Advanced Launch System: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:40, 27 July 2021

Latest revision as of 11:34, 21 June 2023

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 10:

Although the project had a projected [[research and development]] cost of $15 billion, its early cancellation led to a final cost just under $3 billion.

The ALS program office differed from others in that it was the only one within the [[Air Force Space Command]]. The office was furnished with [[Macintosh|Apple Mac OS personal computers]] instead of the Command's usual [[Microsoft Windows#Early versions|Microsoft Windows]] systems{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}. This was in part because NASA had already been using Apple computers. The program office pioneered what later became the [[Microsoft Project]]{{Citation needed|reason=The Wikipedia page for Project does not mention ALS or the USAF|date=July 2021}}.

== Aims ==

Line 18:

== Progress ==

In 1989, the [[Presidency of George H. W. Bush|Bush Administrationadministration]], via the Defense Acquisition Board, was asked to ratify an existing plan to have the ALS program at an advanced state of development in 1990; ready for a first flight in 1998; and fully operational in 2000.<ref>Wolfe, M.G. et al, "The Advanced Launch System." 40th International Astronautical Federation Congress, Malaga Spain, 8–14 October 1989, IAF Paper 89-229.</ref> Then, from 2000 to 2005, the ALS program would develop a modular family of [[Launchlaunch vehicle|launch vehicles]]s, with a payload capacity to low Earth orbit ranging from 5,000 kilograms to 200,000 kilograms.<ref>Branscome, D.R., "The United States Space Transportation Survey," Proceedings of the 2nd European Aerospace Conference on Progress in Space Transportation, (European Space Agency, ESA SP-293, August 1989), pages 39-44.</ref>

However, by late 1989, it was apparent that the ALS program was no longer required.<ref>"Air Force Embraces Expendable Launchers," Military Space, 17 July 1989, page 3-4.</ref> The initial phase of the SDI would employ existing [[Titan IV]] and [[Atlas II]] rockets. The launch requirements for subsequent phases of the SDI deployment were too vague to allow the immediate ongoing direction of the ALS program and its associated costs.<ref>"Adams, Peter, "Congress May Consider ALS Too Costly, Sources Say," Defense News, 27 March 1989, page 25.</ref><ref>Finnegan, Philip, "Report: ALS Program Lacks Mission, Should be Pared to Propulsion Study," Defense News, 25 September 1989, page 4.</ref>