So you're picking option 3, wait until Vulcan is ready. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest -- and there is no one to hold USAF accountable for the double standard.
Quote from: AncientU on 06/13/2017 11:01 pmDoes ULA get to bid Atlas V/RD-180 as a 'back-up' to Vulcan? yes. I don't see what the issue is here
Does ULA get to bid Atlas V/RD-180 as a 'back-up' to Vulcan?
Quote from: Jim on 06/14/2017 12:20 amQuote from: AncientU on 06/13/2017 11:01 pmDoes ULA get to bid Atlas V/RD-180 as a 'back-up' to Vulcan? yes. I don't see what the issue is here Congress might have an issue with that.
Quote from: envy887 on 06/14/2017 02:27 amQuote from: Jim on 06/14/2017 12:20 amQuote from: AncientU on 06/13/2017 11:01 pmDoes ULA get to bid Atlas V/RD-180 as a 'back-up' to Vulcan? yes. I don't see what the issue is here Congress might have an issue with that.No they don't. Not until January 1st, 2023 that is.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/14/2017 06:21 amQuote from: envy887 on 06/14/2017 02:27 amQuote from: Jim on 06/14/2017 12:20 amQuote from: AncientU on 06/13/2017 11:01 pmDoes ULA get to bid Atlas V/RD-180 as a 'back-up' to Vulcan? yes. I don't see what the issue is here Congress might have an issue with that.No they don't. Not until January 1st, 2023 that is.Which Vulcan might not be make, if they need to use AR-1.
That would only be the case if BE-4 never makes it off the test-stand. A highly unlikely scenario IMO.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/14/2017 01:18 pmThat would only be the case if BE-4 never makes it off the test-stand. A highly unlikely scenario IMO.Or if BE-4 is delayed about a year in testing, which isn't all that unlikely a scenario.
If Vulcan development slips it could lose the DOD market to OA NGLV and SpaceX. DOD only need two suppliers.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 06/14/2017 04:07 pmIf Vulcan development slips it could lose the DOD market to OA NGLV and SpaceX. DOD only need two suppliers.Unlikely. OA NGLV is nothing but a Powerpoint rocket right now. At least for Vulcan they have begun to actually install tooling and performing first hardware production tests.
My point was how long Atlas V would remain flying. It is a clear representation of why ULA will go with the earliest available engine. Schedule is the most important factor. And the engine availability is driving the schedule. Until the Vulcan is certified to be able to be awarded DOD contracts the Atlas V must be an alternative in order for U:A to keep bidding and getting some flights from the DOD. Once Vulcan starts f;ying the CRS and CC flights would shift to it. ULA does not have to wait on certification for these programs. except for CC they need Human rating certification. HRC is done in parallel with development so not much delay after Vulcan is flying for CC use.All of this is to show that the business case is all about the schedule and only marginally about the costs. If BE-4 is delayed and AR-1 breezes through it's development then the choice would be to use the AR-1. But we are several years from this point. At least 1 1/2 years beginning of 2019. If BE-4 is not starting into production then AR-1 could end being selected.
Oh dear. You're linking to Loren Thompson? Not an authoritative source, by any means.
[A]t a briefing of staff members organized by the House Armed Services Committee June 23, an independent assessment prepared by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center reportedly confirmed that BE-4 maintained a major schedule advantage over the AR1 despite the testing setback.“They are two years behind Blue Origin,” one meeting attendee, not authorized to speak on the record, said of the assessment’s conclusion about AR1. Another year would be needed to integrate the engine with a launch vehicle.[...]The briefing attendee noted the NASA assessment’s concerns about the AR1 were focused on its schedule and cost, rather than its technical development.
Published on 21 Jul 2017AR1 preburner testing at NASA's Stennis Space Center