work on adjusting legislative language.)
-
#118
by
su27k
on 10 Mar, 2015 13:04
-
Not one senator ever heard of or knew of what an RD-180 was until SpaceX used the political system to get what they want.
It wasn't an issue until Russian invaded Ukraine, it looks to me that making your elected representative aware of a situation like this should be the duty of any citizen.
SpaceX put ULA in a bind. ULA is reacting.
If ULA had arranged domestic production of RD-180 or switched the engine earlier, they wouldn't be in a bind or had to react.
-
#119
by
Newton_V
on 10 Mar, 2015 13:26
-
Not one senator ever heard of or knew of what an RD-180 was until SpaceX used the political system to get what they want.
It wasn't an issue until Russian invaded Ukraine, it looks to me that making your elected representative aware of a situation like this should be the duty of any citizen.
SpaceX put ULA in a bind. ULA is reacting.
If ULA had arranged domestic production of RD-180 or switched the engine earlier, they wouldn't be in a bind or had to react.
Yeah, SpaceX doing their civic duty! hahaha It was the the US government that "encouraged" LM after the cold war to take advantage of the Russian technology before it was utilized by other rogue countries.
This is the same Russia we were/are partners with on the ISS for the last 15 to 20 years. The same Russian hardware we've been putting US astronauts on for the last 10 years. The same Russia we're more than happy to use their precious metals and titanium in our airliners. This is all politics and nothing else. Stop pretending it isn't.
Why would ULA have arranged domestic production for an engine that would cost 3 times more to make here? Now that SpaceX has put ULA (and the USAF) in a bind, the ARE making a US produced engine.
Now go put on all your clothes made in India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Honduras, get in your car made in Germany, Japan, Korea, or Sweden, put on you Swiss watch, and go to work.
-
#120
by
woods170
on 10 Mar, 2015 13:51
-
Please keep politics out of this. This is not the space policy thread. Thank you.
-
#121
by
Lobo
on 10 Mar, 2015 15:07
-
Why would ULA have arranged domestic production for an engine that would cost 3 times more to make here?
That's a fair point. And up until the Ukranian invasion, USAF/DoD seemed ok with using Russian engines. If your only customer is ok with it, why wouldn't you be?
Another fair point is that SpaceX -did- choose to arrange domestic production of an engine and seemed to do it affordably, and thus have no issues with engine availability...
They opted to not go with a Russian engine, even though they originally were looking at Russian engines and cores. And are benfiting now from that decision.
Just because a PWR built engine is three times that of a Russian built engine, doesn't mean all US made engines are necessarily significantly more. I'm not even sure the RS-68 is actually "3 times" as much as a Russian made RD-180.
ULA could have decided to pursue alternatives for Atlas as SpaceX did, to ensure a more reliable supply chain. I'm assuming they were thinking that if there were ever issues with RD-180, Delta IV could back it up and there'd be no foreign engine supply issues with it. So no need to protect the Atlas supply chain with a domestic engine supplier. Now that's it's happened, apparently Delta IV isn't the backup is was assumed to be, so they are pursuing NGLV. Otherwise there's really no reason they couldn't just retire Atlas once SpaceX is certified and USAF/DoD releases ULA from having to maintain two LV's themselves. But apparently there's just no way to make Delta cost competative with the market once they don't have a monopoly on government contracts any more? Otherwise, why not just standardize on the all domestic Delta?
-
#122
by
AncientU
on 10 Mar, 2015 16:25
-
If the available supply really is five RD-180s that aren't embargoed, ULA better reevaluate whether a significant increase in Delta production (for all but five uniquely Atlas-qualified flights) could drop unit costs and be a better option while awaiting NGLV certification in the early 20s. If the current Congress says 'nyet' to changing the language, this is the default situation in which they'll find themselves -- and this Congress still has 22 months to go (much longer than 5 RD-180s will last).
Kinda opposite of the course they are on... except maybe the concept that all/most of their resources must be thrown toward one LV to start reducing costs.
-
#123
by
FinalFrontier
on 10 Mar, 2015 16:35
-
There is a very simple bottom line here:
Get the BE4 out of development and flying as soon as possible.
ULA and the BE4 teams are gonna have to pick up the pace some how and get the Atlas system flying on the domestic engine faster than currently planned, the way I see it at least. Gonna be a struggle but I reckon they can do it as long as there are no major failures (like a test stand explosion ect).
-
#124
by
kevin-rf
on 10 Mar, 2015 17:28
-
It will take what it will take, rushing things like this only leads to very energetic RUD's. Remember SpaceX lost quite a bit of time standing up the Falcon. It was 18 months between COTS Demo 1 and COTS - DEMO 2/3.
Assuming the BE4 is fully funded, there is not much one can do besides wait and complain on internet message boards.
-
#125
by
Lobo
on 10 Mar, 2015 17:35
-
Yea, there was still a "LH2 is the miracle fuel" mentality back then. The real sad thing is there was no domestic RP-1 engine to even go to to offer. The next gen RP-1 engines partially developed for SLI wouldn't come along until the late 90's. But imagine if there's been a TR-107 or RS-84 engine to offer for an EELV? Topped with Centaur or DCSS or something else, would have made a fine all-domestic Atlas V with a bit more performance. And if they had been selected winner of the EELV competition, then it would have been in production by the time ESAS came along, and would have made a very viable engine for a HLV (assuming Shuttle Derived politics could have been over come). As it was there was only Russian built RP-1 engines flying and any RP-1 HLV would have needed a new engine development. That actually wouldn't have been that hard because TR-107 and RS-84 had been partially developed and those programs only recently cancelled with the cancellation of SLI. But it did make it easier to put the thumb on the scale for Shuttle Derived.
Well they had options other then the RD-180 they could have brought the F-1 back in production using modern tooling or used four x RS-27s.
The former would have out performed the RD-180 by a large margin the latter would have been lower performance but Rocketdyne might have been able to sell the RS-27 for a lower price if production was higher.
The RD-180 was cheap simply because of the dollar to ruble exchange rates at the time and the Russians were hungry for any business they could get.
But the TR-107 and RS-84 were the engines they really needed for a next generation launch vehicle at the time.
The TR-107 in particular looks like it could have been a very affordable for an engine in it's thrust class and it's high enough thrust you'd only need one for a MLV.
In retrospect cancelling SLI was big mistake.
The RS-68 was the result of some interesting trades. I think it can be somewhat difficult to separate hindsight out of an look at decisions made in the past. While the TR-107 and RS-84 were good looking engines to us now they were in some ways the antithesis of what the EELVs were about. The collective wisdom at the time was that if you wanted to make a cheap launcher you needed a cheap engine. The way to do that was though to be reducing the number of parts, using an ablative rather then regeneration cooled engine bell, simple gas generator cycle, and sacrificing ISP to make a cheaper engine. Performance, reusability, and pushing the technological edge with a new combustion cycle were traits which would have pushed the development and recurring costs up. Using LH2 had as I understand it two main advantages, first is that the expertise in engine design was in LH2, and secondly that if the engine is going to have a lower performance that LH2 gives more room for it to be degraded while still having a decently preforming system. With a Vac ISP of 414 the RS-68A has a very poor ISP compared to other large LH2 engines but that is still much higher than any RP-1 engine. Some of these same design philosophies can be seen in SpaceX's Merlin. They also use a gas generator cycle, and the first version used an ablative bell. Also they started out with a lower thrust, ISP, and chamber pressure.
All good points. Everything looks better in hindsight. And TR-107 and RS-84 weren't even in development during the EELV competition I don't think. RD-180 existed and RS-68 I think was a left over from some previously cancelled program. So they couldn't have really been considered for the EELV program. But I'm just saying imagine if LM and either Aerojet, TRW, Northrop-Grumman, or PWR develop a domestic engine for Atlas V (instead of carrying over Atlas III's RD-180), they may have very well come up with something like a TR-107 or RS-84 a bit earlier, as LM already had access to RD-180's. So we understood the RP-1 staged combustion concept the Russians had been using for a couple of decades prior. RS-84 came out of knowledge PWR gained from RD-180, as I understand. Not sure if the TR-107 did too.
I think the successful Atlas III showed the capabilities of a high performance kerolox booster with a high performance hydrolox upper stage. So despite the higher ISP of even an inefficient hydrolox engine like the RS-68, the example was there for all to see that RP-1 can make a pretty good booster depsite it's ISP.
Falcon 9 showed us that keeping it simple, even lower isp GG kerolox can be very effective too. The F9 v1.1 has about the same GTO performance as Atlas V-401, despite it not having a staged combustion booster, or a hydrolox upper stage. And the two LV's are roughly similar in size. F9 isn't hugely larger or anything.
Had Columbia not happened, SLI probably would have continued. IF RS-84 or TR-107 had come out of that, perhaps ULA and USAF would have looked to switch Atlas too it as a domestic engine. I dare say SLI and OSP if allowed to continue would have come up with a better STS successor than the sudden switch to CxP did.
If Atlas were using TR-107 or RS-84, there wouldn't be an issue with RD-180's, and the emergency of SpaceX would simply mean ULA would be dropping Delta standardizing on Atlas only, and not have to develop a new LV.
-
#126
by
mkent
on 10 Mar, 2015 22:59
-
Everything looks better in hindsight. And TR-107 and RS-84 weren't even in development during the EELV competition I don't think. RD-180 existed and RS-68 I think was a left over from some previously cancelled program.
(emphasis mine)
No. Boeing spent $1 billion of their own money developing RS-68 specifically for the Delta IV program. That was back when they owned Rocketdyne.
-
#127
by
quanthasaquality
on 11 Mar, 2015 01:07
-
They're using it for exactly what your first sentence says. Assured access. And it's also <700 million. Why don't people automatically add 50% to every SpaceX cost quoted??
SpaceX used politics to ban the RD-180. Not one senator ever heard of or knew of what an RD-180 was until SpaceX used the political system to get what they want. SpaceX put ULA in a bind. ULA is reacting. What are you complaining about? When assured access (Delta IV) goes away, so does the 700 million. You think ULA wants to keep pads open for 1 launch every 3 years (SLC-6), or even LC-37?
I bet Bill Nelson knew the Atlas 5 used a russian engine for a long time. Bill Nelson actually pays attention to rockets and NASA. John McCain might have also known. John McCain has been a critic of Putin for a pretty long time. John McCain is now the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
ULA announcing they are going to kill the Delta IV, and need to buy more rd-180 engines from Russia is quite arrogant. I guess the Senate will have to restate its opinion on Russian rocket engines.
-
#128
by
Newton_V
on 11 Mar, 2015 12:45
-
I bet Bill Nelson knew the Atlas 5 used a russian engine for a long time. Bill Nelson actually pays attention to rockets and NASA. John McCain might have also known. John McCain has been a critic of Putin for a pretty long time. John McCain is now the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
ULA announcing they are going to kill the Delta IV, and need to buy more rd-180 engines from Russia is quite arrogant. I guess the Senate will have to restate its opinion on Russian rocket engines.
McCain has been a critic of BOEING for a pretty long time. I doubt he knew anything about Atlas V two years ago. ULA was getting pressure to reduce costs long before the first Falcon 9 ever flew. It was a matter of time for Delta IV. It has nothing to do with arrogance. More SpaceX spin. Like I said before, if this is really about anti-Russia in congress, than EVERYTHING from Russia should get the same ban. Not just a billionaire pushing a senator in one direction for his own personal gain.
-
#129
by
bunker9603
on 11 Mar, 2015 13:13
-
I bet Bill Nelson knew the Atlas 5 used a russian engine for a long time. Bill Nelson actually pays attention to rockets and NASA. John McCain might have also known. John McCain has been a critic of Putin for a pretty long time. John McCain is now the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
ULA announcing they are going to kill the Delta IV, and need to buy more rd-180 engines from Russia is quite arrogant. I guess the Senate will have to restate its opinion on Russian rocket engines.
McCain has been a critic of BOEING for a pretty long time. I doubt he knew anything about Atlas V two years ago. ULA was getting pressure to reduce costs long before the first Falcon 9 ever flew. It was a matter of time for Delta IV. It has nothing to do with arrogance. More SpaceX spin. Like I said before, if this is really about anti-Russia in congress, than EVERYTHING from Russia should get the same ban. Not just a billionaire pushing a senator in one direction for his own personal gain.
From March 12, 2012 (3 years ago)http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2042/1The solution proposed by United Launch Alliance, a monopoly-extending block buy of at least 40 vehicle cores, is the subject of both congressional scrutiny led by Arizona Senator John McCain...
...The magnitude of the problem came into focus when United Launch Alliance indicated that as part of its bid for NASA’s NLS-II launch contract, the cost for the Atlas V would be going up dramatically.
-
#130
by
Newton_V
on 11 Mar, 2015 13:50
-
From March 12, 2012 (3 years ago)
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2042/1
The solution proposed by United Launch Alliance, a monopoly-extending block buy of at least 40 vehicle cores, is the subject of both congressional scrutiny led by Arizona Senator John McCain...
...The magnitude of the problem came into focus when United Launch Alliance indicated that as part of its bid for NASA’s NLS-II launch contract, the cost for the Atlas V would be going up dramatically.
Wait, your're telling me the block buy was in the works more than 3 years ago?? Actually it's closer to 5, even thought SpaceX tried to make everyone believe it was proposed by ULA in late 2013.
The only thing any Senator knows about rocket hardware is what the lobbyists tell them. I have no problem with a ban on Russian products if that's what our wonderful congress wants to do. My issue is calling out one specific item to use as a tool to make you money. Either ban everything imported from Russia or nothing.
-
#131
by
notsorandom
on 11 Mar, 2015 17:56
-
Everything looks better in hindsight. And TR-107 and RS-84 weren't even in development during the EELV competition I don't think. RD-180 existed and RS-68 I think was a left over from some previously cancelled program.
(emphasis mine)
No. Boeing spent $1 billion of their own money developing RS-68 specifically for the Delta IV program. That was back when they owned Rocketdyne.
The engine and the Delta IV were the successors in the way to the National Launch System effort though. The STME engine for the NLS was to be a greatly simplified and expendable version of the SSME. At least that is what they said. It was a gas generator rather than staged combustion engine like the SSME. Although there was not much hardware produced in the NLS effort there were a fair number of studies done which showed the viability of an LH2 powered booster. Additionally work on the STME which did include hot firing of some engine components was the most recent (by quite a bit) work on liquid engines in the USA.
-
#132
by
Lobo
on 11 Mar, 2015 18:34
-
Everything looks better in hindsight. And TR-107 and RS-84 weren't even in development during the EELV competition I don't think. RD-180 existed and RS-68 I think was a left over from some previously cancelled program.
(emphasis mine)
No. Boeing spent $1 billion of their own money developing RS-68 specifically for the Delta IV program. That was back when they owned Rocketdyne.
The engine and the Delta IV were the successors in the way to the National Launch System effort though. The STME engine for the NLS was to be a greatly simplified and expendable version of the SSME. At least that is what they said. It was a gas generator rather than staged combustion engine like the SSME. Although there was not much hardware produced in the NLS effort there were a fair number of studies done which showed the viability of an LH2 powered booster. Additionally work on the STME which did include hot firing of some engine components was the most recent (by quite a bit) work on liquid engines in the USA.
Perhaps that's what I was thinking. I thought I'd read somewhere that the some other engine had been partially developed for some other program prior to being cancelled, and that research/development was later used to create the RS-68 for Delta IV.
-
#133
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 11 Mar, 2015 19:54
-
Propulsion for the 21st Century RS-68Conceptual studies of the RS-68 were an outgrowth of the NASA Space Transportation Main Engine (STME) Project begun in 1988
80% reduction in unique part count
92% reduction in touch labor
4.7 years, $500M
While the main injector is similar in concept to the J-2 and SSME engines, it has been greatly simplified. This has been accomplished by reducing injector element density and using fewer unique parts.
