-
Bigger boosters from OSC?
by
CFE
on 12 May, 2007 03:26
-
Space News ran a recent story about Orbital Sciences considering the development of a bigger booster in the 4-5mT range. This is exciting if it plays out, because it means a true replacement for Delta II (albeit on the low side of Delta II's performance envelope.)
I have to ask, if OSC is designing a Delta-class booster, what configuration will emerge. I suspect it might look like a Taurus, with an extra Castor 120 added under the stack. I haven't run the numbers on such an ungainly, five-stage vehicle, so I don't know what kind of performance it has to offer. Another possible configuration would use the first three stages of Peacekeeper with the upper two stages of Pegasus/Minotaur.
Then again, designing rockets isn't as easy as playing Legos, and my wacky configurations might not be feasible. OSC has learned this lesson the hard way on at least one occasion.
-
#1
by
MKremer
on 12 May, 2007 08:09
-
Maybe we could have a race between OSC's 'idea' and SpaceX...
(be kinda fun to see who 'wins' and how soon)
-
#2
by
Jim
on 12 May, 2007 14:31
-
CFE - 11/5/2007 11:26 PM
1. Space News ran a recent story about Orbital Sciences considering the development of a bigger booster in the 4-5mT range. This is exciting if it plays out, because it means a true replacement for Delta II (albeit on the low side of Delta II's performance envelope.)
2. I have to ask, if OSC is designing a Delta-class booster, what configuration will emerge. I suspect it might look like a Taurus, with an extra Castor 120 added under the stack. I haven't run the numbers on such an ungainly, five-stage vehicle, so I don't know what kind of performance it has to offer. Another possible configuration would use the first three stages of Peacekeeper with the upper two stages of Pegasus/Minotaur.
1. It is not a true replacement for the Delta II, the low side eliminate planetary missions. This performance is only good for polar missions (there are few due east LEO missions)
2. Why do you assume solids? Also your PK variant is already called a Minotaur IV/V
-
#3
by
aero313
on 12 May, 2007 15:04
-
CFE - 11/5/2007 11:26 PM
I have to ask, if OSC is designing a Delta-class booster, what configuration will emerge. I suspect it might look like a Taurus, with an extra Castor 120 added under the stack. I haven't run the numbers on such an ungainly, five-stage vehicle, so I don't know what kind of performance it has to offer. Another possible configuration would use the first three stages of Peacekeeper with the upper two stages of Pegasus/Minotaur.
Then again, designing rockets isn't as easy as playing Legos, and my wacky configurations might not be feasible. OSC has learned this lesson the hard way on at least one occasion.
The fundamental problem with Taurus as currently configured is the pencil-necked Pegasus upper stages. These really limit both the overall payload mass and (more importantly) the fairing diameter due to aerodynamic loads. The 92" fairing was a stretch. A Delta II class booster needs at least a 10 ft fairing. Encapsulating these small diameter upper stages inside a larger fairing simply adds weight.
Trivia info: The Taurus 92" fairing has the largest hammerhead ratio (fairing dia. to body dia.) ever flown at 1.84:1 (92/50). Titan IV had a 1.6:1 ratio.
-
#4
by
CFE
on 12 May, 2007 21:19
-
Jim - 12/5/2007 8:31 AM
2. Why do you assume solids? Also your PK variant is already called a Minotaur IV/V
I assumed solids only because that's where OSC's experience lies. I suppose nothing is stopping them from going liquid, but the all-solid route (with the possible exception of a HAPS as the final stage) seems like the easiest approach for their company.
My PK variant is not quite a Minotaur-IV/V. Minotaur IV has an Orion 38 as stage 4, while Minotaur V uses a Star 48 variant for Stage 4 and an Orion 38 or Star 37 variant for Stage 5. The version I threw out there would use an Orion 50XL for stage 4 and an Orion 38 for stage 5.
Nit-picking aside, your point is well-taken, that this isn't very different from the standard Minotaur IV/V. And there's no way, barring any drastic mods, that Minotaur IV could be Delta II-class. I'll have to take a WAG at what would happen if the Minotaur IV used two Castor 120's or SR-118's in series, in place of the current first stage (think of Athena II.) I still don't think it would put 4 mT in LEO, though.
All things considered, it looks like it will be pretty hard to design an all-solid launcher. Unless the Shuttle ASRM could easily be adapted as the first stage, it doesn't look like there are existing solid motors in an appropriate size for such a rocket.
-
#5
by
Skyrocket
on 12 May, 2007 23:15
-
-
#6
by
Analyst
on 15 May, 2007 08:12
-
Why not keep Delta II? Does anyone believe a new vehicle will be cheaper and more reliable? I don't.
Analyst
-
#7
by
Skyrocket
on 15 May, 2007 09:25
-
Analyst - 15/5/2007 10:12 AM
Why not keep Delta II? Does anyone believe a new vehicle will be cheaper and more reliable? I don't.
Analyst
because there are not enough customers: Delta II will be no longer economic, when it is used only for a handful of NASA launches.
-
#8
by
Analyst
on 15 May, 2007 09:34
-
Skyrocket - 15/5/2007 11:25 AM
because there are not enough customers: Delta II will be no longer economic, when it is used only for a handful of NASA launches.
And a replacement will have more customers? I don't buy this logic.
Analyst
-
#9
by
Skyrocket
on 15 May, 2007 10:24
-
Analyst - 15/5/2007 11:34 AM
Skyrocket - 15/5/2007 11:25 AM
because there are not enough customers: Delta II will be no longer economic, when it is used only for a handful of NASA launches.
And a replacement will have more customers? I don't buy this logic.
Analyst
Not necessarily. Only if it is cheaper. But Delta II is too expensive to keep it in (low volume) production, so it will be gone in a few years, wether there is a replacement in this class or not.
-
#10
by
simonbp
on 15 May, 2007 11:34
-
Analyst - 15/5/2007 4:34 AM
Skyrocket - 15/5/2007 11:25 AM
because there are not enough customers: Delta II will be no longer economic, when it is used only for a handful of NASA launches.
And a replacement will have more customers? I don't buy this logic.
Analyst
Or, more specifically, the Department of Defense has stopped using Delta II in favour of the EELVs they spend so much money developing; without DoD buying most of them, Delta II became too much of a profit loss...
If it can only do polar missions, then I'd still question where the non-government customer base will come from.
Simon
-
#11
by
Jim
on 15 May, 2007 11:48
-
Analyst - 15/5/2007 4:12 AM
Why not keep Delta II? Does anyone believe a new vehicle will be cheaper and more reliable? I don't.
Analyst
Cheaper may be possible because Delta II was designed to meet performance goals without caring about operational aspects. Less components would mean less labor and more reliability (theoretically)
-
#12
by
aero313
on 15 May, 2007 15:17
-
Analyst - 15/5/2007 4:12 AM
Why not keep Delta II? Does anyone believe a new vehicle will be cheaper and more reliable? I don't.
Analyst
Can a new booster be less expensive? Paper rockets are ALWAYS less expensive than real ones - until they fly.
Since the Air Force has stopped buying Delta IIs in blocks of 24 at a time for GPS, the price has shot from ~$50M apiece to over $80M apiece. Boeing has threatened to stop production and NASA is worried. The current Delta II market is really only the occasional NASA science mission.
The most cost effective plan would seem to be for another company to license the Delta II production capability from Boeing and just keep building it. The problem is part obsolecence. If NASA is serious about this, they might want to explore this option (or maybe the already are).
-
#13
by
Jim
on 15 May, 2007 15:25
-
It is not just parts, it is labor and all the facilities.
-
#14
by
Skyrocket
on 15 May, 2007 15:49
-
aero313 - 15/5/2007 5:17 PM
The most cost effective plan would seem to be for another company to license the Delta II production capability from Boeing and just keep building it. The problem is part obsolecence. If NASA is serious about this, they might want to explore this option (or maybe the already are).
I do not see, how another company could build a cheaper Delta II, when there are only low-volume orders.
-
#15
by
NotGncDude
on 15 May, 2007 17:36
-
CFE - 11/5/2007 11:26 PM
Space News ran a recent story about Orbital Sciences considering the development of a bigger booster in the 4-5mT range. This is exciting if it plays out, because it means a true replacement for Delta II (albeit on the low side of Delta II's performance envelope.)
I have to ask, if OSC is designing a Delta-class booster, what configuration will emerge. I suspect it might look like a Taurus, with an extra Castor 120 added under the stack. I haven't run the numbers on such an ungainly, five-stage vehicle, so I don't know what kind of performance it has to offer. Another possible configuration would use the first three stages of Peacekeeper with the upper two stages of Pegasus/Minotaur.
Then again, designing rockets isn't as easy as playing Legos, and my wacky configurations might not be feasible. OSC has learned this lesson the hard way on at least one occasion.
OSC's Dr. Antonio Elias described something like this in his Q&A thread, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same rocket:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3911&start=52
-
#16
by
aero313
on 15 May, 2007 21:36
-
Skyrocket - 15/5/2007 11:49 AM
aero313 - 15/5/2007 5:17 PM
The most cost effective plan would seem to be for another company to license the Delta II production capability from Boeing and just keep building it. The problem is part obsolecence. If NASA is serious about this, they might want to explore this option (or maybe the already are).
I do not see, how another company could build a cheaper Delta II, when there are only low-volume orders.
I didn't say "cheaper", I said "more cost effective". When you add the nonrecurring development cost of a new rocket, the cost of a couple of failed test flights, the lost opportunities while waiting for the bugs to be worked out of the new vehicle, the new payload analysis and test required for a new (and yet unverified set of launch environments), and the cost of the NASA personnel who now have to get up to speed on a new vehicle, then divide that by the realistic mission model, you probably get a fully amortized per-unit cost that's quite a bit higher that the Delta II. This assumes, of course, that some dot-com "hundred millionaire" doesn't fund the full development out of his personal checking account...
And as for the ability to build a Delta II for less that Boeing could, have you seen their fully burdened labor rates?
-
#17
by
simonbp
on 16 May, 2007 01:54
-
Considering that SpaceX dropped the Falcon 5 (which would have been a low-cost successor to Delta II) quoting no market, I'd wager that there isn't a lot of hurry at OSC to do something similar...
Simon
-
#18
by
Jim
on 16 May, 2007 02:04
-
simonbp - 15/5/2007 9:54 PM
Considering that SpaceX dropped the Falcon 5 (which would have been a low-cost successor to Delta II) quoting no market, I'd wager that there isn't a lot of hurry at OSC to do something similar...
Simon
Falcon 5 is a Falcon 9 with 4 less engines and maybe kestrel instead of a merlin for a second stage engine. It doesn't matter, they can market the Falcon 9 for Delta II class payloads. Nothing is wrong with having excess performance, if the cost is comparable
-
#19
by
CFE
on 16 May, 2007 02:31
-
aero313 - 15/5/2007 3:36 PM
When you add the nonrecurring development cost of a new rocket, the cost of a couple of failed test flights, the lost opportunities while waiting for the bugs to be worked out of the new vehicle, the new payload analysis and test required for a new (and yet unverified set of launch environments), and the cost of the NASA personnel who now have to get up to speed on a new vehicle, then divide that by the realistic mission model, you probably get a fully amortized per-unit cost that's quite a bit higher that the Delta II. This assumes, of course, that some dot-com "hundred millionaire" doesn't fund the full development out of his personal checking account...
If OSC did a Delta II-class booster using existing solid rockets, the development could be accomplished fairly cheaply. I'd also have a lot of confidence on getting it to work correctly on the first try (as Pegasus, Taurus, and Minotaur did--solids are pretty reliable, after all.) The infrastructure to support such a vehicle could probably be built pretty cheaply too.
Nevertheless, Aero313, you are right that these costs are non-trivial. Based on projected flight rates for vehicles in this class, there may not be a justifiable business model for this class of booster now that it's almost exclusively NASA missions. Low-rate production of Delta II, as costly as it will be, may look cheap in comparison to a new vehicle. I'm sure that OSC has already run the numbers to see if it's worth it or not.
The smartest way ahead for NASA would probably be paying for the remaining development on the EELV-Small. Delta IV with Delta II's second stage shouldn't be too hard to do. I haven't seen any concept art of Atlas V-Agena, though. Would ULA still have the tooling to produce an updated Agena?
-
#20
by
yinzer
on 16 May, 2007 03:09
-
It didn't make sense to continue to develop the small EELVs when the number of payloads was much higher than it is now. It probably still doesn't make sense. The DoD shows no compunction about flying DMSP and GPS satellites on EELVs that have a lot of excess capacity; there's no reason NASA couldn't do the same. You'd think they'd be able to negotiate lower prices given the large overcapacity.
-
#21
by
kevin-rf
on 16 May, 2007 03:34
-
I think jim hit the nail on the head, if the 'smallest' EELV (Atlas 401, Delta IV Medium) cost less than a low flight rate Delta II there is no reason not to use an EELV. Especilly if the excess doesn't leave spent stages in orbit. We saw what happened to that proton stage a few months back...
I will probally draw several lightening bolts here, but I always thought lockheeds switching everything from the Atlas II/III to the Atlas V was a beter marketing plan than the boeing keep the Delta II and Delta IV. Doing that drove up the price of the Delta II while eating into the Delta IV volume thus driving up the Delta IV price.
-
#22
by
meiza
on 16 May, 2007 10:21
-
Could one try to move to launching multiple small sats at one time with EELV? Or are the orbital parameters too different, or is it too costly, schedule wise? Deep space probes need dedicated launches anyway it seems.
-
#23
by
Jim
on 16 May, 2007 11:46
-
meiza - 16/5/2007 6:21 AM
Could one try to move to launching multiple small sats at one time with EELV?
1. Or are the orbital parameters too different, or 2. is it too costly, schedule wise? 3. Deep space probes need dedicated launches anyway it seems.
That is can of worms.
1. most of the time
2. it does cost more
3. correct
-
#24
by
Jim
on 16 May, 2007 11:50
-
CFE - 15/5/2007 10:31 PM
The smartest way ahead for NASA would probably be paying for the remaining development on the EELV-Small. Delta IV with Delta II's second stage shouldn't be too hard to do. I haven't seen any concept art of Atlas V-Agena, though. Would ULA still have the tooling to produce an updated Agena?
Not neccessarily true. The costs of the development with the additional recurring costs per flight would probably be more than the cost of a Medium vehicle. Also It would still need a 3rd stage for interplanetaries.
-
#25
by
wingod
on 16 May, 2007 16:26
-
Jim - 15/5/2007 10:25 AM
It is not just parts, it is labor and all the facilities.
Have to agree with Jim on this one. There is some level of hope that the Falcon 9 can move into that niche.
By the way, the USAF launch on demand contract for GPS was for $38M each according to documents available at the time of the original contract.
-
#26
by
publiusr
on 21 May, 2007 19:28
-
Has anyone ever played with the concept of Delta II cores as strap-ons themselves? I think Hujsak once wrote about something similar in one of his books...
-
#27
by
Jim
on 21 May, 2007 19:42
-
publiusr - 21/5/2007 3:28 PM
Has anyone ever played with the concept of Delta II cores as strap-ons themselves? I think Hujsak once wrote about something similar in one of his books...
There was a 7 core concept
-
#28
by
Skyrocket
on 21 May, 2007 19:58
-
And there was a twin-barrel-Delta concept floating around in the early 90ies with two Delta-core-stages in parallel with solid-strap-ons around. Unfortunately, i do not have an illustration.
-
#29
by
josh_simonson
on 21 May, 2007 21:00
-
>I will probally draw several lightening bolts here, but I always thought lockheeds switching everything from the Atlas II/III to the Atlas V was a beter marketing plan than the boeing keep the Delta II and Delta IV. Doing that drove up the price of the Delta II while eating into the Delta IV volume thus driving up the Delta IV price.
The leap from Delta II to Delta IV was much farther than from Atlas 3 to Atlas V. Until ULA the Delta IV's future hadn't been 100% certain either, whereas the Atlas V has been in better shape, buisnesswise. If Delta IV had been a dud Boeing would be glad they'd kept Delta II.
-
#30
by
Jim
on 21 May, 2007 22:46
-
josh_simonson - 21/5/2007 5:00 PM
>I will probally draw several lightening bolts here, but I always thought lockheeds switching everything from the Atlas II/III to the Atlas V was a beter marketing plan than the boeing keep the Delta II and Delta IV. Doing that drove up the price of the Delta II while eating into the Delta IV volume thus driving up the Delta IV price.
The leap from Delta II to Delta IV was much farther than from Atlas 3 to Atlas V. Until ULA the Delta IV's future hadn't been 100% certain either, whereas the Atlas V has been in better shape, buisnesswise. If Delta IV had been a dud Boeing would be glad they'd kept Delta II.
Atlas II/III & V are almost the same market
Delta II and Delta IV are not the same market. Delta II costs are unrelated to the D-IV program. Delta II would still be in the same situation as it is now, if there was no D-IV
GPS moving off D-II is what is driving up the costs.
-
#31
by
CFE
on 21 May, 2007 23:23
-
Jim - 21/5/2007 1:42 PM
publiusr - 21/5/2007 3:28 PM
Has anyone ever played with the concept of Delta II cores as strap-ons themselves? I think Hujsak once wrote about something similar in one of his books...
There was a 7 core concept
Based on what I've read, it was referred to as "Barbarian," and utilized a cluster of seven Delta first stage tanks plus three Shuttle SRB's. It was projected to launch SDI payloads that were too big for the Titan series. Barbarian was a sweet-looking concept, but ultimately proved impractical.
-
#32
by
publiusr
on 22 May, 2007 00:01
-
-
#33
by
CFE
on 22 May, 2007 05:06
-
-
#34
by
publiusr
on 16 Jun, 2007 20:40
-
That is an odd craft.
-
#35
by
Skyrocket
on 22 Jun, 2007 08:20
-
-
#36
by
CFE
on 24 Jun, 2007 06:33
-
Jim - 21/5/2007 4:46 PM
Atlas II/III & V are almost the same market
Delta II and Delta IV are not the same market. Delta II costs are unrelated to the D-IV program. Delta II would still be in the same situation as it is now, if there was no D-IV
It should be noted that the standard Delta IV Medium has almost exactly the same performance as the ill-fated Delta III. Even if the two Delta III failures hadn't scared off potential customers, killing the Delta III made a lot of sense. Otherwise it would have competed with Delta IV, albeit in a package that was more complex due to the need for multiple solids and two different fuels for the two main stages of Delta III.
It would appear that the only reason for Delta III's existence was to reduce the risk for Delta IV's upper stage.
-
#37
by
mike robel
on 24 Jun, 2007 12:53
-
Here is a photo from astronautix.com of a Titan Barbaria 1st stage with 4 engines.
http://astronautix.com/lvs/barianmm.htmAnd here is a concep Titan 3L4 with 4 7 segment SRBs and a similar core to the Barbarian.
http://astronautix.com/lvs/titan3l4.htmAnd here is my Titan IV version of it with an Apollo Capsule on top. In the background, a Saturn 1B with 4 7 segment strap ons
, A Saturn VB with 4 SRB strap ons, to the far right, a Saturn C-8. I like modeling conjectural boosters.
-
#38
by
publiusr
on 02 Jul, 2007 20:08
-
Great model work!
-
#39
by
antonioe
on 27 Jul, 2007 20:29
-
Analyst - 15/5/2007 4:34 AM
Skyrocket - 15/5/2007 11:25 AM
because there are not enough customers: Delta II will be no longer economic, when it is used only for a handful of NASA launches.
And a replacement will have more customers? I don't buy this logic.
Analyst
You are quite right: a Delta II replacement probably won't have any more customers than Delta II has today. The trick is to create an affordable medium launch vehicle that can be financially self-sustaining (including recovery of the development costs, recurring costs, fixed costs, etc.) at a rate of 2-3/year. There is no single solution to this problem - you have to do several different things simultaneously.
By the way, the reason we're doing this is the same reason we did Pegasus in 1987: our satellite projects needed such a launch vehicle. Believe me, developing a successful new launch vehicle is a lot less fun than it looks!...
-
#40
by
yinzer
on 04 Aug, 2007 19:16
-
antonioe - 27/7/2007 1:29 PM
Analyst - 15/5/2007 4:34 AM
Skyrocket - 15/5/2007 11:25 AM
because there are not enough customers: Delta II will be no longer economic, when it is used only for a handful of NASA launches.
And a replacement will have more customers? I don't buy this logic.
Analyst
You are quite right: a Delta II replacement probably won't have any more customers than Delta II has today. The trick is to create an affordable medium launch vehicle that can be financially self-sustaining (including recovery of the development costs, recurring costs, fixed costs, etc.) at a rate of 2-3/year. There is no single solution to this problem - you have to do several different things simultaneously.
By the way, the reason we're doing this is the same reason we did Pegasus in 1987: our satellite projects needed such a launch vehicle. Believe me, developing a successful new launch vehicle is a lot less fun than it looks!...
Are dual-manifested EELV medium flights and Soyuz out of Kourou sufficiently unattractive that you think there's room for another similarly sized launch vehicle?
-
#41
by
Skyrocket
on 04 Aug, 2007 19:22
-
yinzer - 4/8/2007 9:16 PM
Are dual-manifested EELV medium flights and Soyuz out of Kourou sufficiently unattractive that you think there's room for another similarly sized launch vehicle?
Dual manifested missions are often unattractive for science missions, as most missions require their own particular orbits. Sharing the vehicle to a shared orbit leads therefor to compromises in the scientific return. Shared launches are even less attractive for interplanetary missions.
Soyuz (and other non US launch vehicle) can not be procured by NASA and other US gov agencies. The only exceptation is, when a foreign partner provides the launch vehicle (e.g. GRACE, JWST). But generally a US launch vehicle is required for gov missions.
-
#42
by
yinzer
on 04 Aug, 2007 19:37
-
Both of those are true, but I wouldn't have expected Orbital's internal satellite projects to be either one-off science missions or interplanetary probes. ORBCOMM certainly wasn't.
