Author Topic: LIVE: Delta IV Heavy - NROL-15 - June 29, 2012 (Read 213207 times)

Targeteer · « **Reply #60 on:** 04/28/2012 11:04 pm »

NROL-15 launch promotional video.

ChileVerde · « **Reply #61 on:** 05/13/2012 11:03 pm »

I'd file this under minor oddities, but it's interesting that, at least three years after D4H was a lock for NROL-15, it was being reported as a "win".

Quote

http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2009/04/ula-snares-another-gap-filling-launch.shtml

ULA Wins Another Gap-Filling Launch Contract
Thursday, April 16, 2009

The U.S. government's prime space launch services supplier snared another multimillion-dollar contract this month, bringing to more than 60 the number of satellite-delivery missions it intends to fly between now and 2015.

Under the terms of the $184 million contract, United Launch Alliance will loft a classified payload for the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office in 2011. The NRO owns and operates the nation's fleet of spy satellites.

ULA spokesman Mike Rein said the payload -- designated NROL-15 -- will blast off atop a Delta IV Heavy rocket at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's Launch Complex 37.

The announcement is good news for Florida's Space Coast. NASA is expected to cut at least 3,500 of 14,500 jobs at Kennedy Space Center when the shuttle fleet is retired at the end of 2010, and the agency is facing a five-year gap between the last shuttle mission and the first piloted flights of Ares rockets and Orion spacecraft.

Jason1701 · « **Reply #62 on:** 05/14/2012 01:18 am »

Did the USAF pay $184 million for the Delta IV Heavy?

ChileVerde · « **Reply #63 on:** 05/14/2012 01:57 am »

Quote from: Jason1701 on 05/14/2012 01:18 am

Did the USAF pay $184 million for the Delta IV Heavy?

Dunno. $184M strikes me as being pretty cheap, but I often fail to understand such matters.

Antares · « **Reply #64 on:** 05/14/2012 02:17 pm »

That's probably the FAR 12 cost without the FAR 15 ELC.

Zed_Noir · « **Reply #65 on:** 05/14/2012 08:13 pm »

Any info in which fiscal year budget the NROL-15 flight falls in?

ChileVerde · « **Reply #66 on:** 05/14/2012 10:18 pm »

Quote from: Zed_Noir on 05/14/2012 08:13 pm

Any info in which fiscal year budget the NROL-15 flight falls in?

Well, the actual launch is now scheduled for FY12. OTOH, the infamous 2006 RAND document has it for "2010", FY or CY unspecified, though you might be able to back that out with more study. Just how funding gets carried over when programs get funded a bit, slip, repeat is an interesting question.

Jason1701 · « **Reply #67 on:** 05/15/2012 01:10 am »

Quote from: Antares on 05/14/2012 02:17 pm

That's probably the FAR 12 cost without the FAR 15 ELC.

Do you mean that's the cost in this year, but they'll have to pay more later?

Antares · « **Reply #68 on:** 05/15/2012 01:56 am »

The USAF buys launches under Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12 and it pays for the EELV Launch Capability under FAR Part 15.

Lurker Steve · « **Reply #69 on:** 05/15/2012 01:58 pm »

From http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2012/AirForce/stamped/0604853F_5_PB_2012.pdf

D. Acquisition Strategy
The EELV concept of families of launch vehicles emphasizes commonality of hardware and infrastructure to enhance production, operations, and support efficiencies.

Four initial contracts were awarded for the Low Cost Concept Validation (LCCV) phase in August 1995. The Air Force downselected to two contractors - The Boeing Company (TBC) and Lockheed Martin (LM) - for the Pre-Engineering and Manufacturing Development (Pre-EMD) phase in December 1996. In 1998, two $500M
Other Transaction Agreements (OTA) were awarded to TBC and LM for the development effort. The contractors contributed funds of their own, estimated in excess of awarded to Boeing for 19 missions and to Lockheed Martin for 9 missions.

All ILS (Buy 1/awarded) launch services are firm-fixed price contracts. Due to the decrease in the commercial market, the projected costs of the unawarded EELV launches have increased. The current acquisition strategy, implemented in FY06, separates the launch service price from the infrastructure costs. Follow-on (Buy 3) Launch Service procurements include launch service costs on a fixed-price contract. EELV Launch Capability infrastructure costs (includes launch and range operations, mission integration, mission unique development and integration, subcontract support engineering, factory engineering, etc.) are funded on an annual basis via a cost-plus, award-fee contract. The 2005 Space System Acquisition Strategy (SSAS) for EELV documents this modified approach to provide assured access to space with two viable launch vehicle families.

So I assume the 184 Million figure is the fixed-price for a D4H, purchased on 2009 for launch in 2012.

The only question would be, what steps is ULA taking to control costs in the "Cost Plus" portion of the contract ? I suppose that since the AirForce is covering the engineering costs, that is one of the limiting factors for R&D at ULA.

catdlr · « **Reply #70 on:** 06/04/2012 08:31 pm »

Delta IV Heavy being readied for this upcoming flight:

William Graham · « **Reply #71 on:** 06/04/2012 08:58 pm »

Is any information available as to which fairing is being used on this launch?

Prober · « **Reply #72 on:** 06/04/2012 08:59 pm »

Quote from: catdlr on 06/04/2012 08:31 pm

Delta IV Heavy being readied for this upcoming flight:

Oh, she looks good !

00rs250 · « **Reply #73 on:** 06/04/2012 09:41 pm »

From Saturday’s family day and my iPhone. Couldn’t get as close as the Atlas on this one.

00rs250 · « **Reply #74 on:** 06/04/2012 09:59 pm »

I can however make up for the lack of detail by offering the next GPS CBC waiting its turn. If someone wants to move this when the times comes they can.

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #75 on:** 06/06/2012 01:11 pm »

Quote from: catdlr on 06/04/2012 08:31 pm

Delta IV Heavy being readied for this upcoming flight:

I'm quite fascinated by the D-IVH's proportions. It's very wide for its' height (this is probably a good think in engineering terms). Then the upper stage and PLF rising above the top of the outboard CBCs with the consequential abrupt change in width gives it a very angular profile. In many ways it (like many parallel-core heavies) is very different from what many people think of as the 'ideal' LV hull shape, which is closer to a narrow-base cone.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #76 on:** 06/06/2012 06:16 pm »

Low density LH vs. Kero.

ChileVerde · « **Reply #77 on:** 06/07/2012 12:01 am »

Quote from: kevin-rf on 06/06/2012 06:16 pm

Low density LH vs. Kero.

Which is why I like kerolox first stages, plus kerosine is easier to deal with than LH. However, the Delta IV works well enough so such preferences are a religion thing, at least for the nonce.

Galactic Penguin SST · « **Reply #78 on:** 06/12/2012 01:18 am »

So this is looking like a morning launch: the launch is between 5:30 and 10:30 am EDT. (source)

What can be inferred from it?

kevin-rf · « **Reply #79 on:** 06/12/2012 02:33 am »

Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 06/12/2012 01:18 am

So this is looking like a morning launch: the launch is between 5:30 and 10:30 am EDT. (source)

What can be inferred from it?

Tougher to visually track when it overfly's the mid-east. It will still be daylight and if it is planing on doing a disappearing act...

Attaching tin-foil hat.