Somebody please tell me...

[Jim]

Original GTO requirement for the medium vehicle (no solids, this was a requirement) is 10K 

[Jim]

Jim - 29/3/2006  7:30 PMOriginal GTO requirement for the medium vehicle (no solids, this was a requirement) is 10K

The EELV program office existed before '95.  There were EELVstudies before that .   The SOW and the RFP for the 95 contract were started in 92-93 timeframe.  All the contractors were involve with commenting on the SOW

[Propforce]

Jim - 29/3/2006  5:05 PM

Wrong.

Preaching to the choir.  I do mission integration for a living.

Well... I am impressed.  

MRO swapped out Centaurs at L-7 months and almost did the same with the CCB.  LM does have capability to do the swaps.  The next launch used CCB orginally designated for another mission.  They actually brag about their "plug and play" capability wrt to CCB's and Centaurs.  I agree perfornance is king, but with the EELV class LV, there excess lift capability for most missions.  LM CCB's will all be the same.  Only exception is if they build a heavy

Yes.  Case like that happens all the time.  Engines can be swapped if the other one also meet mission requirements, so can tanks, avionic boxes, and the list goes on.  But you didn't read my point correctly.  How many of those engines/ tanks were sitting there with NO MISSIONs designated?  

[Propforce]

aero313 - 29/3/2006  12:46 PM

At the risk of turning this into an EELV-bashing thread, I've got a slightly different take on your position.

First, I DO consider the Delta III and Atlas III to be commercially-developed launchers.  They were growth versions of prior vehicles that MacDac and Martin developed on their own nickel to capture the market for commercial GEO comm satellites that had outgrown the Delta II and Atlas II.  I fully support that decision, by the way.

Actually I do agree with you on that.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion the EELV program smacks of the worst of Gov't white collar welfare.

Well... what the EELVs have evolved in the last few years have taken a totally different path, mainly due to the dry-up commercial launch market, and the foreign launchers that do not need to meet NRO's stringent launch reliability requirements.

What both companies, Boeing and Lockheed, are saying by forming a ULA is in fact "Mr. Air Force, you wanted EELV for assured access to space, so now it's your baby.  Support it (PAY for it) or we're shutting it down since we can't make any money with it".  Unfortunately that's the business reality decided by the CEOs.  They did the same with the Shuttle contract by forming the USA: "these people are YOURS, keep them employed or fire them, it's up to you Mr. NASA".

[Jim]

Propforce - 29/3/2006  7:38 PM

Jim - 29/3/2006  5:05 PMWrong.

Preaching to the choir.  I do mission integration for a living.

Well... I am impressed.  

MRO swapped out Centaurs at L-7 months and almost did the same with the CCB.  LM does have capability to do the swaps.  The next launch used CCB orginally designated for another mission.  They actually brag about their "plug and play" capability wrt to CCB's and Centaurs.  I agree perfornance is king, but with the EELV class LV, there excess lift capability for most missions.  LM CCB's will all be the same.  Only exception is if they build a heavy

Yes.  Case like that happens all the time.  Engines can be swapped if the other one also meet mission requirements, so can tanks, avionic boxes, and the list goes on.  But you didn't read my point correctly.  How many of those engines/ tanks were sitting there with NO MISSIONs designated?  

one CCB and about 10 RD-180's

[Propforce]

Jim - 29/3/2006  6:32 PM
one CCB and about 10 RD-180's

Yeah right.  One CCB that was not slated to a mission coming down.  OK, if you say so....   Talk to your guys back in Denver.

I can see you need 10 RD-180's sitting around as you need to assure the Air Force you have enough just in case the political climate change in Russia.

[Jim]

Propforce - 30/3/2006  2:00 AM

Jim - 29/3/2006  6:32 PMone CCB and about 10 RD-180's

Yeah right.  One CCB that was not slated to a mission coming down.  OK, if you say so....   Talk to your guys back in Denver.I can see you need 10 RD-180's sitting around as you need to assure the Air Force you have enough just in case the political climate change in Russia.

They keep one extra in the production flow so that they can react quickly to a commercial requirement.  The contract for the next mission was only signed a late last year (maybe Dec).  If is it a spacecraft bus that has already flown, LM has launched within 6 months of turn on.

[Tap-Sa]

Propforce - 30/3/2006  3:15 AM
  each RD-180 and/or each RL-10 are tagged for specific missioin based on it's specific ATP value.  

Pardon my ignorance but what is 'ATP value' ?

[Jim]

aero313 - 29/3/2006  2:46 PM By the way, while we're talking about Gov't-funded boondoggles, how about the money wasted on SLC-3E.  The Gov't spent $350M in the mid-1990s to rebuilt that pad to accommodate the Atlas III for NRO missions.  There were exactly THREE launched from the rebuilt pad.  Now it's being rebuilt again for Atlas V.  AAAAUUUURRRRGGGGHHH!

It was Atlas IIAS's.

 But if you look at this way.  TitanIV production line was shut down.  The cost of one was more than  $200M (it would be greater with a production line restart) and Atlas $100M.  You can probably make a business case that it was cheaper to go with the Atlas and new pad.

[Jim]

Propforce - 29/3/2006  6:15 PM .  In fact, each RD-180 and/or each RL-10 are tagged for specific missioin based on it's specific ATP value.  It would be foolish for Lockheed to do otherwise.  

Cherry picking is not required any more.  They have plenty of margin. If not, add a solid

[aero313]

Tap-Sa - 30/3/2006  7:24 AM

[Pardon my ignorance but what is 'ATP value' ?

ATP is acceptance test procedure.  On the Titan program Martin and the Air Force would test each engine and cherry pick the ones with the best performance for use on the missions that had the least margin.

[Propforce]

Jim - 30/3/2006  5:40 AM
Cherry picking is not required any more.  They have plenty of margin. If not, add a solid

You don't have that much margin.  Not without the SRMs.

[aero313]

Jim - 30/3/2006  8:37 AM

It was Atlas IIAS's.

You're right.  Sorry about that.

But if you look at this way.  TitanIV production line was shut down.  The cost of one was more than  $200M (it would be greater with a production line restart) and Atlas $100M.  You can probably make a business case that it was cheaper to go with the Atlas and new pad.

That's not correct.  The decision to upgrade SLC-3E was made in 1992, with the Titan program still very much in production.  IOC was 1997 and first launch was a NASA EOS mission in 1999 (followed by the NRO missions in 2003 and 2004).

[Jim]

Propforce - 30/3/2006  1:06 PM

Jim - 30/3/2006  5:40 AMCherry picking is not required any more.  They have plenty of margin. If not, add a solid

You don't have that much margin.  Not without the SRMs.

Cherry picking was done for NRO payloads on Titan IV, which probably will apply for the DIV heavy.  With the range of lift capabilty in the intermediate range, spacecraft no longer are maxing out the capability.  If you at the EELV manifest, you see missions with 1-4 solids, meaning they are greater than the EELV Medium vehicles.  Original EELV concept had only 3 vehicles: small, medium and heavy, all with no SRM's.  Small was dropped, since it eliminated a configuration and spacecraft slated to fly on it, had their AKM's removed and are now to be directly inserted into their op orbit.  Meanwhile, commercial comsats got bigger and the EELV contractors added SRM's to help capture/prevent losing the market.  DOD took advantage of this and some of their medium satellites got bigger.  Anyways, if they lose more margins, they can add a solid and not fly at the hairy edge.

[Propforce]

Well... it is what it is today.  In this business, it's the chicken or the egg thing.  Eventually everyone wants to maximize payload to orbit, and we start to design ourself into a box.    

[Jim]

It has been or going great flying on an EELV from NASA's point of view.  MRO had good margin.  SDO, LRO and MSL will have a lot.  GOES had so much that they are going to a 3rd burn with the 2nd stage.

[Tap-Sa]

What about New Horizons? Did it push Atlas V to it's limits?

[Jim]

Tap-Sa - 30/3/2006  3:38 PMWhat about New Horizons? Did it push Atlas V to it's limits?

They had many ways to fly the mission and they could have used a Delta IV heavy.  The margin varied daily and whether it was going direct or via Jupiter.  Also it had a solid 3rd stage, which means the dispersions the spacecraft has to deal are  larger.

[Jim]

aero313 - 30/3/2006  2:13 PM

Jim - 30/3/2006  8:37 AMIt was Atlas IIAS's.

You're right.  Sorry about that.

But if you look at this way.  TitanIV production line was shut down.  The cost of one was more than  $200M (it would be greater with a production line restart) and Atlas $100M.  You can probably make a business case that it was cheaper to go with the Atlas and new pad.

That's not correct.  The decision to upgrade SLC-3E was made in 1992, with the Titan program still very much in production.  IOC was 1997 and first launch was a NASA EOS mission in 1999 (followed by the NRO missions in 2003 and 2004).

Just want to revisit this after shaking some cobwebs loose.  SLC-3E upgrade decision was pre EELV, and  the NRO had a requirement for a certain class vehicle on the west coast.  EELV came along and provided another solution, addtionally Atlas II production was discontinued.  Yes, money was wasted, but hindsight is 20/20

[aero313]

Jim - 31/3/2006  8:05 AM

SLC-3E upgrade decision was pre EELV, and  the NRO had a requirement for a certain class vehicle on the west coast.  EELV came along and provided another solution, addtionally Atlas II production was discontinued.  Yes, money was wasted, but hindsight is 20/20

Yeah, these were supposed to be the NRO's new "smallsats", where "small" meant Atlas II class vs. Titan IV class...  I guess everything is relative.