The U.S. Air Force has divided $739 million in launch contracts between United Launch Alliance and SpaceX for six national security missions slated for 2021-2022. The contracts, awarded under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, were announced Tuesday evening by Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center.SpaceX will receive $297 million to launch AFSPC-44, NROL-85, and NROL-87.
On topic, what's the source that this will be a Falcon Heavy flight? I don't see any mention of launcher in the SpaceNews article, $99 million seems quite low for a FH.
At present, ULA is the only launch provider certified for the SILENTBARKER and AFSPC-44 missions. However, it is anticipated that in the near future SpaceX will be launching the Falcon Heavy, which may be capable of meeting the SILENTBARKER and AFSPC-44 requirements.
Quote from: cd-slam on 02/20/2019 11:45 amOn topic, what's the source that this will be a Falcon Heavy flight? I don't see any mention of launcher in the SpaceNews article, $99 million seems quite low for a FH.Falcon Heavy pricing starts at 90 M$ for 8t to GTO: https://www.spacex.com/about/capabilitiesThis one may be heavier - it cannot go on a Falcon 9:
Quote from: PM3 on 02/20/2019 11:57 amQuote from: cd-slam on 02/20/2019 11:45 amOn topic, what's the source that this will be a Falcon Heavy flight? I don't see any mention of launcher in the SpaceNews article, $99 million seems quite low for a FH.Falcon Heavy pricing starts at 90 M$ for 8t to GTO: https://www.spacex.com/about/capabilitiesThis one may be heavier - it cannot go on a Falcon 9:$90M is FH's commercial price, for military launch they charge higher price, for example AFSPC-52 is $130Mcd-slam is correct, a total of $297M looks more like 3 Falcon 9's, for example they sold 3 GPSIII launches for $290M. Add $7M upgrade to FH? I don't think so....
Quote from: cd-slam on 02/20/2019 11:45 amOn topic, what's the source that this will be a Falcon Heavy flight? I don't see any mention of launcher in the SpaceNews article, $99 million seems quite low for a FH.It's a GEO mission.
Makes me wonder if the USAF has a certification path for flown boosters, perhaps dependent on STP-2 is successfully reflying the Arabsat boosters.
Quote from: gongora on 02/20/2019 01:52 pmQuote from: cd-slam on 02/20/2019 11:45 amOn topic, what's the source that this will be a Falcon Heavy flight? I don't see any mention of launcher in the SpaceNews article, $99 million seems quite low for a FH.It's a GEO mission.To a high (42,479km), inclined orbit. Also the mass provided for simulations in the RFP is 3,700kg, so it's not a particularly light payload either.https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cc4fe6a113403f3a7b1d79cee4a123ff&tab=core&_cview=1
Quote from: envy887 on 02/20/2019 02:23 pmMakes me wonder if the USAF has a certification path for flown boosters, perhaps dependent on STP-2 is successfully reflying the Arabsat boosters.While that's definitely possible, it think it is more likely that all three boosters can be recovered on this flight (which seems reasonable since an Atlas V could have launched it), so it is a fully reusable FH that was bid. That'd be my guess, as I think it's still a little early for the USAF to be comfortable with reused boosters on a non-experimental flight.
two Payloadsdeployment of both payloads with a separation time of 600sThe Offeror shall assume each payload has a weight of 2000kg.Semi-major Axis: GEO 42464kmApogee & Perigee radius: 42464kmInclination: 5 degrees
You have to be careful reading the numbers in these RFPs. Sometimes the distance is from the center of the earth instead of from the surface of the earth. It's a GEO orbit.
There's also one thing that SpaceX usually does and is offering discounts for a block of launches. I don't know if that works with military too, but it would also explain why this time 2 F9's and 1 FH is sold together at a little bit less money than what we've seen on the past prices for individual F9 and FH military contracts.
Quote from: envy887 on 02/20/2019 02:23 pmMakes me wonder if the USAF has a certification path for flown boosters, perhaps dependent on STP-2 is successfully reflying the Arabsat boosters.While that's definitely possible, it think it is more likely that all three boosters can be recovered on this flight (which seems reasonable since an Atlas V could have launched it), so it is a new FH that was bid with the boosters being recovered. That'd be my guess, as I think it's still a little early for the USAF to be comfortable with reused boosters on a non-experimental flight.[EDIT] Edited for clarity
Quote from: abaddon on 02/20/2019 02:24 pmQuote from: envy887 on 02/20/2019 02:23 pmMakes me wonder if the USAF has a certification path for flown boosters, perhaps dependent on STP-2 is successfully reflying the Arabsat boosters.While that's definitely possible, it think it is more likely that all three boosters can be recovered on this flight (which seems reasonable since an Atlas V could have launched it), so it is a new FH that was bid with the boosters being recovered. That'd be my guess, as I think it's still a little early for the USAF to be comfortable with reused boosters on a non-experimental flight.[EDIT] Edited for clarityCan FH do 4 t (2x 2,000 kg) direct to GEO with full recovery? That's a very high energy mission. Even to inclined GEO.
<snip>It's pretty close, though, so FH could do this with either of two next steps - (a) land the side boosters downrange (adds about 800 m/s), or (b) expend the center core (adds about 400 m/s). It's been reported that SpaceX is building another landing barge (sorry, don't have the reference). Since their landing accuracy has been quite good lately, I'll go out on a limb and suggesting landing both side boosters on one barge, and the center core on a barge way downrange. Then they could do this mission and get all cores back.