ULA is getting green light

• #140 by Dexter on 19 Oct, 2006 14:04
• Smartest man on the forum has to resort to sophomoric insults.
  
  So why don't we combine all the satellite programs into one of its such a good idea for rockets?
• #141 by Jim on 19 Oct, 2006 14:44
• Quote

  Dexter - 19/10/2006  9:47 AM
  
  Smartest man on the forum has to resort to sophomoric insults.
  
  So why don't we combine all the satellite programs into one of its such a good idea for rockets?

  
  Just as sophomoric as your "proposal"
  
  Because the satellites are dominated by the commerical market and not the gov't market.  There are more than 4 major spacecraft manufacturers.  They can launch from any LV.
  
  Different market pressures
• #142 by josh_simonson on 19 Oct, 2006 23:01
• I don't see how combining the two programs into one site enhances security - that's only one building now that a terrorist has to hit late morning on a tuesday to seriously screw up the entire heavy US launch capability.  Or an unfortunate tornado, earthquake or industrial accident could have the same effect.
  
  For maximum security you'd want full duplication separated by considerable distances - not all the eggs in one basket.
• #143 by Nick L. on 20 Oct, 2006 00:11
• Quote

  josh_simonson - 19/10/2006  5:44 PM
  
  I don't see how combining the two programs into one site enhances security - that's only one building now that a terrorist has to hit late morning on a tuesday to seriously screw up the entire heavy US launch capability.  Or an unfortunate tornado, earthquake or industrial accident could have the same effect.
  
  For maximum security you'd want full duplication separated by considerable distances - not all the eggs in one basket.

  
  Security in this case means being able to launch satellites that help to prevent those attacks in the first place.
  
  Nick
  
• #144 by skywalker on 20 Oct, 2006 15:24
• Quote

  Jim - 19/10/2006  9:27 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Dexter - 19/10/2006  9:47 AM
  
  Smartest man on the forum has to resort to sophomoric insults.
  
  So why don't we combine all the satellite programs into one of its such a good idea for rockets?

  
  Just as sophomoric as your "proposal"
  
  Because the satellites are dominated by the commerical market and not the gov't market.  There are more than 4 major spacecraft manufacturers.  They can launch from any LV.
  
  Different market pressures

  
  So there is a commercial market, and I thought that Boeing and LM wanted help because the commercial market had dried up.  Boeing wants a lot of money back from the government (basically to pay for the plant in Decatur, right?) and that is the sticking point with Boeing's Buy 3 right?  They are asking for this because the commercial market never materialized, right?  Yet combining satellite programs is not a good idea because they are controled by the commercial market, right?  Am I getting this, is there something I am missing?  There are more than 4, 2 of which are Boeing and LM,  seems to me that combining satellite programs makes just as much sense as cominbing LV programs.
• #145 by skywalker on 20 Oct, 2006 15:31
• Quote

  Nick L. - 19/10/2006  6:54 PM
  
  

  Quote

  josh_simonson - 19/10/2006  5:44 PM
  
  I don't see how combining the two programs into one site enhances security - that's only one building now that a terrorist has to hit late morning on a tuesday to seriously screw up the entire heavy US launch capability.  Or an unfortunate tornado, earthquake or industrial accident could have the same effect.
  
  For maximum security you'd want full duplication separated by considerable distances - not all the eggs in one basket.

  
  Security in this case means being able to launch satellites that help to prevent those attacks in the first place.
  
  Nick
  

  
  I think Josh is right and it makes my other point.  Since cost savings is not the issue and national secruity is then why move anything anywhere once ULA is formed?  Keeping things spread out will only add to the security, before the satellites are manufactured (which takes priority commercial or DoD, satellites are driven by the commercial market) and put into orbit.  ULA should not move anything keep manufacturing spread out and maintain key people, thus maintaining reliability.
• #146 by Jim on 20 Oct, 2006 15:48
• Quote

  skywalker - 20/10/2006  11:07 AM
  So there is a commercial market, and I thought that Boeing and LM wanted help because the commercial market had dried up.  Boeing wants a lot of money back from the government (basically to pay for the plant in Decatur, right?) and that is the sticking point with Boeing's Buy 3 right?  They are asking for this because the commercial market never materialized, right?  Yet combining satellite programs is not a good idea because they are controled by the commercial market, right?  Am I getting this, is there something I am missing?  There are more than 4, 2 of which are Boeing and LM,  seems to me that combining satellite programs makes just as much sense as cominbing LV programs.

  
  Not the same thing.   ULA is for launch of US National Security spacecraft.   Commercial satellites have other options and can fly on Atlas, Ariane, Proton, Sealaunch, Soyuz, H-2, and others.  The spacecraft contractors have enough business to sustain them, without DOD support
• #147 by bombay on 20 Oct, 2006 16:17
• Quote

  Jim - 20/10/2006  10:31 AM
  
  

  Quote

  skywalker - 20/10/2006  11:07 AM
  So there is a commercial market, and I thought that Boeing and LM wanted help because the commercial market had dried up.  Boeing wants a lot of money back from the government (basically to pay for the plant in Decatur, right?) and that is the sticking point with Boeing's Buy 3 right?  They are asking for this because the commercial market never materialized, right?  Yet combining satellite programs is not a good idea because they are controled by the commercial market, right?  Am I getting this, is there something I am missing?  There are more than 4, 2 of which are Boeing and LM,  seems to me that combining satellite programs makes just as much sense as cominbing LV programs.

  
  Not the same thing.   ULA is for launch of US National Security spacecraft.   Commercial satellites have other options and can fly on Atlas, Ariane, Proton, Sealaunch, Soyuz, H-2, and others.  The spacecraft contractors have enough business to sustain them, without DOD support

  
  What a bunch of double talk!!  So the commercial market didn't dry up per the rationale for forming ULA.
  
  This is the L-1011 situation revisted.  Lockheed is totally incapable of competing in a commercial market because they don't know how.  ULA is a welfare program to subsidize the inept managerial decisions that ran the Atlas and Delta programs into the ground.
• #148 by Jim on 20 Oct, 2006 17:30
• Wrong again.  The US commercial launch market dried up, not the US commercial spacecraft.  The US commercial spacecraft can use international launch vehicles.
  
  "inept managerial decisions that ran the Atlas and Delta programs into the ground"  double Wrong again.  They were not ran into the ground.  
  
  The US can and does survive without the L-1011.  One LV family is not good
• #149 by bombay on 20 Oct, 2006 17:57
• Quote

  Jim - 20/10/2006  12:13 PM
  
  Wrong again.  The US commercial launch market dried up, not the US commercial spacecraft.  The US commercial spacecraft can use international launch vehicles.
  
  "inept managerial decisions that ran the Atlas and Delta programs into the ground"  double Wrong again.  They were not ran into the ground.  
  
  The US can and does survive without the L-1011.  One LV family is not good

  More double talk.  The basis of a commercial launch market is to have a commercial spacecraft market.  In your own words, the commercial spacecraft market is there.  If the US launch market were the least bit competitive within the commercial market, the business is there for the taking.
  
  Management ran the the Delta and Atlas programs within the commercial market as if it were a cost plus arena.  This is precisely what the L-1011 management team did back in the late 60's - a total disregard for controlling costs, which put them out of business.
  
  Look at the Atlas program now versus how it was in the mid-late 90's.  It's now the remaking of the Titan program - big, fat, inefficient, incapable of competing commercially.  Compared to what the Atlas program was and still could be, management ran it into the ground.  
  
• #150 by Jim on 20 Oct, 2006 18:13
• Quote

  bombay - 20/10/2006  1:40 PM
  
  1.  More double talk.  The basis of a commercial launch market is to have a commercial spacecraft market.  In your own words, the commercial spacecraft market is there.  If the US launch market were the least bit competitive within the commercial market, the business is there for the taking.
  
  2.  Management ran the the Delta and Atlas programs within the commercial market as if it were a cost plus arena.  This is precisely what the L-1011 management team did back in the late 60's - a total disregard for controlling costs, which put them out of business.
  
  3.  Look at the Atlas program now versus how it was in the mid-late 90's.  It's now the remaking of the Titan program - big, fat, inefficient, incapable of competing commercially.  Compared to what the Atlas program was and still could be, management ran it into the ground.  
  

  
  1.  No, it is not.  LV market is not a level playing field due to low russian wages.  It doesn't apply to spacecraft
  
  2.  Just the opposite
  
  3.  It is the same structure as the 90's.  It is not like the titan
• #151 by spacedreams on 20 Oct, 2006 18:24
• The EELV program is for launch of government satellites (i.e. AF, NRO, etc ...) These satellites for the most part are larger than most commercial sattelites. The resolution of a picture you get from a satellite is proportional to how big your mirror is, stuff like that, as opposed to commercial communications satellites which can be much smaller. So, launch vehicle selection in the US is limited to EELV class (big launchers) for government hardware while commercial satellites can use some of the smaller US and/or foreign lauchers. There are a lot more smaller launchers because there are a lot more satellites.
  
  Then you also have the issue with US military/NRO type large satellites that for some reson they don't want to hand their hardware over to a foreign government subsidized launchers so the launcher field is limited but there aren't very many of this class satellite so it is difficult to keep the launchers in business.
• #152 by bombay on 20 Oct, 2006 19:57
• Quote

  Jim - 20/10/2006  12:56 PM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 20/10/2006  1:40 PM
  
  1.  More double talk.  The basis of a commercial launch market is to have a commercial spacecraft market.  In your own words, the commercial spacecraft market is there.  If the US launch market were the least bit competitive within the commercial market, the business is there for the taking.
  
  2.  Management ran the the Delta and Atlas programs within the commercial market as if it were a cost plus arena.  This is precisely what the L-1011 management team did back in the late 60's - a total disregard for controlling costs, which put them out of business.
  
  3.  Look at the Atlas program now versus how it was in the mid-late 90's.  It's now the remaking of the Titan program - big, fat, inefficient, incapable of competing commercially.  Compared to what the Atlas program was and still could be, management ran it into the ground.  
  

  
  1.  No, it is not.  LV market is not a level playing field due to low russian wages.  It doesn't apply to spacecraft
  
  2.  Just the opposite
  
  3.  It is the same structure as the 90's.  It is not like the titan

  1.  Yes, it is.  What you're now implying is that the rhetoric about Lockheed (not ULA) marketing the Atlas commercially is lie because of low russian wages. (i.e double talk).
  
  2.  The Delta and Atlas programs were ran with cost savings in mind?  That's a laugh.  The Atlas V costs way more than the Atlas III ever did and the Atlas V pricetag won't stop until it hits Titan levels.
  
  3.  You're right.  The same managerial structure that ruined thriving programs in the 90's, that by the way launched both commercial and gov't payloads, is in-place today to point to every reason other than their own poor decisions as to the reason why the Delta and Atlas programs are in the condition that they're in.  
  
• #153 by Propforce on 20 Oct, 2006 20:21
• Quote

  spacedreams - 20/10/2006  11:07 AM
  
  The EELV program is for launch of government satellites (i.e. AF, NRO, etc ...)

  
  Not completely true.  The EELV program, per se, is for launching government satellites.  The launchers, e.g., Delta & Atlas, are however; had commerical launches in mind when they sunk their own DDT&E money in developing these vehicles.  Boeing, more so than LM, invested heavily in the Delta IV with over $2.5 billion of its own money (vs. $0.5 billion of government's contract funds in the EMD phase) mainly because of the outlook of the commercial satellite market place.  You can not justify this kind of internal fund investment based on the EELV manifest alone.  
  
  The commercial satellite market was so dry that, at one point, Boeing announced its satellite division (ex-Hughes Space & Comm) will only pursue government business.  That leaves pretty much Loral as the sole U.S. commercial satellite builder.  
  
  
• #154 by Jim on 20 Oct, 2006 22:27
• Quote

  bombay - 20/10/2006  3:40 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 20/10/2006  12:56 PM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 20/10/2006  1:40 PM
  
  1.  More double talk.  The basis of a commercial launch market is to have a commercial spacecraft market.  In your own words, the commercial spacecraft market is there.  If the US launch market were the least bit competitive within the commercial market, the business is there for the taking.
  
  2.  Management ran the the Delta and Atlas programs within the commercial market as if it were a cost plus arena.  This is precisely what the L-1011 management team did back in the late 60's - a total disregard for controlling costs, which put them out of business.
  
  3.  Look at the Atlas program now versus how it was in the mid-late 90's.  It's now the remaking of the Titan program - big, fat, inefficient, incapable of competing commercially.  Compared to what the Atlas program was and still could be, management ran it into the ground.  
  

  
  1.  No, it is not.  LV market is not a level playing field due to low russian wages.  It doesn't apply to spacecraft
  
  2.  Just the opposite
  
  3.  It is the same structure as the 90's.  It is not like the titan

  1.  Yes, it is.  What you're now implying is that the rhetoric about Lockheed (not ULA) marketing the Atlas commercially is lie because of low russian wages. (i.e double talk).
  
  2.  The Delta and Atlas programs were ran with cost savings in mind?  That's a laugh.  The Atlas V costs way more than the Atlas III ever did and the Atlas V pricetag won't stop until it hits Titan levels.
  
  3.  You're right.  The same managerial structure that ruined thriving programs in the 90's, that by the way launched both commercial and gov't payloads, is in-place today to point to every reason other than their own poor decisions as to the reason why the Delta and Atlas programs are in the condition that they're in.  
  

  
  1.  Wrong again.  LM can market the Atlas but it faces stiff competetion from the Proton.  Some users are willing to pay a little more for mission assurance and schedule
  
  2.  Wrong again.  It does not.  Atlas III was only a interim configuration leading to the Atlas V.  It was never meant fly more than a few years.
  
  3.  Wrong again.  Atlas and Titan were managed by different groups within LM.
• #155 by bombay on 21 Oct, 2006 01:03
• Quote

  Jim - 20/10/2006  5:10 PM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 20/10/2006  3:40 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 20/10/2006  12:56 PM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 20/10/2006  1:40 PM
  
  1.  More double talk.  The basis of a commercial launch market is to have a commercial spacecraft market.  In your own words, the commercial spacecraft market is there.  If the US launch market were the least bit competitive within the commercial market, the business is there for the taking.
  
  2.  Management ran the the Delta and Atlas programs within the commercial market as if it were a cost plus arena.  This is precisely what the L-1011 management team did back in the late 60's - a total disregard for controlling costs, which put them out of business.
  
  3.  Look at the Atlas program now versus how it was in the mid-late 90's.  It's now the remaking of the Titan program - big, fat, inefficient, incapable of competing commercially.  Compared to what the Atlas program was and still could be, management ran it into the ground.  
  

  
  1.  No, it is not.  LV market is not a level playing field due to low russian wages.  It doesn't apply to spacecraft
  
  2.  Just the opposite
  
  3.  It is the same structure as the 90's.  It is not like the titan

  1.  Yes, it is.  What you're now implying is that the rhetoric about Lockheed (not ULA) marketing the Atlas commercially is lie because of low russian wages. (i.e double talk).
  
  2.  The Delta and Atlas programs were ran with cost savings in mind?  That's a laugh.  The Atlas V costs way more than the Atlas III ever did and the Atlas V pricetag won't stop until it hits Titan levels.
  
  3.  You're right.  The same managerial structure that ruined thriving programs in the 90's, that by the way launched both commercial and gov't payloads, is in-place today to point to every reason other than their own poor decisions as to the reason why the Delta and Atlas programs are in the condition that they're in.  
  

  
  1.  Wrong again.  LM can market the Atlas but it faces stiff competetion from the Proton.  Some users are willing to pay a little more for mission assurance and schedule
  
  2.  Wrong again.  It does not.  Atlas III was only a interim configuration leading to the Atlas V.  It was never meant fly more than a few years.
  
  3.  Wrong again.  Atlas and Titan were managed by different groups within LM.

  1.  So if Atlas can compete in the commercial market, why ULA?  First you say the commercial space craft market is dead, then you say it isn't.  Then you say Atlas can't compete because of an unfair playing field, now you're saying that they can.  Why don't you make up your mind!  
  
  2.  You're going to tell me that the Atlas V is cheaper to launch than the Atlas III.  You better quit smoking that dog food.
  
  3.  No kidding!  Unfortunately the Atlas management team is taking the Atlas program down the same path as Titan management took the Titan program.  It's the path that presents itself as a case study on how to not manage a program.
• #156 by skywalker on 21 Oct, 2006 02:34
• Quote

  bombay - 20/10/2006  7:46 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 20/10/2006  5:10 PM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 20/10/2006  3:40 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 20/10/2006  12:56 PM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 20/10/2006  1:40 PM
  
  1.  More double talk.  The basis of a commercial launch market is to have a commercial spacecraft market.  In your own words, the commercial spacecraft market is there.  If the US launch market were the least bit competitive within the commercial market, the business is there for the taking.
  
  2.  Management ran the the Delta and Atlas programs within the commercial market as if it were a cost plus arena.  This is precisely what the L-1011 management team did back in the late 60's - a total disregard for controlling costs, which put them out of business.
  
  3.  Look at the Atlas program now versus how it was in the mid-late 90's.  It's now the remaking of the Titan program - big, fat, inefficient, incapable of competing commercially.  Compared to what the Atlas program was and still could be, management ran it into the ground.  
  

  
  1.  No, it is not.  LV market is not a level playing field due to low russian wages.  It doesn't apply to spacecraft
  
  2.  Just the opposite
  
  3.  It is the same structure as the 90's.  It is not like the titan

  1.  Yes, it is.  What you're now implying is that the rhetoric about Lockheed (not ULA) marketing the Atlas commercially is lie because of low russian wages. (i.e double talk).
  
  2.  The Delta and Atlas programs were ran with cost savings in mind?  That's a laugh.  The Atlas V costs way more than the Atlas III ever did and the Atlas V pricetag won't stop until it hits Titan levels.
  
  3.  You're right.  The same managerial structure that ruined thriving programs in the 90's, that by the way launched both commercial and gov't payloads, is in-place today to point to every reason other than their own poor decisions as to the reason why the Delta and Atlas programs are in the condition that they're in.  
  

  
  1.  Wrong again.  LM can market the Atlas but it faces stiff competetion from the Proton.  Some users are willing to pay a little more for mission assurance and schedule
  
  2.  Wrong again.  It does not.  Atlas III was only a interim configuration leading to the Atlas V.  It was never meant fly more than a few years.
  
  3.  Wrong again.  Atlas and Titan were managed by different groups within LM.

  1.  So if Atlas can compete in the commercial market, why ULA?  First you say the commercial space craft market is dead, then you say it isn't.  Then you say Atlas can't compete because of an unfair playing field, now you're saying that they can.  Why don't you make up your mind!  
  
  2.  You're going to tell me that the Atlas V is cheaper to launch than the Atlas III.  You better quit smoking that dog food.
  
  3.  No kidding!  Unfortunately the Atlas management team is taking the Atlas program down the same path as Titan management took the Titan program.  It's the path that presents itself as a case study on how to not manage a program.

  
  ULA is going to be the next "Fleecing of America" just like the Titan program was.  Funny how the Atlas V looks like a Titan, program is being run like a Titan program, and now will only launch DoD Sat's like the Titan program.  If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and smells like a duck it must be a duck.
• #157 by Dexter on 21 Oct, 2006 06:50

• Quote

  Jim - 19/10/2006 9:27 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Dexter - 19/10/2006 9:47 AM
  
  Smartest man on the forum has to resort to sophomoric insults.
  
  So why don't we combine all the satellite programs into one of its such a good idea for rockets?

  
  Just as sophomoric as your "proposal"
  
  Because the satellites are dominated by the commerical market and not the gov't market. There are more than 4 major spacecraft manufacturers. They can launch from any LV.
  
  Different market pressures

  Guess you have never heard of satire.

   A few posters beat me to the punch on this comment regarding the vitality of the commercial market which in other threads you insist has collapsed.   Now you say it is strong but the Russians are cheaper because of their wages.  Then quark says that the cost is not in the tank it is in the engines and avionics and I believe the engine is manufactured with the cheap Russian wages.  

   I am dizzy from being spun around.

   The ILS web site actually still has some Atlas archive data on past launches of Atlas

   

   

  2006
  Atlas V, ASTRA 1KR	20-Apr-06	Commercial
  Atlas V, New Horizons	19-Jan-06	USG
  2005
  Atlas V, MRO	12-Aug-05	USG
  Atlas V, Inmarsat 4-F1	11-Mar-05	Commercial
  Atlas IIIB, NROL-23	3-Feb-05	USG
  2004
  Atlas V, AMC-16	17-Dec-04	Commercial
  Atlas IIAS, NROL-1	31-Aug-04	USG
  Atlas IIAS, AMC-11	19-May-04	Commercial
  Atlas IIAS, Superbird-6	15-Apr-04	Commercial
  Atlas IIIA, MBSat	13-Mar-04	Commercial
  Atlas IIAS, AMC-10	5-Feb-04	Commercial
  2003
  Atlas IIIB, UFO F11	17-Dec-03	USG
  Atlas IIAS, MLV-14	2-Dec-03	USG
  Atlas V, Rainbow 1	17-Jul-03	Commercial
  Atlas V, Hellas-Sat	13-May-03	Commercial
  Atlas IIIB, AsiaSat 4	11-Apr-03	Commercial
  2002
  Atlas IIA, TDRS-J	4-Dec-02	NASA
  Atlas IIAS, Hispasat 1D	18-Sep-02	Commercial
  Atlas V, HOT BIRD 6	21-Aug-02	Commercial
  Atlas IIA, TDRS-I	8-Mar-02	Commercial
  Atlas IIIB, EchoStar VII	21-Feb-02	Commercial
  2001
  Atlas IIAS, MLV-12	11-Oct-01	USG
  Atlas IIAS, MLV-10	8-Sep-01	USG
  Atlas IIA, GOES-M	23-Jul-01	USG
  Atlas IIAS, ICO	19-Jun-01	Commercial
  2000
  Atlas IIAS, MLV-11	5-Dec-00	USG
  Atlas IIA, MLV-9	19-Oct-00	USG
  Atlas IIAS, EchoStar VI	14-Jul-00	Commercial
  Atlas IIA, TDRS-H	30-Jun-00	USG
  Atlas IIIA, Eutelsat W4	24-May-00	Commercial
  Atlas IIA, GOES-L	3-May-00	USG
  Atlas IIAS, HISPASAT - 1C	3-Feb-00	Commercial
  Atlas IIA, DSCS B8	20-Jan-00	USG
  1999
  Atlas IIAS, EOS Terra	18-Dec-99	USG
  Atlas IIA, UHF F/O	22-Nov-99	USG
  Atlas IIAS, EchoStar V	23-Sep-99	Commercial
  Atlas IIAS, Eutelsat W3	12-Apr-99	Commercial
  Atlas IIAS, JCSAT-6	15-Feb-99	Commercial
  1998
  Atlas IIA, UHF F/O F9	20-Oct-98	USG
  Atlas IIA, HOT BIRD 5	9-Oct-98	Commercial
  Atlas IIAS, Intelsat 805	18-Jun-98	Commercial
  Atlas II, UHF F/O F8	16-Mar-98	USG
  Atlas IIAS, Intelsat 806	27-Feb-98	Commercial
  Atlas IIA, MLV 7	29-Jan-98	USG
  1997
  Atlas IIAS, Galaxy VIIIi	8-Dec-97	Commercial
  Atlas IIA, IABS/DSCS III	24-Oct-97	USG
  Atlas IIAS, EchoStar III	5-Oct-97	Commercial
  Atlas IIAS, GE-3	4-Sep-97	Commercial
  Atlas IIAS, Superbird C	27-Jul-97	Commercial
  Atlas I, GOES-K	25-Apr-97	USG
  Atlas IIA, Tempo F1	8-Mar-97	Commercial
  Atlas IIAS, JCSAT-4	16-Feb-97	Commercial
  1996
  Atlas IIA, Inmarsat 3 F3	17-Dec-96	Commercial
  Atlas IIA, HOT BIRD 2	21-Nov-96	Commercial
  Atlas IIA, GE-1	8-Sep-96	Commercial
  Atlas II, UHF F/O F7	25-Jul-96	USG
  Atlas I, SAX	30-Apr-96	Commercial
  Atlas IIA, Inmarsat 3 F1	3-Apr-96	Commercial
  Atlas IIAS, Palapa C1	31-Jan-96	Commercial
  1995
  Atlas IIA, Galaxy 3R	15-Dec-95	Commercial
  Atlas IIAS, SOHO	2-Dec-95	USG
  Atlas II, UHF F/O F6	22-Oct-95	USG
  Atlas IIAS, JCSAT 3	28-Aug-95	Commercial
  Atlas IIA, DSCS IIIB	31-Jul-95	USG
  Atlas II, UHF F/O F5	31-May-95	USG
  Atlas I, GOES-J	23-May-95	USG
  Atlas IIA, AMSC-1	7-Apr-95	Commercial
  Atlas IIAS, Intelsat 705	22-Mar-95	Commercial
  Atlas II, UHF F/O F4	28-Jan-95	USG
  Atlas IIAS, Intelsat 704	10-Jan-95	Commercial

   

  Looking at the data it appears that the program was doing really well at capturing both Government and Commercial launches.  A definite drop off occurs with the introduction of Atlas V and the phasing out of Atlas 2 and 3.

   Can you say Edsel?

  PS - I could not find this information on the Lockheed Commercial Launch Services Web Site

• #158 by Jim on 21 Oct, 2006 11:12
• Wrong again.  Anyone can use bad data to show their point'
  Commercial missions for all LVs started dropping  in 2002 going from 23 missions to 13
• #159 by Dexter on 21 Oct, 2006 15:42
• Anyone can refute data with no data and also be wrong.
  
  Look at 2004, well after the first flight of Atlas V.  six launches.  1 government and 5 commercial.  All after your 2002 suggestion.  The next two years Atlas V can only muster 2 commercial sales.
  
  
  Is it possible Boeing and Lockheed catered so much to USAF requirements that they ignored the commercial market needs inspite of the heavy investments they made?
  
  Is it possible that Lockheed phased out a successful model(s) in order to not have internal competition against itself?
  (Now that would be a conspiracy, or just a bad business decision)
  
  In the absence of opposing data, I draw my own conclusions.