Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV

On 18 Aug 2005 11:51:25 -0700, "Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>So a Delta IV Light would have about 1.5 times
>more dry mass (about 9.3 tonnes (20,500 lbs)
>more metal, fiberglass, etc.) than a Delta 7920,
>but it would only provide about 1.2 times more
>payload lifting ability. In 1998, Michael
>Griffin said that a launch vehicle's production
>cost is roughly equal to $1,000 per pound of dry
>mass. If true, a Delta IV Light would cost about
>$20.5 million more to build than a Delta 7920.

This may be true, but I doubt it. I think there are other factors at
work here, that simple dry weight. For starters, just getting rid of
the nine solids has got to be a big manpower-saver and must speed up
launch processing by quite a bit. That alone would seem to be enough
to make up the cost of D-IV-Lite's higher dry mass. Add in that you
don't need to maintain old Complex 17 anymore, don't need to maintain
a second Main Engine contract with all the tracking and testing that
goes with it, and that disposing of solids increases your launch
safety by a large amount (the only two D-II failures were due to the
solids) and it's hard to see why you should keep Delta II around at
all.

D-IV-Lite might be marginally more expensive than D-II (though adding
in facilities maintenance, streamlined manufacturing and fewer
subcontractors, I doubt it), but for that increase you get a vehicle
which is prepared for flight under much more worker-friendly
conditions (horizontal, indoors instead of vertical out on the pad),
economies of scale from using D-IV hardware, a much more efficient
main propulsion system, and a vehicle with fewer failure modes (no
solids.)

In fact, Delta IV-Lite could be Boeing's ticket to being the surviving
EELV if the Air Force ever does decide to kill one of them. They'd
have a full line of vehicles... Medium, Intermediate, and Heavy in a
common core, where Atlas V is really too big for the Medium market.

Brian
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Boeing to propose D-IV H for VSE
    ... > CEV missions, but is also pushing the Heavy for unmanned ... One Delta IV Medium version could ... > Aside from its IV Medium with six solids, Boeing ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: "Heavy lift: examining the requirements"
    ... >Yes, but that's the case with all of the strap-ons used by Atlas and Delta, ... Heavy Delta doesn't use solids. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: The End Of The Stick?
    ... No more big solids for humans, ... And Titan 34D No.9, and Delta 241... ... When solids fail, they fail too ... Shuttle system for an LRB. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
    ... >> Because the US Government wants two different launch vehicles for most ... >> like the Delta IV happens to have now, but much like the Atlas could ... Shuttle and Titan-IV, but before that, other vehicle ... >Or why not spend money to develop an RD-180 ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
    ... > vehicle line to save money, why not get rid of the ... Because the US Government wants two different launch vehicles for most ... like the Delta IV happens to have now, but much like the Atlas could ...
    (sci.space.policy)