-
#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!...