Quote from: sdsds on 01/29/2012 03:50 amQuote from: RocketmanUS on 01/29/2012 03:19 amNot bad price , ~$2B a year for about 6 years.New common US , fuel depot , and lunar cargo and crew lander ( crew ascender reusable )( descent stage usable on lunar surface ).I suppose it's just too bad it would likely be a violation of federal acquisition regulations for NASA to procure it in the way you seem to suggest, i.e. from a sole-source contractor?The contracts for each part can be bid in different years. By reusing components the winner of the lander development contract is in a position to submit the lowest bid for the other items.
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 01/29/2012 03:19 amNot bad price , ~$2B a year for about 6 years.New common US , fuel depot , and lunar cargo and crew lander ( crew ascender reusable )( descent stage usable on lunar surface ).I suppose it's just too bad it would likely be a violation of federal acquisition regulations for NASA to procure it in the way you seem to suggest, i.e. from a sole-source contractor?
Not bad price , ~$2B a year for about 6 years.New common US , fuel depot , and lunar cargo and crew lander ( crew ascender reusable )( descent stage usable on lunar surface ).
The beauty of the ACES system is the commonality: ACES 3rd stage-->passive, low boiloff depot-->DTAL lander. This commonality will allow a single assembly line to achieve a semblance of an economy of scale through relatively mass production.
Arguably, it's not sole-source contracting
There are so many loopholes in FAR as applies to NASA that they could easily justify giving ULA a sole-source contract, if ACES is what they want.Or just do what they're doing with ICPS: put out a request for proposals that ACES will meet. If they happen to get a better and credible proposal, they can go with that, otherwise ULA gets the gig,
ULA can not make a DTAL lander or a depot. They can only build the ACES for their EELV's.
Quote from: Jim on 01/31/2012 09:59 amULA can not make a DTAL lander or a depot. They can only build the ACES for their EELV's. Don't tell us, tell the senior engineers at ULA to stop writing white papers on the subject...
As far as who builds the DTAL or an ascender for it for the crew version can be another contractor. Take the basic ACES and add to it. They do it to cars, motor homes, planes, ect. Custumizing.
Quote from: Warren Platts on 01/31/2012 11:21 amQuote from: Jim on 01/31/2012 09:59 amULA can not make a DTAL lander or a depot. They can only build the ACES for their EELV's. Don't tell us, tell the senior engineers at ULA to stop writing white papers on the subject...They can write all the papers they want, nothing is preventing them from doing it. Just Boeing and LM are not going to let ULA build the results.
What is the evidence for this? Why wouldn't they "let" ULA build a lander? ULA is doing some hard research into depots that is costing real $$$--not just guys writing some white papers in their off hours. A depot isn't a LV, yet they are the acknowledged leaders when it comes to depot technology. Perhaps Zegler, Kutter and Barr know something you don't? Not saying you're wrong, Jim. But if you're not wrong, then this is clearly an unacceptable result: in which case Congress should pass a special antitrust law that splits away ULA from Boeing and LM!
New PDF by ULA dated April 14, 2012A step towards ACES http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/Space_Access_Society_2012.pdf