Several NASA science missions risk increased costs and delays as Kennedy Space Center's Launch Services Program transitions to new medium class rockets, according to a government watchdog report released today. Read a summary of the Government Accountability Office report, or get the full report here.
NASA is phasing out use of United Launch Alliance's Delta II rocket, which sent 60 percent of its science research satellites into space over since 1998.
The agency has three more Delta II missions on the books through next October -- one launching from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and the other two from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Orbital Science Corp.'s Taurus II, both of which are being developed to deliver cargo to the International Space Station, are expected to eventually fill the medium-lift need.
But each is expected to take at least three years and cost roughly $25 million to certify, including resolving technical issues likely to be raised by the process.
Also, neither of the two new rockets have West Coast facilities needed to launch to polar orbits, as planned by 12 of the 14 medium class science missions through 2020 that are not yet assigned launch vehicles.
GAO identified several science missions approaching their preliminary design reviews -- after which a launch vehicle change is rare -- that face uncertainty if awarded to the Falcon 9. (Taurus II is not yet eligible for awards.)
Until the rockets are ready, ULA's bigger and costlier Atlas V rocket is an alternative.
NASA agreed with the report's recommendations that the agency should budget for the costs to certify the two new rockets, to remedy technical problems and to absorb mission delays.
Image: Liftoff of the Delta II rocket carrying the Kepler spacecraft on March 6, 2009, at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Credit: NASA/Kim Shiflett
14 comments:
Ok. Here we go doing things backwards again. Ending one program before another is in place to replace it. The Delta program has been the most successful space launch program on the Cape. So why is NASA going to stop using it for a more costly vehicle? Especially when there is none currently available to do the job!!
WoW!! 3 years to certify Falcon X? I wonder how long will it take to man rate it? Another brilliant decision by the Obama/Bolden disaster!!!
Yes, I agree especially having worked on the last 6 Delta II missions. She was a reliable workhorse for DoD, NASA, and the Air Force. Would make more sense to re-start production at ATK. Plus we still have both pads still available at the Cape,pad 17A&B. Fly the Delta II a few more years till Falcon 9 is certified, so we have a smooth transition.
NASA doesn't care. It's not their money. Nobody there loses a cent if the decisions they make are financially irresponsible. There's no accountability anyway. Just ask the gov for more. If we all ran our business the way they do .........
The most successful rocket ever, the Delta II being scraped because of politcal bull puckey! What doesn't NASA like the Delta II? because...oooohhh it launches from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station?, It's aquamarine color? It has U.S. Air Force printed on it? Urinate on NASA and kiss off the pretenders like Musk and keep Delta II's flying!!! You all had better act quickly because as soon as they launched the last Atlas IIAS the pads were totally dismantled and if it weren't for the block house still present you'd never have know there was a complex 36.
It doesn't make sense to give millions and millions to a South African with no Aerospace track record. Musk is taking that money and laughing at the U.S. Government liberal ideology. He's taken millions from the U.S. Government for both Space X and Tesla, his electric car company that can only be afforded by a wealthy person. We are insane.
Didn't the price of Delta II skyrocket (no pun intended) after the DOD finished the Navstar launches and quit using it? If NASA has to pay the full price of Delta II, it starts to look less attractive, high reliability or not. Still, ULA has parts for a few (five?) more Delta IIs if NASA needs them because SpaceX runs into Falcon 9 troubles. But after the perfect June maiden flight, Falcon 9 is much less of a question mark.
"NASA doesn't care. It's not their money. Nobody there loses a cent if the decisions they make are financially irresponsible. There's no accountability anyway. Just ask the gov for more."
Couldn't have said it better. No doubt-its the reason for our space program ending too. like they say-you cum and go
IIRC the decision is already taken to launch Falcon 9 from Vanderberg's former Titan 3/4 pad. Looking how long it took them to convert SLC-40, I would expect launches in 2013. Moreover, Taurus II can launch into polar orbits from Wallops (although perhaps not into retrograde orbits).
Two biggest mistakes with foreigners: granting citizenship to Rupert Murdoch and PAYING Elon Musk to (supposedly) take over U.S. spaceflight from ULA, USA and NASA.
Delta II forever: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
It's amazing how uninformed commenters are and how they assume the worst. Delta II is now almost as expensive as Atlas V with half the lift capacity. Which makes more sense? Falcon 9 is about half the price of an Atlas V. Is it worth seeing if it can successfully develop into a real lifter? I think so. Why does it make less sense to "give" money on a fixed-price contract where the company has to deliver even if it makes mistakes along the way than to "GIVE" money on a cost-plus contract where the taxpayers eat the cost of contractor (and civil servant) screw-ups?
There are real problems and real conspiracies in the space program and the government. Posters would do well to base their ideas on objective information and not conjecture.
ザイツェヴ said... "IIRC the decision is already taken to launch Falcon 9 from Vanderberg's former Titan 3/4 pad."
Exactly. It really looks like this report is more than a little outdated, since it seems to ignore the successful Falcon 9 maiden flight and SpaceX's big Iridium contract (for which SpaceX is already planning a Vandenberg launch site.) How long was this report sitting on someone's desk before it was released to the public? Eight months? A year?
"granting citizenship to Rupert Murdoch" ? Yeah, I hate the fact that Fox presents an opposing point of view to the same liberal claptrap we've been fed all our lives. Give me a break Poindexter !
ULA elected to end the Delta II program to force users to switch to the more profitable Delta IV and Atlas V. This was before it was clear that SpaceX might become a direct competitor and it appeared the main Delta II customer, the US government, would have no choice but to stay with ULA.
Space Coast Republicans blame this on Obama, even though the decisions were made by private industry during the Bush administration. It appears local Republicans also want to eliminate funding for SpaceX since they see it as allied with Obama.
The best course now is to get the Falcon and Taurus operational as quickly as possible. The Falcon in particular would bring new jobs to Brevard. But since that's what Obama wants, the Republicans are fighting it. Politics trumps progress, hardly a surprise.
Post a Comment