Quote from: Newton_V on 02/24/2023 08:11 pmEric failed to mention that FH is unable to fly the DIV Heavy missions that flew for the NRO. And if I remember correctly, USSF-67 was bid and awarded at about 320 million. I hate spin like this.He also failed to mention the billions upon billions of dollars ULA was given to build all of those capabilities and facilities in the form of ELC payments. Is that “spin” too?
Eric failed to mention that FH is unable to fly the DIV Heavy missions that flew for the NRO. And if I remember correctly, USSF-67 was bid and awarded at about 320 million. I hate spin like this.
Quote from: abaddon on 02/25/2023 03:30 pmQuote from: Newton_V on 02/24/2023 08:11 pmEric failed to mention that FH is unable to fly the DIV Heavy missions that flew for the NRO. And if I remember correctly, USSF-67 was bid and awarded at about 320 million. I hate spin like this.He also failed to mention the billions upon billions of dollars ULA was given to build all of those capabilities and facilities in the form of ELC payments. Is that “spin” too?Yes, that's exactly what it is. He's comparing the existing capabilities/cost of DIV Heavy (which cost billions), to a vehicle that does not yet have that capability. And will cost billions to have that on both coasts. He should have left out the word "now" in his comment. FH is obviously available to fly other missions at lower costs, but not the ones he's comparing costs/savings to. The position FH is in for those missions is the same as Atlas Heavy before ULA. The government decided it was too expensive to have multiple vehicles fly a mission (just some specific ones) every other year (or 4 years with 2 LVs).
I have no clue what it would cost to add Heavy capability (Pad mods), facilities, and a VIF at SLC-4, but 1B seems a good starting point. And based on its remoteness, getting it done in a couple years could be difficult.
Quote from: Newton_V on 02/25/2023 04:23 pmI have no clue what it would cost to add Heavy capability (Pad mods), facilities, and a VIF at SLC-4, but 1B seems a good starting point. And based on its remoteness, getting it done in a couple years could be difficult.OK, both of us are speculating based on very little information. That's OK with me, but I think it's better to declare the basis of your speculation, as you have now done. Thanks.Is there a need for FH NSSL launches from Vandenberg at all? FH has so much extra lift capacity compared to DIV or to the NSSL requirements that it should be able to hit those orbits from Florida.At KSC FH shares facilities and a pad at SLC-39A with F9 and uses a variant of the same strongback. Presumably they would do the same at VSFB SLC-4. F9 and FH are stacked horizontally. Vertical payload stacking is proposed to use a mobile structure that will trundle out to the pad to stack the payload after the rocket is raised to the vertical. Boca Chica is remote. VSFB is not remote. It is well served by highway and apparently even has a railroad siding. SpaceX routinely launches F9 from VSFB already.
The reason the biggest NSSL missions could be handled by DIV was that the contract requirements implicitly recognized that larger payload requirement would have excluded ULA. This is not a complaint: USSF had a mission and they needed to do this.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 02/24/2023 09:48 pmImagine how much more delta iv would be cost if now if falcon heavy never came along. It'd probably be closing in on a billion dollars.Unsubstantiated
Imagine how much more delta iv would be cost if now if falcon heavy never came along. It'd probably be closing in on a billion dollars.