Delta IV Q&A

#200 by Analyst on 12 Nov, 2007 19:16
Quote
Jim - 12/11/2007 6:36 PM

One can not quote the prices in NASA announcements of opportunity as launch vehicle costs. There are other costs in the numbers that are in addition to the vehicle price. Among the costs are payload processing facility, telemetery, nuclear approval, mission unique mods, NASA overhead, etc. Those can amount to 20% of the vehicle cost. NASA missions never use "stock" vehicles. Commercial prices would be cheaper

All valid. But all this is true for Atlas 551 too. Substract 20% each and you end up with the same difference.

Never has a Delta IVH be ordered commercially, Boeing stopped offering all Delta IV sometime arround 2003.

Is there anyone out who believes Ares I will fly for ~$150 million variable, Ares V for~$500 million variable? I don't want a distraction from Delta IV, but the Delta IV (and Atlas V) numbers put these Ares dream numbers into perspective: Pretty impossible.

Analyst
#201 by Jim on 12 Nov, 2007 20:53
Quote
EE Scott - 12/11/2007 2:40 PM

Quote
Jim - 12/11/2007 7:33 AM

...snip... there are 5 or 6 unique, CBC's with the Medium, and Medium Plus 4/5 as the others. This all due to the vehicle unable to meet performance goals.

...more snip

Can you be more specific about DIV's underperformance? I have read that: 1) tanks sized smaller than optimal, 2) dry weight of CBC turned out to be heavier than anticipated. Am I missing anything?

The Medium requirement was 10K lb to GTO
#202 by RedSky on 12 Nov, 2007 21:02
I have a question on last Saturday's D4 Heavy launch. Looking at the pics taken by Ben Cooper, the lower parts seem nice and orange, and not the black charred appearance of the debut launch. It seems the ignition burn off mushroomed up along the boosters just like last time, but they didn't seem as affected as before. Did something change... wind conditions?
#203 by EE Scott on 12 Nov, 2007 21:12
Quote
Jim - 12/11/2007 4:53 PM

Quote
EE Scott - 12/11/2007 2:40 PM

Quote
Jim - 12/11/2007 7:33 AM

...snip... there are 5 or 6 unique, CBC's with the Medium, and Medium Plus 4/5 as the others. This all due to the vehicle unable to meet performance goals.

...more snip

Can you be more specific about DIV's underperformance? I have read that: 1) tanks sized smaller than optimal, 2) dry weight of CBC turned out to be heavier than anticipated. Am I missing anything?

The Medium requirement was 10K lb to GTO

Understood. DIV was designed for specific requirements, back in the '90s. Outside of those requirements lies non-optimal land, possibly even kludgville. I suppose that Atlas' higher thrust kero first stage gives it inherently more versitility in this regard.
#204 by EE Scott on 12 Nov, 2007 21:20
Quote
Analyst - 12/11/2007 3:16 PM
...snip...
Is there anyone out who believes Ares I will fly for ~$150 million variable, Ares V for~$500 million variable? I don't want a distraction from Delta IV, but the Delta IV (and Atlas V) numbers put these Ares dream numbers into perspective: Pretty impossible.
Analyst

Dead on. Have preliminary estimates of LV costs ever been accurate? Ares I/V, if they ever get built will dwarf the estimates above, just as the Shuttle did before it.
#205 by Nick L. on 12 Nov, 2007 22:17
Quote
RedSky - 12/11/2007 5:02 PM

I have a question on last Saturday's D4 Heavy launch. Looking at the pics taken by Ben Cooper, the lower parts seem nice and orange, and not the black charred appearance of the debut launch. It seems the ignition burn off mushroomed up along the boosters just like last time, but they didn't seem as affected as before. Did something change... wind conditions?

Yep, wind and weather have a lot to do with whether or not you get lots of charring. You can get significant charring even with the smaller Medium fireballs (see the first flight Flight Readiness Firing, GOES-N, and NROL-22 for examples). Just depends on the weather.
#206 by edkyle99 on 12 Nov, 2007 22:58
Quote
EE Scott - 12/11/2007 4:20 PM

Quote
Analyst - 12/11/2007 3:16 PM
...snip...
Is there anyone out who believes Ares I will fly for ~$150 million variable, Ares V for~$500 million variable? I don't want a distraction from Delta IV, but the Delta IV (and Atlas V) numbers put these Ares dream numbers into perspective: Pretty impossible.
Analyst

Dead on. Have preliminary estimates of LV costs ever been accurate? Ares I/V, if they ever get built will dwarf the estimates above, just as the Shuttle did before it.

The "V" in Ares V could end up standing for $5 billion!

- Ed Kyle
#207 by Antares on 13 Nov, 2007 16:04
Quote
EE Scott - 12/11/2007 1:40 PM
Can you be more specific about DIV's underperformance? I have read that: 1) tanks sized smaller than optimal, 2) dry weight of CBC turned out to be heavier than anticipated. Am I missing anything?
The early Isp predictions on the RS-68 were about 10sec higher than what was achieved. Turbopump efficiency estimates were high, IIRC. I'm sure one can find early marketing numbers for RS-68 that quoted 420sec.
#208 by meiza on 13 Nov, 2007 18:15
I've heard that RS-68 produced less thrust than anticipated but I guess that's just another way of saying the same... (Ie same mass flow but less ISP.)
#209 by on 13 Nov, 2007 18:24
Quote
McDew - 12/11/2007 1:40 PM
Quote
Thorny - 12/11/2007 1:34 PM
Quote
HIPAR - 12/11/2007 11:25 AM With these prices, I think we need to consider outsourcing the launch of all but the most sensitive spacecraft.
That would end up making the "most sensitive" launches outrageously expensive. Your cost savings would vanish. The EELV concept was the right way to go. The mistake was the DoD's hare-brained decision to fund two of them.
The mistake was that they started with funding for only half the NRE of a single contractor(ie. $1B). After the contractors were committed, they compounded this mistake by then splitting it between two contractors in an attempt to force recurring price competition.
Correct. Look at it this way - we believe in 1) one expensive sole-source that we watch like a hawk (this because we're realistic about launch rates and the business), or 2) artificially expand the number of launch vehicle vendors, knowing after the early cut we'll only have one (this because we aren't sure of which one of the vendors is to be THE vendor), or 3) we expand the market with multiple vendors by committing to a greater launch rate that teases for supporting a competitive launch environment.
What happened was a "head fake". 3) then 2) then 1). Except we have two vehicles in one "company".
The only way access to space will get cheaper is increased launch rate. It's a chicken-and-egg puzzle, because you need as a premise a cheaper LV that exploits the launch rate to permanently expand launch rates. Every attempt to force (shuttle, eelv) this has failed in the past. The argument for the prior Jarvis vehicle to Boeing was to capitalize on the opportunity of having the whole engine development costs underwritten by the prior lunar program.
#210 by Propforce on 13 Nov, 2007 18:41
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 13/11/2007 11:24 AM

Quote
McDew - 12/11/2007 1:40 PM
Quote
Thorny - 12/11/2007 1:34 PM
Quote
HIPAR - 12/11/2007 11:25 AM With these prices, I think we need to consider outsourcing the launch of all but the most sensitive spacecraft.
That would end up making the "most sensitive" launches outrageously expensive. Your cost savings would vanish. The EELV concept was the right way to go. The mistake was the DoD's hare-brained decision to fund two of them.
The mistake was that they started with funding for only half the NRE of a single contractor(ie. $1B). After the contractors were committed, they compounded this mistake by then splitting it between two contractors in an attempt to force recurring price competition.
Correct. Look at it this way - we believe in 1) one expensive sole-source that we watch like a hawk (this because we're realistic about launch rates and the business), or 2) artificially expand the number of launch vehicle vendors, knowing after the early cut we'll only have one (this because we aren't sure of which one of the vendors is to be THE vendor), or 3) we expand the market with multiple vendors by committing to a greater launch rate that teases for supporting a competitive launch environment.
What happened was a "head fake". 3) then 2) then 1). Except we have two vehicles in one "company".
The only way access to space will get cheaper is increased launch rate. It's a chicken-and-egg puzzle, because you need as a premise a cheaper LV that exploits the launch rate to permanently expand launch rates. Every attempt to force (shuttle, eelv) this has failed in the past. The argument for the prior Jarvis vehicle to Boeing was to capitalize on the opportunity of having the whole engine development costs underwritten by the prior lunar program.

You guys are all getting your panties in a bunch. These launch cost numbers are nothing compare to the value of spacecrafts they put up in orbit, reliably, accurately, and ITAR controlled.
You have to pay to play. The initial DoD EELV procurement took advantage of both companies' rosey outlook in the commercial market and "low-balled" the entry into this program. DoD saved billions of RDT&E $$$ as a result. Now the market has changed. Simple fact is, if you still want to launch classified payloads, you have to use the EELV. They existed now only because the DoD wants it, so pay for them. Both companies made it clear, it's you baby now and if you don't want it then shut it down. We've washed our hands.
#211 by on 13 Nov, 2007 19:41
Quote
Propforce - 13/11/2007 1:41 PM
You guys are all getting your panties in a bunch. These launch cost numbers are nothing compare to the value of spacecrafts they put up in orbit, reliably, accurately, and ITAR controlled.
You have to pay to play. The initial DoD EELV procurement took advantage of both companies' rosey outlook in the commercial market and "low-balled" the entry into this program. DoD saved billions of RDT&E $$$ as a result. Now the market has changed. Simple fact is, if you still want to launch classified payloads, you have to use the EELV. They existed now only because the DoD wants it, so pay for them. Both companies made it clear, it's you baby now and if you don't want it then shut it down. We've washed our hands.
... which is why any enhancement of EELV will be limited because there will be no ROI and limited ability to pay for a high-end LV beyond DIVH. They'll want to mine out Atlas V medium and Delta IVH for all they can get.
All decisions have repercussions. Including the quality and reliability if underfunded. E.g. don't gloat.
#212 by meiza on 13 Nov, 2007 19:47
NASA could have quadrupled the US launch market, but it didn't. It's not NASA's core mission, but it's not NASA's core mission to build custom boosters when alternatives are available on the market either.
#213 by EE Scott on 13 Nov, 2007 20:26
Quote
Antares - 13/11/2007 12:04 PM

Quote
EE Scott - 12/11/2007 1:40 PM
Can you be more specific about DIV's underperformance? I have read that: 1) tanks sized smaller than optimal, 2) dry weight of CBC turned out to be heavier than anticipated. Am I missing anything?
The early Isp predictions on the RS-68 were about 10sec higher than what was achieved. Turbopump efficiency estimates were high, IIRC. I'm sure one can find early marketing numbers for RS-68 that quoted 420sec.

Interesting. Thanks.
#214 by edkyle99 on 13 Nov, 2007 22:59
Quote
Propforce - 13/11/2007 1:41 PM

You guys are all getting your panties in a bunch. These launch cost numbers are nothing compare to the value of spacecrafts they put up in orbit, reliably, accurately, and ITAR controlled.
You have to pay to play. The initial DoD EELV procurement took advantage of both companies' rosey outlook in the commercial market and "low-balled" the entry into this program. DoD saved billions of RDT&E $$$ as a result. Now the market has changed. Simple fact is, if you still want to launch classified payloads, you have to use the EELV. They existed now only because the DoD wants it, so pay for them. Both companies made it clear, it's you baby now and if you don't want it then shut it down. We've washed our hands.

The reason for complaint is that if the costs haven't fallen from pre-EELV days, then why were these things even developed? I'm starting to think that it might have been better for the U.S. Government to have stuck with Titan IV, Atlas IIAS, and Delta II.

- Ed Kyle
#215 by meiza on 13 Nov, 2007 23:03
Well, RS-68 will now be used for Ares V as well.
#216 by tnphysics on 13 Nov, 2007 23:46
What is the core mass at strap-on jettison?

And why do some spacecraft require the old Titan IV fairing?

And why did this Delta IV Heavy seem to accelerate so much more quickly than the last?
I know that it did not, but that's how it appeared.
#217 by Nick L. on 14 Nov, 2007 00:10
Quote
tnphysics - 13/11/2007 7:46 PM

What is the core mass at strap-on jettison?

And why do some spacecraft require the old Titan IV fairing?

And why did this Delta IV Heavy seem to accelerate so much more quickly than the last?
I know that it did not, but that's how it appeared.

a) Probably the CBC dry mass, about 27.7 tons, which can be found on Ed's site here, plus about 90 second's worth of propellant (which could be calculated I think):
http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/delta4.html

b) I don't know. Some have suggested something to do with the PAF that DSP requires, could be EMI, RF, or other things too.

c) Could be because of the night launch. Also DSP is lighter than the Demosat (about 4400 kg including the PAF versus 6500 kg for Demosat) so it would move slightly faster off the line, so to speak.
#218 by on 14 Nov, 2007 00:45
Quote
edkyle99 - 13/11/2007 5:59 PM The reason for complaint is that if the costs haven't fallen from pre-EELV days, then why were these things even developed? I'm starting to think that it might have been better for the U.S. Government to have stuck with Titan IV, Atlas IIAS, and Delta II. - Ed Kyle
Exactly what I was trying to imply. Full circle to nowhere.
The whole point was to "evolve" the technology and the market through competition.
Not sad to see Titan IV go - that mother scared the sh*t out of me! But really, we haven't changed things much - if we didn't have EELV's, we'd have still done the launches we've done, and the net cost difference, even considering NPV/FV backwards/forwards, wouldn't pay diddly squat. CBC's only payoff when we're at 6x our current rate - fat chance.
#219 by TrueGrit on 14 Nov, 2007 05:16
Just for note the RAND Nation Security Space Report clearly states the EELV program has meet it's goal of a 25-50 percent reduction in launch costs. Believe what you will, but I believe this more than a bunch of internet gossip.

And those that think the Delta and Atlas vehicles weren't developed in a competitive enviornment clearly weren't paying attention. That's what makes ULA such a culture shock... working "arm-in-arm" with your #1 competitor.