Maybe this is the thread to ask this question.Currently ULA can fly up 86 Atlas rockets. (101-6-9=86)That gets them till mid-2018.They are asking for a waiver of 9 additional engines.That gets them to mid-2019 early 2020 with some inventory manipulation.The Vulcan is not supposed to be certified before 2022 at the earliest.That means they need another waiver in 2018 right after they retire the Delta IV.A second waiver in 2020 seems probable as well.What do I have wrong?
Quote from: DGH on 05/27/2015 09:48 amMaybe this is the thread to ask this question.Currently ULA can fly up 86 Atlas rockets. (101-6-9=86)That gets them till mid-2018.They are asking for a waiver of 9 additional engines.That gets them to mid-2019 early 2020 with some inventory manipulation.The Vulcan is not supposed to be certified before 2022 at the earliest.That means they need another waiver in 2018 right after they retire the Delta IV.A second waiver in 2020 seems probable as well.What do I have wrong?This came up in one of the Sowers Q/A threads: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37295.msg1361641#msg1361641I'm a little confused about this as I was under the impression that "Vulcan Centaur" would be capable of conducting AF launches almost immediately after EIS. I don't know exactly what's going on with Vulcan Centaur certification. Is the issue the inevitable lag between certification and actually flying task orders?
Since ULA and its parent companies have said that development of Vulcan depends on ULA being allowed to fly Atlas V with the RD-180 until Vulcan is certified, the RD-180 ban and its possible modification by Congress at the request of the Air Force is still a significant issue.The purpose of this thread is to focus RD-180 discussion here so that the Vulcan thread can focus on Vulcan itself and not the RD-180 issue.For starters, here are the latest statements from ULA and Boeing on the subject.http://spacenews.com/ula-execs-say-rd-180-engine-ban-blocks-path-to-next-gen-rocket/
Quote from: Kabloona on 05/27/2015 03:10 amSince ULA and its parent companies have said that development of Vulcan depends on ULA being allowed to fly Atlas V with the RD-180 until Vulcan is certified, the RD-180 ban and its possible modification by Congress at the request of the Air Force is still a significant issue.The purpose of this thread is to focus RD-180 discussion here so that the Vulcan thread can focus on Vulcan itself and not the RD-180 issue.For starters, here are the latest statements from ULA and Boeing on the subject.http://spacenews.com/ula-execs-say-rd-180-engine-ban-blocks-path-to-next-gen-rocket/I have the serious feeling that this is going to end up by RD-180 being banned and replaced by RD-181 in keeping with the letter of the law.
Quote from: tp1024 on 05/30/2015 10:25 amI have the serious feeling that this is going to end up by RD-180 being banned and replaced by RD-181 in keeping with the letter of the law.No way - ULA isnt crazy enough to pull such a stunt - if they even tried to abuse some loophole, congress would block that in a heartbeat. Also, AFAIK that ban is a bit wider, than just saying, that EELVs cant use RD-180.
I have the serious feeling that this is going to end up by RD-180 being banned and replaced by RD-181 in keeping with the letter of the law.
Quote from: arachnitect on 05/27/2015 04:05 pmQuote from: DGH on 05/27/2015 09:48 amMaybe this is the thread to ask this question.Currently ULA can fly up 86 Atlas rockets. (101-6-9=86)That gets them till mid-2018.They are asking for a waiver of 9 additional engines.That gets them to mid-2019 early 2020 with some inventory manipulation.The Vulcan is not supposed to be certified before 2022 at the earliest.That means they need another waiver in 2018 right after they retire the Delta IV.A second waiver in 2020 seems probable as well.What do I have wrong?This came up in one of the Sowers Q/A threads: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37295.msg1361641#msg1361641I'm a little confused about this as I was under the impression that "Vulcan Centaur" would be capable of conducting AF launches almost immediately after EIS. I don't know exactly what's going on with Vulcan Centaur certification. Is the issue the inevitable lag between certification and actually flying task orders?Maybe the time between 2020 & 2022 could be covered by commercial launches? It would also speed up any cert work that was required.
Well, so long as OrbATK is allowed to use the RD-181
(a) In General.-Except as provided by subsections (b) and (c), beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 19, 2014], the Secretary of Defense may not award or renew a contract for the procurement of property or services for space launch activities under the evolved expendable launch vehicle program if such contract carries out such space launch activities using rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation.
Quote from: tp1024 on 05/30/2015 10:25 amI have the serious feeling that this is going to end up by RD-180 being banned and replaced by RD-181 in keeping with the letter of the law.The letter of the law is more general than that.Quote(a) In General.-Except as provided by subsections (b) and (c), beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 19, 2014], the Secretary of Defense may not award or renew a contract for the procurement of property or services for space launch activities under the evolved expendable launch vehicle program if such contract carries out such space launch activities using rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation.Prohibition on Contracting With Russian Suppliers of Rocket Engines for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program~Kirk
Yes, but Subsection b) include the possibility of a waiver. Provided that:"(1) the waiver is necessary for the national security interests of the United States; and [DING]"(2) the space launch services and capabilities covered by the contract could not be obtained at a fair and reasonable price without the use of rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation. [DING]So it is entirely possible.
Note that the joint conditions are not satisfied for the upcoming competed GPS launches or any other payload within the ability of F9 expendible. IF the payload is too massive for F9, Delta Heavy could satisfy the too expensive clause, so a waiver could be obtained. Same goes for situation where F9 becomes unavailable.
Industry sources have long said that SpaceX was vying for the GPS 3 missions, which appear well suited to the capabilities of the Falcon 9. The court filing is the first public disclosure of the asking price.
This sounds like any waiver is automatically void when bidding against Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy.
Quote from: ArbitraryConstant on 05/31/2015 03:57 pmThis sounds like any waiver is automatically void when bidding against Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy.Not if you demand that there must always be a second provider. Which is the case, as far as I know.
The Secretary of the Air Force may not award a contract to a certified launch provider of the United States unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that the launch provider has one or more launch vehicles that is able to accommodate all medium-weight and heavy-lift classes of payloads included in the national security manifest.