Delta IV Out as Potential X-37 Launcher?

Story in Huntsville, AL newspaper discusses possible affect of
Boeing launch santions on X-37 program:

"http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/1060710415219382.xml"

Article says that Marshall Space Flight Center planned for a
May 2004 choice between Delta IV and Atlas V for X-37 launch.
Said X-37 mass would be about 12,000 lbs, allowing launch by
a Medium category EELV (for about $100 million). Problem is,
Delta IV may be out of the running if sanctions are still in
place.

This could be very big, because X-37 is part of NASA's OSP
program. The selected X-37 launcher should have a leg up in
future OSP launcher competitions.

There is a brief mention of the possibility that Boeing may
drop Delta IV entirely. The company's Decautur, AL rocket
plant currently has 685 employees building 8 Delta II and
"about" 5 Delta IV rockets.

- Ed Kyle

This is an odd story. It suggests that the Air Force has veto power over
Nasa procurement of launch vehicles. Is this actually the rule? I have no
objection to sanctioning Boeing, but surely Nasa should make the decision
itself.

Nasa could also use the Delta II Heavy, which is supposed to have a 12820 lb
capacity to LEO, but perhaps the 7% margin isn't enough for weight growth.
Either Atlas V or Delta IV is much larger than necessary for the 12000 lb
vehicle.

Murray Anderson

"ed kyle" wrote in message
m...
Story in Huntsville, AL newspaper discusses possible affect of
Boeing launch santions on X-37 program:


"http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standa
rd.xsl?/base/news/1060710415219382.xml"

Article says that Marshall Space Flight Center planned for a
May 2004 choice between Delta IV and Atlas V for X-37 launch.
Said X-37 mass would be about 12,000 lbs, allowing launch by
a Medium category EELV (for about $100 million). Problem is,
Delta IV may be out of the running if sanctions are still in
place.

This could be very big, because X-37 is part of NASA's OSP
program. The selected X-37 launcher should have a leg up in
future OSP launcher competitions.

There is a brief mention of the possibility that Boeing may
drop Delta IV entirely. The company's Decautur, AL rocket
plant currently has 685 employees building 8 Delta II and
"about" 5 Delta IV rockets.

- Ed Kyle

"Murray Anderson" wrote in message
...
This is an odd story. It suggests that the Air Force has veto power over
Nasa procurement of launch vehicles. Is this actually the rule? I have no
objection to sanctioning Boeing, but surely Nasa should make the decision
itself.

AFAIK, the DOD sanction does not apply to NASA's procurement of launch
services.

Nasa could also use the Delta II Heavy, which is supposed to have a 12820
lb
capacity to LEO, but perhaps the 7% margin isn't enough for weight growth.
Either Atlas V or Delta IV is much larger than necessary for the 12000 lb
vehicle.

There is no qualified Delta II payload fairing large enough to encapsulate
X-37. It's much easier - and even cheaper - to launch on a vehicle that has
the proper-size fairing ready to go.

-Colonel K

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 20:18:44 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Murray
Anderson" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

This is an odd story. It suggests that the Air Force has veto power over
Nasa procurement of launch vehicles. Is this actually the rule?

Well, if they managed to get sanctions against all government
contracts, then, effectively, yes. I assume that this would have had
to have been coordinated with OMB.

--
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:

"Colonel K" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
om...

"Murray Anderson" wrote in message
...

Nasa could also use the Delta II Heavy, which is supposed to have a
12820
lb
capacity to LEO, but perhaps the 7% margin isn't enough for weight
growth.
Either Atlas V or Delta IV is much larger than necessary for the 12000
lb
vehicle.

There is no qualified Delta II payload fairing large enough to encapsulate
X-37. It's much easier - and even cheaper - to launch on a vehicle that
has
the proper-size fairing ready to go.


Originally, it was planned to launch X-37 on a Delta-II without fairing,
but, IIRC, they deceided last year to use a shrouded launch.

Gunter Krebs
www.skyrocket.de/space

This vendetta by the Air Force ...

Vendetta? May I remind everyone that it was Boeing that choose to break the
rules. No let it pay the price.

"Dholmes" wrote in message ...
"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
"Dholmes" wrote in message
...
This vendetta by the Air Force is getting out of hand.
Atlases cost 20 million more per launch so we are talking a lot of
money.

I'm not sure this is still true. Boeing's recent $835
million Delta IV write-off covered 24 contracted launches,
meaning that the company wrote off an average of $34.8
million per launch. The original EELV contract for Delta IV
was 19 launches for $1.88 billion, including $500 million
for research and development, or an average of $99 million
for each launch. Add the $34.8 million write off
and the revised per-mission costs are driven up to $133.8
million. Atlas V, by contrast, is reported to cost $90-110
million per launch - but who knows what the real cost for
either of these machines is ...

That $500 million is a tax write off and does not effect the real cost of
launches.

OK, disregard the $500 million and you get an average of $72.6
million per Delta IV paid to Boeing under the original EELV
contract. Now, add the $34.8 million per launch that Boeing
wrote off as an overrun on that same EELV contract (see Boeing's
recent press release about this for details) and you get an
average break-even cost of $107.4 million per Delta IV launch.
If Boeing wants to make money on Delta IV in the future, it will
have to charge *more* than this (at current launch rates).

The latest figures I have are $70 million for the smallest Delta
vs $90 million for the smallest Atlas.

I think these figures, presented in places like spaceandtech.com
and astonautix.com, are out of date. These same sources say, for
example, that Pegasus XL costs $12 or $14 million per launch when
the true Pegasus XL cost was stated to be $21 million+ in a recent
SciSat pre-launch press conference.

A base Delta is just smaller and fits 11,000-12,000 lbs much better then an
Atlas does.

You're right about this. In addition, Boeing's SLC 37B launch pad
is probably a better site for prepping X-37 for launch than the
open-air SLC 41 Atlas V pad.


The EELV contract requires an American source.
See for Example http://www.space-launcher.com/News2002-04.html

"Initially, under the EELV procurement, Lockheed Martin had to provide a
100%-U.S. production capability for the Atlas 5 vehicle as soon as the very
first flight. Over the years, this capability has been regularly postponed
as the cost of a U.S.-built RD-180 appeared to be several times that of a
Russian built engine. In 2000, the domestic production capability was
announced in 2003. Recently, it was not planned before 2008/2010."

It is a clear viloation of the EELV rules.

It seems that the rules have changed. NASA has already used
Russian rockets to launch hardware and people to ISS, so it
should not have a problem with Colorado-assembled Atlas V -
especially if it is good enough for the Air Force! And
remember that Lockheed Martin (or General Dynamics, or Martin
Marietta, or whichever company it was at the time) asked for
bids from Rocketdyne back in the mid-1990s for what was to
become the Atlas V first stage engine. Rocketdyne prepared an
initial bid, but then pulled out of the running! The Atlas
builder was left with only Aerojet, which was either offering
another Russian engine or only had a paper design, and
Pratt&Whitney/Energomash, which had the only a real engine
offered, to choose from. That was and remains the sorry state
of U.S. liquid hydrocarbon rocket propulsion - of which
Russian companies currently reign as the undisputed masters.

If NASA and the Air Force have no choice but to swallow
Russian rocket engines, than they only have themselves to
blame after starving U.S. liquid rocket engine development
for 30+ years.

- Ed Kyle

"gmw" wrote in message
...
This vendetta by the Air Force ...

Vendetta? May I remind everyone that it was Boeing that choose to break
the
rules.
Lockheed is also breaking the rules

No let it pay the price.

Agree those who break the rules should pay a price.
So when does Lockeed lose contacts for breaking the rules?

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
"Dholmes" wrote in message
...
"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
"Dholmes" wrote in message
...
This vendetta by the Air Force is getting out of hand.
Atlases cost 20 million more per launch so we are talking a lot of
money.

I'm not sure this is still true. Boeing's recent $835
million Delta IV write-off covered 24 contracted launches,
meaning that the company wrote off an average of $34.8
million per launch. The original EELV contract for Delta IV
was 19 launches for $1.88 billion, including $500 million
for research and development, or an average of $99 million
for each launch. Add the $34.8 million write off
and the revised per-mission costs are driven up to $133.8
million. Atlas V, by contrast, is reported to cost $90-110
million per launch - but who knows what the real cost for
either of these machines is ...

That $500 million is a tax write off and does not effect the real cost
of
launches.

clip

I think these figures, presented in places like spaceandtech.com
and astonautix.com, are out of date. These same sources say, for
example, that Pegasus XL costs $12 or $14 million per launch when
the true Pegasus XL cost was stated to be $21 million+ in a recent
SciSat pre-launch press conference.

Very possible good figures are hard to find.

clip

It is a clear viloation of the EELV rules.

It seems that the rules have changed.

Not as far as I can tell. They just have chosen not to enforce them.

NASA has already used
Russian rockets to launch hardware and people to ISS, so it
should not have a problem with Colorado-assembled Atlas V -
especially if it is good enough for the Air Force!

I have no problem with that but then change the rules or make them produce
them in the U.S. like they are supposed to.

That was and remains the sorry state
of U.S. liquid hydrocarbon rocket propulsion - of which
Russian companies currently reign as the undisputed masters.

The Russians have great Kerosene based rockets.


If NASA and the Air Force have no choice but to swallow
Russian rocket engines, than they only have themselves to
blame after starving U.S. liquid rocket engine development
for 30+ years.

They have a choice.
They can follow the rules they set up.
That was the reason for the EELV program, to improve the cost of American
built rockets.
I do agree that they have only themselves to blame for the lack of a well
developed American launcher.

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
You're right about this. In addition, Boeing's SLC 37B launch pad
is probably a better site for prepping X-37 for launch than the
open-air SLC 41 Atlas V pad.

What's the difference? Atlas V payloads don't go to the pad until the day of
launch. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

-Colonel K