-
#1040
by
Jim
on 22 Jun, 2007 19:02
-
McDew - 22/6/2007 12:49 PM
MKremer - 22/6/2007 2:20 AM
Other than existing contract flight hardware for the next few years, Delta II is already a cancelled program, isn't it?
Far from it, another block buy of Delta II’s is almost guaranteed. All NASA needs to do is just dust off the sole source justification they used for the Pack 19 award and change the date.
Key words: “High Value” + “Cat 3” + “Medium Class” + “Wait and See poses unacceptable risks” = Sole Source Award per FAR 16.505(b)(2)
Actually, MKremer is more correct, it is not far from being shutdown. There will be no equivalent "19 pack" because there aren't enough missions out there.
-
#1041
by
McDew
on 22 Jun, 2007 19:39
-
Jim - 22/6/2007 3:02 PM
McDew - 22/6/2007 12:49 PM
MKremer - 22/6/2007 2:20 AM
Other than existing contract flight hardware for the next few years, Delta II is already a cancelled program, isn't it?
Far from it, another block buy of Delta II’s is almost guaranteed. All NASA needs to do is just dust off the sole source justification they used for the Pack 19 award and change the date.
Key words: “High Value” + “Cat 3” + “Medium Class” + “Wait and See poses unacceptable risks” = Sole Source Award per FAR 16.505(b)(2)
Actually, MKremer is more correct, it is not far from being shutdown. There will be no equivalent "19 pack" because there aren't enough missions out there.
"it is not far from being shutdown" I agree, which is driving NASA's need to make a decision by this summer on a program extension / block buy to meet NASA’s mission model requirements of about 2/yr. If they bite, a likely quantity could be 6-10 vehicles. See key words, “Wait and See poses unacceptable risks”. Time will tell.
-
#1042
by
WHAP
on 22 Jun, 2007 19:45
-
McDew - 22/6/2007 10:49 AM
Far from it, another block buy of Delta II’s is almost guaranteed. All NASA needs to do is just dust off the sole source justification they used for the Pack 19 award and change the date.
Key words: “High Value” + “Cat 3” + “Medium Class” + “Wait and See poses unacceptable risks” = Sole Source Award per FAR 16.505(b)(2)
Where are they getting the engines for this next buy?
-
#1043
by
Jim
on 22 Jun, 2007 19:46
-
There is no "next" buy
-
#1044
by
Jim
on 22 Jun, 2007 19:48
-
McDew - 22/6/2007 3:39 PM
"it is not far from being shutdown" I agree, which is driving NASA's need to make a decision by this summer on a program extension / block buy to meet NASA’s mission model requirements of about 2/yr. If they bite, a likely quantity could be 6-10 vehicles. See key words, “Wait and See poses unacceptable risks”. Time will tell.
NASA doesn't have to make a decision, it has already been done. NASA doesn't have a need for 2/yr at this moment.
-
#1045
by
McDew
on 22 Jun, 2007 20:16
-
Jim - 22/6/2007 3:48 PM
NASA doesn't have to make a decision, it has already been done. NASA doesn't have a need for 2/yr at this moment.
So are you saying that the "study" NASA is currently conducting has a preordained result?
My vote is that a shutdown makes the most sense, but the NASA system is wired for Delta II. As a wild card, keep in mind KP is back to help from the AF/NRO side.
-
#1046
by
Jim
on 22 Jun, 2007 22:45
-
No, not pre ordained. The manifest doesn't support it. 2 per year on 2 launch sites won't be cost effective
-
#1047
by
Dexter
on 22 Jun, 2007 23:54
-
-
#1048
by
MySDCUserID
on 23 Jun, 2007 00:21
-
Dexter,
You have made it quite clear that you were against ULA forming in the first place. ULA exists. Now that it exists, what would you propose to do?
Continuing agruing about what was and what has become to be is a rather pointless, repetitive, and exhausting exercise. Perhaps you should propose your idea for the future based on the current state of the business.
Note, I consider your Posted 22/6/2007 2:01 AM (#154176 - in reply to #154155) to be arguements that had validity prior to the formation. I'm asking what you propose now that ULA is here.
-
#1049
by
Kayla
on 23 Jun, 2007 02:20
-
Antares - 22/6/2007 8:08 AM
If I were ULA-Atlas, I'd be salivating at the chance to learn another rocket, especially my main competitor. At this point, the sooner Delta moves, the sooner the Atlas folks can start learning it. In actuality, many of the Delta IV designers left the company before ULA was just a gleam in Chicago's eye.
In my opinion, this is the most promising aspect of ULA's formation. This education and sharing of data is already happening. This cross education will result in improvements to both Delta and Atlas and any future vehicles.
-
#1050
by
Dexter
on 23 Jun, 2007 03:59
-
MySDCUserID - 22/6/2007 7:21 PM
Dexter,
You have made it quite clear that you were against ULA forming in the first place. ULA exists. Now that it exists, what would you propose to do?
Continuing agruing about what was and what has become to be is a rather pointless, repetitive, and exhausting exercise. Perhaps you should propose your idea for the future based on the current state of the business.
Note, I consider your Posted 22/6/2007 2:01 AM (#154176 - in reply to #154155) to be arguements that had validity prior to the formation. I'm asking what you propose now that ULA is here.
Would you be willing to consider that the USAF, NRO, DOD tell ULA as their sponsors to stop the expertise drain and allow Delta engineers in Huntington Beach to support Delta without having to relocate to Denver? Atlas manufacturing expertise remain in Denver??? (There is still that $80M package from the state of Alabama) I don't believe any of this has gotten to the point of no return.
But if there is some "saving face" situation which prevents executives from reassessing a bad plan then let SpaceX take over the vacated Delta 2 market so that they can further develop the expertise to compete in the EELV market (I use the term market loosely here).
As for my continued arguing, I am just pointing out issues that are ocurring now that I predicted would happen prior to the formation.
Perhaps ULA should be left alone to serve as an example to the DOD and FTC about the dangers of creating such a scheme.
-
#1051
by
WHAP
on 23 Jun, 2007 04:18
-
-
#1052
by
Dexter
on 23 Jun, 2007 04:52
-
WHAP - 22/6/2007 11:18 PM
Dexter - 22/6/2007 5:54 PM
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/nro062207.xml&headline=NRO%20Shortfall%20May%20Delay%20ULA%20Missions
"The U.S. Air Force also is expected to order a review of the failure, which one former military intelligence officer with knowledge of the program called "a major blow, major disappointment."
It's too bad AvWeek went to a "former military intelligence officer", who probably has no direct knowledge of this situation, to get this quote. As someone with nothing to lose, you think he could have explained himself.
By the way, there is a separate thread to discuss the NRO L-30 launch - which is where the quoted post really belongs.
Someone with nothing to loose might also be more honest and not be obligated to tow the company line.
I chose to put the quote here because it deals with the repercussions of the formation of ULA which was championed by the DOD. If you you would like to post it on the other thread, be my guest.
-
#1053
by
kraisee
on 23 Jun, 2007 06:43
-
A failure (whenever it happens) is always a "major disappointment" to all the folks who were involved in preparing it. That's no surprise to anyone here, is it?
From a corporate perspective, the Atlas team was flying pretty high on the fact that the Atlas had not had a failure in 70+ missions. Even though failures are inevitable in this business, to have one now is going to take a lot of wind out of their sails. "A major blow" is not an inaccurately description in this context.
There will be an investigation because *all* failures have investigations. The investigations are to locate the cause and make damn sure it never happens again. That much is just routine procedure for any launcher problem, small or large.
The fact that this particular failure involved a highly classified national asset means it'll probably be a fairly big (though pretty secret) investigation. That's just the nature of this circumstance. It is what should be expected in the event of any such failure.
It's certainly a news worthy story, but it isn't that big of a deal. Nobody died, the payload still reached a suitable orbit to continue its work, so nothing much was actually lost.
The investigation will find out what went wrong, then the Atlas team will fix the problem and carry on. Best of luck to 'em and I hope this helps to ensure it is at least another 70+ missions before the next significant problem.
Ross.
-
#1054
by
Jim
on 23 Jun, 2007 13:03
-
Dexter - 22/6/2007 11:59 PM
As for my continued arguing, I am just pointing out issues that are ocurring now that I predicted would happen prior to the formation.
You are diluting yourself if you think you have "predicted" the recent issues.
1. They are not due to the formation of ULA.
2. You didn't predict anything close
-
#1055
by
Jim
on 23 Jun, 2007 13:05
-
Dexter - 23/6/2007 12:52 AM
WHAP - 22/6/2007 11:18 PM
Dexter - 22/6/2007 5:54 PM
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/nro062207.xml&headline=NRO%20Shortfall%20May%20Delay%20ULA%20Missions
"The U.S. Air Force also is expected to order a review of the failure, which one former military intelligence officer with knowledge of the program called "a major blow, major disappointment."
It's too bad AvWeek went to a "former military intelligence officer", who probably has no direct knowledge of this situation, to get this quote. As someone with nothing to lose, you think he could have explained himself.
By the way, there is a separate thread to discuss the NRO L-30 launch - which is where the quoted post really belongs.
Someone with nothing to loose might also be more honest and not be obligated to tow the company line.
I chose to put the quote here because it deals with the repercussions of the formation of ULA which was championed by the DOD. If you you would like to post it on the other thread, be my guest.
You can always find a quote that favors your point of view. It still doesn't mean it is valid. Hell, I could even say something and get it printed.
Anyways, the quote DOES NOT "deals with the repercussions of the formation of ULA". It only deals with one mission
-
#1056
by
edkyle99
on 23 Jun, 2007 13:57
-
Jim - 22/6/2007 5:45 PM
No, not pre ordained. The manifest doesn't support it. 2 per year on 2 launch sites won't be cost effective
I know the writing is on the wall for Delta 2, etc., but I still have to say this, one last time for the record.
Is is a mistake to terminate the world's most successful, versatile space launch vehicle - especially before the upscale EELV "replacements" have proven themselves. To date, neither EELV has shown an ability to meet the Delta 2 standard of reliability.
It is also a mistake to eliminate a medium payload launcher that should, and I believe still could, cost less that its larger EELV replacements. It is almost like the mid 1980s, when NASA shut Delta down to force its payloads onto Shuttle. It didn't work then. Why should it now?
- Ed Kyle
-
#1057
by
Jim
on 23 Jun, 2007 14:22
-
edkyle99 - 23/6/2007 9:57 AM
It is also a mistake to eliminate a medium payload launcher that should, and I believe still could, cost less that its larger EELV replacements. It is almost like the mid 1980s, when NASA shut Delta down to force its payloads onto Shuttle. It didn't work then. Why should it now?
- Ed Kyle
because Delta II has been subsidized since 1989 by GPS. There never was really any "low" prices. The USAF bought vehicles (hardware) and then paid separately to launch them. The separation of launch ops from vehicle procurement kept the launch bases manned and facilities maintain (by a separate contractor) for a 60 day GPS call up. NASA and commercial customers were able to take advantage of this since MDC/Boeing was able to provide lower prices for the "additional" missions. In the end, the cost of each launch is the same, just NASA will have to pay all of it. vs splitting with the USAF
It can't cost less, it more manpower intensive.
-
#1058
by
McDew
on 23 Jun, 2007 15:53
-
Jim - 23/6/2007 10:22 AM
It can't cost less, it more manpower intensive.
Remember ESAS? Total Cost Accounting can come up with surprising results.
NASA has been responsible for all West Coast launch base costs for several years.
-
#1059
by
Jim
on 23 Jun, 2007 16:49
-
VAFB launches still were subsidized by CCAFS facilities. Anyways, NASA VAFB costs were not paid by the user (spacecraft), they were funded separately