ULA launch and discussion thread

[.50calBMG]

But what I'm saying is that those problems were solved well before the DCSS was ever created. Not trying to say that common bulkheads are easy, but it seems that the extra space wasted by separating the tanks, which cuts fuel fraction due to more structural mass per unit of tank volume is just a bad idea in the first place, because (almost) everything in rocketry is about reducing excess mass.

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, .50calBMG said:

Centaur G still had a common bulkhead though. Makes me wonder what the thought process was for the separate tanks on the DCSS.

Well it was the Delta III, so...

Common bulkheads are useful, yes, but they offer challenges. Separating the propellant tanks slightly hurts performance but is not a show stopper and likely allows quicker development.

[Starman4308]

32 minutes ago, .50calBMG said:

But what I'm saying is that those problems were solved well before the DCSS was ever created. Not trying to say that common bulkheads are easy, but it seems that the extra space wasted by separating the tanks, which cuts fuel fraction due to more structural mass per unit of tank volume is just a bad idea in the first place, because (almost) everything in rocketry is about reducing excess mass.

Correction: it's about reducing cost. A small hit in extra upper stage mass may be worth it for lower development cost, especially since I'm pretty sure DCSS evolved from AJ-10 based stages.

It doesn't matter if you can loft 500 kg more to GTO if your customers don't need that extra 500 kg... and the Delta III/IV never saw enough use to justify expensive development of an improved upper stage.

[DDE]

6 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Hmm. I'm of the opinion that at least some of the activities you listed are actually carried out by SUBDEVRON 5, the US Navy's "experimental" and test submarine unit. Said unit is the operator of the U.S.S. Jimmy Carter, which is essentially tailor made to replace the U.S.S. Parche, which is widely held to have taken part in clandestine and intrusive espionage operations throughout it's long and largely classified career. 

One doesn’t exclude the other. NURO could be a CIA-Navy oversight office with no actual field assets, or their authority could end at parasite ships, and the bigger boat is under the Navy.

I would agree that Carter edges into R&D territory; apparently its sortie to Korea included aerial drone launches, which is both important development work, and so very charmingly 1930s.

[tater]

 

[tater]

 

[Racescort666]

2 hours ago, tater said:

 

I don't have a twitter account but someone should ask if they plan to fly IVF on Atlas before Vulcan. 

I guess this sort of answers it but ACES is essentially a new upper stage:

 

Edited March 4, 2019 by Racescort666

[tater]

 

[Nightside]

This could be one of the last Delta 4 Medium launches.

[DDE]

3 hours ago, Nightside said:

This could be one of the last Delta 4 Medium launches.

I assumed they’d retired that thing entirely.

[tater]

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by tater

[Cheif Operations Director]

I like ULA but they are not particularly innovative atleast from what I can tell

[Xd the great]

12 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

I like ULA but they are not particularly innovative atleast from what I can tell

I agree, even if they may be sometimes more innovatove than NASA.

[Racescort666]

19 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

I like ULA but they are not particularly innovative atleast from what I can tell

I disagree, their marketing team isn't great and they're certainly very conservative but that doesn't make them less innovative. They have good business sense and they understand their place in the market so you'll mostly see DoD and other government (NASA) launches that require low risk. As a result, they are much less likely to implement the "wizz-bang" changes. Not that they don't come up with them, they just don't implement them.

[sevenperforce]

ULA is for when your payload absolutely, positively must go to space today.

[Cheif Operations Director]

3 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

ULA is for when your payload absolutely, positively must go to space today.

 

3 hours ago, Racescort666 said:

I disagree, their marketing team isn't great and they're certainly very conservative but that doesn't make them less innovative. They have good business sense and they understand their place in the market so you'll mostly see DoD and other government (NASA) launches that require low risk. As a result, they are much less likely to implement the "wizz-bang" changes. Not that they don't come up with them, they just don't implement them.

Fair points

[XB-70A]

And a second rescheduling in 48 hours.

 

 

 

[Cheif Operations Director]

11 minutes ago, XB-70A said:

And a second rescheduling in 48 hours.

 

 

 

Those charachters!

Launch who cares if it goes boom! Haha

 

im just joking of course but it would be nice if they could fix this

[Nightside]

Speculation: pressure from SpaceX has caused ULA to need to double down on their flawless* launch record, requiring a much more conservative approach.

Or Could budgetary belt tightening be negatively impacting Delta 4 production?

 

 

*mostly flawless 

[XB-70A]

58 hours remaining!

[Racescort666]

Is it bad that I kind of want this to be delayed so that the launch happens during the 12 Hours of Sebring?

https://jalopnik.com/watch-a-424-million-military-satellite-launch-over-the-1793410864

[XB-70A]

 

 

EDIT

 

Just a sight of the 37B & Delta :

Edited March 15, 2019 by XB-70A

[tater]

A little over an hour to go:

 

[XB-70A]

Last 45th WS report is now giving 100% of good weather.

[Brotoro]

T-4 minutes and holding. They have successfully cleared two issues they were working on... now waiting for specification of new launch time.