If there were 2 billion dollars of money for rocket development available ULA wouldn't have any problem closing the business case for Vulcan.
Let ULA have 5 more RD-180s and be done with this charade.
An RFP for launch services with guaranteed minimums to each awardee achieves essentially the same. It is not an unusual construct and is the basis for, e.g., CRS and CCP. Which IMHO is very likely what DoD's future acquisition plan will look like, which DoD is suppose to provide sometime this summer.
Guaranteed minimums would be bad and would allow gaming the system, but CRS could certainly work as a model for DOD. They essentially do block buys where offerors bid from 1 to X launches along with a list of extra toppings and NASA gets to pick the menu they like.
Quote from: saliva_sweet on 05/25/2015 06:19 pmGuaranteed minimums would be bad and would allow gaming the system, but CRS could certainly work as a model for DOD. They essentially do block buys where offerors bid from 1 to X launches along with a list of extra toppings and NASA gets to pick the menu they like.Gaming the system how? It is not an unusual contracting form and the USG is quite adept at dealing with such; it is exactly how CRS and CCP contracts are structured, among others.It is the lesser evil if you want to ensure more than one viable provider with guarantees on both sides: provider is guaranteed they will receive $X for delivery of Y; customer is guaranteed they will receive Y for $X (generally expressed as not-to-exceed $X, so provider knows the minimum and customer knows maximum).A guaranteed minimum is a form of block buy with, in this case, delivery requirements attached. Either that or you simply write the provider a check for $X whether or not they deliver Y to ensure they remain viable.
It seems to me that ULA's strategy here is to clap a gun to its own head, shout "Give us what we want or the hostage gets it!" and hope that no-one in the government calls their bluff.
Gaming the system how? It is not an unusual contracting form and the USG is quite adept at dealing with such; it is exactly how CRS and CCP contracts are structured, among others.
Quote from: joek on 05/25/2015 06:53 pmGaming the system how? It is not an unusual contracting form and the USG is quite adept at dealing with such; it is exactly how CRS and CCP contracts are structured, among others.What I meant is that for CRS, CCtCAP and CRS2 NASA was/is free to pick zero launches from any bidder. No one is guaranteed anything and this keeps the providers honest. If they don't want to bother with contracts for one or two launches for various reasons, that's fine too. It's not a guaranteed minimum.
I agree with saliva_sweet. Unless you have a down-select, there are no competitive pressures. CRS worked, in part because there were down-selects, forcing companies to compete their products. CCtCap begins an unproven phase of the CCP program so we can't use it as a blueprint yet. The similarity between DoD missions and CCP specifically is the prohibitive barrier to entry so watching how that evolves will be important.
Also instructive is that the EELV program was broken and unraveled by the attempted certification of SpaceX as a provider. ...
The EELV program was "broken" by some measures long ago (starting circa 2000); it was not "unravelled" by SpaceX's arrival. If you want to push for broader-based NSS reform, fine (I have done the same). Just don't use such hyperbole to do so; it is embarrassing and counter-productive.
Delta IV was designed as a modular rocket, and uses Common Booster Cores (CBC),