Delta IV vs. Atlas V

Brian Thorn wrote:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 18:50:18 GMT, "Dholmes"
wrote:

Plus it would be hard bring that kind of pressure.

No, it wouldn't. Boeing needs the US military alot more than the US
military needs Boeing. Boeing already lost the huge JSF contract, now
they've lost the lion's share of the EELV contract. The KC-767 is
still not a done-deal, the V-22 is still listed as day-to-day, and
they really want the Air Force to buy more C-17s, even though that
plane has never lived up to expectations.

The C-17 has far exceeded everyone's expectations. It is the one Boeing
plane that the Air Force can't get enough of. They've already extened
the production run by 50% (taking it from 120 to 180) and have a formal
requirement for 42 more which they've publicly stated they will fill.
The Air Force has also said the requirement for an additional 42 C-17's
predates Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, and those con-
flicts have shown a need for even more airlift.

Unlike Delta IV, C-17 is on solid ground, so to speak.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

ed kyle wrote:

I recall reports that DoD was thinking about a downselect to
one EELV for the next round of launch contracts. These reports
came out just before Columbia was lost earlier this year.
There's been no such talk since, but I've got to believe the
idea is still strong, especially with Rumsfield calling the shots.
Which rocket would win is uncertain, but it could come down to
which state is more "Republican" (Alabama or Colorado?).

A decision like that wouldn't be made by Rumsfeld. It would be made
by Peter Teets. When betting which way he'd go, recall he was an
officer of Lockheed Martin during the orignal EELV competition.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO