-
#1120 by Dexter on 22 Sep, 2007 19:00
-
Quote
Jim - 22/9/2007 1:16 PM
QuoteDexter - 22/9/2007 1:51 PM
QuoteJim - 22/9/2007 8:29 AM
QuoteDexter - 22/9/2007 12:19 AM
It makes you wonder what was wrong with the old two pad system that they used in 1995.
Too small
Huh???
http://www.nishkian.com/Complete/Dean_PDFs/SLC-3E_ARTICLE_12-04-03.pdf
Didn't seem to be a problem at Vandenberg Air Force Base.
As usual, you ignore the facts, just so you can keep up your usual rant.
The SLC-41 is designed for a heavy vehicle. The old Atlas pads couldn't accomodate* a heavy and the old pads were still launching Atlas II's and III's (11 total) while Atlas V was flying. SLC-41 is just an upgrade (not a new pad) too like the VAFB pad.
It doesn't matter what has happened in the past, things have moved forward and there is no going back. ULA is here, learn to love and embrace it. It is not going away.
* neither can the upgraded VAFB pad.
Good Point. When is that next Atlas V Heavy launch?? -
#1121 by bombay on 22 Sep, 2007 20:16
-
Quote
pad rat - 22/9/2007 2:14 PM
No, not perception. My comment dealt specifically with lack of inventory of long lead item parts, the unwillingness to release funds to procure long lead item parts to build inventory, and consequently, the inability to increase production output if desired/warranted or for that matter, to even keep up with the current build rate.
My reference to 11 vehicles in one year dealt with production capacity, not launch rate from one pad. I made it in response to Bombay's assertion regarding what he perceives as production limitations.
Tightly controlling funds is not a bad thing when it makes sense. This makes no sense. Is this company so cash strapped that they can't release funds to purchase parts that have 6-10 month lead times?
-
#1122 by Nick L. on 22 Sep, 2007 20:49
-
Quote
pad rat - 22/9/2007 3:14 PM
BTW, I just read in AW&ST that Delta IV is being commercially offered again.
That's good. Maybe with a few commercial customers Delta IV prices will drop. -
#1123 by tnphysics on 22 Sep, 2007 21:48
-
It almost certainly will, if it is competitive.
-
#1124 by spacedreams on 27 Sep, 2007 14:56
-
Quote
bombay - 22/9/2007 1:16 PM My comment dealt specifically with lack of inventory of long lead item parts, the unwillingness to release funds to procure long lead item parts to build inventory, and consequently, the inability to increase production output if desired/warranted or for that matter, to even keep up with the current build rate. Tightly controlling funds is not a bad thing when it makes sense. This makes no sense. Is this company so cash strapped that they can't release funds to purchase parts that have 6-10 month lead times?
Spending a lot of their own money on hardware that never got used while hoping for a commercial market to develop is what put both Lockheed and Boeing in the red to begin with and caused both of the companies to break off their rocket divisions (and eventually merge). It simply isn't profitable and like it or not, they are commercial companies. This isn't the rocket field of dreams where if you build them they will come. Honestly, I can't blame them for not wanting to go out and spend a couple million on hardware that nobody has promised to buy
-
#1125 by kevin-rf on 27 Sep, 2007 18:38
-
How much Delta III hardware is still sitting in a warehouse somewhere...
-
#1126 by WHAP on 27 Sep, 2007 18:44
-
Quote
kevin-rf - 27/9/2007 12:38 PM
How much Delta III hardware is still sitting in a warehouse somewhere...
How much Delta IV hardware is sitting in a warehouse somewhere? It may eventually fly, but it's a purchase Boeing made that is not providing any return. -
#1127 by Jim on 27 Sep, 2007 19:13
-
Quote
kevin-rf - 27/9/2007 2:38 PM
How much Delta III hardware is still sitting in a warehouse somewhere...
Few upperstages (maybe just one) were put on display. There weren't that many in production
Most of the first stage hardware is being used for D-II heavies.
Just a few 4 meter tanks are hangin around. -
#1128 by Jim on 27 Sep, 2007 19:14
-
Quote
WHAP - 27/9/2007 2:44 PM
Quotekevin-rf - 27/9/2007 12:38 PM
How much Delta III hardware is still sitting in a warehouse somewhere...
How much Delta IV hardware is sitting in a warehouse somewhere? It may eventually fly, but it's a purchase Boeing made that is not providing any return.
none. They are being built to support the current flight rate -
#1129 by bombay on 28 Sep, 2007 00:51
-
Quote
spacedreams - 27/9/2007 9:56 AM
The money that GD invested in building 60 or so LVs back in the 90's didn't go to waste. They all were sold and flown - commercial and gov't. So they were built and they did come! The Atlas and Delta EELV rocket programs falling on hard times under Boeing and Lockheed had nothing to do with purchasing needed flight hardware.
Spending a lot of their own money on hardware that never got used while hoping for a commercial market to develop is what put both Lockheed and Boeing in the red to begin with and caused both of the companies to break off their rocket divisions (and eventually merge). It simply isn't profitable and like it or not, they are commercial companies. This isn't the rocket field of dreams where if you build them they will come. Honestly, I can't blame them for not wanting to go out and spend a couple million on hardware that nobody has promised to buy
Buy 3 was a given and Buy 4 is a given.
-
#1130 by mike robel on 28 Sep, 2007 01:09
-
There is 1 Delta IV first stage on display at the CCAS USAF Space Museum.
-
#1131 by Jim on 28 Sep, 2007 02:15
-
Quote
bombay - 27/9/2007 8:51 PM
The money that GD invested in building 60 or so LVs back in the 90's didn't go to waste. They all were sold and flown - commercial and gov't. So they were built and they did come!
Not quite. The production rate still matched the flight rate. There was no stockpiling of launch vehicles. -
#1132 by Dexter on 28 Sep, 2007 02:36
-
Quote
Jim - 27/9/2007 9:15 PM
Quotebombay - 27/9/2007 8:51 PM
The money that GD invested in building 60 or so LVs back in the 90's didn't go to waste. They all were sold and flown - commercial and gov't. So they were built and they did come!
Not quite. The production rate still matched the flight rate. There was no stockpiling of launch vehicles.
What about the stockpiling of RD-180s?
This has to be one of the most expensive components on a rocket. It was mentioned here that ULA has about 20 engines and also mentioned here that they are $10-15 million dollars per. Now that's a cash outlay!
Assuming Bombay's information is correct that there are shortages which is why ULA can't capture commercial launches, how does this fit with the stockpiling of engines.
Maybe the stockpiling has resulted in a lack of cash for everything else.
-
#1133 by Nick L. on 28 Sep, 2007 03:04
-
Quote
mike robel - 27/9/2007 9:09 PM
There is 1 Delta IV first stage on display at the CCAS USAF Space Museum.
I wondered what they were going to do with that CBC. I'd seen it in photos and on Google Earth just sitting outside the HIF. That's the one they used for the initial testing of the pad equipment (FPE, launch table, MLP and other stuff), right? -
#1134 by WHAP on 28 Sep, 2007 03:50
-
Quote
Jim - 27/9/2007 1:14 PM
QuoteWHAP - 27/9/2007 2:44 PM
Quotekevin-rf - 27/9/2007 12:38 PM
How much Delta III hardware is still sitting in a warehouse somewhere...
How much Delta IV hardware is sitting in a warehouse somewhere? It may eventually fly, but it's a purchase Boeing made that is not providing any return.
none. They are being built to support the current flight rate
I haven't been to Decatur, but my understanding is that there's a lot more hardware than required to support the "current" flight rate. Buying in large quantities provides some discounts, so I guess it's for the finance guys to say whether it's worth it or not. -
#1135 by WHAP on 28 Sep, 2007 03:54
-
Quote
Dexter - 27/9/2007 8:36 PM
QuoteJim - 27/9/2007 9:15 PM
Quotebombay - 27/9/2007 8:51 PM
The money that GD invested in building 60 or so LVs back in the 90's didn't go to waste. They all were sold and flown - commercial and gov't. So they were built and they did come!
Not quite. The production rate still matched the flight rate. There was no stockpiling of launch vehicles.
What about the stockpiling of RD-180s?
This has to be one of the most expensive components on a rocket. It was mentioned here that ULA has about 20 engines and also mentioned here that they are $10-15 million dollars per. Now that's a cash outlay!
Assuming Bombay's information is correct that there are shortages which is why ULA can't capture commercial launches, how does this fit with the stockpiling of engines.
Maybe the stockpiling has resulted in a lack of cash for everything else.
More assumptions. Define what you mean by "ULA can't capture commercial launches". Like the COSMO-SkyMed 3 awarded to Delta II? Atlas V and Delta IV may be available to the commercial market, but they are expensive, and ULA/LM/Boeing aren't going to cut the price, especially with Buy 3, just to capture commercial missions.
Remember this thread? http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=9529&posts=87&start=1
You took ULA to task for not planning properly. I'd say the stockpiling of these engines, vs. RL-10 or RS-68, is proper planning. -
#1136 by Dexter on 28 Sep, 2007 04:59
-
Quote
WHAP - 27/9/2007 10:54 PM
QuoteDexter - 27/9/2007 8:36 PM
QuoteJim - 27/9/2007 9:15 PM
Quotebombay - 27/9/2007 8:51 PM
The money that GD invested in building 60 or so LVs back in the 90's didn't go to waste. They all were sold and flown - commercial and gov't. So they were built and they did come!
Not quite. The production rate still matched the flight rate. There was no stockpiling of launch vehicles.
What about the stockpiling of RD-180s?
This has to be one of the most expensive components on a rocket. It was mentioned here that ULA has about 20 engines and also mentioned here that they are $10-15 million dollars per. Now that's a cash outlay!
Assuming Bombay's information is correct that there are shortages which is why ULA can't capture commercial launches, how does this fit with the stockpiling of engines.
Maybe the stockpiling has resulted in a lack of cash for everything else.
More assumptions. Define what you mean by "ULA can't capture commercial launches". Like the COSMO-SkyMed 3 awarded to Delta II? Atlas V and Delta IV may be available to the commercial market, but they are expensive, and ULA/LM/Boeing aren't going to cut the price, especially with Buy 3, just to capture commercial missions.
Remember this thread? http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=9529&posts=87&start=1
You took ULA to task for not planning properly. I'd say the stockpiling of these engines, vs. RL-10 or RS-68, is proper planning.
You are correct. I should have specified that as a result of the Sealaunch and Proton failures, neither Atlas nor Delta has captured any of the business.
I recognize that Atlas may have a few commercial contracts like ICO G. Delta just plain stopped marketing the IV. If you read my post earlier in this thread you will notice that I speculated that commercial Comsats may not be willing to wait for the cheaper Russian/Ukrainian rockets if their sattellite is ready as it might be a loss of potential revenue if they wait. During this time frame, hasn't Arianne captured many of these customers not willing to wait? After the Proton failure, if I recall correctly, JSAT contracted with Arianne for a replacement flight.
One of the early premises of EELV was to downselect two providers because of a robust commercial market. The market collapsed but now there are opportunities which ULA cannot capture against the French. Why Not?
Is it cheaper labor? Then what of the dollar to Euro exchange rate?
Is it because Arianne is subsidized? Then what is this whole Buy 3 thing?
Next item.
I was just responding to Jim's comment that ULA is not stock piling rockets.
RD-180s have been stockpiled long before ULA was formed so please don't claim credit for ULA on this decision.
But why are they stockpiling? Unstable foreign source? Breach of the National Space Transportation policy?
If they would have followed through with their advertised plan on co-production, none of this stockpiling would have been necessary.
Here is a piece of history for you from June 22, 1997:
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRNews/FR970622.htm#RD-180
"A total of 101 RD-180 have been ordered by Lockheed Martin to equip the new Atlas version IIAR and to test the company's EELV contribution. The contract worth one billion US-Dollars was signed recently with Energomash in Russia. Pratt has already begun construction of a new production facility in Clearwater, Florida, where the company will center its liquid propulsion space business and also will put up a coproduction facility for the RD-180. Beginning April 1st next year Pratt will be able to use this facility with the first delivery planned in June 1998.
The deal with Energomash leaves the production of the RD-180 to the Russian manufacturer for the commercial launches of Atlas IIAR and eventually after 2000 Lockheed's EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle). A decision whether Lockheed Martin or Boeing McDonnell Douglas will build the US Air Force's new launcher is due for June 1998.
The RD-180 for government launches will have to be built in the USA and Energomash will get a financial contribution out of any one of them. "
Does the Atlas V get downselected from the 4 to 2 competition of EELV if Lockheed does not state that the first American RD-180 will be ready in June 1998?
-
#1137 by WHAP on 28 Sep, 2007 05:40
-
Sea Launch, correct. Proton, it's probably too soon to tell. Was the JSAT award a jump from Proton to Ariane, or just something that was already in the works? It sure happened awfully soon after the failure to not have been in work already. But I don't know the details.
There may be many reasons for Atlas V not capturing more commercial contracts. When Atlas V first flew, it didn't really have the benefit of a cheaper dollar. You can look at Buy 3 as a subsidy, but it also has some responsibility associated with it. There are government missions on the manifest for both vehicles, and they actually fill it up pretty well. Until a spacecraft has a problem; then everyone moves out a little bit. Although I've never seen it happen, there may be the perception that a commercial customer may end up taking a "back seat" if an urgent government payload appears (like magic). Atlas can essentially launch 5 - 6 per year from LC-41 (essentially the same rate per pad as back in 1995) and that's what was on the books for 2007 and 2008. But go watch GWSimulations' US launch schedule thread over the next year and see what happens to government payloads (assuming all launches between now and then are successful - another variable in the equation). Even ICO has moved out due to its own issues. Atlas still has an Inmarsat 4 out there (if there is an earlier one on Proton, it is a different spacecraft), and maybe some others.
I didn't mean to specify that ULA would take credit for the stockpiling. But Atlas management hasn't really changed with the transition to ULA, so you can say it was LMA, but it's really the same people. The stockpiling occurred before the NTS, so that's not a reason. Unstable foreign source is a risk, and stockpiling is prudent.
You keep saying (I was going to say implying, but given the number of posts you've made, it's more than an implication) that LM hoodwinked the government into selecting it for EELV because of co-production. Which of the other 2 competitors do you think would have built as capable a vehicle given $1B? SpaceX? Not there yet, regardless of whose money they're spending. Kistler? Not based on past or recent performance. Although that article may have some dates in it, it's just someone's press release, not a contract with the government (Does Pratt even have a production facility in Clearwater?). If the government actually believed that a co-production facility would be up an running within one year (I'm sure they were fully aware of the state of co-production in June 1997), then they deserved to be hoodwinked. But that wasn't the case. As I and others have mentioned before, changes in the co-production goals and schedule have been fully coordinated with the government. -
#1138 by Jim on 28 Sep, 2007 11:21
-
Quote
Dexter - 28/9/2007 12:59 AM
Does the Atlas V get downselected from the 4 to 2 competition of EELV if Lockheed does not state that the first American RD-180 will be ready in June 1998?
No, because the USAF like LMA and the other two were non viable.
Also quoting something from 1997 is not applicable today.
Like I said ULA, Delta IV and Atlas V are here to stay. Learn to love it Bitching and whining isn't going to change things. ULA customers are happy -
#1139 by Analyst on 28 Sep, 2007 12:04
-
Quote
Jim - 28/9/2007 1:21 PM
ULA customers are happy
I don't know, but this can be true. But there aren't that many. DoD, NASA and only very few commercial. And if you discount Delta II commercial, there are even less. Not to imply something, just a fact.
Analyst