Once the launch is already up there, it's pretty much gravy to do some experiments. The launch services company owns the excess performance, unless the customer requests (and pays for) otherwise.
I'd love to see the space community do a lot more to take advantage of the excess performance on these launches. This could be customer or ULA driven. Something as simple as the DMSP demo seems inexpensive while providing great data. Sun shield demos, advanced MLI demos, prox ops , avionic, solar array, cryo transfer, inflatable habitats or huge light weight mirrors all seem like great candidates for rideshare demonstration.
Nancy,
The key issues (as I understand it) is cost. ULA does do these post-delivery flight experiments on a regular basis, but they are limited on what they can do, because they have to fund the hardware out of IRAD money for the most part. With things like the proposed NASA technology programs (flagship and otherwise), there should hopefully be a lot more money for pursuing this more aggressively (including getting CRYOTE built and flying whenever they have enough spare performance to justify it).
~Jon
It's hard programmatically to add actual hardware on, though, because it increases risk to the primary payload.
It's hard programmatically to add actual hardware on, though, because it increases risk to the primary payload.
Different customers, different perceptions of risk. Delta II has been flying multiple payloads for decades, as has Ariane. The get away specials of shuttle a decade ago also provided a similar capability.
It's hard programmatically to add actual hardware on, though, because it increases risk to the primary payload.
Different customers, different perceptions of risk. Delta II has been flying multiple payloads for decades, as has Ariane. The get away specials of shuttle a decade ago also provided a similar capability.
Agreed, but note the slight difference between flying multiple customer payloads atop a launch vehicle, and flying experimental hardware on the launch vehicle below a customer payload. That might present additional challenges with a customer that contractually demands nearly complete "insight" into how the launch system is being operated. (My understanding is that USAF pays a full time quality assurance staff to watch over the shoulders of the ULA operators.) Paraphrasing recent observations by someone else: "Design is tough; verification is really tough." Verifying that a design (or design change) will cause no unintentional side effects is about the toughest verification task of all!
Different customers, different perceptions of risk. Delta II has been flying multiple payloads for decades, as has Ariane. The get away specials of shuttle a decade ago also provided a similar capability.
Dual payloads are different than secondary payloads. Also, there is no comparable get away special for ELV's (a benign and no interference payload).
It has be found that secondary payloads on ELV's actually requirem more care and feeding than a primary payload.