-
#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.
