Delta IV vs. Atlas V

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.

Observations:

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

2. There are no Heavy missions planned after 2005.

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.

- Ed Kyle

ed kyle wrote:

2. There are no Heavy missions planned after 2005.

I think I may be in a position to influence that...

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.

Brett

"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.

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?

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 don't see how it's in anyone's interest to kill off the Delta IV
completely. I bet even Vance Coffman would agree if you asked him off
the record.




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?

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 Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:47:52 +0100, in a place far, far away, "Paul
Blay" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

"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.

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?

I think that they were making exactly that threat to avoid getting
slapped over the corporate espionage, but the Air Force called their
bluff.

--
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:

Rand Simberg wrote:

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?


I think that they were making exactly that threat to avoid getting
slapped over the corporate espionage, but the Air Force called their
bluff.


If they genuinely thought they were getting off entirely (given the
unambiguous violation and it's impressive scope), that was absurd. But
it's not a binary system - there are degrees of "slapping", and I
wouldn't assume that there wasn't some reduction in penalty as a result.

I also wouldn't necessarily call the move a "bluff". If they truly
got bounced out of all bidding of the next several block buys, they
would probably cut the business loose in a heartbeat. The existing
punishment hits them hard, but isn't a kill shot. And the punishment
has a lot of room for variations down the road, to get the desired result.

Look at the punishment as, effectively, a fine.

Brett

I read somewhere that in order to make a reliable boost phase interceptor, you
need to launch 1,000 ABM satellites loaded with missiles in low Earth orbit in
order to catch them in the 3-minute window of opportunity. This would require
ten times our current launch capacity, hence the need for heavy lift launchers
for the foreseeable future. That is if George Bush is serious about Missile
Defense, and wants to do more than throw a bone for Defense contractors.

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?

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. That's still probably not
enough, though. Arianespace is losing money at it's current
4-6/year Ariane 5 launch rate. Ariane 4 made money at
8-12/year.

Combine the Delta IV and Atlas V manifests, keeping one of the
two rockets, and bring at least some of the Zenit/Proton
commercial launches home. Then you would have a viable,
commercially-competitive U.S.-based space launcher that could
serve the government more efficiently.

- Ed Kyle

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:09:42 GMT, Brett Buck
wrote:

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

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.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:09:42 GMT, Brett Buck
wrote:

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

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.

The RL60 will begin testing this summer. Don't know the status of
the MB-60/MB-35.

--Damon