-
#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
-
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.
-
#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
-
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.
The heavy is. Probably why it doesn't fly much unless Atlas-551 just can't do it. -
#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
-
ULA CEO says so. So it's more like: H*LL YES!I came across this article: http://spacenews.com/ula-targets-2018-for-delta-4-phase-out-seeks-relaxation-of-rd-180-ban/
Some quotes:QuoteUnited 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! -
#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.
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.
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.
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.
