Pentagon Signs Off on NASA Launcher Plans

[wvbraun]

Link<br /><br />Good. The Pentagon didn't screw NASA again.

 

[propforce]

<i>"...NASA and the Pentagon, according to the letter, have agreed to complete a joint cost benefit analysis in the coming months of phasing out Boeing’s Delta 2 rocket in favor of the EELV. Although the Air Force has largely moved on to the EELV, the smaller Delta 2 remains NASA’s workhorse for launching medium-sized science satellites and interplanetary probes...."</i><br /><br />It's official. The end of Delta IIs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It's official. The end of Delta IIs.</font>/i><br /><br />Hmmm... I wonder if this means (1) the DOD is getting out of Delta II class payloads (see recent thread 'World & US Launch Markets", where the Delta II is still listed as the workhorse for the US market), (2) the EELVs can launch Delta II class payloads for cheaper than the Delta II, or (3) something else?<br /><br />Also, will SpaceX's Falcon V be allowed to compete against the EELVs or is there already a sweetheart deal with Boeing and LM like the Air Force tried to do with refueling tankers?</i>

 

[spacefire]

aww a Delta II was the only rocket I've seen launched from up close!I was in Cocoa on the Beach and it flew from the Air Force Station? something launchpad. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I was in Cocoa on the Beach and it flew from the Air Force Station? something launchpad. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />See, now we know for fact that you've never been to Cocoa Beach.<br /><br />There is no "beach" in Cocoa, only in Cocoa Beach which is a different area than Cocoa. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[crix]

Does it seem totally messed up to anyone else that NASA is saying that it will buy Boeing and Lockmart EELVs for 5-20mt payloads to the maximum extent possible??<br /><br />What about SpaceX? What about all the little guys that are trying to get into the game?

 

[gladiator1332]

And why not use the SRB launcher? If it's safe enough to launch the CEV, why not use it fro NASA probes as well.

 

[wvbraun]

"Does it seem totally messed up to anyone else that NASA is saying that it will buy Boeing and Lockmart EELVs for 5-20mt payloads to the maximum extent possible?? What about SpaceX? What about all the little guys that are trying to get into the game?"<br /><br />Read on: <i>The letter further noted that new commercially developed launchers, should they become available, will be allowed to compete for such missions.</i>

 

[dwightlooi]

It is arguable whether NASA and the Pentagon should settle on one medium lift launch system -- be it the Delta IV, the Atlas V or the SRB derivative booster. However, there is no reason for the Delta II and Delta III to exist anymore. The Delta IV small can be used for NASA's light payloads and even though the Delta IV common core booster may be and overkill, it is not any more expensive than the Delta II. In the long run, if the EELVs are going to be kept around, it makes sense to use them to fly really light payloads anyway since they are cheaper -- especially if they get decent flight rates.<br /><br />In the Pentagon's POV, keeping both the atlas and the delta makes sense because they want to maintain a multi-source infrastructure. Low cost is nice, but ultimately it is about maintaining the defence aerospace infrastructure. To put things into perspective, consider this... the current NASA budget is roughly $15 billion a year, the annual US defence budget is $400 billion. The military guys are the gorillas here. If they want to spend some money to maintain multiple space launch options for national security they can afford it.<br /><br />As far as Space X is concerned, they should be thankful that they are allowed to play around in Vandenburg AFB. The Falcon I is not really in the class of the EELVs or even the Delta IIs. The Merlin engine is a commendable effort, but to get to the EELV payload range you will have to cluster 5 or 6 of them, I think Space X has some distance to go before they have a launcher that is seen as a viable alternative to the big boy's toys. They are budding and nobody is going to care about them until they bloom. I am all for NASA or the DOD giving them a few hundred millions to play with. In fact I think NASA should have a program where they set aside a bunch of non-so critical launches and allow startups to bid for them. But whatever NASA or DoD chooses to do with encouraging or not encouraging budding Space launch firms, nobody at this p

 

[john_316]

You know who I thought would also make a big splash in the launcher market was?<br /><br />Orbital Science!!!!!<br /><br />They are making progress in the NMD/BMD system and you would think that soon they would start bidding on other contract work and other projects that Boeing or LockMart didn't sub contract to them...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

re: the space.com story<br /><br />Is every single detail correct? If so here are some key points,<br /><br />1)SRB derived CEV launcher development begins AFTER 2010 (then how could the CEV reach the ISS before the SRB derived launcher is ready?)<br /><br />2)SRB derived CEV launcher for manned missions of 25-30 tonnes (does than mean other launchers could be used for heavier or lighter missions?)<br /><br />3)Private companies allowed to compete (with both the EELV and the shuttle derived launchers?)<br /><br />Not only are a large number of boosters going to be used by NASA I suspect there will be a 'low-end' manned spacecraft, different from the CEV, for LEO ISS missions. If so this is similar to the High-Low multiple CEV recommendation I made in an earlier thread about NASA's need for manned vehicle redundancy. Note that the Space-X Falcon V rocket from inception is going to be man-rated and will have a payload of around 10,000 pounds to the ISS, and the t/Space four man capsule has a weight of 8,100 pounds.<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=232229&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=

 

[nacnud]

t/Space has said there is going to be a competition run on commercial lines for ISS cargo and crew transfer. Giffin apparently mentioned this in June 21, 2005 and the details of the Broad Agency Announcement will be released in the autumn. See the thread t/Space one step closer.

 

[grooble]

They are a dead cert though. Like Sad Ken.

 

[severian]

There's one thing that really puzzles me about all of this.<br /><br />Yes, we know that the EELV's can launch in the 5-20 tonne region - there are actually proposals that will make them capable of launching considerably more - well past the 30 tonnes mark.<br /><br />We also know that the shuttle launch system is basically capable of launching 100 tonnes into orbit - that's what the space shuttle weighs, so it figures.<br /><br />The one thing that puzzles me though is their figures for the SRB-derived booster. I ran some calculations on it, and in fact it's launch capability with a standard upper stage is actually slightly <i>less</i> than the EELVs - we're talking sort of 4-10 tonne area. In order to push it up to the 25 tonne mark, they would either need to cluster SRBs together, completely remake them in a totally different size, or make a new side-mounted intermediate stage. All of those however, are more trouble than simply using the largest versions of the EELVs. The only possible positive side it could have is that the SRBs are already man rated - but from the article I gathered that the SRBs wouldn't be used for manned missions, only the shuttle-derived launcher would be.<br /><br />Very puzzling.

 

[propforce]

Shuttle_Guy is correct. What did you assume in your 'standard upper stage' ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

"SRB derived CEV launcher development begins AFTER 2010"<br /><br />That's not what the article says: <i>The two-page letter says “NASA will initiate development of a Crew Launch Vehicle derived from Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters with a new upper-stage for human spaceflight missions in the 25-30 metric-ton-class following retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010. NASA then plans to develop a new 100 metric-ton-class launch vehicle derived from existing capabilities with the Space Shuttle external tanks and solid rocket boosters for future missions to the Moon.”</i><br /><br />Ok, it can be read two ways. But I think it's obvious what it means: Development starts now for the launch vehicle to be ready following the retirement of the Shuttle in 2010. <br />"in 2010" refers to "retirement of the Space Shuttle", not to "NASA will initiate..." It's a bit misleading...

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"in 2010" refers to "retirement of the Space Shuttle", not to "NASA will initiate..." </font><br /><br />Well if we're going to get nitpicky (my specialty... najaB's too, come to think. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ), the 2010 actually refers to 'missions'. Specifically -- the CLV will be used for (paraphrasing) 'missions that follow the retirement of the space shuttle in 2010'.

 

[najab]

><i>...from the article I gathered that the SRBs wouldn't be used for manned missions, only the shuttle-derived launcher would be...</i><p>Perhaps you need to re-read the article, because you have that totally bass ackward. The CEV is proposed to launch on the "SRB-stick" and the SDHLV is intended for cargo launches only.</p>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Ok, it can be read two ways. But I think it's obvious what it means: Development starts now for the launch vehicle to be ready following the retirement of the Shuttle in 2010. "<br /><br />Then it is a very poorly written sentence. And considering that the development cost of the SRB derived CEV launch vehicle has been quoted as 5 billion dollars and then there's another 5 billion for development of the CEV, I don't see how NASA comes up with all that money while the Shuttle is still operating.

 

[j05h]

How can it possibly cost $10billion total to make a capsule that fits on top of a pre-existing launcher? Are they gold plating all the machine tools? The quoted price seems more like business-as-usual (ala X33) than building a working spacecraft. Crap. I don't want to be negative, but that kind of estimated cost makes me nervous.<br /><br />Any reasonable explanations? Is it pork? Does that price include the lunar lander? (it seems to only be CEV +SRB for LEO...) Why would it possibly cost $5billion to barely modify the SRB? Also, the CEV at $5G is a steep pricetag unless it includes both flight models and many flight articles. What is going on? Are they setting VSE up to fail?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[grooble]

Crazy isn't it. Look at what t/space does with a few million!

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">See, now we know for fact that you've never been to Cocoa Beach. <br /><br />There is no "beach" in Cocoa, only in Cocoa Beach which is a different area than Cocoa.</font><br /><br />oh lay off the bong please! I've been through Cocoa Beach more than a couple of times. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[erauskydiver]

How can you make accurate calculations on something that doesnt even exist yet? It hasnt even gone through detailed design yet. Yes, you know the performance of the current SRB, but you know nothing of the properties of the one modified version that will be used for CEV. <br /><br />Note: I'm not replying specifically to Shuttle Guy... just making a general comment.

 

[erauskydiver]

Eh, Cocoa Beach... Cocoa, they are both dirt holes, so does it really matter?

 

[grooble]

Better than the billions blown by LM and Boeing. They are just ripping off the public because they can.