Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV

Brian Thorn wrote:
> 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.

If you are going to argue getting rid of a launch
vehicle line to save money, why not get rid of the
more expensive (Delta IV) line, which is a duplicate
of the Atlas V line? Why not shut down the RS-68
line, which much cost more than the RS-27A line?

If you want to keep the more reliable launch vehicle,
why not keep Delta II, which has suffered only two
failures in 119 flights, versus one failure in four
for Delta IV?

If you want to keep the simpliest launch processing
site, why not keep Complex 17 (a simple launch stand
with a relatively small mobile tower) instead of
Complex 37 (which has a massive horizontal integration
building *and* a massive pad with a massive mobile
tower)? The same comparison is even more stark when
you look at Vandenberg SLC 2W versus SLC 6.

Why not keep the vehicle that can be flown to the
launch site rather than ponderously barged?

If you want to keep the vehicle with the shortest
launch processing campaign, why not keep Delta II,
with its proven 6-week schedule, rather than Delta IV
which, irregardless of what the planners guide's say,
has yet to be turned around in anything less than
*months*?

- Ed Kyle

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: 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)
  • Re: Shuttle Derived Launchers - Safe, Simple, Soon
    ... Delta IV does it their way, ... yet its no cheaper than any other medium vehicle the US ... > average annual program cost of the Atlas II, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Delaying the launch of the Delta II rockets until an indefinite 2009 date is a problem
    ... Delaying the launch of the Delta II rockets until an indefinite 2009 date is a problem that needs to be resolved sooner rather than later. ... The IIR-M satellites designated IIR-20and IIR-21are critical to the sustainability of the GPS constellation. ... And yes, that is good news, but the not-so-good news is that there are two IIR-M satellites sitting in the barn waiting for a ride into Medium Earth Orbit and they may be waiting for a while. ...
    (sci.geo.satellite-nav)
  • Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
    ... why not get rid of the ... Because Delta IV is the most versatile of the three. ... >If you want to keep the more reliable launch vehicle, ...
    (sci.space.policy)