Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV

On 16 Aug 2005 10:16:28 -0700, "Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Don't get me wrong. I think that both EELV designs
>are remarkable achievements. But I also think that
>one of them is better than the other.

Agreed, although we haven't seen the -Heavy version yet of the other
one and it too could suddenly develop complications that didn't appear
in the core-alone launches.

I think that the problems seen so far in the weaker of the two EELV
entries is due to it being an offering by a company which hasn't been
in the large-launcher business since Saturn V, and it being an almost
entirely new vehicle (the name notwithstanding) compared to somewhat
more heritage hardware in the other EELV from a company that has been
constantly building large ELVs since the mid-60s.. And I think for
this reason, the Air Force is giving it the benefit of the doubt in
the hope that the bugs will be worked out eventually (none of them
have been catastrophic yet, remember) And the low-launch rate is
western-worldwide... even the vaunted Ariane 5 has been moribund this
year. And a big part of the weaker EELV's low launch rate was the need
to spend most of 2004 prepping for the first -Heavy mission, something
the other EELV entry didn't have to worry about.

Brian

.

Quantcast