Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV

On 16 Aug 2005 07:42:00 -0700, "Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


>I think Boeing did this comparison several years ago
>and decided to keep Delta II and cancel Delta IV Light
>(I'm assuming that is what you mean by "small upper
>stage"). But even a Delta IV Light would have 1.5
>times or so more dry mass than a Delta 7920, so the
>odds are that it would have higher marginal costs.

Is dry mass relevant, though? Since Delta II uses nine solids, and
there is no such thing as an unfueled solid, its hard to figure out
the bird's dry mass. But a fueled Delta IV-Lite (guessing about PAM as
an upper stage) would seem to compare favorably to a fueled nine-solid
Delta II (especially II-H).

>On the other hand, if the argument is that the
>bigger EELV vehicles are so flexible and wonderful
>that they can handle the Delta II class payloads,
>then, since the EELVs duplicate each other and
>would still be underutilized even with the Delta II
>payloads, why not shut down *two* production lines
>and just keep one EELV?

Well, the two EELVs have a little commonality, at least in the RL-10
engine that they just don't share with Delta II. So there should be
some cost savings there by getting rid of Delta II-specific hardware.
And don't forget the launch facilities. Delta II is still using the
ancient Complex 17, whereas the two EELVs have brand-spanking-new
launch facilities at the Cape and Delta IV is taking over the much
more modern SLC-6 at VAFB (though Atlas 5 is taking over another
ancient pad at VAFB). I think this all points to Delta II being the
third-runner-up in cost and efficiency.

>I think the latter option is where we're heading.

I disagree. Even with major budget crunching threatening its pet
programs (F-22 and F-35) and badly needed transports (V-22 and more
C-17s) the Air Force doesn't even seem to be considering shutting down
one of the EELVs. Even when Boeing got caught cheating with LockMart
proprietary data to win EELV contracts, the Air Force *still* didn't
kill Delta IV when by all rights they could have. There just is no
rational argument that one of the EELVs will be dropped anytime in the
near future.

>All three production lines are going to be under
>one roof soon. If Delta II is shut down, and it
>seems the pressure is on to shut it down, then
>this co-production setup, where the Alliance will
>supposedly pick the best vehicle for each payload,
>will soon find itself picking only the better of
>the two EELVs (and I think we all know which one
>it is) over and over again. They won't have to
>shut down one of the EELV lines. It will just
>stop running by default.

And be available if someone wants it in the future, sort of like
Airbus' A340, which they can make as long as they're making A330s.

Brian
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What else could you do with the Stick?
    ... DOD abandoning their dual launcher policy? ... of one of the EELVs going down the tubes. ... It will have to be Atlas 5, ... Delta IV is capable of 18 flights per year (limited by the Mariner, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
    ... >>>and not those of Delta II, ... >>>and drop one of the EELVs instead? ... one small-vehicle production line and one big-vehicle ... big vehicle is likely to be cheaper than a monopoly-priced ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
    ... >>Since the EELVs duplicate each other's capabilities ... >>and not those of Delta II, ... >>and drop one of the EELVs instead? ... payloads, why not shut down *two* production lines ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Delta 4 Costs
    ... Boeing Delta 4 and 410 million for Lockheed Atlas 5. ... The air force gets two launch vehicle families for assured access. ... fixed costs only), ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Delta 4 Costs
    ... Boeing Delta 4 and 410 million for Lockheed Atlas 5. ... The air force gets two launch vehicle families for assured access. ... I figure that the EELV program costs each taxpayer something ...
    (sci.space.policy)