Because it makes the Falcon family capable of delivering the payloads that currently require the Atlas V.
Quote from: QuantumG on 01/14/2016 05:15 amBecause it makes the Falcon family capable of delivering the payloads that currently require the Atlas V.Indeed. There is more than one way to get rid of RD-180:- Get rid of the engine itself and replace it with an all-US alternative (Aerojet is working on that)- Get rid of the launcher (Atlas V) and replace it with an all-US alternative (multiple companies working on that)SpaceX was just awarded some money to go for the latter alternative. Basically, USAF just handed SpaceX money for an effort to make ULA's star vehicle go away. That will raise some eyebrows in Centennial, Colorado.
Well, we know that Orbital ATK is also getting money for the GEM-63XL (for Vulcan, I assume), and the extendable nozzle for the BE-3U (ACES, may be?). Those two should be related to ULA. And I would assume that both Aerojet Rocketdyne and Blue Origin are negotiating some similar investments.
Quote from: Star One on 01/14/2016 02:41 pmYou Cannot separate the two things that easily as you seem to think you can. Do you think that when this award was made that it was just with an eye to Atlas V without considering Delta IV as well. EELV is two systems closely linked together even as far as shortly having a common avionics package. Their replacement by Vulcan will encompass both launchers not just one. They are intrinsically linked.That's not true. It's easy to discuss just one or the other when the topic is relevant to one or the other. This particular topic is relevant to Atlas V but not Delta IV because it's about replacing Russian engines.Quote from: Star One on 01/14/2016 02:41 pmAnd I will thank you to stop acting as some kind of gatekeeper over what you think can or cannot be posted where.So in your ideal world people should never point out to you when you're misunderstanding what a topic is about? You'd rather not hear when you've made a mistake?Sorry, but this is a discussion board and people are free to point out your mistakes here. I think it's unfortunate that you're not receptive to that.
You Cannot separate the two things that easily as you seem to think you can. Do you think that when this award was made that it was just with an eye to Atlas V without considering Delta IV as well. EELV is two systems closely linked together even as far as shortly having a common avionics package. Their replacement by Vulcan will encompass both launchers not just one. They are intrinsically linked.
And I will thank you to stop acting as some kind of gatekeeper over what you think can or cannot be posted where.
Quote from: baldusi on 01/14/2016 02:30 pmWell, we know that Orbital ATK is also getting money for the GEM-63XL (for Vulcan, I assume), and the extendable nozzle for the BE-3U (ACES, may be?). Those two should be related to ULA. And I would assume that both Aerojet Rocketdyne and Blue Origin are negotiating some similar investments.I think I read somewhere that AJR was still in negotiation with USAF about a major contract (it got a minor one in the last phase), but really, I have no idea about Blue. They did go to the EELV hearing and talked about their engines, but it would not be entirely illogical to not seek any money at all..
Quote from: QuantumG on 01/14/2016 05:15 amBecause it makes the Falcon family capable of delivering the payloads that currently require the Atlas V.One can argue* that the falcon family is already (soon to be) capable of delivering the payloads that currently require the Atlas V (through FH) and the new option only lets them be more competitive (through F9).*Not me. I would argue that competitive = capable
Quote from: woods170 on 01/14/2016 06:17 amQuote from: QuantumG on 01/14/2016 05:15 amBecause it makes the Falcon family capable of delivering the payloads that currently require the Atlas V.Indeed. There is more than one way to get rid of RD-180:- Get rid of the engine itself and replace it with an all-US alternative (Aerojet is working on that)- Get rid of the launcher (Atlas V) and replace it with an all-US alternative (multiple companies working on that)SpaceX was just awarded some money to go for the latter alternative. Basically, USAF just handed SpaceX money for an effort to make ULA's star vehicle go away. That will raise some eyebrows in Centennial, Colorado. The thing is that they really need two healthy enough vehicle families for assured access. Just having SpaceX be more competitive doesn't actually fulfill that requirement.~Jon
1) the need for two EELV launch families. Shuttle is no good for national security, nor costs. 2) “The Secretary of Defense … shall fund the annual fixed costs for both launch service providers" until 3) "until certifying to the President that a capability that reliably provides assured access to space can be maintained without two EELV providers.”4) “Human exploration missions will not be part of the EELV requirements. (See Appendix B.)”5) Delta IV will have the capability and production capacity to execute all EELV heavy-lift requirements through 2020.
Core stage of a rocket that can have boosters strapped on.
for the development of a prototype of the Raptor engine [the] locations of performance are NASA Stennis Space Center, Mississippi; Hawthorne, California; and Los Angeles Air Force Base, California.
No funding required for a non-government facility. (or at least no need to list it.)
Quotefor the development of a prototype of the Raptor engine [the] locations of performance are NASA Stennis Space Center, Mississippi; Hawthorne, California; and Los Angeles Air Force Base, California.No mention of McGregor, Texas.
