Assuming the RD-180 ban stays in place ULA will continue on with the Delta unless one of two things happens. The government decides it doesn't need assured access to space via redundant rocket systems. Someone develops and certifies a rocket system which can meet all the EELV requirements. I'm not holding my breath for either. So in the early 2020s we would have a situation where SpaceX was offering a product at a much lower price, the Delta wouldn't really even be in competition. ULA would have to be kept in business though a government subsidy.
Well Lockheed Martin couldn't bid the Atlas-V and RD-180 on any national security payloads. For the Delta-IV Boeing would probably ask for subsidies from the US govt to keep the production line open. Would the DOD give into Boeing's demands?
Quote from: brovane on 05/29/2015 11:28 amWell Lockheed Martin couldn't bid the Atlas-V and RD-180 on any national security payloads. For the Delta-IV Boeing would probably ask for subsidies from the US govt to keep the production line open. Would the DOD give into Boeing's demands? There is no LM and Atlas or Boeing and Delta, it is ULA and Atlas and Delta. The product lines can no longer be separated.
Quote from: notsorandom on 05/29/2015 01:29 pmAssuming the RD-180 ban stays in place ULA will continue on with the Delta unless one of two things happens. The government decides it doesn't need assured access to space via redundant rocket systems. Someone develops and certifies a rocket system which can meet all the EELV requirements. I'm not holding my breath for either. So in the early 2020s we would have a situation where SpaceX was offering a product at a much lower price, the Delta wouldn't really even be in competition. ULA would have to be kept in business though a government subsidy. What about Blue's launcher? Do we have a reasonable timeframe for when we can expect it?
Which means that if ULA goes under then the product lines don't revert back to their parent companies?
Quote from: brovane on 05/29/2015 01:50 pmWhich means that if ULA goes under then the product lines don't revert back to their parent companies? It doesn't go "under". ULA only exists to produce and operate Atlas V and Delta IV and their derivatives. It is no different than USA, which only existed to operate the Shuttle.
If ULA is not turning a profit on it's launch contracts and runs out of cash then how would they stay in business? Companies go bankrupt all the time because they failed to respond adequately to changes in the market place. Or would the US Govt insure that ULA can stay in business through subsidies, loan guarantees etc.?
Vulcan...in 134 secondsPublished on Jun 1, 2015UnitedLaunchAllianceInnovative next generation launch system will provide country's most reliable, affordable, and accessible launch service.[youtube]SqCTK7BmLHA[/youtube]
"Multiple Planets Populated"? Past tense, even....
Love that bit about starting at less than $100M per launch at the end of the video. I take that to mean expendable vanilla 501 configuration with the re-work RL-10C Centaur upper stage. Wonder by how many millions less than $100M in that configuration.
The ACES and its in orbit refuelling maybe future of ULA. Two Vulcans (6x SRB) can deliver approx 35t to TLI. One Vulcan launches payload the other is tanker(40t).A fully fuelled(60t) ACES in LEO could deliver >50t to TLI, >35t to LLO and approx 40t TMI.Compare this to SLS 1B which can do 39t to TLI (3100ms) and 32t TMI.