IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Landsat DCM
Jim from NSF.com
post Oct 5 2007, 01:06 PM
Post #1


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 321
Joined: 6-April 06
From: Cape Canaveral
Member No.: 734



Seems than planetary science gets more coverage here but just decided to add this topic since an Atlas V 401 was just selected.

What can be inferred from this selection?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Oct 5 2007, 01:19 PM
Post #2


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Jim from NSF.com @ Oct 5 2007, 02:06 PM) *
What can be inferred from this selection?


Someone needs to update the Wiki page about Atlas V's because it doesn't have an LEO capacity figure for the 401?

Reading some Delta II manifest lists - this sounds like it was pulled from the D2 manifest and moved to the Atlas V. Even the 401 will be an overperformance unless the design has bloated by a factor of 2 - is a secondary payload going to ride as well?

This might have been the last D2 launch - so it seems the end for that vehicle is coming sooner that we might have thought.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mchan
post Oct 6 2007, 08:10 AM
Post #3


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 599
Joined: 26-August 05
Member No.: 476



QUOTE (Jim from NSF.com @ Oct 5 2007, 06:06 AM) *
What can be inferred from this selection?

Gee, you're the one with the inside view. An outsider like me might wonder if it was cheaper to move to the more expensive launcher vs. shutting down of the Delta II production line later and keeping the Vandenberg pad warm for the year or 2 after the launch preceding Landsat DCM (which I thought was the last manifested Delta II mission).

I am guessing the Delta II production line is still active. With an earlier shutdown, there may be some expensive long lead hardware that will be scrapped. But that's business.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim from NSF.com
post Oct 6 2007, 02:49 PM
Post #4


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 321
Joined: 6-April 06
From: Cape Canaveral
Member No.: 734



QUOTE (mchan @ Oct 6 2007, 04:10 AM) *
Gee, you're the one with the inside view. An outsider like me might wonder if it was cheaper to move to the more expensive launcher vs. shutting down of the Delta II production line later and keeping the Vandenberg pad warm for the year or 2 after the launch preceding Landsat DCM (which I thought was the last manifested Delta II mission).

I am guessing the Delta II production line is still active. With an earlier shutdown, there may be some expensive long lead hardware that will be scrapped. But that's business.


It was a rhetorical question

The line is active but all the subcontracted hardware was delivered years ago. Keeping an integration, launch team, and pad active costs big bucks and the lost of skills may be significant
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mchan
post Oct 8 2007, 09:37 AM
Post #5


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 599
Joined: 26-August 05
Member No.: 476



Future Discovery and Mars Scout missions will face increased launch costs if they have to buy an Atlas 5 or Delta 4 instead a Delta 2 7925. Here's hoping that Falcon 9 will be successful and reliable. Higher mass margins than a Delta 2 7925 at lower cost would be a boon for future Discovery / Mars Scout missions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 01:21 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.