I'm not trying to wear my tinfoil hat here; I'm simply noting that "budget numbers classified agency reports match single budget number from highly redacted report" isn't really news or proof of much. Would you expect that number to vary?
The notion that the earlier Atlas 1- IV or Delta 1-III designs were "evolved" into Atlas V and Delta IV (and therefor could "inherit" their reliability pedigree, so didn't need a test flight to prove their capability) was about as plausible my friend's dog "evolving" into a Lamborghini (well they both have 4 contact points with the ground).
If Musk contention Boeing and LM were awarded a lot of launches before even a single LV had taken off that makes the standard Spacex were held to a lot more stringent.
My memory is telling me that I read something years ago that mentioned that part of the justification for the creation of ULA was to retain jobs for workers formerly employed by NASA who we're getting laid off because of the dramatic slowdown of Shuttle launches. There was more to it than that obviously but that was the gist of it.I'll try to go thru my library later tonight to see if I can find the reference.I'm totally aware that I could be completely mistaken on this and if that's the case I apologize in advance.Ian
Of course, ULA wrote the rules that way..
1. ULA and USA seem to operate from the same facilities. 2. There's been arguably zero innovations in the either the Atlas or Delta rockets - they've just strapped more solid horsepower on for heavier payloads. 3. The rockets and the processes being used today are likely the exact same as used 18 plus years ago.
Quote from: QuantumG on 04/26/2014 02:39 amOf course, ULA wrote the rules that way..They don't write the rules.
1. Atlas can't fulfill all DoD mission requirements either but it is in the block buy(except for the triple core Atlas Heavy that is just as much of question mark as FH). 2. Fact of the matter is that Falcon 9 can do all Atlas 401/501 launches, all Delta II missions, Delta-M launches 3. and some Delta-M+ launches to certain orbits.4, About 2 Atlas launches a year are heavier configurations not doable on Falcon 9(the bulk are 401/501s). So, if Delta launches 5 times a year rather than 3, Falcon 9 + Delta can do all missions(NASA, NRO, USAF).
ELC isn't the whole thing. When I said that the NRO contribution to EELV should be declassified which you took issue with, I meant the whole thing. Here is my source:QuoteAnother notable item in the NRO’s request is launch activity, for which the agency requested $1.3 billion in 2013, according to the documents. NRO payloads, like virtually all operational U.S. national security satellites, are launched by United Launch Alliance under the U.S. Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/37021leaked-documents-offer-snapshot-of-nro-activity
Another notable item in the NRO’s request is launch activity, for which the agency requested $1.3 billion in 2013, according to the documents. NRO payloads, like virtually all operational U.S. national security satellites, are launched by United Launch Alliance under the U.S. Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program.
How long payload integration takes depends on the payload. It's possible that eventually integrating Dragon will take a lot less time than integrating a communications satellite -- particularly if the Dragon isn't carrying any external cargo in a trunk.
Just to point out. Before ULA, there still was monopolies in this sector, it was by vehicle performance.Martin had the heavy lift market cornered with TitanGD had the intermediate with AtlasMDAC had the small with Delta
I think Sen. McCain has the more valid point. The AF knew months ago that the GPS satellites were lasting longer than anticipated and yet still went ahead saying that there would be 14 competitive bid launches and only cut that at the last minute.
Perhaps it was shortsighted of SpaceX, knowing that they intended to go after DoD launches, to not bring the Air Force into the F9 development process up front. Things may have gone differently if they had.
2, There are no more Delta II missions but in the last 5 of the class than NASA competed, F9 only won one and Delta II won 4.
Quote from: Prober on 04/26/2014 03:09 am"SpaceX, performed its final qualifying launch on January 6, 2014 and finished submitting data from that launch to the Air Force two months later."So that ends that......SpaceX again was too little too late. The F 1.1 was not qualified when the purchase was made. Yet other launches are available to bid on.I don't think you've watched the press conference.. or even read the transcript.. Elon's argument is that they should have waited.
"SpaceX, performed its final qualifying launch on January 6, 2014 and finished submitting data from that launch to the Air Force two months later."So that ends that......SpaceX again was too little too late. The F 1.1 was not qualified when the purchase was made. Yet other launches are available to bid on.
Now you have hit this mess square on. What Elon and company wants doesn't matter. The Government agencies make the call, they are the customers. This concept is lost on Spacex. The company seems to think they are entitled to contracts, and everything revolves around SpaceX interests. Sorry it just doesn't work that way.You can see this is clearly defined by the treatment of contracts and schedules. Having customers wait to allow SpaceX experiments is a horrible way to treat customers.