Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/03/2015 05:17 pmThe A2100M bus uses hydrazine AKM not solids.There is no AKM. It is direct inject.
The A2100M bus uses hydrazine AKM not solids.
Quote from: sdsds on 10/03/2015 06:23 amDelta could perform the mission, yet Bruno says ULA cannot bid. It would further Bruno's agenda if reality were as he describes it. But what if his description of reality ... appears delusional? What if he seems to be confusing what is true, with what he wishes were true?We want to know, "Is there some way his apparently untrue statements can be rationally justified?"How can they justify not bidding a Delta for the GPS III launch if a lot of GPS IIF were launched using Delta ?Govt is paying them US$ 1 billion so they can refuse to bid on a launch they can serve ?How can this be even remotely acceptable.Cut the billion subsidy...
Delta could perform the mission, yet Bruno says ULA cannot bid. It would further Bruno's agenda if reality were as he describes it. But what if his description of reality ... appears delusional? What if he seems to be confusing what is true, with what he wishes were true?We want to know, "Is there some way his apparently untrue statements can be rationally justified?"
Quote from: macpacheco on 10/04/2015 01:46 amQuote from: sdsds on 10/03/2015 06:23 amDelta could perform the mission, yet Bruno says ULA cannot bid. It would further Bruno's agenda if reality were as he describes it. But what if his description of reality ... appears delusional? What if he seems to be confusing what is true, with what he wishes were true?We want to know, "Is there some way his apparently untrue statements can be rationally justified?"How can they justify not bidding a Delta for the GPS III launch if a lot of GPS IIF were launched using Delta ?Govt is paying them US$ 1 billion so they can refuse to bid on a launch they can serve ?How can this be even remotely acceptable.Cut the billion subsidy...The government doesn't want to use Delta. It's too expensive. The ELC contract IS going away.
As far as the F9FT certification what is bid is the regular F9v1.1 and later when the F9FT is certified a contract mod is used to change the vehicle specification on the contract without a price change. This is done on ULA contracts and other ones as well. It just needs to have a current certified vehicle to be able to meet the mission needs in order to bid.
Yes, the ELC contract is going away in the future. Right now, this year, $1 billion of taxpayer dollars are going to it. So stop bidding the Delta after ELC goes away, don't stop bidding it while taking ELC and claim ULA "can't" bid.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 10/04/2015 04:56 amYes, the ELC contract is going away in the future. Right now, this year, $1 billion of taxpayer dollars are going to it. So stop bidding the Delta after ELC goes away, don't stop bidding it while taking ELC and claim ULA "can't" bid.What's the point in bidding if there's zero chance of winning? Even the government doesn't want to be "forced" to choose a couple Delta IVs if their only option is F9 and Delta. The ELC contract is mainly in place to keep Delta alive to support mission where no other options are available, even Atlas. It's to maintain the 2 Delta pads and keep essential people employed because you can't keep laying people off and re-hiring them when 1 launch comes up every year. It's also so the government can swap payloads between Atlas and Delta, as they essentially (NRO, DoD, NASA, and ULA too) control the ULA manifest. They only use Delta where there is no other option, like WR heavy, ER heavy, and when no slot is open on the Atlas manifest. You probably noticed they had all the remaining GPS's on Atlas lately.The 800 million ELC is also split between Delta and Atlas and what isn't spent goes back to the government every year. The cost of bidding has nothing to do with ELC. In fact, ELC money is not even used for the bidding. ULA is not free to do whatever it wants with ELC money. It's spelled out exactly what it's to be used for.Edit, added:Everything covered under ELC is for missions under the block buy, or before. Just to be clear, are you saying in a competitive environment, where companies bid for contracts, the government should be able to dictate what launch vehicle should be bid by each company?
If ULA says they cannot bid they should not bid.AF will see that ELC might no get them what they - really - wanted, look at the fine print and, stop wasting that money ASAP.Where's the problem?
When was the last no bid contract for launch services?Asking if ULA can't bid & SpaceX can't bid cause 1.2 isn't certified.Sounds like we need to stock up on the popcorn.
Quote from: Prober on 10/03/2015 09:39 pmWhen was the last no bid contract for launch services?Asking if ULA can't bid & SpaceX can't bid cause 1.2 isn't certified.Sounds like we need to stock up on the popcorn. Is there an actual news source or public industry source that states the 1.2 is not certified?At no point anywhere in any official releases does it state it is not certified, on the contrary, USAF themselves have mentioned that SpaceX remain certified even after the CRS-7 failure.
When the USG stops paying ULA to keep Delta around, ULA will get rid of Delta. The only exceptions are for a handful of missions where no other options are available, and those specific customers will have to foot the bill. It won't be paid for under ELC.For the 100th time, Delta is too expensive. It's too expensive! (101). There is absolutely zero point in bidding it against a SpaceX rocket. A $200-$250 million rocket will not be launching a $300 SV. The tradeoff of price/reliability is still not worth it. I can't say it any other way. This whole discussion has nothing to do with ELC and what ELC pays for.The RD-180 ban just threw a wrench in ULA's plans. In the end, it might actually work out good for them because it's forcing Vulcan.Again, ULA doesn't choose which LV family launches which payload: GOES, WGS, GPS-IIF, AFSPC, NRO.When switching to a competitive bid, ULA will decide which LV to use/bid. They won't bid the one they think will lose.
Quote from: Newton_V on 10/04/2015 02:31 pmWhen the USG stops paying ULA to keep Delta around, ULA will get rid of Delta. The only exceptions are for a handful of missions where no other options are available, and those specific customers will have to foot the bill. It won't be paid for under ELC.For the 100th time, Delta is too expensive. It's too expensive! (101). There is absolutely zero point in bidding it against a SpaceX rocket. A $200-$250 million rocket will not be launching a $300 SV. The tradeoff of price/reliability is still not worth it. I can't say it any other way. This whole discussion has nothing to do with ELC and what ELC pays for.The RD-180 ban just threw a wrench in ULA's plans. In the end, it might actually work out good for them because it's forcing Vulcan.Again, ULA doesn't choose which LV family launches which payload: GOES, WGS, GPS-IIF, AFSPC, NRO.When switching to a competitive bid, ULA will decide which LV to use/bid. They won't bid the one they think will lose.Ok. So, if they don't want to bid with Delta, why didn't they keep the exempt from the ban RD-180s to bid with Atlas, and buy more engines for NASA/commercial payloads?
The [Delta IV] tradeoff of price/reliability is still not worth it. I can't say it any other way.
I believe LM is on contract for at least 4 GPS III(A) sats. The next ones after that will be built by Orbital ATK. The specifications from LM for the GPS III sats show launch weight 3860kg.http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/navstar-3.htmThe first 2 of the 4 is scheduled on DIVM(4,2)'s which don't have the capability to circularize without a kick motor.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/03/2015 05:17 pmI believe LM is on contract for at least 4 GPS III(A) sats. The next ones after that will be built by Orbital ATK. The specifications from LM for the GPS III sats show launch weight 3860kg.http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/navstar-3.htmThe first 2 of the 4 is scheduled on DIVM(4,2)'s which don't have the capability to circularize without a kick motor.What do you mean that DIVm can't circularize? It has been doing it with IIF and it was an EELV requirement. Or you mean that it the (4,2) lacks the performance to send the IIIA to direct injection?