Quote from: Brovane on 09/24/2015 02:30 pmVery true, the DOD would be less than thrilled. However if Congress directed funding for the DOD to procure a National Security launch on the SLS, the DOD couldn't say No to Congress. Especially if Congress perceives a need for a backup to the FH and the DIVH production line is shutdown for the switchover to the Vulcan LV. Nonsense. Congress isn't going to do that since they wouldn't know why it would be needed in the first place. DOD would drag their feet anyway. DIVH doesn't have a backup now anyways, so why would it need a backup to a back up. DIVH is not shutting down until Vulcan can handle the missions.
Very true, the DOD would be less than thrilled. However if Congress directed funding for the DOD to procure a National Security launch on the SLS, the DOD couldn't say No to Congress. Especially if Congress perceives a need for a backup to the FH and the DIVH production line is shutdown for the switchover to the Vulcan LV.
Quote from: Jim on 09/24/2015 03:01 pmQuote from: Brovane on 09/24/2015 02:30 pmVery true, the DOD would be less than thrilled. However if Congress directed funding for the DOD to procure a National Security launch on the SLS, the DOD couldn't say No to Congress. Especially if Congress perceives a need for a backup to the FH and the DIVH production line is shutdown for the switchover to the Vulcan LV. Nonsense. Congress isn't going to do that since they wouldn't know why it would be needed in the first place. DOD would drag their feet anyway. DIVH doesn't have a backup now anyways, so why would it need a backup to a back up. DIVH is not shutting down until Vulcan can handle the missions.ULA has already stated that they will phase out all DIV launches by 2018 except for DIVH. On average the DIVH has only averaged about one launch a year. This would mean that all the year over year costs for the DIVH production line and launch facility costs will have be amortized by ULA for this single yearly, DIVH launch. This will have a large impact on the DIVH launch cost's, which are already about $400 Million. This is why I think launch costs for the DIVH could soar approaching $1Billion. Of course this would mean the DIVH would in no way be competitive with the FH (Once the FH gets EELV certification). If ULA cannot get launch contracts for the DIVH they are going to shutdown the production line, regardless of the status of the Vulcan. In my opinion, Congress would be forced to either; pay money to ULA to keep launch capability for DIVH, accept that FH is the only vehicle that can meet the full range of DOD payloads until Vulcan is in service, or use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online.
use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online.
It took >$150M to certify the F9. To certify the SLS for DOD payloads,
In my opinion, Congress would be forced to either; pay money to ULA to keep launch capability for DIVH, accept that FH is the only vehicle that can meet the full range of DOD payloads until Vulcan is in service, or use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online.
Quote from: Brovane on 09/24/2015 03:53 pmIn my opinion, Congress would be forced to either; pay money to ULA to keep launch capability for DIVH, accept that FH is the only vehicle that can meet the full range of DOD payloads until Vulcan is in service, or use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online. Note quite. Vulcan is planned to be online in 2019(1 year after SLS). FH will compete with Atlas and Delta from about 2016-2018. Delta is phased out in 2018,which allows plenty of time for planning and transitioning. Vulcan is up by about 2020/2019. There is hardly any gap. FH isn't the only vehicle that can meet the the full range of payloads unless relations with the Russians get much worse. Atlas launches most payloads with Delta only handling the largest. Congress can not be forced to do anything by AF policy. However ULA and Space X could sue if an payload that they could launch is put on SLS. Those exceptions are for specific purposes.
4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 09/24/2015 05:53 pmQuote from: Brovane on 09/24/2015 03:53 pmIn my opinion, Congress would be forced to either; pay money to ULA to keep launch capability for DIVH, accept that FH is the only vehicle that can meet the full range of DOD payloads until Vulcan is in service, or use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online. Note quite. Vulcan is planned to be online in 2019(1 year after SLS). FH will compete with Atlas and Delta from about 2016-2018. Delta is phased out in 2018,which allows plenty of time for planning and transitioning. Vulcan is up by about 2020/2019. There is hardly any gap. FH isn't the only vehicle that can meet the the full range of payloads unless relations with the Russians get much worse. Atlas launches most payloads with Delta only handling the largest. Congress can not be forced to do anything by AF policy. However ULA and Space X could sue if an payload that they could launch is put on SLS. Those exceptions are for specific purposes.This assumes the Vulcan Development proceeds without any problems/delays. ULA doesn't even have the commitment from Boeing and LM for full funding for development of the Vulcan. They are going quarter by quarter right now for funding. If you look closely at the Commercial Space Act. Item #4 would qualify. Congress could decide that having the SLS as a backup to the FH until Vulcan is online is consistent with national security objectives. SpaceX and ULA could sue but they would loose the lawsuit. Quote4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
If you look closely at the Commercial Space Act. Item #4 would qualify. Congress could decide that having the SLS as a backup to the FH until Vulcan is online is consistent with national security objectives. SpaceX and ULA could sue but they would loose the lawsuit.
If you look closely at the Commercial Space Act. Item #4 would qualify. Congress could decide that having the SLS as a backup to the FH until Vulcan is online is consistent with national security objectives. SpaceX and ULA could sue but they would loose the lawsuit. Quote4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
TITLE II--FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Federal Government shall acquire space transportation services from United States commercial providers whenever such services are required in the course of its activities. To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers.(b) Exceptions.--The Federal Government shall not be required to acquire space transportation services under subsection (a) if, on a case-by-case basis, the Administrator or, in the case of a national security issue, the Secretary of the Air Force, determines that--...(4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
Quote from: Brovane on 09/24/2015 06:07 pmQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 09/24/2015 05:53 pmQuote from: Brovane on 09/24/2015 03:53 pmIn my opinion, Congress would be forced to either; pay money to ULA to keep launch capability for DIVH, accept that FH is the only vehicle that can meet the full range of DOD payloads until Vulcan is in service, or use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online. Note quite. Vulcan is planned to be online in 2019(1 year after SLS). FH will compete with Atlas and Delta from about 2016-2018. Delta is phased out in 2018,which allows plenty of time for planning and transitioning. Vulcan is up by about 2020/2019. There is hardly any gap. FH isn't the only vehicle that can meet the the full range of payloads unless relations with the Russians get much worse. Atlas launches most payloads with Delta only handling the largest. Congress can not be forced to do anything by AF policy. However ULA and Space X could sue if an payload that they could launch is put on SLS. Those exceptions are for specific purposes.This assumes the Vulcan Development proceeds without any problems/delays. ULA doesn't even have the commitment from Boeing and LM for full funding for development of the Vulcan. They are going quarter by quarter right now for funding. If you look closely at the Commercial Space Act. Item #4 would qualify. Congress could decide that having the SLS as a backup to the FH until Vulcan is online is consistent with national security objectives. SpaceX and ULA could sue but they would loose the lawsuit. Quote4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;Delta Heavy won't go offline until Vulcan is online, so won't apply and Congress would be getting into to same mess it did back in the 80ies with respect to the Shuttle. Taking payloads away from the private sector is not an wise move for either the exploration of space or national security. There is no need to use SLS as back up to Vulcan or FH. The smarter, cheaper and less politically dangerous move would just be to wait until Vulcan is online.
Quote from: Brovane on 09/24/2015 06:07 pmIf you look closely at the Commercial Space Act. Item #4 would qualify. Congress could decide that having the SLS as a backup to the FH until Vulcan is online is consistent with national security objectives. SpaceX and ULA could sue but they would loose the lawsuit. Quote4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;As Jim alluded to, the law states that the determination would be made by the Secretary of the Air Force:QuoteTITLE II--FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Federal Government shall acquire space transportation services from United States commercial providers whenever such services are required in the course of its activities. To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers.(b) Exceptions.--The Federal Government shall not be required to acquire space transportation services under subsection (a) if, on a case-by-case basis, the Administrator or, in the case of a national security issue, the Secretary of the Air Force, determines that--...(4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;(My emphasis.)
If the Delta Heavy doesn't have any launch contracts why would ULA keep the production line open and launch facilities in-place until the Vulcan is online? Without any launch contracts who is paying for that?
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/02/sls-dod-market-secondary-payloads-potential/A article was even written in 2012 on this site about SLS DOD support.
As to "tech enhancements and right-sizing", where are you hearing this? NASA would have to pay Boeing more to change their current setup, and they have already locked in their current capabilities.
You keep talking about this like there is some unseen effort to significantly reduce costs. Unless you can point it out in statements NASA or Boeing has made, it's not there.
Given this, what do you need to do in order to fulfill that production rate? If the factory ain't big enough, do you farm out work to other providers, rather like the von Braun team built the first Saturn I stages and then farmed out the work to Chrysler? Do you expand the factory?
Is the issue lack of sufficient tooling?
If so, what is the extra cost of developing a second and/or third tooling set?
Heck, aren't they making spares of most of the most important tooling, anyway? If so, how much additional does it cost to make another set or two?
Postulate: There is a defined (and funded) need to build 3 to 4 SLS rockets a year for a period of 20 to 30 years. (This is the postulate, not an argument -- trying to knock down the postulate short-circuits the purpose of the question.)Given this, what do you need to do in order to fulfill that production rate?