ULA are trying to get Atlas 401 price down to $100-$110M so say <$160M for 552 especially with new lower cost OrbitalATK SRBs. The Vulcan should reduce that again as it will need less SRBs.
Olson adds that SNC is in “the final three” (with SpaceX and Orbital ATK) for CRS-2 contract. #ASGSR2015
John Olson, Sierra Nevada Corp.: Dream Chaser per-mission cost is “peanuts.” 95% of cost is launch. #ASGSR2015
If the politics of using Russian hardware (RD-181, etc.) is a issue with congress then the orbital/ATK model might not be as attractive as a cargo program using Atlas 5 and then possibly Vulcan - putting SNC in a reasonable position to win a contract, as Boeing (and LM?) is out.
Quote from: BrightLight on 11/12/2015 05:14 pmIf the politics of using Russian hardware (RD-181, etc.) is a issue with congress then the orbital/ATK model might not be as attractive as a cargo program using Atlas 5 and then possibly Vulcan - putting SNC in a reasonable position to win a contract, as Boeing (and LM?) is out.Have you seen indications of this? The RD-180 ban doesn't include NASA flights so it doesn't seem likely there would be a ban on the RD-181 which is only used on NASA flights.However, if the RD-180 ban is extended and expanded to include the RD-181, then it only leaves SX until Vulcan come to fruition. Doesn't seem likely.
QuoteJohn Olson, Sierra Nevada Corp.: Dream Chaser per-mission cost is “peanuts.” 95% of cost is launch. #ASGSR2015If reported accurately that's a pretty solid number, even with some of the more dire cost estimates of the bigger Atlases. There's still some development cost left as well but it really is seeming more possible that we could see a lifting body in space.
The Russian RD-180 issue is real, but then so is the fact that Atlas V is now 59 for 59 if I'm not mistaken (with one second stage underperformance if you count that as a partial failure, but by that standard SpaceX has an additional failure as well)....
Quote from: vt_hokie on 11/12/2015 10:44 pmThe Russian RD-180 issue is real, but then so is the fact that Atlas V is now 59 for 59 if I'm not mistaken (with one second stage underperformance if you count that as a partial failure, but by that standard SpaceX has an additional failure as well).......I like to draw the distinction with "catastrophic failures," while acknowledging the partial failures (which wouldn't have required a use of the LAS)....and yes, this is legitimately a leg-up for Atlas V (and that was true before SpaceX's recent failure, but more so now, unfortunately), but the cost for an Atlas V is just soooo much more (even with the cost reduction as of late), that Falcon 9 is still the better option for Dream Chaser cargo. And Full Thrust Falcon 9 ought to get about the same performance to ISS as Atlas V 552 (within 10%, at very least, although it's quite possible it could have greater performance than 552).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/13/2015 12:20 amQuote from: vt_hokie on 11/12/2015 10:44 pmThe Russian RD-180 issue is real, but then so is the fact that Atlas V is now 59 for 59 if I'm not mistaken (with one second stage underperformance if you count that as a partial failure, but by that standard SpaceX has an additional failure as well).......I like to draw the distinction with "catastrophic failures," while acknowledging the partial failures (which wouldn't have required a use of the LAS)....and yes, this is legitimately a leg-up for Atlas V (and that was true before SpaceX's recent failure, but more so now, unfortunately), but the cost for an Atlas V is just soooo much more (even with the cost reduction as of late), that Falcon 9 is still the better option for Dream Chaser cargo. And Full Thrust Falcon 9 ought to get about the same performance to ISS as Atlas V 552 (within 10%, at very least, although it's quite possible it could have greater performance than 552).I don't think that Cargo DC needs an Atlas V 552. It maximizes cargo with it but it isn't required. So a F9 should be more than enough.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/664849108134461440QuoteJohn Olson, Sierra Nevada Corp.: Dream Chaser per-mission cost is “peanuts.” 95% of cost is launch. #ASGSR2015