Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 7, 2017 : DISCUSSION  (Read 246163 times)

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #40 on: 06/07/2017 12:21 am »
Wow, that's unexpected, and wonderful to hear.

Anyone know why there wasn't a public request for bids put out on this launch?  As much as I like the idea of SpaceX winning this launch, it would bother me if they didn't win it in an open bidding process.  Letting all launch providers bid in a public process is really the most important thing.

Going through a year long public bidding process isn't necessarily a great mode of operation for the rapid capabilities office, especially for a somewhat secretive program.  It could also be a case of that organization wanting to go through the procurement process with the new launch provider.  This is a fairly light payload being sent to probably a fairly easy orbit.  Maybe similar to NROL-76 procurement.

There are 12 other AF launches being publicly bid between SpaceX and ULA in the next year or so.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #41 on: 06/07/2017 12:22 am »
Wow, that's unexpected, and wonderful to hear.

Anyone know why there wasn't a public request for bids put out on this launch?  As much as I like the idea of SpaceX winning this launch, it would bother me if they didn't win it in an open bidding process.  Letting all launch providers bid in a public process is really the most important thing.
An open bidding process for a launch in two months?   I am a fan of open bidding but it's hard to imagine anyone else could do this today.  I think this is more a proof of concept for the AF of "responsive" launch capabilities.

We have no idea when this contract was awarded.

Offline DecoLV

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • Boston, MA, USA
  • Liked: 205
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #42 on: 06/07/2017 12:22 am »
An open bidding process for a launch in two months?   I am a fan of open bidding but it's hard to imagine anyone else could do this today.  I think this is more a proof of concept for the AF of "responsive" launch capabilities.

Given the context of the Secy's testimony, an eagerness to prove to be a lean, mean, fightin' machine seems reason enough, and remember USAF has some time ago included SpaceX in the party. And SpaceX is just as eager to accommodate, I'm sure. Remember the ol' days of whining and moaning and lawsuits? Guess that's over.  :o

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #43 on: 06/07/2017 12:23 am »
Does anyone know how this program is structured? Is the technology owned by the airforce or Boeing?

As a bit of speculation, could the airforce ask Boeing to make a scaled-up version that launches directly from the Falcon 9 first stage booster? They might have enough money to lubricate such an unlikely marriage.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #44 on: 06/07/2017 12:26 am »
Does anyone know how this program is structured? Is the technology owned by the airforce or Boeing?

As a bit of speculation, could the airforce ask Boeing to make a scaled-up version that launches directly from the Falcon 9 first stage booster? They might have enough money to lubricate such an unlikely marriage.

This is a mission thread.  Speculative LEGO rockets (and payloads) belong elsewhere.

Offline Galactic Penguin SST

I would not be surprised if this contract was actually ordered at least a year or two ago and is already floating around the US launch schedule here as AFSPC-XX without assigning to any launcher.  ;)

Edit: Not sure about the source but that thread claims that it's AFSPC-7.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2017 12:38 am by Galactic Penguin SST »
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery. Current Priority: Chasing the Chinese Spaceflight Wonder Egg & A Certain Chinese Mars Rover

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #46 on: 06/07/2017 12:32 am »
[SpaceNews] SpaceX will launch next secret X-37 Air Force mission
Quote
“The ability to launch the Orbital Test Vehicle on multiple platforms will ensure a robust launch capability for our experiment designers,” Randy Walden, director of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, said in a press release. “We are excited about this new partnership on creating flexible and responsive launch options and are confident in SpaceX’s ability to provide safe and assured access to space for the X-37B program.”
This quote means it definitely wasn't a slip up to say SpaceX instead of another LV provider. Still seems unlikely they intended for this to be the launch announcement. The comment was fairly spontaneous in response to a closing comment. Then again, she did just happen to have a model of the X-37B there on the table. Maybe it was planned all along.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #47 on: 06/07/2017 12:33 am »
Wow, that's unexpected, and wonderful to hear.

Anyone know why there wasn't a public request for bids put out on this launch?  As much as I like the idea of SpaceX winning this launch, it would bother me if they didn't win it in an open bidding process.  Letting all launch providers bid in a public process is really the most important thing.
An open bidding process for a launch in two months?   I am a fan of open bidding but it's hard to imagine anyone else could do this today.  I think this is more a proof of concept for the AF of "responsive" launch capabilities.

Why not in two months?  Responsive launch deserves a responsive bid process.

No reason they can't set up a process where they put out a request for bids and give companies two days to respond, then announce a winner two days later.

Just because bidding has always taken much longer before doesn't mean that's the only way to do it.  Isn't that the whole point of responsive space?

And yes, probably nobody else could do it in this case with this short notice that could beat the SpaceX price.  But they should still go through the process.  Then, when someone comes along who can compete, the process is already in place.  Nothing has to change.

As others have said, we don't really know if this was awarded on short notice.  I hope so, but we don't know.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #48 on: 06/07/2017 12:34 am »
Pretty exciting news and a very bad result for ULA.

Were we aware the X-37B was launcher agnostic?

yes

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #49 on: 06/07/2017 12:34 am »
There goes my pet NROL-76 theory...
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #50 on: 06/07/2017 12:36 am »
There goes my pet NROL-76 theory...

Not so fast ... there are two X-37b vehicles, right? :-)

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 5381
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #51 on: 06/07/2017 12:42 am »
...

Why not in two months?  Responsive launch deserves a responsive bid process.

No reason they can't set up a process where they put out a request for bids and give companies two days to respond, then announce a winner two days later.

Just because bidding has always taken much longer before doesn't mean that's the only way to do it.  Isn't that the whole point of responsive space?

And yes, probably nobody else could do it in this case with this short notice that could beat the SpaceX price.  But they should still go through the process.  Then, when someone comes along who can compete, the process is already in place.  Nothing has to change.

As others have said, we don't really know if this was awarded on short notice.  I hope so, but we don't know.
I agree wholeheartedly. And I know we don't know when the contract was rewarded. I was just (probably over-)connecting the dots of recent discussions of responsive launch and her use of that phrasing. I imagine phase one of the open bidding process could be a phone call, "Hey, if we wanted to launch something in under X months for under Y dollars, could you do it?" Total fantasy on my part but I hope the world works that way someday if not today.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #52 on: 06/07/2017 12:47 am »
Wow, that's unexpected, and wonderful to hear.

Anyone know why there wasn't a public request for bids put out on this launch?  As much as I like the idea of SpaceX winning this launch, it would bother me if they didn't win it in an open bidding process.  Letting all launch providers bid in a public process is really the most important thing.
An open bidding process for a launch in two months?   I am a fan of open bidding but it's hard to imagine anyone else could do this today.  I think this is more a proof of concept for the AF of "responsive" launch capabilities.
ULA can do 3 months.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-announces-rapidlaunch.aspx

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #53 on: 06/07/2017 12:50 am »
Does anyone know how this program is structured? Is the technology owned by the airforce or Boeing?

As a bit of speculation, could the airforce ask Boeing to make a scaled-up version that launches directly from the Falcon 9 first stage booster? They might have enough money to lubricate such an unlikely marriage.

no

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 153
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #54 on: 06/07/2017 12:53 am »
Is this definitely on an F9?   Remember Musk was making quips about a strange FH payload.

Offline yokem55

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #55 on: 06/07/2017 12:56 am »
Is this definitely on an F9?   Remember Musk was making quips about a strange FH payload.
F9 has more than enough performance. No need for heavy.

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #56 on: 06/07/2017 01:01 am »
After the SES-10 launch, it was stated that there were several more launches planned using flight-proven boosters including FH demo. They also said that a couple more were possibly in the works. Could this be one of the those possible re-use launches? Or even one they knew about at the time but weren't at liberty to disclose at the time?

Offline yokem55

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #57 on: 06/07/2017 01:01 am »
Wow, that's unexpected, and wonderful to hear.

Anyone know why there wasn't a public request for bids put out on this launch?  As much as I like the idea of SpaceX winning this launch, it would bother me if they didn't win it in an open bidding process.  Letting all launch providers bid in a public process is really the most important thing.
An open bidding process for a launch in two months?   I am a fan of open bidding but it's hard to imagine anyone else could do this today.  I think this is more a proof of concept for the AF of "responsive" launch capabilities.
ULA can do 3 months.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-announces-rapidlaunch.aspx

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk
But ULA already has 3 launches booked for August, 2 at Canaveral and 1 at Vandenberg. If this was put out for very quick bid in May, than I think ULA would have been hard pressed to get this one added to August without bumping one of the other launches.

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #58 on: 06/07/2017 01:02 am »
Is this definitely on an F9?   Remember Musk was making quips about a strange FH payload.
FH won't be ready in August. It was explicitly stated this launch is in August this year.

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 5381
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #59 on: 06/07/2017 01:04 am »
Wow, that's unexpected, and wonderful to hear.

Anyone know why there wasn't a public request for bids put out on this launch?  As much as I like the idea of SpaceX winning this launch, it would bother me if they didn't win it in an open bidding process.  Letting all launch providers bid in a public process is really the most important thing.
An open bidding process for a launch in two months?   I am a fan of open bidding but it's hard to imagine anyone else could do this today.  I think this is more a proof of concept for the AF of "responsive" launch capabilities.
ULA can do 3 months.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-announces-rapidlaunch.aspx

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk
I misremembered and thought they targeted 6 months. So hopefully there were multiple bids, that would be awesome.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0