edkyle99 - 29/10/2007 3:05 PMQuotekraisee - 29/10/2007 1:13 AMCFE,Sure ATK *could* produce solid propellant products for other customers. But where are those other customers?U.S. Missile Defense Agency. U.S. Navy. U.S. Air Force. U.S. Army. U.S. allied military organizations. Contractors that sell to same. Numerous law enforcement entities. Missile motors and ammunition, especially ammunition, which accounts for the largest ATK sales segment - Ed Kyle
kraisee - 29/10/2007 1:13 AMCFE,Sure ATK *could* produce solid propellant products for other customers. But where are those other customers?
clongton - 29/10/2007 7:33 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 29/10/2007 3:05 PMQuotekraisee - 29/10/2007 1:13 AMCFE,Sure ATK *could* produce solid propellant products for other customers. But where are those other customers?U.S. Missile Defense Agency. U.S. Navy. U.S. Air Force. U.S. Army. U.S. allied military organizations. Contractors that sell to same. Numerous law enforcement entities. Missile motors and ammunition, especially ammunition, which accounts for the largest ATK sales segment - Ed KyleWonderful. Rambo is in the house. Just what we need.They already have what they want. During the current adventure, you will see a (temporary) spike in need, but it is NOT permanent. No matter who gets in in '08, that need will dry up fast and return to normal levels. We already have one warmonger around. We don't need another.
clongton - 29/10/2007 6:33 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 29/10/2007 3:05 PMQuotekraisee - 29/10/2007 1:13 AMCFE,Sure ATK *could* produce solid propellant products for other customers. But where are those other customers?U.S. Missile Defense Agency. U.S. Navy. U.S. Air Force. U.S. Army. U.S. allied military organizations. Contractors that sell to same. Numerous law enforcement entities. Missile motors and ammunition, especially ammunition, which accounts for the largest ATK sales segment - Ed KyleWonderful. Rambo is in the house. Just what we need.
mike robel - 29/10/2007 9:17 PMQuoteclongton - 29/10/2007 7:33 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 29/10/2007 3:05 PMQuotekraisee - 29/10/2007 1:13 AMCFE,Sure ATK *could* produce solid propellant products for other customers. But where are those other customers?U.S. Missile Defense Agency. U.S. Navy. U.S. Air Force. U.S. Army. U.S. allied military organizations. Contractors that sell to same. Numerous law enforcement entities. Missile motors and ammunition, especially ammunition, which accounts for the largest ATK sales segment - Ed KyleWonderful. Rambo is in the house. Just what we need.They already have what they want. During the current adventure, you will see a (temporary) spike in need, but it is NOT permanent. No matter who gets in in '08, that need will dry up fast and return to normal levels. We already have one warmonger around. We don't need another.OK. Continueing my OT here and climbing on soapbox.Chuck, I see no reason to categorize people as "Rambo" and "warmonger" regardless of who they are on this forum or even if they are not on the forum.As I recall, you make your living working on nuclear submarines. I bet you cash your paycheck, too, heh?I also submit, that once "whoever" gets in office, they will not find it so easy to cut off the funding for the war and bring the troops home by Christmas. It is more complicated than just saying, lets leave these people to their fate (again). I sat on the banks of the Tigris-Euphraties and watched it happen once and it is part of the reason why we are not doing as well as we would like this time.What people do not realize is that we are in a war of survival here. Islamic Fascists, just like Hitler, have published exactly what it is they intend to do and like HItler, well meaning people don't believe it. If we lose this war, there will be no space program. Without this war, NASA's budget would not be appreciably bigger. Losing the war, whether you agree with it or not, will not advance NASA's goals one bit.In the interest of disclosure, I am a retired US Army LTC, with service in Desert Storm and on the Inter German Border, and I cash my present paycheck for developing battle simulations for the US Army.
McDew - 29/10/2007 11:59 AMQuoteCuddlyRocket - 28/10/2007 2:28 AMPersonally, I also think that the solid-fuel production facilities at ATK are considered a national security strategic asset, and so the replacement for STS had to continue to utilise them.NASA totally embraced this logic in support of their ESAS "cost studies". Any solution which was not shuttle derived using ATK RSRMs was penalized $2B for the cost of ATK industrial support. Got to love that revolving door!!
CuddlyRocket - 28/10/2007 2:28 AMPersonally, I also think that the solid-fuel production facilities at ATK are considered a national security strategic asset, and so the replacement for STS had to continue to utilise them.
MrTim - 29/10/2007 9:24 PMQuoteMcDew - 29/10/2007 11:59 AMQuoteCuddlyRocket - 28/10/2007 2:28 AMPersonally, I also think that the solid-fuel production facilities at ATK are considered a national security strategic asset, and so the replacement for STS had to continue to utilise them.NASA totally embraced this logic in support of their ESAS "cost studies". Any solution which was not shuttle derived using ATK RSRMs was penalized $2B for the cost of ATK industrial support. Got to love that revolving door!!Much as I detest the many revolving doors between government and industry, we need not always presume the nefarious when we see something we do not like. The USAF and NASA went into the shuttle program together decades ago. The DoD could be annoyed that an asset was jerked-away from them before they got their chance to fully use it (Shuttles from Vandenberg never happened after NASA violated their launch rules and destroyed one).
It would be dishonest for any NASA plans that eliminated SRMs to NOT include the penalty.
edkyle99 - 29/10/2007 1:46 PMATK stock price is up 140% since 9/11/01, versus only 40% for the S&P500 - a period that has seen only a few space shuttle flights, but U.S. involvement in two major wars.
CFE - 29/10/2007 10:42 AM...ATK doesn't necessarily need to produce SRB's to meet DoD munitions cost targets. ATK could produce solid rockets of a different design for some other program, as long as the same quantity of propellant is being poured. Of course, with the development of EELV's already paid for, it's not like ATK is going to develop a Delta II-class or EELV-class solid launcher. There's just no demand.
kkattula2 - 29/10/2007 11:16 PMOT, but has anyone pushed Direct with DoD? 8 SRB segs per Orion instead of 5. That'll keep the solid propellant costs down.
kraisee - 29/10/2007 11:57 PMYes. I know for a fact that two of the Joint Chiefs were interested in V1.0 of our proposal because the high payload capability of even the basic launcher opened a lot of options for DoD.Ross.
Jorge - 29/10/2007 7:42 PMTotal nonsense. The DoD was looking for an excuse to get out of the shuttle program already; Challenger just gave them that excuse.
Jorge - 29/10/2007 7:42 PMNo moreso than what you just wrote.