It is assumed in many circles that there will be a failure in less than a year
a share (maybe >50%) of the 12 or so remaining Phase 1A NSS launches
Quote from: Jim on 07/05/2017 01:19 amIt is assumed in many circles that there will be a failure in less than a yearThe same circles that assumed you couldn't land a booster, refly it, selling successive missions off them?
Quote from: Jim on 07/05/2017 01:21 amQuote from: AncientU on 07/05/2017 12:39 amQuote from: envy887 on 07/04/2017 11:13 pmQuote from: AncientU on 07/04/2017 11:08 pmULA can expect at best 50% of the NSS plus NASA launch contracts to be awarded/flown over the next five years (excluding block buy, which was not competed).A reasonable person would say that they have lost 50% of their monopoly market share.Are you counting NASA crew and cargo deliveries over the next 5 years, or just NASA spacecraft? ULA never had a monopoly on the former, though they did on the latter at one point.Yes, I am including them; cargo and crew launches were/are competed NASA launches. ULA and its parent companies essentially had a monopoly on all USG launches when SpaceX entered the market. They still have a significant share... though dropping toward 50%.SpaceX manifest plus potential wins:9 more CRS-16 CRS-2 (initial award -- subsequent awards likely)3 crew demos (including in flight abort)6 crew transports4 USAF (including STP-2, 2 GPS-III, OTV-5)1 NASA (TESS, probably a couple others will be added)a share (maybe >50%) of the 12 or so remaining Phase 1A NSS launchesa share (50% plus/minus) of the Phase 2 NSS launches (initially 20 launches)Total (about) 40-50 USG-paid launches out to 2024. ULA will be pressed to win/launch more than that number even including the remaining block buy launches. Even if they do manage to break 50%, it is disingenuous to say ULA/Boeing/LM haven't lost a huge chunk of market share to SpaceX. And this doesn't include the fate of SLS/Orion...CRS-1 missions don't count. ULA was frozen out of them.Wrong. Anyone could bid on CRS. If SpaceX hadn't existed, it's possible a team that was using Atlas V could have won the missions that SpaceX actually won for CRS.
Quote from: AncientU on 07/05/2017 12:39 amQuote from: envy887 on 07/04/2017 11:13 pmQuote from: AncientU on 07/04/2017 11:08 pmULA can expect at best 50% of the NSS plus NASA launch contracts to be awarded/flown over the next five years (excluding block buy, which was not competed).A reasonable person would say that they have lost 50% of their monopoly market share.Are you counting NASA crew and cargo deliveries over the next 5 years, or just NASA spacecraft? ULA never had a monopoly on the former, though they did on the latter at one point.Yes, I am including them; cargo and crew launches were/are competed NASA launches. ULA and its parent companies essentially had a monopoly on all USG launches when SpaceX entered the market. They still have a significant share... though dropping toward 50%.SpaceX manifest plus potential wins:9 more CRS-16 CRS-2 (initial award -- subsequent awards likely)3 crew demos (including in flight abort)6 crew transports4 USAF (including STP-2, 2 GPS-III, OTV-5)1 NASA (TESS, probably a couple others will be added)a share (maybe >50%) of the 12 or so remaining Phase 1A NSS launchesa share (50% plus/minus) of the Phase 2 NSS launches (initially 20 launches)Total (about) 40-50 USG-paid launches out to 2024. ULA will be pressed to win/launch more than that number even including the remaining block buy launches. Even if they do manage to break 50%, it is disingenuous to say ULA/Boeing/LM haven't lost a huge chunk of market share to SpaceX. And this doesn't include the fate of SLS/Orion...CRS-1 missions don't count. ULA was frozen out of them.
Quote from: envy887 on 07/04/2017 11:13 pmQuote from: AncientU on 07/04/2017 11:08 pmULA can expect at best 50% of the NSS plus NASA launch contracts to be awarded/flown over the next five years (excluding block buy, which was not competed).A reasonable person would say that they have lost 50% of their monopoly market share.Are you counting NASA crew and cargo deliveries over the next 5 years, or just NASA spacecraft? ULA never had a monopoly on the former, though they did on the latter at one point.Yes, I am including them; cargo and crew launches were/are competed NASA launches. ULA and its parent companies essentially had a monopoly on all USG launches when SpaceX entered the market. They still have a significant share... though dropping toward 50%.SpaceX manifest plus potential wins:9 more CRS-16 CRS-2 (initial award -- subsequent awards likely)3 crew demos (including in flight abort)6 crew transports4 USAF (including STP-2, 2 GPS-III, OTV-5)1 NASA (TESS, probably a couple others will be added)a share (maybe >50%) of the 12 or so remaining Phase 1A NSS launchesa share (50% plus/minus) of the Phase 2 NSS launches (initially 20 launches)Total (about) 40-50 USG-paid launches out to 2024. ULA will be pressed to win/launch more than that number even including the remaining block buy launches. Even if they do manage to break 50%, it is disingenuous to say ULA/Boeing/LM haven't lost a huge chunk of market share to SpaceX. And this doesn't include the fate of SLS/Orion...
Quote from: AncientU on 07/04/2017 11:08 pmULA can expect at best 50% of the NSS plus NASA launch contracts to be awarded/flown over the next five years (excluding block buy, which was not competed).A reasonable person would say that they have lost 50% of their monopoly market share.Are you counting NASA crew and cargo deliveries over the next 5 years, or just NASA spacecraft? ULA never had a monopoly on the former, though they did on the latter at one point.
ULA can expect at best 50% of the NSS plus NASA launch contracts to be awarded/flown over the next five years (excluding block buy, which was not competed).A reasonable person would say that they have lost 50% of their monopoly market share.
SpaceX has continued to grow in marketshare but has not yet made a huge reduction in ULA launch rate. HOWEVER, ULA has seen /enormous/ reductions in its workforce in that time while SpaceX has continued to grow. Both of these actions are indicative of future marketshare expectations. (ULA trimming down so they can remain profitable as an equal peer for natsec launches to SpaceX, but not really trying to compete otherwise.)
It looks more and more like SpaceX will have about triple the launch rate in 2017 as it had in 2015. Global launch rates are roughly the same. That means marketshare has also tripled, or /probably/ will by the two year anniversary of this thread. (I give about a 25-30% chance of a failure before then.)
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/05/2017 01:45 amQuote from: Jim on 07/05/2017 01:19 amIt is assumed in many circles that there will be a failure in less than a yearThe same circles that assumed you couldn't land a booster, refly it, selling successive missions off them?Nope, the same circles that make US launch service procurement decisions
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/04/2017 07:20 pmQuote from: Jim on 02/27/2016 10:57 pmQuote from: AncientU on 02/27/2016 08:59 pmOverall, SpaceX has taken market share away from nearly everyone in the business over the last two years. ULA hasn't lost any to Spacex yet.I'm not sure how you can defend that statement.Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the GPS satellites, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the X-37 missions, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.And the Air Force in on record wanting competition, meaning ULA will continue to lose market share to SpaceX vs when they were a monopoly. The evidence is clear.wrong, ULA can't lose what they can't compete for
Quote from: Jim on 02/27/2016 10:57 pmQuote from: AncientU on 02/27/2016 08:59 pmOverall, SpaceX has taken market share away from nearly everyone in the business over the last two years. ULA hasn't lost any to Spacex yet.I'm not sure how you can defend that statement.Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the GPS satellites, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the X-37 missions, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.And the Air Force in on record wanting competition, meaning ULA will continue to lose market share to SpaceX vs when they were a monopoly. The evidence is clear.
Quote from: AncientU on 02/27/2016 08:59 pmOverall, SpaceX has taken market share away from nearly everyone in the business over the last two years. ULA hasn't lost any to Spacex yet.
Overall, SpaceX has taken market share away from nearly everyone in the business over the last two years.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 07/05/2017 01:33 amQuote from: Jim on 07/05/2017 01:21 amCRS-1 missions don't count. ULA was frozen out of them.Wrong. Anyone could bid on CRS. If SpaceX hadn't existed, it's possible a team that was using Atlas V could have won the missions that SpaceX actually won for CRS.Wrong, Delta and Atlas were part of proposals that weren't allowed
Quote from: Jim on 07/05/2017 01:21 amCRS-1 missions don't count. ULA was frozen out of them.Wrong. Anyone could bid on CRS. If SpaceX hadn't existed, it's possible a team that was using Atlas V could have won the missions that SpaceX actually won for CRS.
CRS-1 missions don't count. ULA was frozen out of them.
Quote from: Jim on 07/05/2017 02:06 amQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/05/2017 01:45 amQuote from: Jim on 07/05/2017 01:19 amIt is assumed in many circles that there will be a failure in less than a yearThe same circles that assumed you couldn't land a booster, refly it, selling successive missions off them?Nope, the same circles that make US launch service procurement decisions
Will we ever get to a point where a higher failure rate - on unmanned flights - becomes an acceptable price to pay for dramatically lower launch costs?Say 5 failures in every 100 launches, but in exchange for an order of magnitude drop in launch costs?
Falcon 9 is currently a bit worse than one Loss Of Mission for every twenty flights.
...So these circles are assuming that SpaceX will have a failed launch within the next year.For what reasons do they think this? Are they unhappy with SpaceX procedures, with their engineering, with their designs?...