Unsure if this contract applies to this launch or if this is a additional launch.Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, California, has been awarded a $96,500,490 firm-fixed-price contract for launch services to deliver a GPS III satellite to its intended orbit. Contractor will provide launch vehicle production, mission integration, launch operations, spaceflight worthiness and mission unique activities for a GPS III mission. Work will be performed at Hawthorne, California; Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida; and McGregor, Texas, and is expected to be complete by April 30, 2019. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition with two offers received. Fiscal 2016 space procurement funds in the amount of $96,500,490 are being obligated at the time of award. Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California, is the contracting activity (FA8811-17-C-0005).
Unlike the first, which SpaceX won uncontested, ULA did submit a bid for this launch contract.
I looked it up: SpaceX's first GPS III launch contract was awarded in April 2016 and valued at $ 82.7 million.So, discounting inflation, a price increase of 16.7%
Quote from: calapine on 03/14/2017 09:22 pmI looked it up: SpaceX's first GPS III launch contract was awarded in April 2016 and valued at $ 82.7 million.So, discounting inflation, a price increase of 16.7%I'm curious about the price increase, additional requirements or just cost of doing business?
The certified baseline configuration of SpaceX's Falcon 9 Launch System to Falcon 9 Upgrade was recently updated for use in National Security Space (NSS) missions.
Quote from: WindnWar on 03/15/2017 12:23 amQuote from: calapine on 03/14/2017 09:22 pmI looked it up: SpaceX's first GPS III launch contract was awarded in April 2016 and valued at $ 82.7 million. So, discounting inflation, a price increase of 16.7%I'm curious about the price increase, additional requirements or just cost of doing business?Just like Jim predicted long ago, SpaceX prices are rising to meet the requirements of reality.
Quote from: calapine on 03/14/2017 09:22 pmI looked it up: SpaceX's first GPS III launch contract was awarded in April 2016 and valued at $ 82.7 million. So, discounting inflation, a price increase of 16.7%I'm curious about the price increase, additional requirements or just cost of doing business?
I looked it up: SpaceX's first GPS III launch contract was awarded in April 2016 and valued at $ 82.7 million. So, discounting inflation, a price increase of 16.7%
Just like Jim predicted long ago, SpaceX prices are rising to meet the requirements of reality.
Quote from: WindnWar on 03/15/2017 12:23 amQuote from: calapine on 03/14/2017 09:22 pmI looked it up: SpaceX's first GPS III launch contract was awarded in April 2016 and valued at $ 82.7 million.So, discounting inflation, a price increase of 16.7%I'm curious about the price increase, additional requirements or just cost of doing business?Just like Jim predicted long ago, SpaceX prices are rising to meet the requirements of reality. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/15/2017 02:24 amJust like Jim predicted long ago, SpaceX prices are rising to meet the requirements of reality.Or SpaceX is increasing its profit margins by bidding a higher price that is still safely low enough to underbid ULA?
Last year, Claire Leon, a top Air Force acquisition official, spelled out competing pressures to save money by choosing the lower-cost competitor while complying with high-level White House and Pentagon directives to maintain two separate launch providers. She told an industry conference in Pasadena, Calif., that until United Launch becomes a more agile competitor, the Air Force “may end up needing to compete a little differently,” by unilaterally allocating certain launches.“It’s likely to be a split buy in some fashion,” she said.
So how many of these competitive bid launches does ULA have to lose before the USAF starts unilaterally allocating certain launches? QuoteLast year, Claire Leon, a top Air Force acquisition official, spelled out competing pressures to save money by choosing the lower-cost competitor while complying with high-level White House and Pentagon directives to maintain two separate launch providers. She told an industry conference in Pasadena, Calif., that until United Launch becomes a more agile competitor, the Air Force “may end up needing to compete a little differently,” by unilaterally allocating certain launches.“It’s likely to be a split buy in some fashion,” she said.
So how many of these competitive bid launches does ULA have to lose before the USAF starts unilaterally allocating certain launches?