Which makes a hypothetical mockery of the air force's "goal" of introducing competition into the EELV program. How can a competitor compete if their competition has insider access?
Note the USAF did something similar with Shuttle and their return-to-launch-site abort requirement.However while they never said why they wanted it all responders to the STS programme were aware it was a requirement.
Boeing’s president of network and space systems says he’s yet to see the business case for developing an alternative rocket engine to the Russian-built RD-180 that powers the Atlas V rocket, even as lawmakers press the US military to develop an American-made alternative by 2019.
Cooning says the air force could lean more heavily on the Delta Heavy for space launches, even though that launch vehicle is more expensive than the Atlas. “We could do all the mission for national security space on the Delta, and you’d end up using more Delta Heavies than you historically would if you had a mix of Atlas and Delta,” he says.
Ouch....http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-doesn39t-see-business-case-yet-for-rd-180-412598/QuoteBoeing’s president of network and space systems says he’s yet to see the business case for developing an alternative rocket engine to the Russian-built RD-180 that powers the Atlas V rocket, even as lawmakers press the US military to develop an American-made alternative by 2019.
He is talking about the USAF program to replace it and not the BE engine. Nowhere does he says the he or Boeing doesn't support Vulcan nor can that be inferred from his comments.
4. Without relief on using more RD-180's, can not bridge the program until the Vulcan is ready and they will not complete the Vulcan development
Quote from: kevin-rf on 05/21/2015 01:38 pmOuch....http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-doesn39t-see-business-case-yet-for-rd-180-412598/QuoteBoeing’s president of network and space systems says he’s yet to see the business case for developing an alternative rocket engine to the Russian-built RD-180 that powers the Atlas V rocket, even as lawmakers press the US military to develop an American-made alternative by 2019.He is talking about the USAF program to replace it and not the BE engine. Nowhere does he says the he or Boeing doesn't support Vulcan nor can that be inferred from his comments.
Quote from: Jim on 05/21/2015 02:25 pmHe is talking about the USAF program to replace it and not the BE engine. Vulcan's business case doesn't close, according to Tory and this article, nor does the case to re-engine the Atlas V. Sounds like business as usual with the RD-180, or no business -- period.
He is talking about the USAF program to replace it and not the BE engine.
3. Business case is contingent on getting relief to continue to use additional RD-180's until Vulcan is ready.4. Without relief on using more RD-180's, can not bridge the program until the Vulcan is ready and they will not complete the Vulcan development
Blue, ULA and USAF could be getting clever, leaving the solution for Congress to "discover." By supporting development of a methalox replacement instead of a kerolox replacement (paying down some risk and bringing in the schedule), Congress might be able to close the Vulcan business case.
Quote from: McDew on 05/21/2015 07:29 pm3. Business case is contingent on getting relief to continue to use additional RD-180's until Vulcan is ready.4. Without relief on using more RD-180's, can not bridge the program until the Vulcan is ready and they will not complete the Vulcan developmentVulcan shakedown. Deeply disappointing. - Ed Kyle
America’s #1 Space Launch Provider
With more than a century of combined heritage, United Launch Alliance is the nation’s most experienced and reliable launch service provider. ULA has successfully delivered more than 90 satellites to orbit that provide critical capabilities for troops in the field, aid meteorologists in tracking severe weather, enable personal device-based GPS navigation and unlock the mysteries of our solar system.
Tory Bruno was the guest speaker today at the Washington Space Business Roundtable luncheon. SpaceNews asked him to address this report during the Q&A. My notes are as follows:1. Yes, the report is correct, the business case for Vulcan does not currently close. Still working the details, including business risk items.2. Owners have only authorized the program one quarter at a time and he has to go back each quarter for additional funding.3. Business case is contingent on getting relief to continue to use additional RD-180's until Vulcan is ready.4. Without relief on using more RD-180's, can not bridge the program until the Vulcan is ready and they will not complete the Vulcan development
The face ULA wants the Nation to see... quite a contrast. Despite the rhetoric, they are simply in it for the bucks. Nothing wrong with that... but wrapping themselves in the flag should be seen as the crass commercial advertising that it is.
Quote from: Jim on 05/21/2015 02:25 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 05/21/2015 01:38 pmOuch....http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-doesn39t-see-business-case-yet-for-rd-180-412598/QuoteBoeing’s president of network and space systems says he’s yet to see the business case for developing an alternative rocket engine to the Russian-built RD-180 that powers the Atlas V rocket, even as lawmakers press the US military to develop an American-made alternative by 2019.He is talking about the USAF program to replace it and not the BE engine. Nowhere does he says the he or Boeing doesn't support Vulcan nor can that be inferred from his comments.Vulcan's business case doesn't close, according to Tory and this article, nor does the case to re-engine the Atlas V. Sounds like business as usual with the RD-180, or no business -- period.(There is even less case for the USG program to develop an engine, but the Boeing comments were broader than that.)
So if it appears Congress wants to stick it to ULA and force them to be uncompetitive by using Delta (the way many on this forum appear to wish), then either USAF will have to suck it up and not compete a bunch of contracts to keep Delta busy and high-volume (thereby wasting vast amounts of USAF money), or USAF will have to heavily fund Vulcan development (the very opposite of the point of competing contracts, and likely to endanger Vulcan's future competitiveness because USAF can't keep its hands off requirements if it does), or USAF will have to settle for no assured access, or USAF will have to keep ULA and Delta on life support as it has been for years.
QuoteSo if it appears Congress wants to stick it to ULA and force them to be uncompetitive by using Delta (the way many on this forum appear to wish), then either USAF will have to suck it up and not compete a bunch of contracts to keep Delta busy and high-volume (thereby wasting vast amounts of USAF money), or USAF will have to heavily fund Vulcan development (the very opposite of the point of competing contracts, and likely to endanger Vulcan's future competitiveness because USAF can't keep its hands off requirements if it does), or USAF will have to settle for no assured access, or USAF will have to keep ULA and Delta on life support as it has been for years.It's not that complicated, and no one has said or implied that USAF will have to "heavily fund" Vulcan development. ULA is merely saying they need the RD-180 ban relaxed so they can keep Atlas V revenue coming in until Vulcan is certified.