Author Topic: USAF RFP - EELV Phase 1A-6 - Awarded 2019-02-19 (Read 22169 times)

gongora · « **Reply #20 on:** 02/01/2018 04:53 pm »

I'm not suggesting SpaceX pad their bids. I'm suggesting there is no reason for them to factor in later re-use of the boosters when they are pricing their bids.

Kansan52 · « **Reply #21 on:** 02/01/2018 05:57 pm »

Do we actually know there have been price reductions offered for reflown first stages? My impression from posts using flight proven first stages means sooner flights, not reduced price flights.

Of course, the real answer may be partially both.

gongora · « **Reply #22 on:** 02/01/2018 06:04 pm »

Quote from: Kansan52 on 02/01/2018 05:57 pm

Do we actually know there have been price reductions offered for reflown first stages? My impression from posts using flight proven first stages means sooner flights, not reduced price flights.

Of course, the real answer may be partially both.

For the commercial flights yes, Iridium said they got a discount. SES certainly got a discount on the first flight (they never said the exact amount.) NASA has mentioned getting some sort of additional value. None of this has anything to do with the RFP though.

Kansan52 · « **Reply #23 on:** 02/01/2018 06:23 pm »

Thanks!

AncientU · « **Reply #24 on:** 02/01/2018 07:02 pm »

New article:

Quote

SpaceX and ULA poised to face off in the next round of military launch competition

Quote

The competition comes less than two years since SpaceX became a legitimate competitor in a market that used to be entirely owned by United Launch Alliance, a partnership of Lockheed Martin and The Boeing Company.

If SpaceX is able to win at least one or two launches in this next round of contracts, it would further cement its standing as a market disruptor and set the stage for the company to win even more military work when the larger Falcon Heavy rocket gets certified to fly government payloads.

Emphasis mine
http://spacenews.com/spacex-and-ula-poised-to-face-off-in-the-next-round-of-military-launch-competition/

Jim · « **Reply #25 on:** 02/01/2018 07:12 pm »

Quote from: AncientU on 02/01/2018 07:02 pm

it would further cement its standing as a market disruptor and set the stage for the company to win even more military work when the larger Falcon Heavy rocket gets certified to fly government payloads.

Not going to happen without vertical integration

Lar · « **Reply #26 on:** 02/01/2018 07:58 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 02/01/2018 07:12 pm

Quote from: AncientU on 02/01/2018 07:02 pm
it would further cement its standing as a market disruptor and set the stage for the company to win even more military work when the larger Falcon Heavy rocket gets certified to fly government payloads.

Not going to happen without vertical integration

Which, it has been argued, SpaceX will provide in time, if the bid requires it.

Coastal Ron · « **Reply #27 on:** 02/02/2018 03:05 am »

Quote from: gongora on 02/01/2018 04:53 pm

I'm not suggesting SpaceX pad their bids. I'm suggesting there is no reason for them to factor in later re-use of the boosters when they are pricing their bids.

No reason for them to price their reusable rocket as a reusable rocket?

Currently, through the NASA Launch Services Program (NLS II contract), SpaceX offers two different pricing options for Falcon 9:

Quote

SpaceX has offered two performance levels for the Falcon 9 Full Thrust on NLS-II. The first level includes booster performance holdbacks to allow for a Return-to-Launch-Site (RTLS) first stage recovery. The second level provides higher performance by allowing the first stage to be recovered via the SpaceX Automated Spaceport Drone Ship (ASDS), positioned downrange from the launch site.

The USAF contract auditors would know that pricing, and they would expect the same for equivalent services.

Regarding Falcon 9 Block 5, which is the true reusable launcher, SpaceX has stated that customers that want unflown boosters will be able to choose them, and we do know that reflown boosters will eventually be priced at a discount compared to the current $62M standard website price. The price the government pays through the NLS II contract may be different from SpaceX public pricing though.

Bottom line is that SpaceX has to provide consistent pricing to the U.S. Government, and the USAF is not the only government entity using the Falcon 9. So if they factor in reusability for NASA, then the USAF will also have that pricing factored in. That means only the non-Falcon 9 part of the contract can be changed beyond reality (either up or down), but I don't think SpaceX has an incentive to do that. Lots of debate about whether ULA has engaged in such activities though...

gongora · « **Reply #28 on:** 02/02/2018 03:17 am »

Coastal Ron,

You're completely ignoring the post I was initially responding too. Here is the relevant part:

Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/01/2018 01:33 pm

Surely SpaceX's bid will be predicated on a fully mature block 5 with multiple reuses per booster and they may be confident enough to price in some level of fairing reuse. They'd also expect to have recouped reuse development costs by then, in which case couldn't SpaceX bid, say, half their current price or less?

That ain't gonna happen.

Newton_V · « **Reply #29 on:** 02/09/2019 08:59 pm »

I heard this is being announced any day now.

gongora · « **Reply #30 on:** 02/09/2019 09:53 pm »

Quote from: Newton_V on 02/09/2019 08:59 pm

I heard this is being announced any day now.

It's about time, it's been almost 10 months.

Newton_V · « **Reply #31 on:** 02/13/2019 10:39 pm »

Quote from: gongora on 02/09/2019 09:53 pm

Quote from: Newton_V on 02/09/2019 08:59 pm
I heard this is being announced any day now.

It's about time, it's been almost 10 months.

I wonder how many protests (by both) there will be next week....

Newton_V · « **Reply #32 on:** 02/19/2019 07:02 pm »

Tick tock.... tick tock...

Newton_V · « **Reply #33 on:** 02/19/2019 09:15 pm »

https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1760766/

Well, I guessed L-85 wrong. But got others right.

gongora · « **Reply #34 on:** 02/19/2019 09:15 pm »

United Launch Services, Centennial, Colorado, has been awarded a $441,761,778 firm-fixed-price contract, for launch services to deliver the SILENTBARKER, SBIRS GEO-5, and SBIRS GEO-6 missions to their intended orbits. This launch service contract will include launch vehicle production, mission integration, mission launch operations/spaceflight worthiness, and mission unique activities for SILENTBARKER and SBIRS GEO-5, with an option for an additional SBIRS GEO-6 launch service. The locations of performance are Centennial, Colorado; and Cape Canaveral, Florida. SILENTBARKER is expected to be completed by March 2022, SBIRS GEO-5 is expected to be completed by March 2021. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and two offers were received. Fiscal 2018 and 2019 space procurement funds in the amount of $308,550,970 will be obligated at the time of award. The Contracting Division, Launch Systems Enterprise Directorate, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, El Segundo, California, is the contracting activity (FA8811-19-C-0005).

Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, California, has been awarded a $297,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract, for launch services to deliver the NROL-87, NROL-85, and AFSPC-44 missions to their intended orbits. This launch service contract will include launch vehicle production, mission integration, mission launch operations/spaceflight worthiness and mission unique activities for each mission. The locations of performance are Hawthorne, California; Cape Canaveral Air Force Space Station, Florida; and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. NROL-85 and NROL-87 are expected to be completed by December 2021 and AFSPC-44 is expected to be completed by February 2021. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and two offers were received. Fiscal 2018 and 2019 space procurement funds in the amount of $285,223,097 will be obligated at the time of award. The Contracting Division, Launch Systems Enterprise Directorate, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, El Segundo, California, is the contracting activity (FA8811-19-C-0004).

gongora · « **Reply #35 on:** 02/19/2019 09:18 pm »

So is that ~$310M for SILENTBARKER and SBIRS GEO-5 with a ~$130M option for SBIRS GEO-6, or is it $441M for SILENTBARKER and SBIRS GEO-5?

gongora · « **Reply #36 on:** 02/19/2019 09:27 pm »

SpaceX:
NROL-85 (LEO 63 Degree, by Dec 2021)
NROL-87 (SSO, by Dec 2021)
AFSPC-44 (Inclined GEO, by Feb 2021)

So that's 2 Falcon 9's from Vandenberg and a Falcon Heavy from KSC?

ULA:
SILENTBARKER (NROL-107) (GEO, March 2022)
SBIRS GEO-5 (GTO, March 2021)

whitelancer64 · « **Reply #37 on:** 02/19/2019 09:39 pm »

Quote from: gongora on 02/19/2019 09:18 pm

So is that ~$310M for SILENTBARKER and SBIRS GEO-5 with a ~$130M option for SBIRS GEO-6, or is it $441M for SILENTBARKER and SBIRS GEO-5?

I read that as there's an option for an additional "mission unique" launch service for the SBIRS GEO-6, not that the entire launch is optional? I could be wrong.

Newton_V · « **Reply #38 on:** 02/19/2019 09:55 pm »

Quote from: whitelancer64 on 02/19/2019 09:39 pm

Quote from: gongora on 02/19/2019 09:18 pm
So is that ~$310M for SILENTBARKER and SBIRS GEO-5 with a ~$130M option for SBIRS GEO-6, or is it $441M for SILENTBARKER and SBIRS GEO-5?

I read that as there's an option for an additional "mission unique" launch service for the SBIRS GEO-6, not that the entire launch is optional? I could be wrong.

I think it's for 3 launches. The option part is similar to the Space X GPS launches. I guess if something goes wrong with one of the launches, and somebody is "unhappy" enough, they can choose another launch vehicle.

rockets4life97 · « **Reply #39 on:** 02/19/2019 10:07 pm »

Quote from: Newton_V on 02/19/2019 09:15 pm

Well, I guessed L-85 wrong. But got others right.

Care to explain your reasoning?