Quote from: Jim on 03/03/2012 02:11 pmNo, you concede that your comment about Ares-1X upperstage has no bearing on this thread and is unrelated to the Boeing pathfinderSo what would have "bearing on this thread" - Boeing using the 5.5m "tooling" to construct an entirely new, or open a new production line for iCPS and a follow-on CPS?
No, you concede that your comment about Ares-1X upperstage has no bearing on this thread and is unrelated to the Boeing pathfinder
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/boeing-complete-sls-pathfinder-tank-maf-et-operations-end/
Quote from: Lobo on 03/03/2012 01:44 amQuote from: Jim on 03/02/2012 11:07 pmQuote from: Lobo on 03/02/2012 10:09 pmHowever, like I said above, I don't know why ULA wouldn't just offer the 5m ACES, and tweak it accordingly to meet the CPS requirements. Because Boeing and LM won't allow it. ULA only exists to manage the Delta and Atlas vehicles. Boeing and LM would rather compete for a new stage and pocket all the money themselves than share it as part of ULA.1. Ok, that's the info I don't really understand. Thanks. I assume that's why Boeing was pushing a modifies DCSS for their Gateway proposal rather than ACES? Because that's ALE, not Atlas/ Delta?2. So, LM and Boeing might develop ACES as a common upper stage for Atlas and Delta, but they wouldn't want to propose it [jointly] for CPS?Seems sort of counter productive, but obviously I don't understand all of the nuances here. 3. So likely Boeing and LM would each propose their own version of CPS in the competition rather than pool their resources and offer something that could also be a common upper stage for Atlas and Delta?Am I understanding that better now?1. Yes, because it is not an EELV mission2. It would be ULA producing the ACES for its own needs (EELV market)3. yes
Quote from: Jim on 03/02/2012 11:07 pmQuote from: Lobo on 03/02/2012 10:09 pmHowever, like I said above, I don't know why ULA wouldn't just offer the 5m ACES, and tweak it accordingly to meet the CPS requirements. Because Boeing and LM won't allow it. ULA only exists to manage the Delta and Atlas vehicles. Boeing and LM would rather compete for a new stage and pocket all the money themselves than share it as part of ULA.1. Ok, that's the info I don't really understand. Thanks. I assume that's why Boeing was pushing a modifies DCSS for their Gateway proposal rather than ACES? Because that's ALE, not Atlas/ Delta?2. So, LM and Boeing might develop ACES as a common upper stage for Atlas and Delta, but they wouldn't want to propose it [jointly] for CPS?Seems sort of counter productive, but obviously I don't understand all of the nuances here. 3. So likely Boeing and LM would each propose their own version of CPS in the competition rather than pool their resources and offer something that could also be a common upper stage for Atlas and Delta?Am I understanding that better now?
Quote from: Lobo on 03/02/2012 10:09 pmHowever, like I said above, I don't know why ULA wouldn't just offer the 5m ACES, and tweak it accordingly to meet the CPS requirements. Because Boeing and LM won't allow it. ULA only exists to manage the Delta and Atlas vehicles. Boeing and LM would rather compete for a new stage and pocket all the money themselves than share it as part of ULA.
However, like I said above, I don't know why ULA wouldn't just offer the 5m ACES, and tweak it accordingly to meet the CPS requirements.
Quote from: Jim on 03/03/2012 12:09 pmQuote from: Lobo on 03/03/2012 01:44 amQuote from: Jim on 03/02/2012 11:07 pmQuote from: Lobo on 03/02/2012 10:09 pmHowever, like I said above, I don't know why ULA wouldn't just offer the 5m ACES, and tweak it accordingly to meet the CPS requirements. Because Boeing and LM won't allow it. ULA only exists to manage the Delta and Atlas vehicles. Boeing and LM would rather compete for a new stage and pocket all the money themselves than share it as part of ULA.1. Ok, that's the info I don't really understand. Thanks. I assume that's why Boeing was pushing a modifies DCSS for their Gateway proposal rather than ACES? Because that's ALE, not Atlas/ Delta?2. So, LM and Boeing might develop ACES as a common upper stage for Atlas and Delta, but they wouldn't want to propose it [jointly] for CPS?Seems sort of counter productive, but obviously I don't understand all of the nuances here. 3. So likely Boeing and LM would each propose their own version of CPS in the competition rather than pool their resources and offer something that could also be a common upper stage for Atlas and Delta?Am I understanding that better now?1. Yes, because it is not an EELV mission2. It would be ULA producing the ACES for its own needs (EELV market)3. yesOk, thanks Jim. Very informative. It’s always good to get the right info rather than just my assumptions. There’s lots I don’t understand on this stuff.Seems “inefficient” perhaps though. But I suppose they have their reasons for what they do. And, I assume that any concept proposed by LM or Boeing for CPS could incorporate some ACES concepts into it? Both could use ACES technologies for their individual projects, right? Or not?Like using GH2 boiloff for RCS, and IVF?So they wouldn’t be submitting “ACES” proposals, per say, but something unique to each company, incorporating ACES tech as applicable?
1. possibly with propellant tanks supplied by ATK)2. What upper stages would LM propose, other than an upgraded Atlas Centaur or ACES ? Where would it be built ? Do they have existing 5M upper stage designs ?
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 03/05/2012 05:34 pm1. possibly with propellant tanks supplied by ATK)2. What upper stages would LM propose, other than an upgraded Atlas Centaur or ACES ? Where would it be built ? Do they have existing 5M upper stage designs ?1. none built by ATK2. LM can propose anything that meets the requirements. They don't have to have an existing design nor do they have to share any design before hand. And it can be built where ever it needs to be built. All that info would be part of a propriety proposal in response to a solicitation by NASA.
Quote from: Jim on 03/05/2012 06:02 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 03/05/2012 05:34 pm1. possibly with propellant tanks supplied by ATK)2. What upper stages would LM propose, other than an upgraded Atlas Centaur or ACES ? Where would it be built ? Do they have existing 5M upper stage designs ?1. none built by ATK2. LM can propose anything that meets the requirements. They don't have to have an existing design nor do they have to share any design before hand. And it can be built where ever it needs to be built. All that info would be part of a propriety proposal in response to a solicitation by NASA. I saw a link that OV-106 posted a little while back that showed ATK built tanks for each Atlas and Delta launch. Perhaps these were 1st stage tanks ?
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 03/05/2012 06:07 pmI saw a link that OV-106 posted a little while back that showed ATK built tanks for each Atlas and Delta launch. Perhaps these were 1st stage tanks ?fairings or interstages
I saw a link that OV-106 posted a little while back that showed ATK built tanks for each Atlas and Delta launch. Perhaps these were 1st stage tanks ?
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 03/05/2012 05:34 pm1. possibly with propellant tanks supplied by ATK)1. none built by ATK
1. possibly with propellant tanks supplied by ATK)
Quote from: Jim on 03/05/2012 06:02 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 03/05/2012 05:34 pm1. possibly with propellant tanks supplied by ATK)1. none built by ATKJumping into this without seeing background, so apologies in advance if I missed some detail, but didn't ATK buy out PSI several years ago? They make a lot of propellant tanks (mostly titanium and carbon-fiber overwrapped tanks for satellite applications). Oh...if you're making the point that ATK isn't in a great position to make cryogenic tanks, that's a more valid point.~Jon
[It] doesn't explictly mention Justification for Other than Fair and Open Competition.
Quote from: Jim on 07/29/2012 02:34 pmQuote from: PeterAlt on 07/28/2012 05:14 amI haven't seen this being discussed:http://www.spacenews.com/launch/120724-boeing-awarded-upper-stage-sls.htmlHow can it be manrated for SLS when it "couldn't" be manrated for Delta IV?I always thought that it was the Delta-IV CBC and the RS-68A that was the problem, not the DCUS.
Quote from: PeterAlt on 07/28/2012 05:14 amI haven't seen this being discussed:http://www.spacenews.com/launch/120724-boeing-awarded-upper-stage-sls.htmlHow can it be manrated for SLS when it "couldn't" be manrated for Delta IV?
I haven't seen this being discussed:http://www.spacenews.com/launch/120724-boeing-awarded-upper-stage-sls.html
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 07/29/2012 08:06 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/29/2012 02:34 pmQuote from: PeterAlt on 07/28/2012 05:14 amI haven't seen this being discussed:http://www.spacenews.com/launch/120724-boeing-awarded-upper-stage-sls.htmlHow can it be manrated for SLS when it "couldn't" be manrated for Delta IV?I always thought that it was the Delta-IV CBC and the RS-68A that was the problem, not the DCUS.It will be interesting to see how they address the fault tolerance (or lack thereof) on the DCUS nozzle extension deployment system. It's never failed, of course. But it isn't fault tolerant, either.
The DCUS should still be able to reach LEO if the nozzle extension fails to deploy.