WASHINGTON--NASA intends to conduct its final Delta 2 launch around the end of the decade and
then shift more of its launch traffic in that payload class to the Atlas 5 or
Delta 4 launch vehicles, the U.S. space agency's chief rocket buyer said in an
Aug. 8 interview.
Bill
Wrobel, NASA assistant associate administrator for launch services, said the
decision to phase out use of the Delta
2 came down to money. Delta 2 launch prices, already on the rise, are
expected to jump sharply once the U.S. Air Force abandons use of the reliable
workhorse as soon as next year so it can make greater use of the Atlas 5 and
Delta 4, which the service helped develop under the Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle (EELV) program.
"The Air
Force is basically going full steam ahead with EELVs," Wrobel said. "And since
they are a user of [the EELV rockets] we thought maybe we should become more of
a user of it too."
That policy
position is consistent with an agreement NASA signed with the Air Force in 2005
when the space agency agreed to make greater use of the EELV rockets. In
exchange, the Air Force endorsed NASA's decision to build new shuttle-derived
launchers rather than upgrade EELV for human missions to the Moon
and beyond.
Wrobel said
the U.S. Defense Department was informed last month of NASA's decision to start
directing the space agency's medium-lift launch traffic toward
EELV. Wrobel would not discuss current or projected prices for Delta 2
launches. However, he did say that an internal study NASA completed in July
concluded that EELV would represent the more cost-effective solution for
the agency's medium-lift launch needs after 2010 - even if the substantially
more capable rockets are launched with a single undersized satellite on board.
"It turns
out in the future, if you were to wrap everything up - and I'm talking about
launch site infrastructure, restarting the line, the basic cost of the
vehicles, etc. ... it really isn't more expensive" to use EELVs, he said.
"That's part of what we were facing and what this really gets down to. As with
anybody else, it's all about money ... That's where we all came to the decision
that it made more sense for us to go down the EELV road in the future."
Delta 2
prices, which sources said already have pushed past the $65 million per launch
mark, are projected to rise even higher once the Air Force conducts its last
Delta 2 mission - a GPS 2RM satellite launch slated for September 2008 - and
leaves NASA to shoulder the cost of operating the rocket's California and
Florida launch pads and keeping United Launch Alliance's Delta 2
assembly line in Decatur, Ala., up and running.
NASA took
the Air Force's impending departure from the program into account last year
when it told bidders for the next Mars Scout mission to count on spending $120
million for a Delta 2 launching in 2011. Bidders for the next Discovery-class
planetary science mission, meanwhile, were told to bank on paying around $130
million for a Delta 2 launching in 2013, according to sources and
documents. Those two missions now are included among the 12 to 15 medium-sized
payloads NASA anticipates launching between 2011 and 2020 on an Atlas 5 or
Delta 4. In addition, NASA anticipates launching about 10 other spacecraft
during that same timeframe "which were already kind of in that EELV-class to
begin with," Wrobel said.
Prior to
NASA's decision to direct more launch traffic toward the EELV,
United Launch Alliance was projecting an EELV launch rate of five to 10
launches a year between 2010 and 2020. The addition of NASA's Delta 2-class payloads could mean
an additional 1.5 launches per year for EELV. Mike Rein, a spokesman for
Denver-based United Launch Alliance (ULA), confirmed NASA's decision to stop
using Delta 2 once the agency's current launch services contract runs out. Rein
said the company would continue to market Delta 2 launches to U.S.
government customers and support Boeing Launch Services' commercial Delta 2
sales at least through 2012. "ULA understands the combination of a reduction
in the demand for launches from the NASA science community and the conclusion
of the [U.S. Air Force] contract for GPS Delta 2 launches has made it difficult
for NASA to justify the business case for continuing Delta 2 support beyond
currently contracted missions," Rein said in a written statement. "ULA is
required by our current NASA Launch Services contract with NASA to offer Delta
2 launches through launch year 2012." NASA has used the Delta 2 twice so
far this year and plans to use it a third time when it launches the
asteroid-bound Dawn spacecraft in September.
Including
the upcoming Dawn
mission, NASA has nine remaining Delta 2 launches on its manifest with the
last being a November 2009 launch out from California - of the Wide-field
Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE, spacecraft.
Additionally,
NASA is on the hook for a tenth Delta 2 that has not been assigned a payload. If
NASA were to walk away from the rocket, which is already in production, the
agency would have to pay United Launch Alliance a substantial termination fee.
Exactly how much, Wrobel would not say. "Let me put it this way, we are going
to work pretty hard to try to find a home for it," he said.
One
candidate for the surplus Delta 2, according to Wrobel, is the Landsat Data
Continuity Mission, a land-imaging satellite NASA is procuring on behalf of the
U.S. Geological Survey for a 2011 launch. But a Landsat source said the program
would rather launch on an EELV than go on what could be the last flight of
Delta 2.
Wrobel said
NASA has set an internal deadline of December for finding a payload for the surplus
rocket.
Keeping the
Delta 2 line open much beyond 2010 would be more complicated than giving United
Launch Alliance a contract for a new batch of rockets beyond the 10 currently
on order, Wrobel said. NASA also would have to cover significant one-time costs
to restart production of certain Delta 2 components that remain in inventory
but no longer are being built, including strap-on motors and the RS-27 main
stage engine, Wrobel added.
"Restarting
a line is nontrivial. You have things that have been out of production for a
while," Wrobel said. "It's a matter of restarting everything ... [and] we just
don't have the money."
While using
EELV for medium-class payloads is not expected to be more expensive for NASA
than being the sole government customer for Delta 2, that still means the space
agency is facing higher launch bills than it has today for launching Delta
2-class payloads.
Alan Stern,
NASA's associate administrator for science, said his launch costs would go up
in either scenario.
While co-manifesting
- putting two spacecraft on a single rocket - could help defray those costs,
Stern said it is not a perfect solution. "Co-manifesting has both pluses and
minuses," Stern said. "In some circumstances it works. In others it is
detrimental. There will be some places where it will help us and many places
where it's not to our benefit to do. Our challenge is to determine in each
mission cases what makes the most sense."
Wrobel said
co-manifesting would be encouraged where appropriate but not required. Recognizing
NASA's best shot at keeping launch costs down could be a new rocket, several
U.S. companies are looking to field Delta 2 alternatives priced more in line
with what the agency traditionally has paid to put up medium-sized payloads.
El Segundo,
Calif.-based Space Exploration Technologies' Falcon 9 rocket, which is slated
to debut next year, could carry Delta 2-class payloads. And Orbital Sciences
Corp. of Dulles, Va., has begun early development of a Delta 2-class launcher
its calling Taurus 2.
"We will
continue to talk to NASA about some ideas we have for a Delta 2-class launch
vehicle that is conceived to be significantly less in terms of cost than the
current Delta 2 design," Orbital Sciences spokesman Barron Beneski said Aug. 9.
Wrobel said
NASA has not ruled out directing some or even all of its future medium-class
missions to new providers. "We wouldn't preclude using them in the future if
they become available," he said. NASA issued a request for information Aug. 7
intended to capture feedback from these companies and what they have to offer.
He said the request for information is also an opportunity for companies to
make suggestions for how the agency could improve its processes for qualifying
new launch service providers.
Comments: bberger@space.com
