Since Boeing and LM are partnering 50/50 and Boeing already has Delta IV Heavy does that mean we'll never see the Atlas V Heavy?

D. Scott Ferrin wrote:

I think it struck him speechless. :-)

Pat

D. Scott Ferrin wrote in news
Atlas V Heavy might be delayed, but the basic capability
more or less exists by design. The mobile launch platform
reportedly is ready to be modified for Heavy when needed
and the modular design of the launcher means almost no
hardware development is needed.

What will drive the need is payloads, and that might not
develop during this decade.

It's not at all clear to me how the new joint venture
may effect either L-M's or Boeing's existing designs.

--Damon

D. Scott Ferrin wrote:

Since Boeing and LM are partnering 50/50 and Boeing already has Delta
IV Heavy does that mean we'll never see the Atlas V Heavy?

We probably won't hear about this type of downsizing
until *after* the government approves the deal, but
I expect that we won't see Atlas V Heavy - and we
won't see one of the two EELV designs at all after
a few more years. The fact that they are moving
Atlas production to the Boeing plant might provide
a clue about which one will survive. Or, perhaps,
we might see a morph vehicle (Delta-Centaur!) that
combines parts from both designs.

- Ed Kyle

Strictly personal opinion: we won't see an Altas V heavy, any more than
the government will ever see a dime of savings from this monopoly.

Matt Bille
Space Historian/Writer
Colorado Springs

Matt wrote:
Strictly personal opinion: we won't see an Altas V heavy, any more
than
the government will ever see a dime of savings from this monopoly.

It won't be cheap to move the Atlas production line.
Once moved, it will share a roof with Delta, but will
still require separate tooling and a largely separate
workforce. They'll be able to cut security staff,
jobs in the parts office and in the payroll department,
etc., but its hard to see how they get $100 million
in annual savings. By my figuring, $100 million means
that Space Launch Alliance is going to have to cut
1,000 jobs or so, more than 25% of those now employed
in the EELV programs. It could be argued that cuts
this deep could affect national security by making
the launchers less reliable. Just one extra launch
failure (which would cost $100s of millions at least,
including the payload) would erase the "savings" and
then some.

- Ed Kyle