Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: "Jake McGuire" <jamcguir@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Aug 2005 20:09:33 -0700
Ed Kyle wrote:
> If you are going to argue getting rid of a launch
> vehicle line to save money, why not get rid of the
> more expensive (Delta IV) line, which is a duplicate
> of the Atlas V line?
Because the US Government wants two different launch vehicles for most
of its satellites in case one of them runs into difficulties. Much
like the Delta IV happens to have now, but much like the Atlas could
have if (for instance) Russia becomes unwilling or unable to supply
RD-180 engines. The Delta II cannot help in this regard, so you can't
shut down Delta IV and use Delta II instead.
On the other hand, you could shut down Delta II and move its payloads
to larger launch vehicles, and thereby save all of the Delta II fixed
costs.
> Why not keep the vehicle that can be flown to the
> launch site rather than ponderously barged?
I know that you're on a big dry-weight-equals-cost kick, but things by
boat is hugely cheaper than flying them, even though boats weigh more
than airplanes.
-jake
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- References:
- Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Kim Keller
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: George William Herbert
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Brian Thorn
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Brian Thorn
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Ed Kyle
- Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- Prev by Date: Re: Kliper and CEV
- Next by Date: Re: Kliper and CEV
- Previous by thread: Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- Next by thread: Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|