Originally Posted by frognbuff

What does that "branding" stuff have to do with anything? You like Boeing over ULA? Fantastic. It means nothing. ULA owns the rocket, Boeing does not.

I'm sorry, but NO, your friend does not know the cost of an AJ-27 engine today. Only an employee of Aerojet Rocketdyne would know for sure - and getting a cost proposal would require definition of things such as the lot size being purchased. Bulk purchasing isn't just for Costco and Sam's Club! Your friend may have had a snapshot in time, but there's a reason that type of information has an "as of" date. The older his information is, the less reliable it is, and not just due to inflation.

As for "putting ideas forward," do you REALLY think you or your friend are the only ones who have considered these ideas? NOBODY else has ever tried to simplify a design? By even implying that, you spit in the eyes of people who build rockets for a living. Improvements - including in 3D printing to reduce part count and complexity - ARE being made, but they're being made on engines that are still in demand. Look for Aerojet Rocketdyne press releases on the subject.

As I tried to explain, the main driver behind the demise of Delta II is the Air Force EELV contract. The System Performance Requirements Document (SPRD) contains "reference missions" which EELV entrants are supposed to be able to perform. The Delta II doesn't do any of these missions. The best NASA could do for Delta II is issue an IDIQ contract (indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity). Sadly, for those who have to make business decisions (even decisions for companies with yucky names), this is a terrible contract type, as you have to guess how many rockets are needed. Guess too low (and build too few) and your cost per rocket goes way up - which can in turn limit the number purchased.. Guess to high and buy too many parts and you can get left holding the proverbial bag.

At least we can agree we hope to see Delta II go out on top, which a successful launch of ICESAT.