I had not thought about this, but this means they will not be meeting the needs of the Delta II class payloads. So either you buy a larger rocket (NGLS) or someone else fills the nitch (Orbital ATK, SpaceX, ect.).
The NGLS version with no solids and 4-m PLF will not have that much more (I don't know the number) performance that the current AV 401 or 411. So whatever flew on a 401, would fly cheaper. If much smaller, then lots of wasted performance, unless a secondary of two can ride along.
I had not thought about this, but this means they will not be meeting the needs of the Delta II class payloads. So either you buy a larger rocket (NGLS) or someone else fills the nitch (Orbital ATK, SpaceX, ect.).
Delta II was going away anyways, and the use of AV 401 to launch payloads in that class was never going to last more than a few years. ULA proposed addressing the medium class launch market with dual manifest launches on Atlas. The problem is these payloads have been infrequent and are often going to completely incompatible orbits. Also, ULA parent Lockheed keeps making noises about bringing Athena back and upgrading it towards medium class territory.
F9 has won the medium class launch services race for now. Delta II also used to fly a fair number of European payloads, which will mostly go to Soyuz or Vega now.
Some US government launches will go on OrbATK Minotaur rockets with GFE peacekeeper motors, especially if OrbATK can sell them on the proposed "Minotaur VI."
So ULA has ceded the market, and is hoping no one introduces an affordable alternative.
Btw. With all the upgrades to Falcon I think it is being pushed out of being a true Delta II replacement.
So ULA has ceded the market, and is hoping no one introduces an affordable alternative.
Btw. With all the upgrades to Falcon I think it is being pushed out of being a true Delta II replacement.
Not when it is being used in recovery mode - F9R will "only" be a Delta II/Soyuz class launcher.
I'm not sure if ULA is even trying to pitch the Atlas V for that market right now, so NGLS may not address it either.
So if the RD-180 engine language is removed you think that ULA will walk away from it's partnership with Blue Origins and the development of the BE-4?
IMO, yes they will. IF the RD-180 legal language disappears, there will no longer be any compelling reason for ULA to invest large amounts of money in a replacement engine. Simply because the replacement engine will no longer be needed.
Agreed, what's all the fuss about?
Geopolitics and minimising the possibility of national diplomatic interests.Trying to avoid even the slightest, most minuscule possibility of a 21st century European war and the NRO being held hostage to an external supply chain, comes one over the best options for space launch in the short term. Neither of those events are likely to happen, but that's not the point. It's about rendering them
impossible. The 180 controversy is just a minute element of the economic skirmishing going on right now in all industries, as both Russia and Nato attempt to reduce logistical dependencies on each other.
In the long term, it's a wonderful incentive for the american launch industry to do some propulsion innovation.
IF the RD-180 legal language disappears, there will no longer be any compelling reason for ULA to invest large amounts of money in a replacement engine.
The compelling reason is ULA's biggest customer saying you're not using RD-180 anymore on our missions. Fix this problem! It's already a done deal for NSS missions.
Even if the bill goes away, RD-180 will not be flying any NSS missions after some date between 4-6 years form now. Now if ULA wants to use a few more for commercial missions, they'll be available, but once a new vehicle is flying, there's no reason to keep 2 different LVs in the fleet.
It would still be nice to know if a 3 core version would get 50 tons to LEO to compete with Falcon H if LEO payloads get this big. Not saying it is in the works or anything, just wondering if it would match Falcon without solids.
So ULA has ceded the market, and is hoping no one introduces an affordable alternative.
Btw. With all the upgrades to Falcon I think it is being pushed out of being a true Delta II replacement.
Anything that is capable enough and is cost effective can be a Delta II replacement. Even Delta IV Heavy could be considered a Delta II replacement, if the cost was competitive. It is the price that matters - not the capability.
IF the RD-180 legal language disappears, there will no longer be any compelling reason for ULA to invest large amounts of money in a replacement engine.
The compelling reason is ULA's biggest customer saying you're not using RD-180 anymore on our missions. Fix this problem! It's already a done deal for NSS missions.
Even if the bill goes away, RD-180 will not be flying any NSS missions after some date between 4-6 years form now. Now if ULA wants to use a few more for commercial missions, they'll be available, but once a new vehicle is flying, there's no reason to keep 2 different LVs in the fleet.
Neither USAF, nor the national security community, are the driving force behind the effort to get rid of RD-180. The ban on RD-180 is a purely political one. To the US national security community Russia has always remained an adversary, even after the cold-war came to an end and president Bush called Putin his friend. But despite Russia continuing to be viewed as an adversary, this never resulted in the national security community demanding that RD-180 be gone from use on Atlas V.
National security folks are pragmatic by nature. Should I mention where they got the titanium to construct a mach 3+ aircraft designed to do clandestine overflights of Russia?
Neither USAF, nor the national security community, are the driving force behind the effort to get rid of RD-180. The ban on RD-180 is a purely political one.
Yes, it's all politics. But the point of my post is, if the language to ban RD-180 goes away, ULA is still getting off of the RD-180. Their primary customer does not want to go through this fiasco again. They have made that quite clear. Trust me.
I was commenting on ULA's incentive to not going back to business as usual.
I'll start by stating I'm a supporter of the idea to allow some limited extension of RD-180 use with that extension directly linked to progress of ULA's alternative so they can't just kick the can down the road.
However, I did have a somewhat zany idea in the shower on this topic:
My understanding is that the restriction is linked to the engines already ordered vs new orders, not a specific date and ULA's argument is that they will use up the engines too soon, creating a gap.
So, enter zany idea: Assuming the 36 rocket block buy winds up as about 24-28 Atlas launches, this is the primary driver for running out of engines too soon. Almost all of those Atlas launches could be contested by a F9 once certified.
Therefore an alternative solution to this current gap would be for USAF and ULA to agree to reduce the block buy by say 10-14 launches and open those up to "competition". But really allocate them to SpaceX (or in theory Delta IV...). Then their existing supply of engines last longer and the current gap is solved.
Obviously no business would choose to give back won contracts (nor should they). But if this potential gap in engine availability would cripple ULA and US launch assurance, then it seems like something to consider.