Dexter - 6/10/2006 9:19 AM
By the way, last time I checked, both companies reported profits.
bombay - 6/10/2006 12:40 PMQuoteJim - 6/10/2006 4:28 AMQuotebombay - 6/10/2006 12:11 AM
Doesn't both the Boeing and Atlas EELV upperstages use the same P&W engine whereby an alternate vehicle option would be rendered null and void if a problem existed with the common upperstage engine?
The justification for ULA is an absolute farse. The spin and contradicting statements regarding the joint venture that's available for all to read makes the regulatory process a joke.
Both companies are addressing the RL-10 issue, But they use different models. WRT the standdown,Atlas could have flown but chose not to.
Your opinion.
Wrong!
LM was "forced" to postpone the Atlas III launch after the Delta III failure pending the outcome of the RL10 engine failure investigation with the cost of delay in the 10's of millions.
The same scenario would hold true should a similiar situation occur relative to an upperstage engine snafu with either the Boeing or Lockheed versions. The fleets would be grounded pending investigation. What was that about two discreet launch options for nat'l security reasons?
Not my opinion - fact!
edkyle99 - 6/10/2006 12:44 PMQuoteDexter - 6/10/2006 9:19 AM
By the way, last time I checked, both companies reported profits.
Boeing wrote off $835 million on the Delta IV program in 2003. As near as I can tell, the company has hardly bothered to mention Delta IV in its annual reports since then.
- Ed Kyle
Dexter - 6/10/2006 10:19 AM
Except for the DOD funds it sounds a lot like Ford deciding to build giant SUVs right before gas hits $3.00 / gallon. Both contractors made a bad business decision on a bad forecast and should be precluded from recovering their investment in a commercial program. That's the real world.
Jim - 6/10/2006 11:45 AMQuoteedkyle99 - 6/10/2006 12:44 PMQuoteDexter - 6/10/2006 9:19 AM
By the way, last time I checked, both companies reported profits.
Boeing wrote off $835 million on the Delta IV program in 2003. As near as I can tell, the company has hardly bothered to mention Delta IV in its annual reports since then.
- Ed Kyle
It's in there
Jim - 6/10/2006 11:45 AMQuotebombay - 6/10/2006 12:40 PMQuoteJim - 6/10/2006 4:28 AMQuotebombay - 6/10/2006 12:11 AM
Doesn't both the Boeing and Atlas EELV upperstages use the same P&W engine whereby an alternate vehicle option would be rendered null and void if a problem existed with the common upperstage engine?
The justification for ULA is an absolute farse. The spin and contradicting statements regarding the joint venture that's available for all to read makes the regulatory process a joke.
Both companies are addressing the RL-10 issue, But they use different models. WRT the standdown,Atlas could have flown but chose not to.
Your opinion.
Wrong!
LM was "forced" to postpone the Atlas III launch after the Delta III failure pending the outcome of the RL10 engine failure investigation with the cost of delay in the 10's of millions.
The same scenario would hold true should a similiar situation occur relative to an upperstage engine snafu with either the Boeing or Lockheed versions. The fleets would be grounded pending investigation. What was that about two discreet launch options for nat'l security reasons?
Not my opinion - fact!
Opinion again.
Wrong again. They were not "forced".
They could have launched if needed
Jim - 6/10/2006 11:43 AM
Both Dexter and Bombay obviously never have worked in the space launch business.
bombay - 6/10/2006 3:08 PM
Could have launched if needed? There is no logic to that statement. Why in the world would Atlas launch when there were no definitive answers to the engine investigation? The risk would outweigh the reward by an order of magnitude!
Think man!!!
bombay - 6/10/2006 3:21 PMQuoteJim - 6/10/2006 11:43 AM
Both Dexter and Bombay obviously never have worked in the space launch business.Your totally biased pumping and spinning of ULA even when presented with a refutting argument based on published documentation is beyond reproach.
As a NASA employee, if in fact that is what you are, I would expect you to weigh both sides of the argument (for or against ULA) a bit more evenly given that you're not a Boeing or LM employee.
What's in for you - a new car, trip to Hawaii, big fat bonus upon closure of ULA?
Jim - 6/10/2006 11:43 AM
Both Dexter and Bombay obviously never have worked in the space launch business.
Jim - 6/10/2006 2:43 PMQuotebombay - 6/10/2006 3:21 PMQuoteJim - 6/10/2006 11:43 AM
Both Dexter and Bombay obviously never have worked in the space launch business.Your totally biased pumping and spinning of ULA even when presented with a refutting argument based on published documentation is beyond reproach.
As a NASA employee, if in fact that is what you are, I would expect you to weigh both sides of the argument (for or against ULA) a bit more evenly given that you're not a Boeing or LM employee.
What's in for you - a new car, trip to Hawaii, big fat bonus upon closure of ULA?
You believe everything you read?
The country would be worse off with only one LV family.
I have been on 2 LV procurements and know what the current situation can be improved by ULA
Based on your advise, I shouldn't believe you.
Please convince me with some evidence or some links. The only thing you have provided thus far is opinion.
Jim - 6/10/2006 2:39 PMQuotebombay - 6/10/2006 3:08 PM
Could have launched if needed? There is no logic to that statement. Why in the world would Atlas launch when there were no definitive answers to the engine investigation? The risk would outweigh the reward by an order of magnitude!
Think man!!!
If there was a national need for the onorbit assets, they would have launched. Also there was enough separation between the two engine types to clear it quickly if needed.
Jim - 6/10/2006 5:28 AM
Both companies are addressing the RL-10 issue, But they use different models. WRT the standdown,Atlas could have flown but chose not to.
Dexter - 6/10/2006 5:28 PM
Neither has Kenneth Krieg:
Nick L. - 6/10/2006 11:01 PM
As someone already said, ULA is the best option available to the US government. If the EELV competitors were forced to downselect, we would get no to minimal savings and no back-up capability.