Quote from: georgesowers on 08/23/2012 10:24 pmRight now we are launching EELV's at our highest rate ever. 11 last year (2011) and 11 more this year.If the market was there to double the launch rate, what steps would ULA take to meet that demand?
Right now we are launching EELV's at our highest rate ever. 11 last year (2011) and 11 more this year.
OH! I have a quick one to add.Do you forsee the possibility - or are interested in - launching Atlas V from Complex 39 at KSC? We've seen numerous (not ULA) study slides showing Atlas V being integrated in the VAB for launch from 39B, etc. Wishful thinking on KSC's part, or a possibility?
Do you see commercial spacecraft especially communications satellites growing in size and mass to take advantage of the large payload capacity of the Delta IV?
Quote from: robertross on 08/22/2012 10:45 pmThanks for the Q&A opportunity!What challenges do you foresee with fixed price (or fixed term) contracts in keeping vehicle costs down (to maintain profitability) with the materials market spikes we have seen in the past (before the market collapse)?Not sure I understand the question. For launch services, ULA has always worked in a fixed price environment.
Thanks for the Q&A opportunity!What challenges do you foresee with fixed price (or fixed term) contracts in keeping vehicle costs down (to maintain profitability) with the materials market spikes we have seen in the past (before the market collapse)?
Quote from: Jason Davies on 08/23/2012 02:33 pmI would be fascinated as to what you think of SLS's current design, such as the Shuttle Derived elements and thoughts on the booster preference.Not taking the bait...
I would be fascinated as to what you think of SLS's current design, such as the Shuttle Derived elements and thoughts on the booster preference.
Quote from: spectre9 on 08/23/2012 12:37 amULA launch vehicles are seen as expensive compared to SpaceX.Does ULA plan to compete on price?Now here's an interesting question. The short and direct answer is that ULA has and will continue to compete on total value to include price. We have gone head to head with SpaceX on several ocasions and have won the majority. In the launch business, price is never the sole consideration for the buyer. That's because launch price is a small percentage of the total program value (which can exceed replacement cost when there's no money to replace, like the Glory spacecraft). In ULA's market of national security payloads and unique science probes, capability, schedule assurance and reliability often overwhelm any other consideration.As a citizen and taxpayer, I think that's appropriate. Not to minimize spaceX's impressive achievements, but ULA's customers want to see a track record of success, repeatably delivering complex payloads to orbit, safely and on time.
ULA launch vehicles are seen as expensive compared to SpaceX.Does ULA plan to compete on price?
I have a question about "dissimilar redundancy". What is it? Why is it desired most for a launch site and then for propulsion?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 08/27/2012 01:36 amI have a question about "dissimilar redundancy". What is it? Why is it desired most for a launch site and then for propulsion?As I understand it, "dissimilar redundancy" would seem to indicate redundancy provided through multiple different systems to perform the same function, as opposed to redudancy provided by identical copies of the same system.
Is this the proper analogy?
{snip}(Sotto voce: geographic redundancy probably involves scenarios we don't want to think much about!)
An RD-180 failure would not lead to a stand-down of a system using RS-68. A failure which might be due to anomalous behavior of hypothetical "common avionics," on the other hand, might lead to stand-downs of both the systems using those avionics.