Most people assume that the Atlas V pads will be used.
Really? Surely Delta rather than Atlas tankage will be used, on account of methane's low density. Therefore, I would think that physical interfaces would make LC-37B easier to use. Furthermore, 37B is already kitted out to handle a cryogenic fuel.
I'm wondering about this myself. With cost-cutting seemingly the driver behind NGLS, it seems likely to me that ULA would not want to be stuck with the higher costs of SLC 6 (especially) and SLC 37 compared to the Atlas sites. On the other hand, is it even possible for ULA to keep flying Atlas while switching over to NGLS on the same pads? Heck, maybe ULA will switch to an Atlas pad on one coast and a Delta pad on the other. All I know for sure is that the choices, if any have been made, have not been announced to the public.
- Ed Kyle
They will keep DIV-H online until they have the new upper stage for NGLV
Or until the Air Force says they don't want it anymore
"Denver-based ULA will continue building the Delta 4 Heavy as long as its Air Force customer desires" said Tory Bruno
I'm guessing ULA wanted to shut it down with the single stick and the Air Force asked them to keep it around until there is something that can replace it.
@this. D4H support will be retained until FH is fully certified by USAF/DoD. Then it will go away once USAF/DoD feels comfortable with FH and ULA will likely develop an upgraded Centaur for NGLV that will give it D4H capability with some Atlas SRB augmentation. I'm guessing other than any payloads that might be currently (but not announced )manifested for it, ULA will want to retire D4H along with all of Delta as soon as they are allowed. The faster they do that the faster they can streamline their operations and get NGLV flying. NGLV will probably use the 5m Delta tooling, so I don't think they can start even bending metal on it until they know the last Delta core has come off the assembly line...which won't be until USAF/DoD says it has.
When did redundancy become essential anyway? There is no redundancy for Delta V Heavy. The original plan for the EELV was to have only one non-redundant supplier. Sometimes it appears that the real issue is a reluctance to down select and disappoint one supplier.
John
Yea, Jim has made that point before. There's no backup to D4H, although there very easily could have been with AVH if USAF/DoD had ever ordered one. There was no backup to Titan IV.
I think the retention of both Atlas and Delta had more to do with the situation with the solen IP by Boeing during the competition which probably should have just lead to Boeing being dropped and fined/punished/ordered to pay LM some restitutions or whatever, and going forward with just Atlas V and developing the AVH instead of D4H.
But, ULA's Bruno has said in interviews specifically that there is a requirement for reduntant access by USAF/DoD, and only now that SpaceX is about to offer that redundancy can they retire Delta. So I don't really understand it all exactly.
Most people assume that the Atlas V pads will be used.
Really? Surely Delta rather than Atlas tankage will be used, on account of methane's low density. Therefore, I would think that physical interfaces would make LC-37B easier to use. Furthermore, 37B is already kitted out to handle a cryogenic fuel.
I'm wondering about this myself. With cost-cutting seemingly the driver behind NGLS, it seems likely to me that ULA would not want to be stuck with the higher costs of SLC 6 (especially) and SLC 37 compared to the Atlas sites. On the other hand, is it even possible for ULA to keep flying Atlas while switching over to NGLS on the same pads? Heck, maybe ULA will switch to an Atlas pad on one coast and a Delta pad on the other. All I know for sure is that the choices, if any have been made, have not been announced to the public.
- Ed Kyle
I believe the plan was to upgrade the Atlas pads for Atlas Phase 2, had anyone every ordered it. Per this Atlas growth Chart.
Building Atlas Phase 2 wouldn't have meant Delta IV was cancelled, so I can't think they meant AVP2 would be launched from Delta pads in any way. NGLV will likely be 5m as AVP2 would have been.
LC-41 would be particularly easy as they just need a new MLP. SLC-3 might require some more extensive upgrades for the wider core. Looks like AVP2-heavy could have launched form existing Atlas Pads too? I'd assume with more extensive modifications? Again, Jim would be the best source I'm sure.
D4H support will be retained until FH is fully certified by USAF/DoD.
I agree... Assuming the FH can fully replace the D4H. We know FH can to LEO without question. But do we know above LEO? I don't think there is enough information out there to know what FH can really do to higher energy orbits. But on that same note we don't know what NGLV can do either (or when). I'm looking forward to finding out for both though.
Most people assume that the Atlas V pads will be used.
Really? Surely Delta rather than Atlas tankage will be used, on account of methane's low density. Therefore, I would think that physical interfaces would make LC-37B easier to use. Furthermore, 37B is already kitted out to handle a cryogenic fuel.
I'm wondering about this myself. With cost-cutting seemingly the driver behind NGLS, it seems likely to me that ULA would not want to be stuck with the higher costs of SLC 6 (especially) and SLC 37 compared to the Atlas sites. On the other hand, is it even possible for ULA to keep flying Atlas while switching over to NGLS on the same pads? Heck, maybe ULA will switch to an Atlas pad on one coast and a Delta pad on the other. All I know for sure is that the choices, if any have been made, have not been announced to the public.
- Ed Kyle
Atlas V has the MLP, which allows for LV abstaction. If they add the CH4 lines, and a custom MLP, they could even share the VIF. The Delta IV pads would require a complete rebuild. Not to mention SLC-6 humongous cost.
Well, judging from the 13 tons to trans-Mars injection, then Falcon Heavy should be plenty good enough even to high energy. The only exception would be EXTREMELY high energy like New Horizons, but DoD doesn't care about that (and a small kick stage will do just fine for those cases).
Most people assume that the Atlas V pads will be used.
Really? Surely Delta rather than Atlas tankage will be used, on account of methane's low density. Therefore, I would think that physical interfaces would make LC-37B easier to use. Furthermore, 37B is already kitted out to handle a cryogenic fuel.
I'm wondering about this myself. With cost-cutting seemingly the driver behind NGLS, it seems likely to me that ULA would not want to be stuck with the higher costs of SLC 6 (especially) and SLC 37 compared to the Atlas sites. On the other hand, is it even possible for ULA to keep flying Atlas while switching over to NGLS on the same pads? Heck, maybe ULA will switch to an Atlas pad on one coast and a Delta pad on the other. All I know for sure is that the choices, if any have been made, have not been announced to the public.
- Ed Kyle
Atlas V has the MLP, which allows for LV abstaction. If they add the CH4 lines, and a custom MLP, they could even share the VIF. The Delta IV pads would require a complete rebuild. Not to mention SLC-6 humongous cost.
The VIF mods just require larger holes on some of the lower platforms
The VIF mods just require larger holes on some of the lower platforms
Would that be the same for the MSS at SLC-3? Or would that be a more difficult modification than LC-41?
Latest article on RD180 ban.
http://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-sounds-alarm-over-ban-on-russian-rocket-engines/
In crafting the ban, Congress carved out exemptions for engines ordered under ULA’s so-called block-buy contract, a sole-source order of a combined 36 Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rocket cores that was made in 2013. The law also exempts engines that were either paid for in full or legally committed to by ULA as of Feb. 1, 2014.
based on the documentation provided to the Department by ULA thus far, it appears that only a very small number of those engines actually met the statutory language
“This prohibition therefore restricts the ability of ULA to compete effectively for EELV Phase 1A and early Phase II missions inconsistent with the timelines in NDAA Section 1604 for developing additional competitive launch capabilities.”
EELV Phase 1A refers to the initial competitive phase of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program, which ULA has had all to itself since its establishment in 2006. The Air Force expects to put as many as nine missions up for bid during Phase 1A, which runs from 2015 through 2017. Under the following phase, referred to as Phase 2 in Hoyler’s statement, all missions would be put out for bid.
ULA certainly can still 'compete' by offering the Delta IV... originally sold as launch assurance if something should take out the Atlas V. It's a proven reliable launch vehicle that can cover all/most payloads that will be up for competition.
ULA certainly can still 'compete' by offering the Delta IV... originally sold as launch assurance if something should take out the Atlas V. It's a proven reliable launch vehicle that can cover all/most payloads that will be up for competition.
Of course they can. And they have the $1 billion/year for "assured access". What they heck are they using it for?? Instead the Air Force whines they might have to use a competitor. Staggering.
ULA certainly can still 'compete' by offering the Delta IV... originally sold as launch assurance if something should take out the Atlas V. It's a proven reliable launch vehicle that can cover all/most payloads that will be up for competition.
Of course they can. And they have the $1 billion/year for "assured access". What they heck are they using it for?? Instead the Air Force whines they might have to use a competitor. Staggering.
They're using it for exactly what your first sentence says. Assured access. And it's also <700 million. Why don't people automatically add 50% to every SpaceX cost quoted??
SpaceX used politics to ban the RD-180. Not one senator ever heard of or knew of what an RD-180 was until SpaceX used the political system to get what they want. SpaceX put ULA in a bind. ULA is reacting. What are you complaining about? When assured access (Delta IV) goes away, so does the 700 million. You think ULA wants to keep pads open for 1 launch every 3 years (SLC-6), or even LC-37?
Not one senator ever heard of or knew of what an RD-180 was until SpaceX used the political system to get what they wanted
Still amazes me that RD180's got called out in congressional language. I could understand an embargo on everything from Russia but this definitely seemed suspicious.
Not one senator ever heard of or knew of what an RD-180 was until SpaceX used the political system to get what they wanted
Still amazes me that RD180's got called out in congressional language. I could understand an embargo on everything from Russia but this definitely seemed suspicious.
What business did ya think SpaceX was in?
ULA certainly can still 'compete' by offering the Delta IV... originally sold as launch assurance if something should take out the Atlas V. It's a proven reliable launch vehicle that can cover all/most payloads that will be up for competition.
Of course they can. And they have the $1 billion/year for "assured access". What they heck are they using it for?? Instead the Air Force whines they might have to use a competitor. Staggering.
They're using it for exactly what your first sentence says. Assured access. And it's also <700 million. Why don't people automatically add 50% to every SpaceX cost quoted??
SpaceX used politics to ban the RD-180. Not one senator ever heard of or knew of what an RD-180 was until SpaceX used the political system to get what they want. SpaceX put ULA in a bind. ULA is reacting. What are you complaining about? When assured access (Delta IV) goes away, so does the 700 million. You think ULA wants to keep pads open for 1 launch every 3 years (SLC-6), or even LC-37?
I don't add 50% to every number - I'm just using widely cited information.
If it is wrong, then please correct it. And please be more specific than "<700 million". I would love to see more accurate numbers.
Latest article on RD180 ban.
http://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-sounds-alarm-over-ban-on-russian-rocket-engines/
In crafting the ban, Congress carved out exemptions for engines ordered under ULA’s so-called block-buy contract, a sole-source order of a combined 36 Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rocket cores that was made in 2013. The law also exempts engines that were either paid for in full or legally committed to by ULA as of Feb. 1, 2014.
based on the documentation provided to the Department by ULA thus far, it appears that only a very small number of those engines actually met the statutory language
“This prohibition therefore restricts the ability of ULA to compete effectively for EELV Phase 1A and early Phase II missions inconsistent with the timelines in NDAA Section 1604 for developing additional competitive launch capabilities.”
EELV Phase 1A refers to the initial competitive phase of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program, which ULA has had all to itself since its establishment in 2006. The Air Force expects to put as many as nine missions up for bid during Phase 1A, which runs from 2015 through 2017. Under the following phase, referred to as Phase 2 in Hoyler’s statement, all missions would be put out for bid.
ULA certainly can still 'compete' by offering the Delta IV... originally sold as launch assurance if something should take out the Atlas V. It's a proven reliable launch vehicle that can cover all/most payloads that will be up for competition.
ULA increased Delta IV production for this very reason in May 2014.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1405/19delta4/#.VP7B4Xk5A5tSo ULA should have no problem offering Delta IV since they started producing the engines years before they where needed.
Answer:
...five...
Question:
Why is Sec AF lobbying for better competitive conditions for ULA?
Although the Air Force cited specific concerns only about ULA’s ability to compete for future business, the statement would seem to raise questions as to whether the company has enough exempted RD-180s on hand or on order to execute the existing block-buy contract.
It's the law Ms. Secretary. Salute and execute your orders.
(The army of real lobbyists will work on adjusting legislative language.)
Not one senator ever heard of or knew of what an RD-180 was until SpaceX used the political system to get what they want.
It wasn't an issue until Russian invaded Ukraine, it looks to me that making your elected representative aware of a situation like this should be the duty of any citizen.
SpaceX put ULA in a bind. ULA is reacting.
If ULA had arranged domestic production of RD-180 or switched the engine earlier, they wouldn't be in a bind or had to react.
Not one senator ever heard of or knew of what an RD-180 was until SpaceX used the political system to get what they want.
It wasn't an issue until Russian invaded Ukraine, it looks to me that making your elected representative aware of a situation like this should be the duty of any citizen.
SpaceX put ULA in a bind. ULA is reacting.
If ULA had arranged domestic production of RD-180 or switched the engine earlier, they wouldn't be in a bind or had to react.
Yeah, SpaceX doing their civic duty! hahaha It was the the US government that "encouraged" LM after the cold war to take advantage of the Russian technology before it was utilized by other rogue countries.
This is the same Russia we were/are partners with on the ISS for the last 15 to 20 years. The same Russian hardware we've been putting US astronauts on for the last 10 years. The same Russia we're more than happy to use their precious metals and titanium in our airliners. This is all politics and nothing else. Stop pretending it isn't.
Why would ULA have arranged domestic production for an engine that would cost 3 times more to make here? Now that SpaceX has put ULA (and the USAF) in a bind, the ARE making a US produced engine.
Now go put on all your clothes made in India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Honduras, get in your car made in Germany, Japan, Korea, or Sweden, put on you Swiss watch, and go to work.
