Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

Fledi · 2005-06-21 10:32:15

any tether pieces left? ???

SpaceNut · 2005-08-10 10:42:34

Well it has been a while since the last anouncements of Boeing and Lockheed consolidating the Rocketry power.

European Union's executive commission, Clears Boeing/Lockheed Martin Space Launch Joint Venture

A so called 50 /50 partnership to reduce costs....

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-10 14:12:07

Well, that avoids the issue of downselection quite nicely...

SpaceNut · 2005-08-10 20:00:11

One more has been made as well. Pentagon Signs Off on NASA Launcher Plans

The U.S. Department of Defense has signed off on NASA’s plan to use major space shuttle components as the basis for separate vehicles that will launch the agency’s new crew transport and 100-ton loads of Moon-bound cargo.

The U.S. Space Transportation Policy issued by the White House in January requires NASA to coordinate its future launch vehicle plans with the Pentagon and submit a joint recommendation to the president on the nation’s next heavy-lift rocket.

To which we have seen the preview of the plan. All I can add is make it happen.

publiusr · 2005-08-12 16:09:08

You know that makes me happy. Griffin has won this round.

But a blood sacrifice must be made:

Delta II became a crutch--being a lot like fiber to keep you regular. It was not even based on an ICBM but on an IRBM. You have a Pershing/Jupiter/Scud class Thor that was just stretched--and it still puts two tons less in orbit than 50 yr. old R-7. HLLV is the battered womens shelter--it means a new way of life--but a better way of life. Delta II is the familiar guy in the wife-beater shirt. He fastens you up in a small, cramped space--he limits where you can go and what you can do.

But it looks like the cops have finally shown up:

http://www.space.com/spacenews/050704_b … onday.html

Excerpt

Griffin said he told Lord that NASA would be willing to switch to the medium-lift variants of the EELVs to loft its science spacecraft “provided that there is not an undue financial penalty for NASA.”

That might spell the end of Boeing’s smaller but highly reliable Delta 2 rocket, which has served as NASA’s primary workhorse for the past decade or more. That vehicle is no longer in the Air Force’s plans.

Griffin called a switch to EELV “the most nascent of plans” noting that NASA still has about a dozen Delta 2 launches under contract.

A Defense Department official, who asked not to be identified by name, confirmed that Griffin and Lord had reached a tentative agreement on Delta 2 and said that the Air Force is not likely to stand in the way of NASA developing shuttle-derived launchers.

Bad Boys, Bad Boys--whatcha gonna do...

More on the Death of Delta II:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/421/1

"Above all for the people at the Pentagon, this “ceasefire” means encouraging NASA to give up on its traditional favorite, the Delta 2, in favor of the more expensive and capable EELVs. For many deep space missions this would mean more and better instrument packages and more propellant, which could in turn mean better overall scientific return on investment. Smaller missions could still be flown on Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Taurus or Pegasus launchers or on SpaceX’s Falcon 1 and 5, but the Delta 2, which has been the space agency’s workhorse, will be put out to pasture."

Don't get mad...the latest Mars mission will ride Atlas Centaur--the first NASA probe to use that rocket since 1978. If you will recall--they were able to put extra propellant in MRO due to greater lift capability.

I'd love to have the Delta II tooling so I could stomp on it and throw it in the river.

The author of the linked to article did botch it once:

"If they decided to build a SDLV with a side-mounted pod that fits where the shuttle orbiter is now attached, they could have something operational much sooner and with a lot less investment, but only the “stick” would give them the long-term very heavy-lift capacity they will need to economically lift the equipment needed for a permanent Moon base. "

The in line HLLV is Magnum/Ares whatever. The LEO-only CEV-atop-SRB is the stick--not HLLV.

Some nice work on HLLV and the stick is seen here if you scroll down:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1055

One drawing doesn't make sense:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/cev.16.jpg

There the aft interstage is behind the SSME. It looks to me like the aft interstage would be behind the aft skirt--with the narrow end tapering into the thrust structure with the SSME coming last.

Oh well--maybe it's supposed to be a shroud. We need better art from Frassanito & Asc.

cool:
http://www.lunadude.com/images-pfolio/l_ashuttle-02.jpg
http://www.lunadude.com/images-pfolio/l … huttle.jpg

http://www.marscenter.it/eng/veicolicapsulesoyuz.htm
Nice link:
http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/TableOfContents.cfm

Some Discovery pics

http://www.up-ship.com/apr/extras/STS114/STS114.htm

Subject: [Inside KSC] Re: In-Line Payload Cradle idea for lifting 6 Shuttle payloads at once
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/inside_ks … oncept.jpg

As for the Delta II, it looks as if we won't be lighting-up to many more of those 100's lengths Thors with the nice white filter on top. Each of these cancer sticks just add up to give you the Goldin Era Stagnation tumors that turn malignant really fast.

Griffin's HLLV therapy is just what the Doctor ordered.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-13 21:03:07

In the article Boeing delays rocket launch until Monday

Boeing's Decatur plant, with 660 employees, produces all Delta-series rockets. If a joint venture receives U.S. government approval, the Decatur plant also will manufacture Lockheed Martin Corp.'s Atlas rockets. That would add hundreds of additional jobs to the Decatur plant, according to Lockheed officials.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-15 10:54:51

With Falcon being moved off from Vandenberg. The squeeze play which stems from Lockheed Martin moving back to use a Complex 3 East site at Vandenberg for Atlas 5 launches. This coupled with a high security payload for another launch that has been delayed. How can we ever expect the alt-x'ers to ever get going when the giants take priority.

John Creighton · 2005-08-15 11:12:00

With Falcon being moved off from Vandenberg. The squeeze play which stems from Lockheed Martin moving back to use a Complex 3 East site at Vandenberg for Atlas 5 launches. This coupled with a high security payload for another launch that has been delayed. How can we ever expect the alt-x'ers to ever get going when the giants take priority.

Use a different lauch pad like the falcon is doing.

publiusr · 2005-08-25 13:13:44

I wonder if the primes are putting the squeeze on Musk like they did Beal--over launch zones...

Nah... :evil:

publiusr · 2005-09-08 14:44:55

Good news!

There is a new EELV in town.

With engine out-

By a name you may know...

http://www.spacex.com/press18.php
http://www.spacex.com/falcon_9.php

srmeaney · 2005-09-13 16:27:17

Link to image of LockheedMartin CEV

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20 … hicle.htmlThe shuttle up the front looks suspiciously like a a HOTOL ripoff...Considering the design team who worked on the HOTOL defected to the private sector...It would seem their designs found interest elsewhere.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-13 16:52:54

Thats old news Srmeany, this design has been in Popular Mechanics for some months now. I believe this design is quite preposterous given its 40MT mass, and makes no sense, unless:

-Lockheed is betting on VSE being canceld, which makes the "airplane" part of their CEV a better ISS tender then a capsule, since the vehicle would not have a service module and glide rather then plummet ballistically.

-Lockheed has put forth a red-herring to stoke up public enthusiasm and perhaps present a false "one upping" of the Boeing/Nothrop capsule juggernaught.

publiusr · 2005-09-14 12:29:06

That was just LockMarts warmed over OSP proposal under the Marshall make-work program. They even had a dot.com name www.slinews.com

Why Marshall had that was anyones guess. More of Dennis Smith and Dan Dumbacher. Now DARPA is still trying to bring X-37 back to life. Griffin has no use for such designs.

Back on topic--

ULA in trouble:
http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCo … 616_newsml

I think this is funny.

With Falcon IX as a bargaining chip and the OSTP joint requirement letter now signed--Griff can threaten ULA with all-Falcon VSE missions unless Boeing/LockMart use their lobby-power to support HLLV.

Delta II has had it.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-14 13:01:23

Ummm. No.

I don't think you know what you are talking about, publiusr.

publiusr · 2005-09-14 13:12:35

Delta II was to be the fall guy--the sacrificial lamb. And that was before Falcon IX

If (and that is a big if) Musk's rocket is successful--and he chunks his 'reusability' aspect--Delta II will be finished. If it flys--it will give ULA something to worry about--and Griffin--if he stays past Bush's Presidency might just use it as leverage.

Falcon's big competitor will still be Ur-100/Dnepr--though Musk is even knocking on Proton's door with Falcon IX. So ILS will have some cheap competition.

But Falcon I hasn't launched yet. So it is all up in the air--or isn't.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-14 13:37:30

What? Why would Griffin has worries about the Boeing/Lockheed partnership? The partnership involving the Delta and Atlas rockets is in no way related to the partnership that runs the Space Shuttle program. ULA and USA are two seperate ventures.

publiusr · 2005-09-16 12:57:54

There is a schism. Some in USA want shuttle derived--but the suits like ULA a bit more because they can get NASA to pay for their EELVs that are not selling well.

Griffin seems to have won his push for HLLV--but I would still expect him to be undermined. It's all politics.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-20 09:18:30

[url=http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/09/20/Navigation/177/201574/+US+DoD+quizzes+Launch+Alliance+on+cost+savings.html]US DoD quizzes Launch Alliance on cost savings
Government wants more data on Boeing-Lockheed plan to merge booster businesses [/url]

Plans by Boeing and Lockheed Martin to combine their launch vehicle businesses have been delayed by US government requests for more information on the expected cost savings, but the deal is still expected to be completed by the end of the year

publiusr · 2005-09-23 15:15:07

And now comes "Operation Offset" with Moon/Mars to be axed to pay for Katrina. Nickels and dimes compared to Iraq, DDX, JSF, etc. (ULA probably behind some of that too.)

It makes me want to pick up a Kalashnikov.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-23 16:04:55

"It makes me want to pick up a Kalashnikov."

EXCUSE ME? I think you need to clarify your statement.

publiusr · 2005-10-07 09:27:18

That would be telling.

On a serious note Mike Pence who suggested the NASA cuts seems to be in trouble. Sadly--so is Tom Delay--about the best friend NASA has in the Beltway.

evilcitizen · 2005-10-17 18:41:23

And now comes "Operation Offset" with Moon/Mars to be axed to pay for Katrina. Nickels and dimes compared to Iraq, DDX, JSF, etc. (ULA probably behind some of that too.)
It makes me want to pick up a Kalashnikov.

It's really unbelievable the amount they'll waste on the F-22 program for the Air Force. The development was insane and then each fighter will cost several hundred million a piece, and to make things worse they play politics and force cuts in the JSF program (fighters only 40-60 mil each) so the Air Force can afford to pay for more F-22s.

It's no wonder NASA suffers so much in America's lobby-happy political environment.

John Creighton · 2005-10-17 19:10:13

And now comes "Operation Offset" with Moon/Mars to be axed to pay for Katrina. Nickels and dimes compared to Iraq, DDX, JSF, etc. (ULA probably behind some of that too.)
It makes me want to pick up a Kalashnikov.
It's really unbelievable the amount they'll waste on the F-22 program for the Air Force. The development was insane and then each fighter will cost several hundred million a piece, and to make things worse they play politics and force cuts in the JSF program (fighters only 40-60 mil each) so the Air Force can afford to pay for more F-22s.
It's no wonder NASA suffers so much in America's lobby-happy political environment.

I never new about this. The JSF would seem the better buy but with a budget as big as the US defense budget there is bound to be some waste. However, I know little about the F-22 and perhaps the technology is somewhat groundbreaking. I must look it up.

Well from this link:
http://f22rapt.tripod.com/overview.html

It seem pretty leading edge.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-19 08:02:50

Its unfair to say that the F-22 fighter jet itself is hypra-expensive, because the Advanced Tactical Fighter program that the F-22 is the product of was a massive development program for new technologies. If the bill for all this technology development is rolled into and averaged over the cost then yes, each copy of the jet is extremely expensive, but I don't think that this is fair. In fact, this is really a lame half-truth argument that the anti-ATF people push.

The JSF uses alot of the technology developed in the ATF program, and infact the F-35 even uses the same basic shape and configuration. Same engines too. If you split the cost of the ATF technology development and average it over the F-22 and F-35, then that will rightly make the F-22 seem cheaper and the F-35 less of a bargain.

Granted, the ATF project may have been excessively ambitious when it was started, and it might even be fair to call it a premature push, which is one reason why the development has taken so long and is hence so expensive. The USAF also has spent some signifigant money modifying the F-22's weapon stores, radar (for ground attack), and fire control software (which is very hard to write) to give the F-22 limited ground attack capability instead of being soley an air superiority fighter.

But I don't think you can blame the USAF very much for wanting the F-22 as quickly as possible: there are two main reasons that we need the F-22, the first being that its precessor (the F-15) will wear out before too awful long, and that a new highly lethal generation of Russian and Chinese missiles are now openly sold.

The Russian AA-12/R-77 Adder missile, the Russian counterpart to the AIM-120 AMRAAM, is a very effective weapon with a signifigantly longer range than AMRAAM, or at the very least have equal range as an evolved Ramjet-equipped AMRAAM. Russian fighters can carry more of them too... Their AA-11/R-73 is also easily a match for even the latest version of Sidewinder, and probobly superior in a close range fight. The Chinese also have a missile which is basically a copy of the AMRAAM, which is probobly not as smart, but has about the same reach and maneuverability.

Russia and China's late model fighter jets, as much as I hate to admit it, probobly about as good as our current planes. As good at the F-15/16/18C are, the SU-30/33 and J-10 are every bit their equals in performance.

The real "bear" though is the proliferation of modern Russian surface-to-air missiles, particularly the S-300 and S-400 systems. The later of which is capable of attacking targets up to 200km distant, and the latter 400km distant (large version), can probobly attack cruise missiles, and the smaller version can execute 20G maneuvers during the terminal phase.

Oh yeah, and the smaller 120km range version can be carried by fighter jets too.

A central tenant of the US military doctern is to field qualitatively superior units in smaller numbers versus the other way around. Given the capabilities of Russian and Chinese weapons, which will probobly become hand-me-downs or exports everywhere one of these days, are an equal or even superior match to anything we have to counter them with.

As nice as the JSF is for ground attack, it is simply not as deadly as the F-22. Its nowhere near as fast, can't carry but three or four missiles internally, doesn't have the same reach or loiter time, has a smaller and less capable radar, is considerably less agile as it lacks thrust vectoring, and so on and so forth. It will undoubtably be an excelent fighter, well worth of replacing the F-16 and F-18C, but it is not as overwhelmingly superior as the F-22.

The F-22 is our trump card, nothing in the world for the next twenty years can even match it, it is by far the most deadly fighter ever built by man. In fact, it will probobly be the most deadly manned fighter ever made present or future. Its stealth and EW capability will make it untouchable until it is too late for our enemies.

Commodore · 2005-10-19 15:54:47

Lets not forget that every time they cut the number of F-22s we buy, the more each copy will cost. The reason the F-35's are about 60mil a copy is because were suppose to be buying 3000 of them.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-06-21 10:32:15

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#27 2005-08-10 10:42:34

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#28 2005-08-10 14:12:07

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#29 2005-08-10 20:00:11

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#30 2005-08-12 16:09:08

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#31 2005-08-13 21:03:07

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#32 2005-08-15 10:54:51

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#33 2005-08-15 11:12:00

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#34 2005-08-25 13:13:44

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#35 2005-09-08 14:44:55

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#36 2005-09-13 16:27:17

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#37 2005-09-13 16:52:54

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#38 2005-09-14 12:29:06

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#39 2005-09-14 13:01:23

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#40 2005-09-14 13:12:35

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#41 2005-09-14 13:37:30

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#42 2005-09-16 12:57:54

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#43 2005-09-20 09:18:30

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#44 2005-09-23 15:15:07

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#45 2005-09-23 16:04:55

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#46 2005-10-07 09:27:18

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#47 2005-10-17 18:41:23

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#48 2005-10-17 19:10:13

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#49 2005-10-19 08:02:50

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#50 2005-10-19 15:54:47

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

Board footer