Don't think ULA plus AJR is competitive. Neither has adjusted to the realities of today's and tomorrow's market
How many more Delta IV single stick rockets does ULA plan to fly before they are retired?
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 01/08/2018 06:28 amHow many more Delta IV single stick rockets does ULA plan to fly before they are retired?Three. NROL-47, GPS-III, and WGS-10. If all fly as currently scheduled, 2018 will be the last year for the single-stick Delta IV.
Quote from: ethan829 on 01/08/2018 01:01 pmQuote from: rockets4life97 on 01/08/2018 06:28 amHow many more Delta IV single stick rockets does ULA plan to fly before they are retired?Three. NROL-47, GPS-III, and WGS-10. If all fly as currently scheduled, 2018 will be the last year for the single-stick Delta IV.Is that "Unless someone places another order for one" or they are no longer accepting new orders for them at all?
Only orders can be placed for the Atlas V and DIVH. Vulcan orders should begin this year for the opening launches.
<snip>Only orders can be placed for the Atlas V and DIVH. Vulcan orders should begin this year for the opening launches.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 01/08/2018 06:59 pm<snip>Only orders can be placed for the Atlas V and DIVH. Vulcan orders should begin this year for the opening launches.Seriously, what is the cut off date for ordering a DIVH?Like will 2018 be the last year that you can order a DIVH.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 01/09/2018 08:53 amQuote from: russianhalo117 on 01/08/2018 06:59 pm<snip>Only orders can be placed for the Atlas V and DIVH. Vulcan orders should begin this year for the opening launches.Seriously, what is the cut off date for ordering a DIVH?Like will 2018 be the last year that you can order a DIVH.No date given. ULA stated that Delta IVH will be terminated only after it is no longer needed for NSS missions.
Not really, Vulcan will be produced on modified Delta IV tooling.The have (had?) a final round of orders for Delta IV Heavy. Those will be (were?) build and stored until use. The big difference is that there won't be a gap in bidding specific launches for ULA. As I understand they really needed to go into the next EELV selection with the capability to service all launch requirements from day one. Another thing is that Centaur V will accumulate flight time from the first Vulcan launch. That should make the decision to put the really expensive payloads on it easier.
Quote from: Chasm on 01/09/2018 04:37 pmNot really, Vulcan will be produced on modified Delta IV tooling.The have (had?) a final round of orders for Delta IV Heavy. Those will be (were?) build and stored until use. The big difference is that there won't be a gap in bidding specific launches for ULA. As I understand they really needed to go into the next EELV selection with the capability to service all launch requirements from day one. Another thing is that Centaur V will accumulate flight time from the first Vulcan launch. That should make the decision to put the really expensive payloads on it easier.What about converting some of those DH contracts to Vulcan? Maintaining the pad at Vandenberg isn't cheap. If they can fly those contracts on Vulcan instead, I'm betting they would prefer that.
The big difference is that there won't be a gap in bidding specific launches for ULA. As I understand they really needed to go into the next EELV selection with the capability to service all launch requirements from day one. Another thing is that Centaur V will accumulate flight time from the first Vulcan launch. That should make the decision to put the really expensive payloads on it easier.
Quote from: Chasm on 01/09/2018 04:37 pmThe big difference is that there won't be a gap in bidding specific launches for ULA. As I understand they really needed to go into the next EELV selection with the capability to service all launch requirements from day one. Another thing is that Centaur V will accumulate flight time from the first Vulcan launch. That should make the decision to put the really expensive payloads on it easier.Going with full capability from first launch, rather than needing a 2nd US design later, just makes a lot more sense. As you say it starts racking up launch reliability data to speed up the retiring of DIVH. Now if they can just get IVF moving.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 01/10/2018 10:59 pmQuote from: Chasm on 01/09/2018 04:37 pmThe big difference is that there won't be a gap in bidding specific launches for ULA. As I understand they really needed to go into the next EELV selection with the capability to service all launch requirements from day one. Another thing is that Centaur V will accumulate flight time from the first Vulcan launch. That should make the decision to put the really expensive payloads on it easier.Going with full capability from first launch, rather than needing a 2nd US design later, just makes a lot more sense. As you say it starts racking up launch reliability data to speed up the retiring of DIVH. Now if they can just get IVF moving. But what about all that excess, wasted capacity when launching the predominant 401 payloads?Building it but not using it, and then dumping it in the ocean is expensive...
Quote from: AncientU on 01/11/2018 12:29 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 01/10/2018 10:59 pmQuote from: Chasm on 01/09/2018 04:37 pmThe big difference is that there won't be a gap in bidding specific launches for ULA. As I understand they really needed to go into the next EELV selection with the capability to service all launch requirements from day one. Another thing is that Centaur V will accumulate flight time from the first Vulcan launch. That should make the decision to put the really expensive payloads on it easier.Going with full capability from first launch, rather than needing a 2nd US design later, just makes a lot more sense. As you say it starts racking up launch reliability data to speed up the retiring of DIVH. Now if they can just get IVF moving. But what about all that excess, wasted capacity when launching the predominant 401 payloads?Building it but not using it, and then dumping it in the ocean is expensive... No different than using excess performance to return a booster and not reuse it
Quote from: Jim on 01/11/2018 12:34 pmQuote from: AncientU on 01/11/2018 12:29 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 01/10/2018 10:59 pmQuote from: Chasm on 01/09/2018 04:37 pmThe big difference is that there won't be a gap in bidding specific launches for ULA. As I understand they really needed to go into the next EELV selection with the capability to service all launch requirements from day one. Another thing is that Centaur V will accumulate flight time from the first Vulcan launch. That should make the decision to put the really expensive payloads on it easier.Going with full capability from first launch, rather than needing a 2nd US design later, just makes a lot more sense. As you say it starts racking up launch reliability data to speed up the retiring of DIVH. Now if they can just get IVF moving. But what about all that excess, wasted capacity when launching the predominant 401 payloads?Building it but not using it, and then dumping it in the ocean is expensive... No different than using excess performance to return a booster and not reuse itExactly.All who are complaining about this should be complaining about Vulcan -- especially since they are definitely dumping it in the ocean.So Jim, Ed, etc., let's hear why this excess capacity being planned for Vulcan/Centaur V is such a crappy idea.