Paul Blay wrote:
"Brett Buck" wrote ...

Both will almost certainly survive to provide redundant access for
military payloads. Commercial viability was/is essentially moot - they
are required national resources.


There's been talk about how 'required' that required access is.

There is no, none, zero, nada, debate about required military access
to space. In fact, we can't build the payloads nearly fast enough to
supply the rapidly expanding need.

Whether dual-string capability is required, or merely highly
desirable, could potentially be debated, but I bet they won't make that
mistake again.

The fact that the "ban" on bidding was not total suggests that the
punishment is intended as a motivation to Boeing to correct their ways.
It could easily have been a death blow. And if the squealing gets loud
enough, I would anticipate the "ban" being modified.

Another complicating factor is the Russian-supplied parts on the
Atlas. That significantly improves the situation for the Delta.

I don't see how it's in anyone's interest to kill off the Delta IV
completely. I bet even Vance Coffman would agree if you asked him off
the record.




It puts Boeing in an interesting position though. Suppose they say
"We're not interested in doing Delta IV anymore, it doesn't pay." to the
US Gov. is the government going to have to come back with Big Money(TM)
to tempt them?

In time-honored tradition. But I doubt that we are talking "big"
money in terms of government contracts. Big compared to "cheap access to
space" delusions, but that's largely a figment of people's imaginations
anyway.


Just my opinion, of course. But I wager that Boeing and Lockheed
will still be in the launch business in 10 years.

Brett