Current US military thinking on launch needs

In article . com,
Ed Kyle wrote:
Air Force will launch its last Delta II in FY2007.
Delta II will then transition to NASA-only.

Of course, the USAF hasn't actually launched any Delta IIs for quite a
while now, and neither has NASA. Both buy Delta II launches from Boeing.

A cynic would say that Delta II's departure from USAF service has been
predicted before... It's not likely to actually happen unless they get
some competing launchers in that size range.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article . com,
Ed Kyle wrote:
Air Force will launch its last Delta II in FY2007.
Delta II will then transition to NASA-only.

Of course, the USAF hasn't actually launched any Delta IIs for quite
a
while now, and neither has NASA. Both buy Delta II launches from
Boeing.


On the slide, it actually says:
"Last AF Delta II - Transfer to NASA".

The Air Force fostered the development of Delta II
in the same way that it fostered EELV, so it shows
up on Power Point presentations given by Colonels
as an Air Force asset, even though it is contracted
commercially. But Boeing hasn't sold Delta II
launches to anyone but the U.S. Government lately,
so the Government has de-facto control.

A cynic would say that Delta II's departure from USAF service has
been
predicted before... It's not likely to actually happen unless they
get
some competing launchers in that size range.


I remember when they shut down the production
line - when they shipped the last Delta to the
Cape - in the mid 1980s - 150-ish Delta launches
ago. But times are changing. The Air Force has
shut down Titan II and discontinued use of Atlas II.
They're prepping for the last Titan IVs - after
which hundreds of their favorite contractors will
be pink-slipped.

By allowing two EELVs, the Air Force has been
forced to use them. To fund them (and it's
costing a lot more than originally planned to fund
them), it appears that they've been forced to
divest other space launch assets.

Trimmed to only NASA missions, Delta II launch
costs will rise. Then the writing will finally be
on the wall for Thor-Delta - the last Cold War
"missile gap" rocket - unless a problem arises
with the EELVs.

- Ed Kyle

In article . com,
Ed Kyle wrote:
A cynic would say that Delta II's departure from USAF service has
been predicted before...

By allowing two EELVs, the Air Force has been
forced to use them. To fund them (and it's
costing a lot more than originally planned to fund
them), it appears that they've been forced to
divest other space launch assets.

The big question, though, is whether the Air Force will subsidize EELV
launch services centrally for all military projects.

An EELV still *costs more* than a Delta II -- quite a bit more, like
double or worse -- and a lot of projects even within the USAF will balk at
being forced to buy overpriced launches out of *their* budgets just to
keep the EELV mafia happy. To say nothing of what the Navy will think.
Without central subsidies, there is going to be a lot of pressure to
continue to allow Delta-II-sized birds to fly on Delta II.

Just because the EELV bureaucrats have gotten high-level blessing for a
legislated monopoly (well, duopoly) doesn't mean the rank and file will
simply salute and comply. That's not the way it works in practice.

Things might be different if the Light EELV configurations, which were
meant more or less as Delta II replacements, hadn't disappeared.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Henry Spencer wrote:
An EELV still *costs more* than a Delta II -- quite a bit more, like
double or worse -- and a lot of projects even within the USAF will
balk at
being forced to buy overpriced launches out of *their* budgets just
to
keep the EELV mafia happy. To say nothing of what the Navy will
think.
Without central subsidies, there is going to be a lot of pressure to
continue to allow Delta-II-sized birds to fly on Delta II.

According to the unofficial and probably imprecise numbers on
http://www.spaceandtech.com, it looks like no-solid EELVs cost around
40% to 60% more than a Delta 7925. It's not clear how much satellite
development costs one would save with the increased mass margin, but
you'd get some of that back. One could look at MRO, I suppose, since I
think it has pretty large mass margins on the Atlas V launch vehicle.

Of course, if SpaceX can fly successfully, this whole situation would
seem to become a non-issue, since the Falcon V performance envelope
looks like it entirely contains that of the Delta II, for 33% of the
cost.

-jake

"Jake McGuire" writes:

Henry Spencer wrote:
An EELV still *costs more* than a Delta II -- quite a bit more, like
double or worse -- and a lot of projects even within the USAF will
balk at being forced to buy overpriced launches out of *their* budgets
just to keep the EELV mafia happy. To say nothing of what the Navy will
think.
Without central subsidies, there is going to be a lot of pressure to
continue to allow Delta-II-sized birds to fly on Delta II.

According to the unofficial and probably imprecise numbers on
http://www.spaceandtech.com, it looks like no-solid EELVs cost around
40% to 60% more than a Delta 7925.

But the 7925 is the many-solids version of the Delta II, and the pricing
of the SRBs is strange and unnatural. Roughly speaking, the no-solids
versions are bait-and-switch loss leaders; you are expected to say, "I
can afford that!", start building a payload for that, experience weight
growth, say "Damn, I guess we'll have to strap on some solids, but that
shouldn't cost too much", and find out how much it costs only when it
is too late to do anything but pay the asking price or quit and go home.

If major customers start actually *buying* the no-solids versions, of
either the II or the IV, the price will go up to, well, not much less
than the many-solids version.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article . com,
Ed Kyle wrote:
A cynic would say that Delta II's departure from USAF service has
been predicted before...

By allowing two EELVs, the Air Force has been
forced to use them. To fund them (and it's
costing a lot more than originally planned to fund
them), it appears that they've been forced to
divest other space launch assets.

The big question, though, is whether the Air Force will subsidize
EELV
launch services centrally for all military projects.

An EELV still *costs more* than a Delta II -- quite a bit more, like
double or worse -- and a lot of projects even within the USAF will
balk at
being forced to buy overpriced launches out of *their* budgets just
to
keep the EELV mafia happy. To say nothing of what the Navy will
think.
Without central subsidies, there is going to be a lot of pressure to
continue to allow Delta-II-sized birds to fly on Delta II.

Just because the EELV bureaucrats have gotten high-level blessing for
a
legislated monopoly (well, duopoly) doesn't mean the rank and file
will
simply salute and comply. That's not the way it works in practice.

Things might be different if the Light EELV configurations, which
were
meant more or less as Delta II replacements, hadn't disappeared.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry
Spencer
-- George Herbert |



I think one of the key reasons we don't see a Delta IV light *yet* is
that the Delta IV CBC doesn't have a lot of flight experience yet. The
Delta II's experience and good record is one of its selling points.

When and if Delta IV demonstrates a good flight record, I think
switching to a Delta IV light will be a lot more attractive: I would
guess that a RS-68 costs a bit less than an RS-27 and nine solids. The
CBC structure presumably takes more labor than a Delta II first stage,
but they get to eliminate the overhead of a production facility and set
of pads.

Will McLean

Will McLean wrote:

I think one of the key reasons we don't see a
Delta IV light *yet* is
that the Delta IV CBC doesn't have a lot of
flight experience yet.


Boeing shelved Delta IV Light during the late
1990s after determining that it was more cost
effective to keep flying Delta II. As long as
Delta II is more cost effective, there won't be
a Delta IV Light.


When and if Delta IV demonstrates a good flight record, I think
switching to a Delta IV light will be a lot more attractive: I would
guess that a RS-68 costs a bit less than an RS-27 and nine solids.
The
CBC structure presumably takes more labor than a Delta II first
stage,
but they get to eliminate the overhead of a production facility and
set
of pads.


Delta IV production is more automated than
Delta II production, but the production rate is
so low (the factory was designed to build 40 CBCs
per year but only 1-5 are being built) that the
per unit costs are much higher than expected.
To save money, Boeing moved Delta II production
into the underused Delta IV plant in Decatur, AL.
Then it laid off 20% or so of the employees.
After the last GPS launch in 2007, I think we'll
see one of the twin Delta II pads at the Cape
mothballed to save more money. When Delta II
slides into low rate production, its per unit
costs will also rise and, at some point, it
will fall out of favor. Either Boeing will
develop a smaller, less costly EELV-based vehicle
to replace it, or someone else will build a low
cost competitor.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:

Boeing shelved Delta IV Light during the late
1990s after determining that it was more cost
effective to keep flying Delta II. As long as
Delta II is more cost effective, there won't be
a Delta IV Light.

I always thought the combination in the Delta IV Light of a H2/O2
first stage and a storable second stage to be rather perverse in
any case. Sort of like using 4th gear in the parking lot and 1st
gear on the highway.

Jim Davis

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
ups.com...
After the last GPS launch in 2007, I think we'll
see one of the twin Delta II pads at the Cape
mothballed to save more money.

Yeah, that's true. In '07 (or was it '06?) Pad A will be mothballed and Pad
B will be turned over to NASA. Boeing, of course, will continue to operate
the pad for NASA.

-Kim-

Will McLean wrote:
The CBC structure presumably takes more labor than a Delta II first stage,

Probably not. It's a lot bigger, but the whole thing is automatically
machined isogrids in a curved plate which is then friction stir welded
up to make the main tank, and it pretty much goes "zip".


-george william herbert