Boeing pulls Delta IV from commercial launch market

(Henry Spencer) wrote

And unless common sense rules for long enough to get OSP
made a capsule, which doesn't seem that likely, NASA's going
to need the Heavy configuration.

And there's the question of what the national security needs,
white, gray and black, are going to be for an EELV Heavy.

My impression at the moment is that nobody knows, but the
gummint is wisely hedging its bets until it figures out
what the payload picture is going to be for the next decade or
two.

"Karl Hallowell" wrote in message
om...
Expecting more fallout from Lockmart. Argh.
Maybe if Ariane V blows up some more...

Nah. If launches were free, the market's still
too weak.

I think that's clearly wrong. If launches were free, then a lot of
tourists would be checking out LEO at the least. The economics of
space development would change dramatically. The launch costs are the
single largest obstacle to space development. It completely distorts
the engineering design of spacecraft (eg, requirements for triply
redundant systems even on unmanned probes, etc).

Exactly, and the most obvious distortion is the mass budget limit. Mass
limits your available peak power ( solar panels are heavy ), backup power
( batteries are _extra heavy_ ) and power dissipation ( radiators ). And now
try to build in some adequate redundancy for those ...

-kert

"Kim Keller" writes:
WRT OSP designs, don't rule out "common sense" just yet. It's alive and well
at this point in the program.

NASA has a very bad track record in this regard. I was appalled at
their X-33 selection (when it was originally made). They clearly
chose the most technically challenging X-33 design possible.
Furthermore, they had the audacity to blame "lack of technology" when
the program failed! I'm still fuming over this program. Does it
show?

When it comes to OSP, I'm hoping for the best, but expecting the
worst.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
ed kyle wrote:

I've been predicting an Air Force EELV and a NASA EELV. Looks
like Delta IV will be the Air Force bird. Now it's NASA's turn.

Problem is, while Atlas V generally has greater lift capability when
compared against a similar Delta IV configuration, only Delta IV currently
has the option of the Heavy configuration. And unless common sense rules
for long enough to get OSP made a capsule, which doesn't seem that likely,
NASA's going to need the Heavy configuration.

An alternative to my bold (and, I fear, ultimately inaccurate)
prediction will be that the historic heavy-lift NASA/DoD
split (Saturn/Titan III, STS/Titan IV) goes away, with NASA
piggy-backing on the Pentagon EELV rocket choice - the way it
did with the Pentagon MLV rockets (Delta II and Atlas II(A)).
This means, of course, that DoD must eventually choose between
Delta IV and Atlas V. Delta IV would appear to have a leg up
since it is the only one with a west coast launch site. A
shame given the solid start of Atlas V - especially the 521
launch last week.

- Ed Kyle

"jeff findley" wrote in message
...
NASA has a very bad track record in this regard. I was appalled at
their X-33 selection (when it was originally made). They clearly
chose the most technically challenging X-33 design possible.
Furthermore, they had the audacity to blame "lack of technology" when
the program failed! I'm still fuming over this program. Does it
show?

When it comes to OSP, I'm hoping for the best, but expecting the
worst.

NASA is taking a very hands-off approach to this RFP. They're telling the
contractors what tasks are expected, what boosters to use and little else.
In fact, it's been my direct observation they've gone to great lengths to
avoid giving any hint of preference for one of the three body shapes. The
contractors are coming up with results that would not surprise any reader of
this newsgroup. And if all three contractors offer the same bodyshape, NASA
won't have any recourse but to accept one of them.

Remember that X-33 was a technology demonstration program. This is not.

-Kim-

(ed kyle) wrote in message news:

No mention of Delta III here, but I wonder if this also means that
we've seen the last of that type.


GOES-N was originally slated for a Delta III launch. However, neither
the KSC website ELV schedule or spaceflightnow.com upcoming launches
show a date or a new LV for GOES-N. A NOAA website search turns up a
2004 launch date but this appears to have been changed. It will be
interesting to see what LV is assigned to GOES-N when the launch date
is more public info.

On a related note -- the month-old JPL Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
website shows an Atlas V 401 as the LV in place of the Atlas III that
was announced a couple of years back. Back then, LM had said there
will be work for Atlas III even when the V is operational, but today's
dismal launch market doesn't require both Atlas III and V to provide
similar capabilities on two/three separate pads. The MRO switch makes
it appear that LM wants to end the balloon tank booster production
sooner rather than later (if this hasn't occurred already). While not
a true "heritage" LV, the balloon tank can trace its lineage to the
original Atlas. Another bit of space history is coming to a close.

"Mike Chan" wrote in message
m...
GOES-N was originally slated for a Delta III launch. However, neither
the KSC website ELV schedule or spaceflightnow.com upcoming launches
show a date or a new LV for GOES-N. A NOAA website search turns up a
2004 launch date but this appears to have been changed. It will be
interesting to see what LV is assigned to GOES-N when the launch date
is more public info.

It's been shifted to a Delta IV M+2. I don't know if the paperwork has been
signed yet - the change was suggested by Boeing back around December.

On a related note -- the month-old JPL Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
website shows an Atlas V 401 as the LV in place of the Atlas III that
was announced a couple of years back. Back then, LM had said there
will be work for Atlas III even when the V is operational, but today's
dismal launch market doesn't require both Atlas III and V to provide
similar capabilities on two/three separate pads. The MRO switch makes
it appear that LM wants to end the balloon tank booster production
sooner rather than later (if this hasn't occurred already). While not
a true "heritage" LV, the balloon tank can trace its lineage to the
original Atlas. Another bit of space history is coming to a close.

Funny that I was just discussing this issue with a coworker yesterday. Were
you listening in? The end of the balloon tank hasn't occurred yet, but there
is a definite feeling that LM wants to migrate everything over to Atlas V in
the not-to-distant future, perhaps sooner than originally planned, just as
Boeing is doing with Delta IV. To me this indicates that LM's profit margin
on ELVs isn't as good as Rand seems to suggest elsewhere.

-Kim-

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:16:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The end of the balloon tank hasn't occurred yet, but there
is a definite feeling that LM wants to migrate everything over to Atlas V in
the not-to-distant future, perhaps sooner than originally planned, just as
Boeing is doing with Delta IV. To me this indicates that LM's profit margin
on ELVs isn't as good as Rand seems to suggest elsewhere.

I was referring to military contracts, not commercial. LM has never
had much interest in the commercial market, which was another reason
that it was a mistake to award them X-33.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

(Mike Chan) wrote in message news:
The MRO switch makes
it appear that LM wants to end the balloon tank booster production
sooner rather than later (if this hasn't occurred already).

follow-up to my own post. Atlas V 401 has more capability than Atlas
III. It could simply be that MRO outgrew the Atlas III for the 2005
launch window to Mars, and required the extra lift from the Atlas V
401.

"Kim Keller" wrote in message om...
"Mike Chan" wrote in message
m...
GOES-N was originally slated for a Delta III launch. However, neither
the KSC website ELV schedule or spaceflightnow.com upcoming launches
show a date or a new LV for GOES-N. ...

It's been shifted to a Delta IV M+2. I don't know if the paperwork has been
signed yet - the change was suggested by Boeing back around December.


Rats! We never even got to say goodby (to Delta III).

- Ed Kyle