Why not kill the Altas and Delta programs?

[dwightlooi]

Two medium lift vehicles doing pretty much the same thing is already inefficient. Now that NASA -- for all its reasons -- has to go forward with a third medium lift in the form of the ARES I, I think the US should consider killing the Delta IV and Atlas V beyond 2015 and simply consolidate to one medium lift based on the ARES architecture.<br /><br />If the picture attached doesn't work or hasn't been approved, here's a link<br /><br />http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/6398/ares100tc7.jpg

 

[josh_simonson]

Aries 1 is incapable of missions beyond LEO, which is by far where most of the Atlas V and Delta IV missions go. It would leave us with no ability to launch interplanetary probes or GEO satelites.

 

[j05h]

<i>> I think the US should consider killing the Delta IV and Atlas V beyond 2015</i><br /><br />Atlas and Delta are built and flown by two private companies, NASA doesn't have any authority to terminate them. Can the Army tell Ford to stop building F150s? Both rocket lines were developed with the Air Force, and one is a very successful commercial launcher. And ARES won't do GEO birds, and it uses toxic fuel, and it will have flight-frequency problems, vibration problems, etc. ARES is a terrible choice for communication satellites. <br /><br />Basically it isn't going to happen, especially not against Atlas. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[docm]

Not to mention that cutting Atlas now would throw Bigelow into apoplexy <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />(see new post) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

Air Force is NOT going down that road again! <br /><br />When the Shuttle first flown, Air Force agreed to put all its payloads on the Shuttle hence killed off Atlas and Delta. Then the Challenger blew up and the Air Force was left without a launcher. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Too large to approve. Please resize it to no more than 600*600, and repost it please. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[dwightlooi]

<i>Aries 1 is incapable of missions beyond LEO, which is by far where most of the Atlas V and Delta IV missions go. It would leave us with no ability to launch interplanetary probes or GEO satelites.</i><br /><b><br />I don't think that is true. There is no reason it cannot perform GEO or escape velocity missions. It won't do it with 25 tons of payload of course. But I am pretty sure a GTO capacity of 9~12 tons is realistic. The Atlas V won't lug its LEO capacity of 12.5 tons to GTO either (more like ~6 tons).</b><br /><i><br />Atlas and Delta are built and flown by two private companies, NASA doesn't have any authority to terminate them. Can the Army tell Ford to stop building F150s? Both rocket lines were developed with the Air Force, and one is a very successful commercial launcher. And ARES won't do GEO birds, and it uses toxic fuel, and it will have flight-frequency problems, vibration problems, etc. ARES is a terrible choice for communication satellites. <br /><br />Basically it isn't going to happen, especially not against Atlas.</i><br /><b><br />No, they can't stop them from building and flying these rockets, but they don't have to give them their business either. Right now, the Delta IV is completely off the commercial launch market. The Atlas five is not economically viable for Lockmart with just commercial launches either.<br /><br />Vibrations on the ARES I is not going to be any worse than on the Shuttle. And we know that commercial satelites can indeed ride solids very well -- the Athenas for instance or the Ariane V with its double strap-on boosters.<br /><br />I honestly think that the USA space launch landscape should be based on ONE government backed vehicle. Because NASA won't put the CEV on an Atlas or a Delta IV heavy for because of its shuttle workforce sheltering policies. Then the only practical avenue is the elimination of the Atlas and the Delta. Get Boeing and Lockmart onto the ARES vehicle and let the ARES take over from the Atlas V and Delta IV, t</b>

 

[subzero788]

The United States can't risk putting all its eggs in one basket and being left with no way of putting its satellites into orbit. I admit it's very costly to maintain both launchers but as no rocket is 100% reliable it has to be that way. And you can't rely on SpaceX and the like as a backup, at least not until they have a proven record

 

[dwightlooi]

I think that is an over simplification of things. Even when you have only one system it doesn't mean you won't have access to space if there is a failure. Most of the time you launch in a month or two after a failure anyway as frequently its just a defective part and no redesign is needed. And if you are desperate enough you launch anyway know that the system isn't "perfect" you simply take your chances which usually are still over 90% with no fixes done. <br /><br />The NASA attitude with the shuttle is -- IMHO -- wrong in the spirit of space flight. The right attitude should be to simply accept the imperfection, take the risk and fly the shuttle anyway, potential lose foam problem or not. If the astronaut is not willing to fly he can opt out of the mission or resign! I am sure there are plenty of candidates lining up for the job. With NO modifications and no grounding after the challenger and/or Columbia accidents the success rate of the Shuttle will still be well over 95%. The right attitude would have been to fly with the knowledge that one flight in about fifty may fail and people may die. And just do it. If you take a step back and look at it, the lose foam didn't cause a loss of vehicle for over 100 flights and chances are it won't for the next 50. So, lets fly the 20 or so missions and finish the ISS. If you are not a risk taker, don't be an astronaut. If you are not willing to take the same risks as a mercury astronaut do be one.<br /><br />I think the policy should be that missions should continue despite a disaster if it is the assessment that the next mission with no modification of the system as a greater than 90% chance of success. You fly anyway and you address the problem as you go along if you can.

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">I don't think that is true. There is no reason it cannot perform GEO or escape velocity missions. It won't do it with 25 tons of payload of course. But I am pretty sure a GTO capacity of 9~12 tons is realistic. The Atlas V won't lug its LEO capacity of 12.5 tons to GTO either (more like ~6 tons). </font><br /><br />Sorry to nitpick, but more like 5.0 tonnes, 5.2 tonnes, 5.9 tonnes, 6.2 tonnes, 7.2 tonnes, 8.0 tonnes, 8.7 tonnes or 13.6 tonnes. Depending on the number of strapon boosters and payload fairing size. A growth option, the three CBC Atlas with a 5.4m diameter centaur will be capable of boosting 20 tonnes to GTO.<br /><br />The Ares 1 on the other hand has over $3B in yearly fixed costs and a marginal cost of $250m per launch. It boosts exactly zero tonnes to GTO without a centaur upper stage.

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

Here ya mate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">The right attitude would have been to fly with the knowledge that one flight in about fifty may fail and people may die. And just do it.</font><br /><br />If your job carried a one in 50 chance of dying just as a byproduct of showing up for work over a five-year period, would you do it? Not even serving in the military during wartime carries odds like that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

I have to agree with that one.<br />That's the same thing as saying "You go to war with the army you have."<br />That didn't fly with the Army, and it shure as hell wouldn't fly with NASA.<br />There is no excuse for doing everything that is possible to ensure crew safety.<br /><br />Let me put it to you this way Dwightlooi, I spent a year in Iraq for $25,000 and I wouldn't want to go into space with odds like that for all of the money in the world. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[pathfinder_01]

"simplification of things. Even when you have only one system it doesn't mean you won't have access to space if there is a failure. Most of the time you launch in a month or two after a failure anyway as frequently its just a defective part and no redesign is needed. And if you are desperate enough you launch anyway know that the system isn't "perfect" you simply take your chances which usually are still over 90% with no fixes done.”<br /><br /> Ah even unmanned systems are taken down after failure. I would doubt that the chances would be over 90% without some investigation as to the cause of the failure. For instance the shuttle’s SRB were not useable in cold. Any launch in cold weather probably carried a lot less than a 90% success rate. <br /><br />In addition that defective part could be from a batch of defective parts and at the least indicates that whatever testing you are doing to detect defective parts is not working. <br /><br />I think for the US to have only one booster for any sort of spaceflight is putting too many eggs in one basket.<br />

 

[edkyle98]

"I think the US should consider killing the Delta IV and Atlas V beyond 2015 and simply consolidate to one medium lift based on the ARES architecture." <br /><br />I think that a good argument can be made for the Air Force to consolidate from two EELVs to one, but I don't see how Ares I could ever replace EELV. For starters Ares I - being specially designed to launch only one payload with people in it - is going to make EELVs look cheap! Beyond that, Ares I would be a horrible GTO launcher. Assuming that NASA opted to spend a few bucks to develop a restartable J-2X, Ares I would barely be able to push 4.9 tonnes to GTO - something that a vanilla Atlas 401 that weighs three times less at liftoff (and that probably costs more than three times less) can already do. A new, yet to be developed Ares I third stage would be needed to turn Ares I into a useful GTO machine - but that would make it even *more* expensive than it already is. No commercial customers would ever be able to afford to use it. The Pentagon, already annoyed at EELV costs, won't be interested either.<br /><br />The best use for Ares I might occur when NASA inevitably is unable to win funding for Ares V. Then it might be forced to do lunar missions with multiple Ares I launches. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>A new, yet to be developed Ares I third stage would be needed to turn Ares I into a useful GTO machine <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You make it sound like other parts of Ares have already been through development ...

 

[gunsandrockets]

"I think the US should consider killing the Delta IV and Atlas V beyond 2015 and simply consolidate to one medium lift based on the ARES architecture."<br /><br />There are several problems with your suggestion.<br /><br />1) Availability<br /><br />Obviously the Ares I is not even available yet. When it is does finally fly operationally sometime after 2010 it will have only one launch pad available for it. And NASA already has a flight schedule for manned Ares I missions that leaves little room for anything else.<br /><br />2) Cost<br /><br />The Ares I was designed for one mission, launching a manned spacecraft with a mass of 23 tonnes safely into LEO. Because of that singular mission the Ares I is a huge and expensive rocket with excessive capability for most launch missions.<br /><br />True, Ares I is a good size for launching huge spy satellites of the sort launched by a Delta IV Heavy, but the future development trend of military satellites is smaller so as to disperse our space assets from enemy attack and permit cheaper and more rapid replacement of satellites lost to enemy action.<br /><br />Even NASA doesn't plan on using the Ares I for unmanned space exploration missions, for the reasons noted above. NASA will use the Atlas V for future robot space probes, because the Atlas V is the right size for the job, the Atlas V is cheaper and the Atlas V is available now.<br />

 

[ambrous]

"Not even serving in the military during wartime carries odds like that."<br /><br />During WWII, roughly 1 in 40 US military was killed.

 

[dwightlooi]

I think the assessment that the ARES I is a bad GTO vehicle or one with no GTO capability as it stands is inaccurate.<br /><br />The ARES I's GTO capability should be comparable to and probably exceeds that of the Ariane 5 ECA. Both are very similar in the sense that both are straddled with heavy LH2/LOX core stages. 170 tons in the case of the Ariane and an estimated 160 tons in the case of the ARES. The Ariane fires its LH2/LOX engine starting from the launch pad which gives better average specific impulse to the whole system. The ARES I fires it at about 40~45km altitude sacrificing specific impulse during the initial ascent for superior engine performance from its vacuum optimized upper stage nozzle and the safety inherent of linear staging. But in the end both are very efficient LEO vehicles with rather inefficient GTO transfers if they have to do it via payload reduction alone because both carry a very heavy 160~170 ton class hydrogen main stage with an empty mass of around 13 tons.<br /><br />However, most GEO payloads will likely not be deployed by simply lightening payload to the point where the main hydrogen stage is capable of getting to GTO. What is more likely to happen is that the main hydrogen stage will carry its maximum LEO payload (possibly a little more than its maximum LEO payload) in the form of the GEO payload and a payload assist package. The Arianne 5 uses a hydrazine-tetroxide type payload bus for GTO missions. Even this relatively low specific impulse GTO-GEO deployment stage is good enough to deliver roughly half of the Ariane 5's LEO orbit to GTO. The shuttle has used a similar arrangement in the past in form of solid GTO or escape boosters to lob payloads to higher orbits.<br /><br />based on my rough calculations, the GTO capacity for the ARES I using a 25 ton assist stage with one RL10 engine should be in the neighborhood of 15 tons or roughly 60% of its LEO capacity about 36% better than the Delta IV Heavy. In this configuration the ARES I

 

[gunsandrockets]

"I think the assessment that the ARES I is a bad GTO vehicle or one with no GTO capability as it stands is inaccurate."<br /><br />In terms of potential payload performance you are correct. <br /><br /><br /><br />"In this configuration the ARES I will carry a 40 ton payload+upper stage instead of a 25 ton LEO payload. It'll use a total of one SRB, one J-2X and one RL10. Theoretically, from a rocket hardward standpoint, it is still a cheaper proposition than using three RS-68 powered CBCs and one RL-10."<br /><br />Here is where you are wrong.<br /><br />The Ares I was designed for safety, not low cost, as it's primary goal. But the Delta IV was designed for low cost as it's primary goal. The Ares I can not compete with the Atlas V or the Delta IV in terms of cost for any unmanned payload. That's why NASA is going to use the Atlas V instead of the Ares I for unmanned deep space probes and satellites.

 

[edkyle98]

"The Ares I was designed for safety, not cost, as it's primary goal."<br /><br />Precisely. Not to mention that the cost would increase even more if a new third stage had to be developed. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">In this configuration the ARES I will carry a 40 ton payload+upper stage instead of a 25 ton LEO payload. It'll use a total of one SRB, one J-2X and one RL10. Theoretically, from a rocket hardward standpoint, it is still a cheaper proposition than using three RS-68 powered CBCs and one RL-10.</font><br /><br />Theoretically, from an economics perspective, this means keeping an extra two engine production lines open. For the SRBs, the refurbishment and assembly infrastructure alone costs $400m per annum before you build the first unit. Then you have maintaining the VAB, crawlers, pads, and a J-2X and Ares-I production line that only pushes out six units a year.<br /><br />Exactly how many Atlas and Delta CBCs do you get for that sort of money?

 

[dwightlooi]

<i>Theoretically, from an economics perspective, this means keeping an extra two engine production lines open. For the SRBs, the refurbishment and assembly infrastructure alone costs $400m per annum before you build the first unit. Then you have maintaining the VAB, crawlers, pads, and a J-2X and Ares-I production line that only pushes out six units a year.<br /><br />Exactly how many Atlas and Delta CBCs do you get for that sort of money?</i><br /><br />I don't know what the overheads for the EELVs are. But they are about $180~240 million a flight at the current (relatively low) flight rates. I don't think that the J-2X is more expensive to make than say the RD-180. I am not sure you'll get more engines for the money if you go with the latter. The SRB is also the simplest and cheapest booster type that can be made. There is no turbomachinery, no pressure tanks, no insulations, none of that. Basically, its a tube with solid propellant poured into it. The only "complicated" part being the thrust vectoring nozzle. And this is still no more complicated than the typical gimbal for liquid engines.<br /><br />In short, given the same flight rate and the same production volume, solids are ALWAYS cheaper. They are also storable fully fueled and practically indefinitely.<br /><br />The J-2X is actually a less complicated tap-off cycle engine than the Staged Combustion RD-180 which is about as complicated and as highly stressed as the SSME (RS-24).<br /><br />I am pretty sure that by employing the same quality standards and at production volume, an ARES based LV system is cheaper than either the Delta IV or the Atlas V. The reason being that it uses a relatively simple upper stage engine and a solid booster instead of two liquid engines and stages.

 

[JonClarke]

Not even serving in the military during wartime carries odds like that. <br /><br />If you summit Everest you have a 1 in 12 chance of dying. If you wintered over in the Antarctic in the heroic age you had a one in 20 chance of dying. Both were far more dangerous than human space flight which has these days about a 1 in 100 fatality rate. Incidently in the first 50 years of ANARE the fatality rate for wintering over was 1 in 250, and that is in Antarctica post WWII.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> The SRB is also the simplest and cheapest booster type that can be made... In short, given the same flight rate and the same production volume, solids are ALWAYS cheaper. </i><br /><br />Hardly. Solid rockets maybe (but doubtful), but the Shuttle SRB is in no way the simplest/cheapest booster available. ATK's technology (SRB/SSRM/ARES) is not cheap to build or fly - just look at the development numbers for ARES or the projected operational costs. You'd need to provide actual numbers of flown solids-vs-liquids to back those statements up. Modern, available rockets already beat the project ARES in costs.<br /><br />With the numbers you quoted for EELV, you can get a flight for roughly half what ARES I is projected at, and you can get that flight now without waiting a decade. <br /><br /><i>> I am pretty sure that by employing the same quality standards and at production volume, an ARES based LV system is cheaper than either the Delta IV or the Atlas V. The reason being that it uses a relatively simple upper stage engine and a solid booster instead of two liquid engines and stages.</i><br /><br />It uses a simple upper stage that doesn't exist, and is only cheaper than the EELVs in your imagination. ARES is vastly more expensive out of the gate, because it's designed to keep people employed, not to make money as a commercial (or .mil) rocket. Right now ARES I looks like $900M/yr for two flights, excluding the capsule on top. That is simply NOT cheaper than EELV.<br /><br />Why is NASA afraid of mulitple combustion chambers? Some of the safest rockets have a plethora of thrusters. And Dwight, why do you want to kill the best of America's commercial space operations?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>