-
#160
by
Jim
on 21 Oct, 2006 16:03
-
The 13 missions were for 2005
And your conclusions are wrong. The EELV's were originally designed to USAF requirements, which were greater than the commercial . When the commercial market requirements exceeded the USAF's, the EELV contractors added solids.
The Altas III was never intended to be a "standard" product line. It was a transitional vehicle that was used to reduce the risk of developing the Atlas V. It flew incremental improvements of the Altas V, such as the RD-180 and single engine Centaur. There never would have been an Atlas III if there wasn't a Atlas V. NASA was going to buy an Atlas III but got an Altas V for the same price.
-
#161
by
edkyle99
on 21 Oct, 2006 16:37
-
Jim - 21/10/2006 10:46 AM
The Altas III was never intended to be a "standard" product line. It was a transitional vehicle that was used to reduce the risk of developing the Atlas V. It flew incremental improvements of the Altas V, such as the RD-180 and single engine Centaur. There never would have been an Atlas III if there wasn't a Atlas V. NASA was going to buy an Atlas III but got an Altas V for the same price.
Lockheed Martin began development of Atlas IIAR (later renamed Atlas III) in 1995, three-plus years before it won the EELV Buy 1 contract. Atlas IIAR was reported at the time to be a $300 million in-house effort to develop a more powerful launcher
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-6348909_ITM Granted, the initial IIAR work overlapped with Lockheed Martin's initial EELV precursor contract, the $30 million Low Cost Concept Validation work that was also done by several other companies during 1995-96, but Atlas IIAR (III) was started by the company when it had no way of knowing if it would participate in the final EELV program - which at the time was supposed to be a "winner-take-all", single-manufacturer win.
- Ed Kyle
-
#162
by
Jim
on 21 Oct, 2006 17:01
-
That doesn't change my point. So what that they started it before the EELV award, it was developed with EELV in mind (same goes for the Delta III). Each company knew that they couldn't go in the EELV competition "cold", they had to show some risk reduction
-
#163
by
Gus
on 21 Oct, 2006 23:21
-
The IIAR program was initially an 18 vehicle program but was truncated several times to eventually only 6 vehicles. The test tank/thrust structure for IIAR was actually designed with the ability to fly two Castor solids same as a IIAS and the corresponding load cases were tested. Engineering development included wind tunnel testing with the two solid configuration. The solid configuration was to scarred on article 3 and on as the IIARS. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) was originally slated to fly on an Atlas III (IIAR) but was swapped to the Atlas V (401) when the program was truncated.
-
#164
by
Jim
on 21 Oct, 2006 23:59
-
Gus - 21/10/2006 7:04 PM
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) was originally slated to fly on an Atlas III (IIAR) but was swapped to the Atlas V (401) when the program was truncated.
At no extra cost to the gov't
-
#165
by
Gus
on 22 Oct, 2006 00:25
-
I don't know anything on the contracts side. That is probably true because the program wanted to truncate the III and enticed NASA with a no cost impact incentive with some additional performance margin on the V.
-
#166
by
Dexter
on 22 Oct, 2006 04:35
-
Jim - 21/10/2006 10:46 AM
The 13 missions were for 2005
And your conclusions are wrong. The EELV's were originally designed to USAF requirements, which were greater than the commercial . When the commercial market requirements exceeded the USAF's, the EELV contractors added solids.
The Altas III was never intended to be a "standard" product line. It was a transitional vehicle that was used to reduce the risk of developing the Atlas V. It flew incremental improvements of the Altas V, such as the RD-180 and single engine Centaur. There never would have been an Atlas III if there wasn't a Atlas V. NASA was going to buy an Atlas III but got an Altas V for the same price.
Greater requirements. Sounds more expensive.
-
#167
by
Dexter
on 22 Oct, 2006 04:42
-
Gus - 21/10/2006 6:04 PM
The IIAR program was initially an 18 vehicle program but was truncated several times to eventually only 6 vehicles. The test tank/thrust structure for IIAR was actually designed with the ability to fly two Castor solids same as a IIAS and the corresponding load cases were tested. Engineering development included wind tunnel testing with the two solid configuration. The solid configuration was to scarred on article 3 and on as the IIARS. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) was originally slated to fly on an Atlas III (IIAR) but was swapped to the Atlas V (401) when the program was truncated.
Why would Lockheed truncate a program unless of course it was to eliminate internal competition?
-
#168
by
Dexter
on 22 Oct, 2006 04:51
-
Jim - 21/10/2006 6:42 PM
Gus - 21/10/2006 7:04 PM
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) was originally slated to fly on an Atlas III (IIAR) but was swapped to the Atlas V (401) when the program was truncated.
At no extra cost to the gov't
Wait a minute here. I thought the Atlas V was cheaper than the 3. The whole basis of the EELV program was to reduce launch vehicle costs from the "legacy" systems. The government should have received a refund!!
-
#169
by
Dexter
on 22 Oct, 2006 06:08
-
"In the early 1990's General Dynamics (now a part of Lockheed Martin) made the decision to upgrade the Atlas first stage propulsion system."
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/atlas2_sum.shtmlIs it possible that the whole "Atlas III was the evolution to Atlas V" is just a neatly packaged marketing sound bite and the whole re-engining of the Atlas with the RD-180 was at its inception was never intended to be the evolutionary path to EELV?
-
#170
by
BFRC
on 22 Oct, 2006 08:14
-
Dexter - 21/10/2006 9:34 PM
Jim - 21/10/2006 6:42 PM
Gus - 21/10/2006 7:04 PM
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) was originally slated to fly on an Atlas III (IIAR) but was swapped to the Atlas V (401) when the program was truncated.
At no extra cost to the gov't
Wait a minute here. I thought the Atlas V was cheaper than the 3. The whole basis of the EELV program was to reduce launch vehicle costs from the "legacy" systems. The government should have received a refund!!
Yeah the other point of EELV and "assured access to space" was to have competing contractors providing the service. Now we are apparently going back to one contractor. I concur with the refund
-
#171
by
bombay
on 22 Oct, 2006 18:48
-
Dexter - 21/10/2006 11:25 PM
Gus - 21/10/2006 6:04 PM
The IIAR program was initially an 18 vehicle program but was truncated several times to eventually only 6 vehicles. The test tank/thrust structure for IIAR was actually designed with the ability to fly two Castor solids same as a IIAS and the corresponding load cases were tested. Engineering development included wind tunnel testing with the two solid configuration. The solid configuration was to scarred on article 3 and on as the IIARS. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) was originally slated to fly on an Atlas III (IIAR) but was swapped to the Atlas V (401) when the program was truncated.
Why would Lockheed truncate a program unless of course it was to eliminate internal competition?
You begged it exactly. There was no logical reason to truncate the Atlas III other than to eliminate it as an option for the customer.
-
#172
by
bombay
on 22 Oct, 2006 18:54
-
Dexter - 21/10/2006 11:34 PM
Jim - 21/10/2006 6:42 PM
Gus - 21/10/2006 7:04 PM
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) was originally slated to fly on an Atlas III (IIAR) but was swapped to the Atlas V (401) when the program was truncated.
At no extra cost to the gov't
Wait a minute here. I thought the Atlas V was cheaper than the 3. The whole basis of the EELV program was to reduce launch vehicle costs from the "legacy" systems. The government should have received a refund!!
The attempt to reduce costs by way of Atlas V failed miserably. What's a Atlas V 401 configured launch cost now versus the initial marketing cost? It's probably twice as much.
-
#173
by
bombay
on 22 Oct, 2006 19:07
-
Jim - 21/10/2006 6:42 PM
Gus - 21/10/2006 7:04 PM
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) was originally slated to fly on an Atlas III (IIAR) but was swapped to the Atlas V (401) when the program was truncated.
At no extra cost to the gov't
Very nice to throw the gov't a bone. The "at no extra cost to the gov't" no longer applies. The cost of an Atlas V 401, 411, 421, 431, 501 - you name it has gone through the roof. Savings to the gov't never materialized nor were they ever meant to materialize.
-
#174
by
Jim
on 22 Oct, 2006 19:56
-
bombay - 22/10/2006 2:37 PM
The attempt to reduce costs by way of Atlas V failed miserably. What's a Atlas V 401 configured launch cost now versus the initial marketing cost? It's probably twice as much.
Nope, it isn't. It still is competitive
-
#175
by
meiza
on 22 Oct, 2006 21:34
-
Wouldn't Atlas III cost at least as much, since the cost issue is the same, low manufacturing rates because of low commercial markets? And how versatile could the AIII have been, what about solids and various upper stages and fairings?
-
#176
by
Jim
on 22 Oct, 2006 21:44
-
A-III could only do 4m fairings. It was limited wrt solids.
6 of the 8 Atlas V's flown to date could NOT have flown on an Atlas III.
So much for "eliminating internal competition" BS theory
-
#177
by
bombay
on 23 Oct, 2006 00:57
-
Jim - 22/10/2006 4:27 PM
A-III could only do 4m fairings. It was limited wrt solids.
6 of the 8 Atlas V's flown to date could NOT have flown on an Atlas III.
So much for "eliminating internal competition" BS theory
AIII with solids was stricken from the design/manufacturing phase to no doubt avoid direct competition with Atlas V. In a face-to-face competition, AIII would have won out in a rout.
AIII (401) could deliver 9900 lb payloads, about 10% less than Atlas V (401). What could AIII with solids have delivered?
Other than 5XX launches, AIII (with solids) would have delivered them all at a far-far cheaper cost. Lockheed could have launched the 5XX payloads on a Titan for what a 5XX launch now costs and saved the company $billion in Atlas V development costs.
-
#178
by
bombay
on 23 Oct, 2006 01:08
-
Jim - 22/10/2006 2:39 PM
bombay - 22/10/2006 2:37 PM
The attempt to reduce costs by way of Atlas V failed miserably. What's a Atlas V 401 configured launch cost now versus the initial marketing cost? It's probably twice as much.
Nope, it isn't. It still is competitive
Yes, it is. It's about twice as much.
Competitive relative to what - a Delta IV who's in the same sinking ship as Atlas V?
-
#179
by
Jim
on 23 Oct, 2006 01:21
-
Wrong again. Get some facts straight before posting.
For one, there is not AIII 401 configuration you must mean A-IIIB SEC
Yes there is a doubt. The A-IIIB SEC with solids would have used only 2 Castors 4's not 4 like the A-IIAS. This is nowhere near the larger Aerojet SRM's that A-V uses.
Even if the AIII would have used 4 Castors, it would have increase the capability by 600-700 kg to GTO
The difference between A-V 401 and 411 is more than 1000kg. That is ONE solid, much cheaper than buying and mounting 4.
The 5XX payloads could not have flown on titans for many reasons.
1. The production line was shutdown long ago.
2. The 5m fairing is actually 5.4 meters. Some spacecraft can't fit in the 5m
3. The titan cost more to launch and would have required dual manifesting
4, The 5xx is cheaper than you think. I have first hand knowledge