Delta IV vs. Atlas V

Brett Buck wrote in message ...
ed kyle wrote:
Brett Buck wrote in message ...

ed kyle wrote:

3. Current plans show an average of only about 4 launches per year
for Delta IV and Atlas V combined.

4. Both of these rockets cannot survive under existing market
conditions.

Both will almost certainly survive to provide redundant access for
military payloads. Commercial viability was/is essentially moot - they
are required national resources. All that a viable commercial market
does is reduce the price.

Wouldn't lower launch costs benefit national security?

I don't see how it matters. I contend the cost, at least in the
order of magnitude it is now, is pretty much beside the point for
government customers. Doubling launch costs from $100 million to $200
million for a $7 or $8 billion program in order to effectively guarantee
access (through redundancy) is pretty much a no-brainer.


The companies I've most recently worked for survived on about
$100 million per year gross income. Each employed a few hundred
people.

It's all relative I suppose, but $100 million could buy some
air power, or some ground armor, or big guns (the stuff that
wins wars), or a lot of cruise missiles. If $100 million seems
like chump change, maybe the total program costs are too high!


Boeing has offloaded it's BLS commercial launches to Sea Launch
- and right now Sea Launch has a larger backlog than Delta IV.
If Boeing brought those payloads to Cape Canaveral it would
double the Delta IV launch rate (to 4/year) and cut the
per-launch cost for all customers.


I don't follow this at all - switching a few launches from Sea Launch
to Delta doesn't lower the cost of Delta to any consequential degree,
but it does cut into the profit margin, if not cause a loss, on each
launch.

It makes the idle Delta factory (designed to build 60 core stages per
year) and launch processing functions (could launch dozens per year)
twice as productive as they would be otherwise. Breaking even on the
commercial launches would be worth it, because vehicle reliability
would improve with the number and rate of launches. Improved
reliability would benefit national defense.


Second idea - winnowing out one of the launchers - defeats the goal
of having redundancy in launch vehicles.


True, but propping up two launchers prevents either from having a
chance to compete commercially. National defense benefits at the
expense of citizen quality-of-life. (Lower commercial launch costs
provide access to telecommunications services, etc.) In addition,
when the Pentagon drives up launch costs, as it is doing here,
NASA and NOAA get stuck with the bill because they must use these
vehicles too.

- Ed Kyle

ed kyle wrote:

True, but propping up two launchers prevents either from having a
chance to compete commercially. National defense benefits at the
expense of citizen quality-of-life. (Lower commercial launch costs
provide access to telecommunications services, etc.) In addition,
when the Pentagon drives up launch costs, as it is doing here,
NASA and NOAA get stuck with the bill because they must use these
vehicles too.

They shoudl just lobby to be able to subcontract Arianespace 8-P


- Ed Kyle

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Sander Vesik wrote in message ...
ed kyle wrote:

True, but propping up two launchers prevents either from having a
chance to compete commercially. National defense benefits at the
expense of citizen quality-of-life. (Lower commercial launch costs
provide access to telecommunications services, etc.) In addition,
when the Pentagon drives up launch costs, as it is doing here,
NASA and NOAA get stuck with the bill because they must use these
vehicles too.

They shoudl just lobby to be able to subcontract Arianespace.


Perhaps this will come, but ESA would probably have to give
U.S. vehicles some launch contracts, or at least a chance to
win some launch contracts, in return. In the mean time, Europe
can smile knowing that the U.S. Air Force is buying Ariane
payload fairings for Atlas V launches, etc. (along with Russian
rocket engines and, for Delta IV, Japanese propellant tanks).

- Ed Kyle

Brian Thorn writes:
We don't have true dual-string capability... both vehicles are
dependent on the RL-10 engine. There's been some work on a different
upper stage engine to provide true dual-string, but in today's
unprofitable market, I wouldn't bet on it ever getting off the ground.

Luckily, the RL-10 is a fairly mature engine design. If there are
problems, you'd think it would be due to recent design, manufacturing,
or operational changes.

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

ed kyle wrote:
Brett Buck wrote in message ...


Second idea - winnowing out one of the launchers - defeats the goal
of having redundancy in launch vehicles.



True, but propping up two launchers prevents either from having a
chance to compete commercially. National defense benefits at the
expense of citizen quality-of-life.


You have to first make certain of *persistence of life* before you
can worry about quality of life.

Brett

jeff findley wrote:
Brian Thorn writes:

We don't have true dual-string capability... both vehicles are
dependent on the RL-10 engine. There's been some work on a different
upper stage engine to provide true dual-string, but in today's
unprofitable market, I wouldn't bet on it ever getting off the ground.


Luckily, the RL-10 is a fairly mature engine design. If there are
problems, you'd think it would be due to recent design, manufacturing,
or operational changes.

All of which are occurring on a regular basis. This *is* a common
risk area, but having one doesn't mean that it's OK to have dozens.

Brett

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
Here is a compilation of planned (as of July 31, 2003) Delta IV and
Atlas V launches for the next few years. This list assumes that
three GOES launches will be transferred from Delta III to Delta IV.

Delta IVM(+) Delta IVH Atlas V-4XX Atlas V-5XX
2003* 1 - 1 1
2003 1 - - -
2004 2** 1 1** -
2005 2 2 1** 1
2006 1 - 1 3**
2007 1** - 4 1
2008 2** - 1 1
2009 1 - 2 0
2010 2 - - -

TOTAL 13 3 11 7

* Completed to date
** Includes one NASA or commercial launch - all others launches
are EELV missions for U.S. Air Force.

I would not bet on the accuracy more then 2-3 years in the future.


Observations:

1. 2004 looks like a slow year for Atlas V, but Delta IV
operations become comatose after 2005.

Is that not when they took away 7 launches from Delta and gave them to
Atlas?
If it is then that will correct itself after 2009 or 2010.

2. There are no Heavy missions planned after 2005.

The Heavy could adjust depending on OSP or cargo needs.
If the OSP comes in over 20 tons with cargo it would be the only launcher
available.
On the other hand it helps explain why Atlas Heavy was abandoned.


3. Current plans show an average of only about 4 launches per year
for Delta IV and Atlas V combined.

The simplest solution would be to replace 1 shuttle ISS mission with 2-6
cargo launches from Delta or Atlas rockets
Add to this satellites have traditionally gotten bigger as time goes on
which will slowly increase the market for these big launchers.

4. Both of these rockets cannot survive under existing market
conditions.

They might survive but costs will be higher.
The next size below these launchers like the Zenit, Suyoz and Delta 2 all
seem very active from the lists I have seen.

"Brett Buck" wrote in message
...
Paul Blay wrote:
"Brett Buck" wrote ...

Both will almost certainly survive to provide redundant access for
military payloads. Commercial viability was/is essentially moot - they
are required national resources.


There's been talk about how 'required' that required access is.

There is no, none, zero, nada, debate about required military access
to space. In fact, we can't build the payloads nearly fast enough to
supply the rapidly expanding need.

Whether dual-string capability is required, or merely highly
desirable, could potentially be debated, but I bet they won't make that
mistake again.

The fact that the "ban" on bidding was not total suggests that the
punishment is intended as a motivation to Boeing to correct their ways.
It could easily have been a death blow. And if the squealing gets loud
enough, I would anticipate the "ban" being modified.

Another complicating factor is the Russian-supplied parts on the
Atlas. That significantly improves the situation for the Delta.

I am surprised the Atlas V was allowed to compete for government launches
because of this.
Russians get mad and boom we lose a good portion of our launch capability.


It puts Boeing in an interesting position though. Suppose they say
"We're not interested in doing Delta IV anymore, it doesn't pay." to the
US Gov. is the government going to have to come back with Big Money(TM)
to tempt them?

Depends.
Is China making threating noises towards Tiawan, are the Russians backing
them?
Or something else along those lines.


In time-honored tradition. But I doubt that we are talking "big"
money in terms of government contracts. Big compared to "cheap access to
space" delusions, but that's largely a figment of people's imaginations
anyway.


Just my opinion, of course. But I wager that Boeing and Lockheed
will still be in the launch business in 10 years.

Brett

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:54:09 GMT, "Dholmes"
wrote:

1. 2004 looks like a slow year for Atlas V, but Delta IV
operations become comatose after 2005.

Is that not when they took away 7 launches from Delta and gave them to
Atlas?

Yes, the first switch was for a 2005 launch. But it will probably have
to switch back to Delta IV due to LM's not having a Vandenberg pad
ready in time.

If it is then that will correct itself after 2009 or 2010.

Or much sooner. There are still 10-15 EELV launch contracts due to be
awarded later this year. Boeing will certainly get some of them, all
they have to do to get out of their legal problems is demonstrate that
the corruption has been cleaned up. It appears as though they've
already taken adequate measures to that end.

The simplest solution would be to replace 1 shuttle ISS mission with 2-6
cargo launches from Delta or Atlas rockets

Replace one $500 million Shuttle mission with 6 $150 million Delta
IVs?

Brian

"Dholmes" wrote in
:


Another complicating factor is the Russian-supplied parts on the
Atlas. That significantly improves the situation for the Delta.

I am surprised the Atlas V was allowed to compete for government
launches because of this.
Russians get mad and boom we lose a good portion of our launch
capability.

I think LockMart has a Plan B in case those engines suddenly become
unavailable, though it may take time to implement. That batch of
NK-33s that Aerojet now owns, lock, stock and barrel, might actually
fly after all. Ironic, isn't it?

--Damon, who hopes that doesn't turn into a Plan Nine