Space Launch Alliance - End of Delta II?

Interesting tidbit in the following story:

"http://www.al.com/business/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/business/1115371155134860.xml"

"Boeing spokesman Dan Beck said the additional work,
which may also include Boeing's Delta II rocket
**if that program is continued** (my emphasis),
will mean a retooling of the Decatur plant."

The last Air Force Delta II launch in planned for
2006-7. After that, Delta II will only support
a few NASA launches each year. Since the Space
Launch Alliance will need to eliminate close to
1,000 jobs (25% of its start up work force) to
realize the projected $100-150 million per year
savings, it would appear that Delta II is
vulnerable. Perhaps Boeing has already decided
that it will drop the rocket if SpaceX Falcon V
succeeds, rather than try to compete in that
market.

- Ed Kyle

"Ed Kyle" wrote in
oups.com:

Interesting tidbit in the following story:

"http://www.al.com/business/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/business/11
15371155134860.xml"

"Boeing spokesman Dan Beck said the additional work,
which may also include Boeing's Delta II rocket
**if that program is continued** (my emphasis),
will mean a retooling of the Decatur plant."

The last Air Force Delta II launch in planned for
2006-7. After that, Delta II will only support
a few NASA launches each year. Since the Space
Launch Alliance will need to eliminate close to
1,000 jobs (25% of its start up work force) to
realize the projected $100-150 million per year
savings, it would appear that Delta II is
vulnerable. Perhaps Boeing has already decided
that it will drop the rocket if SpaceX Falcon V
succeeds, rather than try to compete in that
market.

Presumably Delta IV Lite (Dleta IV CBC + Delta II
upper stage) is not viable?

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:
"Ed Kyle" wrote in
oups.com:

Presumably Delta IV Lite (Dleta IV CBC + Delta II
upper stage) is not viable?

Boeing passed on that option a few years ago, and
it seems unlikely that it (or the Launch Alliance)
intend to spend one dime of new development effort
for a new launcher model. The Alliance, it seems
to me, will be intent on reducing the number of
launch vehicle models rather than on developing
new ones.

- Ed Kyle

"Ed Kyle" wrote in news:1115425943.359485.46250
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Damon Hill wrote:
"Ed Kyle" wrote in
oups.com:

Presumably Delta IV Lite (Dleta IV CBC + Delta II
upper stage) is not viable?

Boeing passed on that option a few years ago, and
it seems unlikely that it (or the Launch Alliance)
intend to spend one dime of new development effort
for a new launcher model. The Alliance, it seems
to me, will be intent on reducing the number of
launch vehicle models rather than on developing
new ones.

Seems to me there'd be potential savings by increasing
the number of CBCs built, elimination of the Delta II
first stage and all pad facilities, and by hanging onto the
lower end of the market. Probably wouldn't need the
strap-ons, either.

The only development money appears to be in the interstage
and added Delta IV pad equipment to handle the hypergolic
propellants. That last part might well be a killer, of
course. Industry is trying hard to get away from that.

In the course of industry consolidation we can kiss off
the proposed MB-60 engine; it appears the RL60 is still
on track as an upper stage upgrade for either launch
vehicle that's nearly a plug-in replacement. The Delta IV
upper stage looks pretty kludgey to me, but I don't know
how practical moving the Centaur to it would be, no
matter how elegant the balloon tank design is.

I'm not at all sure where the Alliance is going with this,
without ending either the Atlas or Delta line altogether.
And I'd have a hard time choosing between them.

--Damon, feeling uncool about it all

Damon Hill wrote:

I'm not at all sure where the Alliance is going with this,
without ending either the Atlas or Delta line altogether.
And I'd have a hard time choosing between them.

Probably nobody is sure where things are headed and, given
the alternatives, I doubt it much matters. For aesthetic
and other reasons(*) I prefer Atlas V and would buy it if I
needed an EELV. But Delta IV will also do whatever jobs
need to be done for the general class of boosters in
question and for the missions so far discussed.

Shrug.

(*) Kerosene, operability factors.

Damon Hill wrote:
"Ed Kyle" wrote in
news:1115425943.359485.46250
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Damon Hill wrote:
"Ed Kyle" wrote in
oups.com:

Presumably Delta IV Lite (Dleta IV CBC + Delta II
upper stage) is not viable?

Boeing passed on that option a few years ago,

Seems to me there'd be potential savings by increasing
the number of CBCs built, elimination of the Delta II
first stage and all pad facilities, and by hanging onto the
lower end of the market. Probably wouldn't need the
strap-ons, either.

The only development money appears to be in the interstage
and added Delta IV pad equipment to handle the hypergolic
propellants. That last part might well be a killer, of
course. Industry is trying hard to get away from that.

I wonder if it might be just as cost effective to
simply launch the bare-bones Delta IV Medium with
a less-than-full propellant load to carry the smaller
payloads (filling out with microsats and secondary
payloads whenever possible). Then they would be
able to shut down the Delta II line, close three
launch pads, *and* increase production on the EELV
line. It might end up costing the payload customer
nearly the same, since Delta II costs have been, and
as its launch rate declines, will continue to, rise.

I'm not at all sure where the Alliance is going with this,
without ending either the Atlas or Delta line altogether.
And I'd have a hard time choosing between them.

Me too, but I had begun to think that Atlas might
be proving itself superior. It certainly is
superior in performance, because it was designed
to out-haul Delta IV from the outset (5 versus 4
tonnes to GTO, etc.) It seems to have been better
engineered - its perfect flight performance so far
evidence of that compared to the flaws discovered
in Delta IV. It has a cleaner pad processing flow.
It requires fewer workers to build and launch than
Delta IV. It isn't designed to catch on fire at
liftoff!

And I was seriously impressed by the most recent
Atlas V launch, when it carried the heaviest-ever
commercial satellite right through some stiff
ground and upper level winds that would have
scrubbed an older Atlas - and maybe the new Delta
too. It outlifted Proton and Zenit during that
flight, without really trying hard - it wasn't
anywhere near its payload limit.

But having said all that, I have to say that
Delta IV is an impressive technical achievement.
Unlike Atlas V, which is pretty heavily derived
from a rocket family that has been around for more
than 40 years, Delta IV is nearly all-new. Despite
this handicap, the rocket has flown cleanly in
its single-stick versions and has only suffered
an underperformance failure during its single
Heavy version flight - a flight that doubled the
total number of Common Core Boosters ever flown
to six (compared to 150-ish Centaurs). Boeing
has to be applauded for pulling off the technical
achievement required to get this machine off the
ground, despite its cost overruns and commercial
market failure to date.

A while back, I predicted that one of the EELVs
would eventually end up in the Air Force camp and
that the other would become more of a NASA machine.
I still think something like that is possible.
But for the time being, we have an interesting
kind of "fly off" underway at Cape Canaveral,
with a Delta IV prepping for a NASA GOES-N launch,
an Atlas V setting up for a NASA Mars mission
launch, and a Delta II on the pad for one of the
dwindling numbers of Air Force GPS launches.

- Ed Kyle

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...
Interesting tidbit in the following story:

"http://www.al.com/business/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/business/1115371155134860.xml"

"Boeing spokesman Dan Beck said the additional work,
which may also include Boeing's Delta II rocket
**if that program is continued** (my emphasis),
will mean a retooling of the Decatur plant."

The last Air Force Delta II launch in planned for
2006-7. After that, Delta II will only support
a few NASA launches each year. Since the Space
Launch Alliance will need to eliminate close to
1,000 jobs (25% of its start up work force) to
realize the projected $100-150 million per year
savings, it would appear that Delta II is
vulnerable. Perhaps Boeing has already decided
that it will drop the rocket if SpaceX Falcon V
succeeds, rather than try to compete in that
market.

First let me start by saying IF is a very big word.

I have been in favor of retiring the Delta II for a while.
The RS-27 first flew in 1974 making the engine design of
the Delta already over 30 years old.
The first Delta II was in 1989 making it over 15 years old and
probably between 20-25 by the most likely early retirement dates.

Meanwhile the sub 10,000lb market is going to have a lot of
new rockets coming on line. The Air Force is sponsoring three
different designs at the same time including the Falcon V and
a reusable one they would own. While at the same time most of the
Air Forces satellites seem to be leaving this size range.
This will IMO create by 2010-2015 a massive over capacity
in this market segment with most of the rocket being of almost brand
new design. Getting out of the market segment before that seems a
logical business move.

"Allen Thomson" wrote in message
oups.com...

Damon Hill wrote:

I'm not at all sure where the Alliance is going with this,
without ending either the Atlas or Delta line altogether.
And I'd have a hard time choosing between them.

Probably nobody is sure where things are headed and, given
the alternatives, I doubt it much matters. For aesthetic
and other reasons(*) I prefer Atlas V and would buy it if I
needed an EELV. But Delta IV will also do whatever jobs
need to be done for the general class of boosters in
question and for the missions so far discussed.

Shrug.

(*) Kerosene, operability factors.

I come down on the opposite side because I see a lot of
long term potential in the Delta IV. Long term the Delta IV
can probably more then triple it's mass to GTO just as
the Delta did over the years. I do not see as much potential for
growth in the Atlas V.

In article 992fe.1420$941.1075@trnddc08,
Douglas Holmes wrote:
The RS-27 first flew in 1974 making the engine design of
the Delta already over 30 years old.

Moreover, it's a slight variant of the H-1 -- in fact, many RS-27s *were*
rebuilt H-1s -- which was carrying Saturn Is up starting in 1961.

But that doesn't mean there's anything particularly wrong with it. The
engines that launched the latest space-station crew are slightly improved
models -- not even as different as the RS-27 was from the H-1 -- of the
engines that launched Sputnik 1.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

"Douglas Holmes" wrote in
news:992fe.1420$941.1075@trnddc08:.

I have been in favor of retiring the Delta II for a while.
The RS-27 first flew in 1974 making the engine design of
the Delta already over 30 years old.
The first Delta II was in 1989 making it over 15 years old and
probably between 20-25 by the most likely early retirement dates.

And the venerable Russian R-7 is coming up on its 50th
birthday with essentially the same design and mostly the
same engines; not only is it not retiring, it's setting up
shop in Kourou to expand its launch market.

http://docs.arianespace.com/image_li.../soyuz/web/soy
uz_new_img_web.jpg

I believe Old Number Seven will keep flying for another
25 years, and likely outlive me.

--Damon