FWIW, an interesting note is that back in 2012 a freely available document named "icubesat-org-2012-c-2-1_presentation_szatkowski.pdf" had NASA's Discovery 12 (aka InSight) pinned to an Atlas V 401.
Albeit at that time this was listed as an eastern range launch though.
Updated version of that deck icubesat-org_2013-a-2-1-mule_szatkowski_201305281629l.pdf still shows ER. Or maybe nobody touched that slide.
Does this represent a miss/loss for SpaceX, or for one of ULA's remaining Delta 2 rockets?
- Ed Kyle
This is an Atlas, but I thought there is only 1 remaining Delta II not spoken for...
Yes as far as I know there is one DII remaining that is unmanifested.
Side Note: The Air & Space Museum's Udvar Hazey (Spelling ??) Centre a years back had expressed interest in acquiring a full size DII (might have been a Delta I N Series LV) Launcher for display purposes and ULA would build the last one for display if its components shelf life expire before it can be manifested and flown.
Side Note: The Air & Space Museum's Udvar Hazey (Spelling ??) Centre a years back had expressed interest in acquiring a full size DII (might have been a Delta I N Series LV) Launcher for display purposes and ULA would build the last one for display if its components shelf life expire before it can be manifested and flown.
When ULA said that it had 5 unsold Delta II's. It meant it had all the components from subcontractors. ULA had yet to build the tanks or assemble the vehicles. So, it is likely that the 5th vehicle is just avionics boxes, an RS-27, AJ-10, and second stage tanks. No fairing, first stage structure, second stage guidance section or miniskirt has been built yet.
Side Note: The Air & Space Museum's Udvar Hazey (Spelling ??) Centre a years back had expressed interest in acquiring a full size DII (might have been a Delta I N Series LV) Launcher for display purposes and ULA would build the last one for display if its components shelf life expire before it can be manifested and flown.
When ULA said that it had 5 unsold Delta II's. It meant it had all the components from subcontractors. ULA had yet to build the tanks or assemble the vehicles. So, it is likely that the 5th vehicle is just avionics boxes, an RS-27, AJ-10, and second stage tanks. No fairing, first stage structure, second stage guidance section or miniskirt has been built yet.
No repeat of the patchy delta 189 then.
This thread is a hoot. Why would NASA contract Falcon 9 (that has only flown twice thus far) for one of their Discovery missions? It doesn't matter if it's $50 million or $300 million for launch...
This thread is a hoot. Why would NASA contract Falcon 9 (that has only flown twice thus far) for one of their Discovery missions? It doesn't matter if it's $50 million or $300 million for launch...
Because under the original Discovery program failure WAS an option. The early Discovery missions were run lean, somemes with bad results, but NASA could afford a Discovery mission every year.
Of course, the original Discovery program rules excluded Mars. However, now that the Mars program is one multi-billion dollar program every eight or so years, things were changed. Hence Mars Insight.
This doesn't say that MI should fly on an F9. It just says that economy used to be a major driver of Discovery missions. The cost of launch does still matter.