-
ULA is getting green light
by
Jim
on 20 Jun, 2006 11:56
-
-
#1
by
nacnud
on 20 Jun, 2006 12:20
-
Does anyone know how the ULA will work? How will LM and Boeing share launches?
-
#2
by
Jim
on 20 Jun, 2006 15:07
-
-
#3
by
nacnud
on 20 Jun, 2006 16:30
-
Do you have the title of that article so I can google it rather than having to register, thanks.
-
#4
by
braddock
on 20 Jun, 2006 16:44
-
"The companies are still arguing at the detail level that they shouldn't be overburdened with requirements that undercut the business case."
We'll see what the terms are, and if Boeing and Lockheed are going to renegotiate now. Also, this means the FTC has signed off on the partnership, but I'm not sure if that implies that the Pentagon has yet given its blessing. I believe the FTC was waiting on a Pentagon recommendation, so I guess it implies Pentagon approval.
-
#5
by
rosbif73
on 20 Jun, 2006 19:22
-
nacnud - 20/6/2006 6:17 PM
Do you have the title of that article so I can google it rather than having to register, thanks.
The title is "Lockheed, Boeing weigh venture rules", as I found out using a dummy login from
bugmenot.com
-
#6
by
publiusr
on 07 Jul, 2006 18:46
-
I seem to remember talk about Atlas V production coming to Decatur AL
-
#7
by
Jim
on 07 Jul, 2006 19:05
-
publiusr - 7/7/2006 2:33 PM
I seem to remember talk about Atlas V production coming to Decatur AL
it will once ULA goes forward
-
#8
by
edkyle99
on 16 Jul, 2006 16:14
-
I've heard talk that ULA would mean the end of the Delta IV Medium versions, with all of those payloads transferred to Atlas and Delta IV retained only for the Heavy payloads. This is only a rumor. It may even fall into the wild rumor category. Has anyone else heard such talk?
- Ed Kyle
-
#9
by
Jim
on 16 Jul, 2006 21:08
-
rumor
-
#10
by
R&R
on 17 Jul, 2006 01:36
-
Very near sighted rumor.
1. Atlas V will use significantly less space in Decatur to get built than Delta IV. Reduce Delta IV launches and facility cost goes up as applies to per unit cost.
2. Delta IV has no commercial launches scheduled. Atlas V still most economical to the commercial market so not likely anything will come up to move later.
3. All Delta IV Medium & Intermediate launches (excluding GOES Sats for NASA) already awarded or soon to be awarded are USAF/NRO. Moving those to Atlas V kind of shoots the whole assured access mantra in the foot.
4. The only thing scheduled for NASA is the GOES Satellites which are built by Boeing Satellite Systems and their baby until on orbit; they in effect buy the launch. Boeing give launches to LM? I don't think so.
-
#11
by
mlorrey
on 17 Jul, 2006 01:37
-
Saw that green light coming from a mile away. Of course, all I had to go on were what Jim calls "conspiracy theories" and rumors...
-
#12
by
Avron
on 17 Jul, 2006 03:48
-
mlorrey - 16/7/2006 9:24 PM
Saw that green light coming from a mile away. Of course, all I had to go on were what Jim calls "conspiracy theories" and rumors...
That be a train comming the other way?
Maybe the folks in DC would have a better view..
-
#13
by
simonbp
on 17 Jul, 2006 05:09
-
Would this (Atlas production coming to Decatur) mean an enlargement of the plant? It's on a relatively empty streach of the river and I've heard a couple Boeing say it was built for expansion...
Simon
-
#14
by
Jim
on 17 Jul, 2006 07:31
-
simonbp - 17/7/2006 12:56 AM
Would this (Atlas production coming to Decatur) mean an enlargement of the plant? It's on a relatively empty streach of the river and I've heard a couple Boeing say it was built for expansion...
Simon
The plant has excess capacity. That is the reason for the move. It was sized for 40 vehicle cores per year.
-
#15
by
Bruhn
on 17 Jul, 2006 19:16
-
I was just in the plant on Friday. There were about 10 Delta IVs and 6 Delta IIs on the floor. While it certainly was spacious, I couldn't imagine having 40 Delta IV CBCs packed in there. I'm sure its doable, but watch out when backing up.
-
#16
by
edkyle99
on 17 Jul, 2006 20:00
-
Bruhn - 17/7/2006 2:03 PM
I was just in the plant on Friday. There were about 10 Delta IVs and 6 Delta IIs on the floor. While it certainly was spacious, I couldn't imagine having 40 Delta IV CBCs packed in there. I'm sure its doable, but watch out when backing up.
I'm not sure how much time each CBC is supposed to be in the production cycle at Decatur, but I've read that it takes two years from an order until launch, minimum. I'm guessing that the engines (not built at Decatur) are the longest lead items, and that the completed vehicles are supposed to be shipped out about 6 months before launch, so each CBC might only be in production and test at the factory for 12 months or so. That means 40 at the factory at a time, but since the rate is only 3.333 per month, probably less than 20 or so at a time would need to be in or approaching the final assembly and test phase, actually taking up space. The rest could be little more than sheets or rolls of aluminum and wire and boxes of connectors and rivets, or whatever.
This kind of production has happened before, though with smaller launchers. During the height of the Atlas and Thor programs, the contractors were building more than 40 per year. Martin probably didn't have to build quite that many Titans per year (I seem to recall a 2 per month rate), but there were as many as 27 Titan launches one year (1963).
- Ed Kyle
-
#17
by
Jim
on 17 Jul, 2006 20:04
-
The 40 is a throughput not storage.
-
#18
by
publiusr
on 18 Aug, 2006 21:09
-
ULA up north of me and--perhaps KC-30 production to the south of me--all in the same state.
-
#19
by
Dexter
on 03 Oct, 2006 06:20
-
