-
#420
by
Dexter
on 23 Nov, 2006 03:18
-
edkyle99 - 22/11/2006 9:06 AM
bombay - 22/11/2006 12:16 AM
There's no heavy-lift assured access option.
This is an important point, because it is more than just heavy-lift that is not assured. As Jim has astutely pointed out a number of times, the two EELVs have somewhat complementary capabilities. If an RS-68 blows up, the U.S. will lose that heavy lift option (10.75 tonnes to GTO (1,500 m/s short of geostationary), 24 tonnes to LEO). But if an RD-180 shreds, the U.S. will lose GTO capabilities between 5.35 tonnes and 6.7 tonnes and LEO capabilities between 13.5 tonnes and 20.5 tonnes.
- Ed Kyle
Jim also pointed out that the overperforming vehicle is better as you can give additional energy to the spacecraft for its GSO insertion where the apogee motor uses less fuel for the apogee burns.
So how many sattellites fall into this performance gap between 5.3 and 6.7 tons now and how does this compare to the cost of maintaining two suppliers or creating ULA with all its transition costs?
-
#421
by
lmike
on 25 Nov, 2006 07:55
-
The EELV program would be much healthier now if it'd not been for NASA's decision to create its own launchers for the VSE. The ULA might have not even begun to come into focus. [edit] it's as if either Boeing or LockheedM are some charity organizations. Don't bank on it (or it'll break your heart), they are concerned about the bottom line like any for-profit organization. (and they are right in that)
-
#422
by
Jim
on 25 Nov, 2006 14:24
-
Dexter - 22/11/2006 10:50 PM
Jim - 22/11/2006 6:24 AM
"Back to non-commercial contracts (latest development)."
Incorrect, Atlas is still available commerically.
The point I am making here is that the USAF initially wanted commercial contracts for EELV. The Boeing settlement specificlly states that the contracts were converted from commercial contracts to more complicated government contracts.
In the Atlas 4?
thread you stated that the contracting philosophy of Atlas is one of the reasons for carrying the Atlas name. Yet know it appears that we are right back to the complicated government contracts.
So when people here state that the Atlas program is being Titanized along with the Delta program, the only conclusion is that they are correct.
EELV started with good intentions but placing faith in the most optimistic of forecasts resulting in two downselects is forcing the ULA scheme as the only considerd solution. Mistake after mistake.
When the critical employees don't relocate which will result in mission failures, the American taxpayer better not be asked to foot additional money to restore this capability.
Just get off this "Titanized " line of thinking. The USAF contract mechanism has nothing to do with the vehicle. The USAF contracted for "pure" commercial launch services with no insight (less than NASA). They realized they made a mistake and needed to change the contracting mechanism (but not to the extreme that it is now, that was a different change)
The way the USAF buys its LV's, has nothing to do with the way NASA and comsat companies do it.
The Titan program problems were caused more by the USAF than LM.
-
#423
by
bombay
on 25 Nov, 2006 19:26
-
lmike - 25/11/2006 2:38 AM
The EELV program would be much healthier now if it'd not been for NASA's decision to create its own launchers for the VSE. The ULA might have not even begun to come into focus. [edit] it's as if either Boeing or LockheedM are some charity organizations. Don't bank on it (or it'll break your heart), they are concerned about the bottom line like any for-profit organization. (and they are right in that)
You bring up an interesting point. Was the underlying purpose behind NASA'a decision to create it's own launcher built mainly on siphoning more money into the NASA coffers.
Why not concentrate on man-rating the AtlasV and DeltaIV for VSE, which are under utilized to begin with? It would better justify ULA in my opinion.
-
#424
by
bombay
on 25 Nov, 2006 19:51
-
Furthermore, the man-rated factor of safety is 1.4 versus 1.25 for non-rated. I would bet that for the most part both Atlas V and Delta IV are built with margins that match or exceed the 1.4 f.s.
-
#425
by
Gov't Seagull
on 28 Nov, 2006 23:15
-
Jim - 25/11/2006 10:07 AM
The USAF contracted for "pure" commercial launch services with no insight (less than NASA). They realized they made a mistake and needed to change the contracting mechanism (but not to the extreme that it is now, that was a different change)
The original EELV contracts explicitly provided for government insight. What they lacked is government oversight. Even then, the Assured Access to Space funding provided something like oversight for selected issues.
Regarding whether EELV is being "Titanized", that is exactly the language the USAF uses when they talk about Buy 3 informally. To paraphrase what I have heard from blue suiters up and down the line, "EELV is returning to heritage program contracting mechanisms." I suspect the AF would have just pulled the old Titan contract out of the filing cabinet and changed "Titan" to "EELV" if it were politically possible. As it is, they settled for a half measure so that it wouldn't be so obvious that they had totally bungled the initial EELV contracts.
-
#426
by
Gov't Seagull
on 28 Nov, 2006 23:17
-
bombay - 25/11/2006 3:34 PM
Furthermore, the man-rated factor of safety is 1.4 versus 1.25 for non-rated. I would bet that for the most part both Atlas V and Delta IV are built with margins that match or exceed the 1.4 f.s.
How much are you willing to bet?
-
#427
by
quark
on 29 Nov, 2006 00:36
-
Gov't Seagull - 28/11/2006 5:00 PM
bombay - 25/11/2006 3:34 PM
Furthermore, the man-rated factor of safety is 1.4 versus 1.25 for non-rated. I would bet that for the most part both Atlas V and Delta IV are built with margins that match or exceed the 1.4 f.s.
How much are you willing to bet?
I'd bet a lot. Atlas V 401 launching a passenger capsule absolutely meets 1.4 Look at figure 4,5 & 6 in this paper:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13344.pdf
-
#428
by
Jim
on 29 Nov, 2006 02:19
-
Gov't Seagull - 28/11/2006 6:58 PM
Jim - 25/11/2006 10:07 AM
The USAF contracted for "pure" commercial launch services with no insight (less than NASA). They realized they made a mistake and needed to change the contracting mechanism (but not to the extreme that it is now, that was a different change)
The original EELV contracts explicitly provided for government insight. What they lacked is government oversight. Even then, the Assured Access to Space funding provided something like oversight for selected issues.
Regarding whether EELV is being "Titanized", that is exactly the language the USAF uses when they talk about Buy 3 informally. To paraphrase what I have heard from blue suiters up and down the line, "EELV is returning to heritage program contracting mechanisms." I suspect the AF would have just pulled the old Titan contract out of the filing cabinet and changed "Titan" to "EELV" if it were politically possible. As it is, they settled for a half measure so that it wouldn't be so obvious that they had totally bungled the initial EELV contracts.
"The original EELV contracts explicitly provided for government insight'"
Without documentation? The original contracts didn't even provide documentation, which makes insight a little hard
Titan IV had 3 contracts. Unified Payload Integration, vehicle production and O&M. Once all the vehicles were produced and most of analytical integration was complete, it went down to one.
Titanized in this forum was referring to the vehicle itself, not was the USAF was doing.
-
#429
by
Gov't Seagull
on 29 Nov, 2006 21:36
-
Jim - 28/11/2006 10:02 PM
Without documentation? The original contracts didn't even provide documentation, which makes insight a little hard
Look at slide 12 of
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/1997/nov_ovrw.pdfThe contractors are required to make their corporate documentation available (drawings, test data, meeting minutes, etc.). The change from Titan is that they do not have to generate documentation solely to satisfy a particular requirement. But anything they generate internally as part of EELV can be requested by the gov't.
-
#430
by
Gov't Seagull
on 29 Nov, 2006 21:40
-
quark - 28/11/2006 8:19 PM
I'd bet a lot. Atlas V 401 launching a passenger capsule absolutely meets 1.4 Look at figure 4,5 & 6 in this paper:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13344.pdf
What I see in that paper is positive margin against FS=1.4 for a notional passenger mission that is a lot less severe than any of the unmanned missions. They do not have positive margins against FS=1.4 for the missions they actually fly. Maybe the passenger mission they analyzed is typical, maybe it was cooked up so they could say they are already man-rated, I don't know.
-
#431
by
yinzer
on 29 Nov, 2006 23:35
-
Gov't Seagull - 29/11/2006 2:23 PM
quark - 28/11/2006 8:19 PM
I'd bet a lot. Atlas V 401 launching a passenger capsule absolutely meets 1.4 Look at figure 4,5 & 6 in this paper:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13344.pdf
What I see in that paper is positive margin against FS=1.4 for a notional passenger mission that is a lot less severe than any of the unmanned missions. They do not have positive margins against FS=1.4 for the missions they actually fly. Maybe the passenger mission they analyzed is typical, maybe it was cooked up so they could say they are already man-rated, I don't know.
The mission was cooked up to demonstrate what they could do while meeting the FS=1.4 standards that MSFC threw up. This was presumably in response to the assertion that the Atlas couldn't fly manned missions due to the structural factors of safety being too low based on the Atlas 552.
FS=1.2 is fine for unmanned missions.
-
#432
by
Jim
on 30 Nov, 2006 00:23
-
Day 1 is monday
-
#433
by
bombay
on 30 Nov, 2006 04:45
-
Gov't Seagull - 29/11/2006 4:23 PM
quark - 28/11/2006 8:19 PM
I'd bet a lot. Atlas V 401 launching a passenger capsule absolutely meets 1.4 Look at figure 4,5 & 6 in this paper:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13344.pdf
What I see in that paper is positive margin against FS=1.4 for a notional passenger mission that is a lot less severe than any of the unmanned missions. They do not have positive margins against FS=1.4 for the missions they actually fly. Maybe the passenger mission they analyzed is typical, maybe it was cooked up so they could say they are already man-rated, I don't know.
You can't conclude that the missions they actually fly don't meet the 1.4 f.s.
The common core booster is analyzed to a worst case loading condition, presumably the 552 configuration. Assuming every part analyzed had a margin of safety of +0.00 using a 1.25 f.s., the less severe loading percentage relative to the 401 configured flights would potentially make up for the difference in m.s. when using the 1.40 f.s. versus the 1.25 f.s. In other words, the +0.00 m.s. would be maintained.
As far as manned flights to LEO are concerned, the loads would be less than typical flights to GTO, so by ratioing the loading conditions between worst case loaded 552 configured flights and relatively lightly loaded 401 manned flights, the 1.40 f.s. is likely met with room to spare.
-
#434
by
bombay
on 30 Nov, 2006 04:47
-
Jim - 29/11/2006 7:06 PM
Day 1 is monday
Based on what source?
-
#435
by
Propforce
on 30 Nov, 2006 05:04
-
bombay - 29/11/2006 9:30 PM
Jim - 29/11/2006 7:06 PM
Day 1 is monday
Based on what source?
That's the same rumor we're hearing here too. Apparently ULA wants to start the begining of pay period on a Monday instead of a Friday!
We'll find out how many will move to Denver shortly.....
-
#436
by
Dexter
on 30 Nov, 2006 05:38
-
Jim - 25/11/2006 9:07 AM
Just get off this "Titanized " line of thinking. The USAF contract mechanism has nothing to do with the vehicle. The USAF contracted for "pure" commercial launch services with no insight (less than NASA). They realized they made a mistake and needed to change the contracting mechanism (but not to the extreme that it is now, that was a different change)
The way the USAF buys its LV's, has nothing to do with the way NASA and comsat companies do it.
The Titan program problems were caused more by the USAF than LM.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdfQuote on page 267 of the pdf file from Ed Bock,
"I think if we'd had a failure shortly after we moved here, we would have been Titanized at the drop of a hat".
The supporting reading talks about a different culture with different processes and procedures.
Then you have the Buy 3 contract conversion which the article say is a conversion form commercial contracts to more complicated government contracts.
Here is another interesting comparison on page 258 of the same article.
Eutelsat commercial contract - 92 pages
NASA Goes contract - 4250 pages
It would be interesting to compare the number of business / program management people required to maintain an administer a 92 page contract versus a 4250 page contract versus a more complicated government contract.
-
#437
by
Dexter
on 30 Nov, 2006 05:44
-
Gov't Seagull - 29/11/2006 4:19 PM
Jim - 28/11/2006 10:02 PM
Without documentation? The original contracts didn't even provide documentation, which makes insight a little hard
Look at slide 12 of http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/1997/nov_ovrw.pdf
The contractors are required to make their corporate documentation available (drawings, test data, meeting minutes, etc.). The change from Titan is that they do not have to generate documentation solely to satisfy a particular requirement. But anything they generate internally as part of EELV can be requested by the gov't.
Interesting historical perspective in that presentation on the reasons for downselecting two programs.
I didn't see "Assured Access to Space" as an argument. It did talk about competing one program against the other.
I also like the objectives stated on slide 3.
-
#438
by
Dexter
on 30 Nov, 2006 05:47
-
Propforce - 29/11/2006 11:47 PM
bombay - 29/11/2006 9:30 PM
Jim - 29/11/2006 7:06 PM
Day 1 is monday
Based on what source?
That's the same rumor we're hearing here too. Apparently ULA wants to start the begining of pay period on a Monday instead of a Friday!
We'll find out how many will move to Denver shortly.....
"Remaining steps required for the deal's finalization include completion of the Federal Trade Commission's preliminary approval and Boeing and Lockheed's execution of numerous contracts governing the deal."
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/061121/contract.shtmlIt's been more than 30 days for the FTC review. Wonder what the hold-up is?
-
#439
by
Jim
on 30 Nov, 2006 18:45
-
Dexter - 30/11/2006 1:21 AM
1. The supporting reading talks about a different culture with different processes and procedures.
2. Eutelsat commercial contract - 92 pages
NASA Goes contract - 4250 pages
It would be interesting to compare the number of business / program management people required to maintain an administer a 92 page contract versus a 4250 page contract versus a more complicated government contract.
1. The GD (and LERC) one still prevails
2. Eutelsat buys the rocket and insurance that cost 20-30% of the spacecraft and LV. NASA buys a launch service (new smaller contract but still a magitude larger than Eutelsat) and insight and gets almost a 10% higher success rate on launching one of a kind spacecraft (excluding GOES)
thread you stated that the contracting philosophy of Atlas is one of the reasons for carrying the Atlas name. Yet know it appears that we are right back to the complicated government contracts.