-
#400
by
kevin-rf
on 06 Oct, 2010 12:30
-
Now, NASA has a contract with ULA that the DOD is envious of. The DOD actually wanted to go thru NASA for vehicles.
Care to elaborate? Does this mean NASA negotiated a shrewder contract than the DOD did? Or DOD likes NASA's bureaucracy better than its own? The grass is always greener I guess
-
#401
by
Jim
on 06 Oct, 2010 13:21
-
Now, NASA has a contract with ULA that the DOD is envious of. The DOD actually wanted to go thru NASA for vehicles.
Care to elaborate? Does this mean NASA negotiated a shrewder contract than the DOD did? Or DOD likes NASA's bureaucracy better than its own? The grass is always greener I guess
Different sections of FAR
-
#402
by
Robotbeat
on 06 Oct, 2010 17:57
-
When is the first launch planned for the RS-68A?
-
#403
by
kevin-rf
on 06 Oct, 2010 18:00
-
The next Delta-IV Heavy I believe... It was listed in one of the write-ups on the upcoming launch.
-
#404
by
Antares
on 07 Oct, 2010 05:16
-
Do you have a link for that article?
-
#405
by
2552
on 30 Oct, 2010 22:51
-
Hypothetically, when RS-25e is developed for SLS, could it also be used on Delta-IV for commonality with SLS, if it was cost-effective to do so? What kind of mods to Delta-IV would be needed, and what would it do to or for its performance?
-
#406
by
TrueBlueWitt
on 30 Oct, 2010 23:10
-
Hypothetically, when RS-25e is developed for SLS, could it also be used on Delta-IV for commonality with SLS, if it was cost-effective to do so? What kind of mods to Delta-IV would be needed, and what would it do to or for its performance?
Insufficient thrust for fully loaded Delta-IV cores..
-
#407
by
Antares
on 31 Oct, 2010 05:11
-
I don't like playing with Frankenrockets, but a structural feasibility study of a dual-SSME CBC would not be a horrible idea. It could solve some performance problems. If SLS can get the flight rate up, it might even be more economical than RS-68.
-
#408
by
tnphysics
on 11 Nov, 2010 00:11
-
Would it have enough thrust for the M+ versions?
-
#409
by
baldusi
on 19 Jan, 2011 18:06
-
I've noticed that the first Heavy from Vandenberg has been resting on SLC-6 for a whole year before launch. Is this normal procedure for a heavy or was just because they were testing the new pad?
I'm curious because I've read that SpaceX moved Falcon 1 testing from SLC-3 to Omelek because range safety prevented them from doing launches while there was another LV in a near pad, and the one on pad could be there for months. Was it the last Titan or a Delta 4?
Is it normal to have a Delta for months on a pad? I ask because I think I've read that ULA wanted the RS-68A to standarize the CBC (which isn't exactly "common" nowadays) so it could offer a "quick" turnaround and flexibility in swapping LV and payloads. If a LV has to be on the pad for years, it would require not less than three years of lead time. No wonder that the way to have backups is to have them on orbit.
-
#410
by
Jim
on 19 Jan, 2011 18:28
-
1. I've noticed that the first Heavy from Vandenberg has been resting on SLC-6 for a whole year before launch. Is this normal procedure for a heavy or was just because they were testing the new pad?
2. I'm curious because I've read that SpaceX moved Falcon 1 testing from SLC-3 to Omelek because range safety prevented them from doing launches while there was another LV in a near pad, and the one on pad could be there for months. Was it the last Titan or a Delta 4?
3. Is it normal to have a Delta for months on a pad? I ask because I think I've read that ULA wanted the RS-68A to standarize the CBC (which isn't exactly "common" nowadays) so it could offer a "quick" turnaround and flexibility in swapping LV and payloads. If a LV has to be on the pad for years, it would require not less than three years of lead time. No wonder that the way to have backups is to have them on orbit.
1. new pad
2. Titan IV
3. 3 months
-
#411
by
baldusi
on 20 Jan, 2011 13:55
-
The first flight of the RS-68A is decided? It was supposed to be this year, so it should be on the manifest, but I couldn't find it anywhere. May be some pointers to ULA's manifest?
-
#412
by
Jim
on 20 Jan, 2011 15:30
-
The first flight of the RS-68A is decided? It was supposed to be this year, so it should be on the manifest, but I couldn't find it anywhere. May be some pointers to ULA's manifest?
2012
-
#413
by
mmeijeri
on 20 Jan, 2011 15:32
-
And the last plain-vanilla RS-68 flight?
-
#414
by
Downix
on 20 Jan, 2011 16:34
-
Would it have enough thrust for the M+ versions?
Yes, and also with a Heavy if the two boosters are RS-68. (the payload jumps to almost 45mT)
-
#415
by
kevin-rf
on 20 Jan, 2011 17:16
-
How does 2012 work if it due to fly first on the Heavy? Did NRO L-15 slip to 2012 already? The next listed heavy is in 2015.
Will it not be on a Heavy?
-
#416
by
ugordan
on 20 Jan, 2011 17:18
-
I would think one would definitely want to flight-certify RS-68A on a Medium before risking a higher value payload on a Heavy.
-
#417
by
kevin-rf
on 20 Jan, 2011 17:26
-
Am I just remembering from a few years back it was being developed first for the Heavy and the plan was to fly out the inventory of RS-68's on the mediums before switching them.
Is that still the plan, or did ULA change things up?
-
#418
by
DMeader
on 21 Jan, 2011 13:25
-
Looking at photos of yesterdays DIV-H launch... immediately after liftoff it can be seen that the foam on one side of all three first stage cores is burned black, and near the top of one booster it is still actively on fire. Is this not a problem?
-
#419
by
gospacex
on 21 Jan, 2011 13:53
-
Looking at photos of yesterdays DIV-H launch... immediately after liftoff it can be seen that the foam on one side of all three first stage cores is burned black, and near the top of one booster it is still actively on fire. Is this not a problem?
Why it should be a problem?
EDIT: I watched videos and I admit it looked *far* worse than I imagined!
This indeed looks... eh.... off-nominal
This indeed looks... eh.... off-nominal