Potential Delta II replacement |
Potential Delta II replacement |
Feb 21 2008, 06:30 AM
Post
#16
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 29-November 06 From: SESE/ASU Member No.: 1437 |
So is the issue that the Falcon 9 is just too big? I didn't see an estimated price for the Taurus. What does a Delta launch cost? Is there any issue besides cost and lift capacity? Well, we'll see how the Falcon 9 price changes between now and when it actually flies. Even still, it'll still probably end up cheaper than an EELV, though will less support than ULA would offer. In my mind, that makes it suitable for Discovery-class missions, though not necessarily ones with a larger budget. Delta II was $50 million when Pathfinder launched, but it has gone up a lot since then... Simon |
|
|
Feb 21 2008, 07:27 AM
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 118 Joined: 18-November 07 Member No.: 3964 |
Hey, it doesn't have to be a Falcon 9 Heavy. The basic version of Falcon 9 is more realistic alternative to Delta II
Launch Site: Kwajalein Cape Canaveral AFS Inclination: 9 degree 28.5 degree LEO Mass to Orbit (185 km circular): 10,400 kg 9,900 kg GTO Mass to Orbit (185 x 35,788 km): 5,070 kg 4,900 kg A Falcon 9 (5m fairing) mission to LEO is $35M. Falcon 9 missions to GTO are: Satellite Vehicle Mass (kg) Price < 3500 $35M 3500-4500 $45M 4500-5000 $55M (source: Space X's official web site) |
|
|
Feb 21 2008, 09:41 AM
Post
#18
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14432 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
Aside from 4 GPS, which is leaving the Delta II, NASA is the only customer. The two STSS missions are NASA procured. (I am working one of them). Unless there's a significant change of plans for these two customers, NASA is not the only Delta II customer between now and it's closure. GeoEye 1 (or Orbview 5) for GeoEye ( http://www.geoeye.com/products/imagery/geoeye1/default.htm ) COSMO 3 for ASI ( http://www.telespazio.it/cosmo.html ) Totally ignoring COTS, you consider the Taurus II a Delta II replacement, but not the Falcon 9. Indeed, you are quick to dismiss the Falcon 9 entirely both here and elsewhere. Why? What is it that you know that MDA, Avanti and Bigelow do not? Doug |
|
|
Feb 21 2008, 11:44 AM
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 321 Joined: 6-April 06 From: Cape Canaveral Member No.: 734 |
Unless there's a significant change of plans for these two customers, NASA is not the only Delta II customer between now and it's closure. GeoEye 1 (or Orbview 5) for GeoEye ( http://www.geoeye.com/products/imagery/geoeye1/default.htm ) COSMO 3 for ASI ( http://www.telespazio.it/cosmo.html ) Totally ignoring COTS, you consider the Taurus II a Delta II replacement, but not the Falcon 9. Indeed, you are quick to dismiss the Falcon 9 entirely both here and elsewhere. Why? What is it that you know that MDA, Avanti and Bigelow do not? Doug Those aren't firm contracts. Still are place holders. OSC has a proven track record and Spacex doesn't. OSC has an NLS contract. As for MDA, Avanti and Bigelow, no different than what Hughes Space did on Delta III and H-II. |
|
|
Guest_Sunspot_* |
Feb 21 2008, 11:50 AM
Post
#20
|
Guests |
ooohhh that SpaceDev's Dream Chaser is cute
|
|
|
Feb 21 2008, 04:44 PM
Post
#21
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1018 Joined: 29-November 05 From: Seattle, WA, USA Member No.: 590 |
OSC has a proven track record and Spacex doesn't. OSC has an NLS contract. But this is not the argument you originally presented! You said Falcon 9 couldn't replace the Delta II "because it's an EELV and priced to match." From the info that seems to be available to the public, though, it will cost less and lift more -- assuming SpaceX can really deliver, of course. It's okay to pour cold water on everyone's fanciful ideas -- in a place like this, someone has to -- but your feedback should be truthful. Especially when you're using NSF's name to back it up. --Greg |
|
|
Feb 21 2008, 05:41 PM
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 321 Joined: 6-April 06 From: Cape Canaveral Member No.: 734 |
|
|
|
Feb 22 2008, 01:56 AM
Post
#23
|
|
Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4404 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
In that case, your post doesn't address what was being discussed, the Falcon 9. Frankly, the only thing that can be gleaned from your posts of late is that you have an obsession with imperative sentences, as well as declarative sentences with an implied subject.
-------------------- |
|
|
Feb 22 2008, 02:30 AM
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 321 Joined: 6-April 06 From: Cape Canaveral Member No.: 734 |
In that case, your post doesn't address what was being discussed, the Falcon 9. Frankly, the only thing that can be gleaned from your posts of late is that you have an obsession with imperative sentences, as well as declarative sentences with an implied subject. You have problem with it? I am stating nothing but fact THIS DISCUSSION IS NOW CLOSED - ADMIN |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 6th May 2024 - 03:50 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |