Re: Current US military thinking on launch needs

From: Will McLean (mclean1382_at_aol.com)
Date: 02/24/05 

Date: 24 Feb 2005 06:40:37 -0800

Henry Spencer wrote:
> In article <1109175272.490395.24350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Kyle <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> A cynic would say that Delta II's departure from USAF service has
> >> been predicted before...
> >
> >By allowing two EELVs, the Air Force has been
> >forced to use them. To fund them (and it's
> >costing a lot more than originally planned to fund
> >them), it appears that they've been forced to
> >divest other space launch assets.
>
> The big question, though, is whether the Air Force will subsidize
EELV
> launch services centrally for all military projects.
>
> An EELV still *costs more* than a Delta II -- quite a bit more, like
> double or worse -- and a lot of projects even within the USAF will
balk at
> being forced to buy overpriced launches out of *their* budgets just
to
> keep the EELV mafia happy. To say nothing of what the Navy will
think.
> Without central subsidies, there is going to be a lot of pressure to
> continue to allow Delta-II-sized birds to fly on Delta II.
>
> Just because the EELV bureaucrats have gotten high-level blessing for
a
> legislated monopoly (well, duopoly) doesn't mean the rank and file
will
> simply salute and comply. That's not the way it works in practice.
>
> Things might be different if the Light EELV configurations, which
were
> meant more or less as Delta II replacements, hadn't disappeared.
> --
> "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry
Spencer
> -- George Herbert |
henry@spsystems.net

I think one of the key reasons we don't see a Delta IV light *yet* is
that the Delta IV CBC doesn't have a lot of flight experience yet. The
Delta II's experience and good record is one of its selling points.

When and if Delta IV demonstrates a good flight record, I think
switching to a Delta IV light will be a lot more attractive: I would
guess that a RS-68 costs a bit less than an RS-27 and nine solids. The
CBC structure presumably takes more labor than a Delta II first stage,
but they get to eliminate the overhead of a production facility and set
of pads.

Will McLean

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Current US military thinking on launch needs
    ... >> A cynic would say that Delta II's departure from USAF service has ... The big question, though, is whether the Air Force will subsidize EELV ... launch services centrally for all military projects. ... continue to allow Delta-II-sized birds to fly on Delta II. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
    ... >> active launch vehicle - the launcher that has ... >> launchers cost more than Delta 2, ... That is still tens of $millions less than an EELV, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: CBO Report: Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch Capabilities
    ... It is the government's cost. ... But the cost of the Delta IV Heavy does not rely primarily on the flight ... You can't separate Heavy and Medium flight rates like you're trying to ... in the EELV payload projections. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
    ... >> more metal, fiberglass, etc.) than a Delta 7920, ... a Delta IV Light would cost about ... > Ed, if dry mass is the sole determinant of launch vehicle cost, what ... As for the EELV price increases, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Current US military thinking on launch needs
    ... Air Force wants two EELV's through 2020, ... Air Force will launch its last Delta II in FY2007. ... EELV launch plans show that Boeing Decatur will ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading