Quote from: JEF_300 on 02/14/2019 02:10 amI was just told that SpaceX didn't bid with the Falcon 9, only with the Falcon Heavy. Can anyone verify that?The Spacenews said it was a expendable Falcon 9 was bid.
I was just told that SpaceX didn't bid with the Falcon 9, only with the Falcon Heavy. Can anyone verify that?
>Also, SpaceX has only ever launched one thing interplanetary, and it was a Tesla. >
I was just told that SpaceX didn't bid with the Falcon 9, only with the Falcon Heavy. Can anyone verify that?Also, SpaceX has only ever launched one thing interplanetary, and it was a Tesla. On a mission with an interplanetary flight path as complicated and intricate as this ones, it's not only understandable but wise to pick ULA's experience over SpaceX's first-try.If they launch with SpaceX and something goes wrong, that's $550 million down the drain, along with a launch window that won't be back for decades. Given that, $50 million extra for peace of mind is worth it.
Quote from: ThomasGadd on 02/14/2019 02:21 amQuote from: JEF_300 on 02/14/2019 02:10 amI was just told that SpaceX didn't bid with the Falcon 9, only with the Falcon Heavy. Can anyone verify that?The Spacenews said it was a expendable Falcon 9 was bid.I thought so. Bidding only Heavy seemed wrong when I heard it.
GAO Bid Protest DocketProtestor: Space Exploration Technologies Corporation Solicitation Number: RLSP-35 Agency: National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationFile Number: B-417304.1 Outcome: Not Decided Status: Case Currently OpenFiled Date: Feb 11, 2019Due Date: May 22, 2019Case Type: Bid ProtestGAO Attorney: Scott H. Riback
It's pretty clear that it was a bad decision. NASA should be able to understand why SpaceX used to have schedule slips and why things have changed. SpaceX is no longer making big changes in Falcon 9. The idea that they're going to look at what happened when SpaceX was making big changes to Falcon 9 and somehow think that applies to a launch two years in the future is just absurd.ULA is clearly the riskier option, as they don't launch as often as SpaceX does.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 02/14/2019 05:19 amIt's pretty clear that it was a bad decision. NASA should be able to understand why SpaceX used to have schedule slips and why things have changed. SpaceX is no longer making big changes in Falcon 9. The idea that they're going to look at what happened when SpaceX was making big changes to Falcon 9 and somehow think that applies to a launch two years in the future is just absurd.ULA is clearly the riskier option, as they don't launch as often as SpaceX does.Ok, so let's look at where the numbers stand nowIt has been a little over two years, and 40 successful launches since SpaceX last lost a payload.ULA has over 120 launches under its belt now and hasn't lost a single payload. Not one (in fairness, there were two non-mission-critical failures)
A SpaceX government launch monopoly.
Quote from: JEF_300 on 02/14/2019 08:30 amA SpaceX government launch monopoly.100% market share is not the same thing as a monopoly.A monopoly is about having no effective competitive pressure. The reason it's bad is the lack of competitive pressure, not the 100% market share.If you have two providers and the contracts are always split between them, there's still no competitive pressure. It's no better than a monopoly.
But is it wrong that the prospect of a company, even a historically well-meaning one, having 100% control of the launch market scares me? If Elon was somehow outed, or suddenly decided to go full on Bond villain, they would be able to turn into a monopoly overnight.And if they naturally gained 100% of the market because everyone chose them and their lower prices that would be one thing, but that's not what's happening. They are actively attempting to force a customer (NASA), who wouldn't of otherwise, into valuing price over all other factors, and thus them over any competitor. That's why I would argue that this is monopolistic behavior. Anyway, I'm not an economic or legal expert, it's just an aspect of this that was bothering me and wasn't being discussed.
Also SpaceX isn't trying to have NASA value price over other things: they're saying their offer is better overall.
How long is the review expected to take? Hopefully not long, because otherwise the bid protest itself is going to cause schedule risk. With launch in about two and a half years there's not that much time to waste.
QuoteGAO Bid Protest DocketProtestor: Space Exploration Technologies Corporation Solicitation Number: RLSP-35 Agency: National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationFile Number: B-417304.1 Outcome: Not Decided Status: Case Currently OpenFiled Date: Feb 11, 2019Due Date: May 22, 2019Case Type: Bid ProtestGAO Attorney: Scott H. Riback