-
#80
by
lmike
on 02 Mar, 2007 20:41
-
kevin-rf - 2/3/2007 1:28 PM
edkyle99 - 2/3/2007 5:04 AM
yinzer - 2/3/2007 12:17 AM
I'm not sure what conclusions you can draw about the "quality" of an EELV based on NRO payload slips and GPS satellites refusing to die, both of which have much bigger influences on the EELV flight rates than anything to do with the launch vehicles.
Atlas 5 has, and is, being offered for commercial launches, but has won relatively few launches. The conclusion I draw from that is that Atlas 5 hasn't been price-competitive, despite the fact that it, like Ariane and every other launcher in the world, is subsidized in part by government.
- Ed Kyle
lmike - 2/3/2007 3:21 PM
What do you think is the reason for this? Technical or otherwise.
Jim once pointed out that proton is cheaper but can not haul as much. So the commercial payloads Atlas V has won where to heavy for proton.
Thanks. So, relating to the Ariane, I suppose the sats are too heavy to launch [for other LVs], and the ride is cheaper? But why is the ride [for same or heavier payload] on the Ariane is cheaper?
-
#81
by
Antares
on 02 Mar, 2007 21:48
-
Analyst - 2/3/2007 3:58 AM
It seems to me the mobile launcher concept used by Arianespace for Ariane V (and IV) and by LM for Atlas V at LC41 is better than stacking the rocket at the pad (SLC3 at Vandenberg and LC17) or Boeings Delta IV approch at LC37B and SLC6. It reduces the time the booster sits on the pad, although I don't know how long it sits in its intergration building.
Analyst
The advantages of a mobile launcher are:
1) Keep the pad open if the launch rate demands it since
2) multiple integration facilities are cheaper to build than multiple pads.
-
#82
by
edkyle99
on 02 Mar, 2007 21:49
-
lmike - 2/3/2007 3:41 PM
kevin-rf - 2/3/2007 1:28 PM
edkyle99 - 2/3/2007 5:04 AM
yinzer - 2/3/2007 12:17 AM
I'm not sure what conclusions you can draw about the "quality" of an EELV based on NRO payload slips and GPS satellites refusing to die, both of which have much bigger influences on the EELV flight rates than anything to do with the launch vehicles.
Atlas 5 has, and is, being offered for commercial launches, but has won relatively few launches. The conclusion I draw from that is that Atlas 5 hasn't been price-competitive, despite the fact that it, like Ariane and every other launcher in the world, is subsidized in part by government.
- Ed Kyle
lmike - 2/3/2007 3:21 PM
What do you think is the reason for this? Technical or otherwise.
Jim once pointed out that proton is cheaper but can not haul as much. So the commercial payloads Atlas V has won where to heavy for proton.
Thanks. So, relating to the Ariane, I suppose the sats are too heavy to launch [for other LVs], and the ride is cheaper? But why is the ride [for same or heavier payload] on the Ariane is cheaper?
It is a scaling issue. In addition to the payload advantage given by its near-equatorial launch site, Ariane 5 also benefits by being bigger than Atlas. Bigger launchers usually end up being cheaper on a kg-to-orbit basis. Ariane 5 ECA can haul nearly 10 tonnes to GTO while Atlas 551 can only boost about 6.7 tonnes to an equivalent GTO (1,500 m/s delta-v short of geostationary orbit). Atlas 551 would need to cost less than 67% of the cost of Ariane 5 ECA to match or better the European launcher on a cost per kg to GTO basis. The limited information available hints that Atlas 551 doesn't quite make that mark.
But just because these launchers have payload capacity doesn't mean that it is fully used. Most launches of Ariane, Delta 4, and Atlas 5 have to date only used 70-80% of the vehicle's payload capacity.
- Ed Kyle
-
#83
by
lmike
on 03 Mar, 2007 00:10
-
edkyle99 - 2/3/2007 2:49 PM
... < trimmed for brevity >
Atlas 551 would need to cost less than 67% of the cost of Ariane 5 ECA to match or better the European launcher on a cost per kg to GTO basis. The limited information available hints that Atlas 551 doesn't quite make that mark.
But just because these launchers have payload capacity doesn't mean that it is fully used. Most launches of Ariane, Delta 4, and Atlas 5 have to date only used 70-80% of the vehicle's payload capacity.
...
Thanks. But do you think an Atlas configuration could be more competitive with a better government support (to match the Ariane's) Wouldn't that mean more solids, redesigned lower/upper stages with higher impulse/thrust, etc... Couldn't the proverbial 'subsidy' also play into this?
-
#84
by
edkyle99
on 03 Mar, 2007 00:34
-
lmike - 2/3/2007 7:10 PM
... do you think an Atlas configuration could be more competitive with a better government support (to match the Ariane's) Wouldn't that mean more solids, redesigned lower/upper stages with higher impulse/thrust, etc... Couldn't the proverbial 'subsidy' also play into this?
I have no idea which rocket, Ariane or Atlas or Delta, receives more government monetary support. But it is plainly obvious to me that all three programs receive large sums of public money, either through direct subsidy or via indirect support by providing a stream of more-or-less guaranteed payloads to an essentially non-competitive marketplace.
As things stand now, Atlas probably already is cost-competitive with Ariane 5 ECA *for specific payloads that match well with specific Atlas V variants*. If it were to be developed, an Atlas V Heavy might be cost-competitive with Ariane 5 ECA for multiple-payload missions, but the bigger question is this: does Lockheed Martin/ULA, or any U.S. company, really *want* to compete for commercial launches? The answer in recent years appears to be a resounding "No". The reason must be that there is little, if any, profit to be made in that business right now.
- Ed Kyle
-
#85
by
DigitalMan
on 03 Mar, 2007 01:00
-
Last time I was at KSC someone mentioned the Atlas V can be rolled out and launched in 12 hours. Not too shabby.
-
#86
by
Rocket Guy
on 03 Mar, 2007 01:34
-
Nine hours. They did just that through MRO. At MRO, they ran into problems and fell behind to the point where it countributed to the launch scrub that morning. Since then, starting with NH, they have rolled out the day before, usually at 10am.
-
#87
by
WHAP
on 03 Mar, 2007 01:49
-
DigitalMan - 2/3/2007 7:00 PM
Last time I was at KSC someone mentioned the Atlas V can be rolled out and launched in 12 hours. Not too shabby.
It's probably less than that. Looking at some old coverage (Inmarsat 4 launch), they rolled at 7:30 am and were scheduled to launch at 4:42 pm, just over 9 hours later. Roll was delayed an hour, so a normal timeline would be just over 10 hours. They didn't launch that day, but it doesn't look like they rushed through the count or anything.
-
#88
by
WHAP
on 03 Mar, 2007 01:50
-
Ben - 2/3/2007 7:34 PM
Nine hours.
I stand corrected.
-
#89
by
DigitalMan
on 03 Mar, 2007 02:59
-
9 hours is pretty impressive!!! Seems like a really good thing considering potential weather problems here. I managed to get some pictures of the pad from the beachhouse, but couldn't get any closer.
-
#90
by
Jim
on 03 Mar, 2007 04:33
-
DigitalMan - 2/3/2007 10:59 PM
9 hours is pretty impressive!!! Seems like a really good thing considering potential weather problems here. I managed to get some pictures of the pad from the beachhouse, but couldn't get any closer.
It still would not have helped the shuttle
-
#91
by
bigdog
on 03 Mar, 2007 14:41
-
Analyst - 2/3/2007 1:58 AM
It seems to me the mobile launcher concept used by Arianespace for Ariane V (and IV) and by LM for Atlas V at LC41 is better than stacking the rocket at the pad (SLC3 at Vandenberg and LC17) or Boeings Delta IV approch at LC37B and SLC6. It reduces the time the booster sits on the pad, although I don't know how long it sits in its intergration building.
Boeing talked about 8 days on pad for Delta IV Medium and 17 days for Delta IV Heavy. This has never been achieved. Could be because there simply has been no need, I don't know. The next Delta IV has been delayed again, could be the booster or the payload.
Could it be that the payloads are very often the reason for long times on the pad? Titan 4 (NRO) comes to mind. On the other hand Titan 3E achieved very fast turnarrounds during the Viking and Voyager launches from LC41 in the 1970ies.
Analyst
1. Mobile Launcher vs. Pad erection/stacking is about equal in the general sense. Launch rates as they currently are (Atlas V & Delta IV) don't need anything different. In fact Delta II was launching something like every two/three weeks once (Iridium I think) and it didn't hurt them though they did have more than one pad.
2. As for the time to launch Boeing made very bad guesses at how long that would take. They probably had a ship & shoot mentality. Once people who know how to launch rockets got on the program that quickly changed. Best time I hear is around 60 days. I think the last launch for DMSP took about that. The Medium and the Heavy versions are actually the shortest; putting on solids adds a lot of time.
3. Payloads are a source of delay. The first VAFB Delta IV was delayed for a long time by the payload, close to a year.
There is one area where I would argue Delta IV approach of integrated vehicle erected at the pad is better. First lets compare apples to apples, Ariane V to Delta IV heavy to Atlas V Heavy. Atlas V 551 or 2 are what competes in this class now but I'm trying to leave the small solids out of this comparison since for Atlas and Delta they are equal in terms of them being stacked once vertical.
If the situation arose where a payload had a significant slip driving the need to remove that rocket from the pad and put the next one up Delta IV would be better. Atlas V and Ariane use the mobile launcher and have a vertical integration facility. In Atlas's case they have only one mobile platform and one VIF, I don't know for sure about Ariane but I'd bet they can't store one vertically without impacting the next rockets processing. Delta IV has the horizontal integration facility that has 3 bays (typically only two hold the rockets).
Both Ariane and Atlas would need to de-stack (take apart) the rocket and store the piece parts then stack another rocket in the VIF. Delta IV has a big advantage in that they just de-erect the rocket on the pad roll back to the HIF for storage and then roll out and erect the next one. Then when it's time for the delayed rocket to go back just roll out and erect.
-
#92
by
Jim
on 03 Mar, 2007 16:33
-
Delta IV doesn't do any electical checkout of the vehicle horizontal and that is a disadvantage. Also, just as Atlas V has only one MLP, D-IV only has one heavy LMU and so they can't have another heavy ready to swap out. D-IV would be at a disadvantage to Atlas, they both can have all the CBC's/CCB's and upperstages deliver but Atlas could do some electrical testing.
Atlas time from ASOC to VIF to launch is shorter than D-IV HIF to pad to launch. Since Atlas had let the USAF tear up the RR tracks to the SMAB and SMARF, they lost a safe haven for an "extra" vehicle and another MLP doesn't help. But even adding another LMU, Atlas is still better.
Also all Atlas CCB's are the same but D-IV CBC's are configuation unique. Atlas can swap hardware easier.
The only advantage D-IV has is a swap of a heavy with a medium.
-
#93
by
edkyle99
on 03 Mar, 2007 17:01
-
bigdog - 3/3/2007 9:41 AM
Atlas V and Ariane use the mobile launcher and have a vertical integration facility. In Atlas's case they have only one mobile platform and one VIF, I don't know for sure about Ariane but I'd bet they can't store one vertically without impacting the next rockets processing.
My understanding is that Arianespace now has two Ariane 5 mobile launch tables, allowing it to process two campaigns in close succession. One Ariane 5 could, for example, be in the Launcher Integration Building (BIL) while the other was in the Final Assembly Building (BAF). An Ariane 5 launch campaign takes 22 days from EPC (core stage) erection to launch.
- Ed Kyle
-
#94
by
bigdog
on 03 Mar, 2007 18:01
-
Jim - 3/3/2007 10:33 AM
Delta IV doesn't do any electical checkout of the vehicle horizontal and that is a disadvantage..
Incorrect about a disadvantage. They don't test there because they found it was of no value, cost them more and would only be duplicative of what is done at the pad. They do extensive testing at Decatur which negates the need for it at the HIF. Also Atlas does no testing of the booster horizontal.
Also, just as Atlas V has only one MLP, D-IV only has one heavy LMU and so they can't have another heavy ready to swap out..
Wrong again. I've seen by your posts you are at KSC/CCAS drive by the HIF and you'll see another Heavy LMU outside all shrink wrapped and ready to go. Now you may end up being correct since VAFB will now be launching heavies and I would guess that LMU will be shipped there. Building an additional LMU would be far easier and less expensive than building another MLP.
Atlas time from ASOC to VIF to launch is shorter than D-IV HIF to pad to launch..
Very true and this is where Atlas has a big launch rate advantage although it has nothing to do with erecting vs. stacking.
Since Atlas had let the USAF tear up the RR tracks to the SMAB and SMARF, they lost a safe haven for an "extra" vehicle and another MLP doesn't help. But even adding another LMU, Atlas is still better..
Too bad they let that contingency go away, in fact it may have even been an advantage to stack multiple vehicles in close succession.
Also all Atlas CCB's are the same but D-IV CBC's are configuation unique. Atlas can swap hardware easier..
The DIV CBC's are the same except for the structural attachments for solids and strap-ons. Electrical, plumbing, avionics are the same on all of them. I doubt the Atlas boosters are identical either. For example why install cables and other related hardware for solids if it's a 401.
The only advantage D-IV has is a swap of a heavy with a medium.
Like I said above as of now they can have two heavies on LMU's. But this probably makes my point since it's more likely they would go from a heavy to a medium or medium to a heavy under the circumstances I described.
-
#95
by
bigdog
on 03 Mar, 2007 18:05
-
edkyle99 - 3/3/2007 11:01 AM
bigdog - 3/3/2007 9:41 AM
Atlas V and Ariane use the mobile launcher and have a vertical integration facility. In Atlas's case they have only one mobile platform and one VIF, I don't know for sure about Ariane but I'd bet they can't store one vertically without impacting the next rockets processing.
My understanding is that Arianespace now has two Ariane 5 mobile launch tables, allowing it to process two campaigns in close succession. One Ariane 5 could, for example, be in the Launcher Integration Building (BIL) while the other was in the Final Assembly Building (BAF). An Ariane 5 launch campaign takes 22 days from EPC (core stage) erection to launch.
- Ed Kyle
Thanks for the added information. I think this suports my position since if the first vehicle were to go into long term storage it would have to be taken apart so that the second MLT and the BIL would be available for the next rocket. Delta IV more times than not could just be parked in one of the HIF bays with no impact to the next rocket.
-
#96
by
edkyle99
on 03 Mar, 2007 18:05
-
Analyst - 2/3/2007 2:58 AM
It seems to me the mobile launcher concept used by Arianespace for Ariane V (and IV) and by LM for Atlas V at LC41 is better than stacking the rocket at the pad (SLC3 at Vandenberg and LC17) or Boeings Delta IV approch at LC37B and SLC6. It reduces the time the booster sits on the pad, although I don't know how long it sits in its intergration building.
One of the main arguments for the "clean pad" concept used by Ariane 5, Atlas 5, and in part by Japan's H-2A is that in the event of a launch failure on the pad - like the recent Zenit Sea Launch failure - there are fewer nearby structures exposed to damage. A Delta 4 failure on the pad would endanger not only the launch table equipment and the substantial umbilical tower, but also the nearby mobile service tower. A clean pad launch failure would only expose the launch table and its smaller umbilical tower to the failure.
- Ed Kyle
-
#97
by
bigdog
on 03 Mar, 2007 18:23
-
edkyle99 - 1/3/2007 8:47 PM
Success/Attempts
Atlas 5 8/8
Delta 4M 6/6
What about Ariane 4? This is the closest to A5 & DIV Medium & Intermediate. I know the total was very big but it's the success percentage you get from the numbers that matters.
Ariane 5-ECA 7/8[/QUOTE]
What about the basic Ariane V version? They will not all be ECA's from now on will they?
Delta 4H 0/1[/QUOTE]
I'd make this 0.9/1 since was only a demo flight and everything was successful except the final orbit. In other words it didn't blow up like a few Ariane 5's. Plus as someone pointed out in another thread or maybe it was earlier in this one if that DIV heavy launched the DSP that's going up next it would have made it orbit and had room to spare.
- Ed Kyle[/QUOTE]
-
#98
by
Jim
on 03 Mar, 2007 18:40
-
bigdog - 3/3/2007 2:01 PM
1. Incorrect about a disadvantage. They don't test there because they found it was of no value, cost them more and would only be duplicative of what is done at the pad. They do extensive testing at Decatur which negates the need for it at the HIF. Also Atlas does no testing of the booster horizontal.
2. Wrong again. I've seen by your posts you are at KSC/CCAS drive by the HIF and you'll see another Heavy LMU outside all shrink wrapped and ready to go. Now you may end up being correct since VAFB will now be launching heavies and I would guess that LMU will be shipped there. Building an additional LMU would be far easier and less expensive than building another MLP.
3. The DIV CBC's are the same except for the structural attachments for solids and strap-ons. Electrical, plumbing, avionics are the same on all of them. I doubt the Atlas boosters are identical either. For example why install cables and other related hardware for solids if it's a 401.
4. Like I said above as of now they can have two heavies on LMU's. But this probably makes my point since it's more likely they would go from a heavy to a medium or medium to a heavy under the circumstances I described.
1. They found out it is a disadvantage. While another vehicle is at the pad or the pad is down for mods. The vehicle just sits in the HIF without any testing. There are been so many post shipment mods (Decatur doesn't ship clean vehicles) and fixes that testing in HIF would save time.
Altas tests the booster (they can connect it to the upperstage) but more so the Centaur where the bulk of the avionics are
2. It is the VAFB one
3. No, the CBC's have different centerbodys, interstages and more, not just SRM attach hardware. A D-IV medium can only be a medium, not a medium plus, nor can it handle 5m upperstage. The Heavy CBC's are also unique. An Atlas CCB can be 401, 421, 431, 501, 511, 521, 531, etc. They can swap them, they can can start integration for a 531 and realize more thrust is needed and just add an SRM at the launch site. All CCB's are identical. Even the proposed Atlas V heavy. It truly is a "common' core
4. Not quite that easy, there are more medium plus vehicles and therefore have solids that need to be removed.
-
#99
by
edkyle99
on 03 Mar, 2007 19:11
-
bigdog - 3/3/2007 1:05 PM
edkyle99 - 3/3/2007 11:01 AM
My understanding is that Arianespace now has two Ariane 5 mobile launch tables, allowing it to process two campaigns in close succession. One Ariane 5 could, for example, be in the Launcher Integration Building (BIL) while the other was in the Final Assembly Building (BAF). An Ariane 5 launch campaign takes 22 days from EPC (core stage) erection to launch.
- Ed Kyle
Thanks for the added information. I think this suports my position since if the first vehicle were to go into long term storage it would have to be taken apart so that the second MLT and the BIL would be available for the next rocket. Delta IV more times than not could just be parked in one of the HIF bays with no impact to the next rocket.
I can't think of a reason why Arianespace couldn't "shuffle" two assembled Ariane 5 vehicles between the BIL and BAF if need be, in the same manner that NASA has moved assembled shuttle stacks from one high bay to another in the past. The track layout at Kourou would allow it.
- Ed Kyle