UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Space

Subject:      DoD Mission Model
From:         thomsona@netcom.com (Allen Thomson)
Date:         1995/12/22
Message-Id:   <thomsonaDK09z4.HrF@netcom.com>
Newsgroups:   sci.space.policy

   A while ago,jbhopkin@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (Joshua B Hopkins) asked,
>Does the US military actually plan to launch 20 satellites per 
>year in the future? 
   As it happens, I have a couple of viewgraphs from a briefing 
Gen. Moorman was giving around town in April last year which 
contain the combined military and nonmilitary government mission 
models for large ELVs (apparently identical equal to the Titan 
IV, IV B and successors for the period in question), medium ELVs 
(Atlas II and Delta II) and small ELVs (presumably Pegasus, 
Taurus, etc).  It also shows STS as running at 8/year through 
2010, but I've omitted that. 
  There is a separate chart showing a commercial mission model 
for MELVs and SELVs -- obviously more of a guesstimate. 
     Government ELV Launches in USG Fiscal Years (1 Oct to 30 Sep)
FY      94  95  96  97  98  99  00  01  02  03  04  05  06  07  08  09  10
LELV     5   7   4   6   3   4   5   4   2   3   2   3   2   2   2   2   3
MELV    12  12  10  15  10  17  12  18  18  14  14  14  15  16  11  12  12
SELV     9   4   4   3   4   4   6   4   4   5   5   6   5   5   4   4   6
   One thing to be said about this table is that it's already 
significantly incorrect, at least as far as the LELVs and SELVs 
are concerned; I haven't checked the MELVs.  In FY 94 and 95 
there were 3 (two successful, one failure) and 3 T-IV 
launches for a total of six rather than the twelve indicated.  
So it looks as if DoD/NRO has orbited half the big payloads it 
was expecting to as recently as two years ago.  (Probably that's 
where some of the famous 1.6 gigabuck stash came from.)  Another 
is that the 47-item buy of Titan IV /IV B was projected to be 
used up right around the turn of the century, implying either a 
follow-on order for T-IV, or a very optimistic outlook for 
rapid development of its successor. 
   The SELV shortfall is obviously explained by the tough luck 
those launchers have been having.  In any case, I'd tend to 
regard those figures in the model as guesses, given the 
lamentably uncertain future of SELVs. The LELV and MELV numbers 
should be more reflective of serious planning in 1994. 
   Just for fun, the commercial model is:
FY      94  95  96  97  98  99  00  01  02  03  04  05  06  07  08  09  10
MELV     5   7   6  11   6   6   6   6   6   6   6   6   6   6   6   6   6
SELV     3   2   5  10  10  10  10  10  10  10  10  10  10  10  10  10  10



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list