SpaceX vs Lockheed/Boeing

[Lurker Steve]

No, because the obvious implication was that NASA is somehow at fault for what happened to Orbcomm. They didn't calculate anything, they set rules beforehand which SpaceX and/or Orbcomm didn't have to accept. The latter two could have decided to not fly secondaries at all.

Enough of this "NASA didn't allow", "NASA calculated" stuff already. It wasn't NASA's fault it was protecting its expensive orbiting asset.

And it wasn't OrbComm's fault that SpaceX cancelled the Falcon 1, which was the original LV for the contract. They didn't sign up for a ride as a secondary originally.

[happyflower]

Not sure about F9 v1.1 but I recall some of those Delta and Atlas configurations have never flown. For example IIRC part of the CCiCAP is to launch an Atlas with the a version of the Centaur that has not flown before to verify that configuration (I think Boeing got the money so presumably they will fly with a CTS-100 simulator).

Two engined Atlas V Centaur wasn't even designed.

Jim,

My understanding from reading on-line is that ULA will be launching both CST-100 and D.C.. Would you happen to know when the designing starts, if the basic two engined Centaur/Atlas will be exactly the same for both CST-100 and D.C.? Or will that be two different vehicles?

[JohnFornaro]

"I’m hugely pleased with 66 in a row from ULA, and I don’t know the record of SpaceX yet," [Robert Stevens] said. "Two in a row?"

Sour grapes.

"Cost doesn’t matter at all if you don’t put the ball into orbit," said Lockheed’s Stevens.

OK.  Now tell us something that we don't know.

Why doesn't he welcome them into the fold?  No harm in being gracious.

Enough of this "NASA didn't allow", "NASA calculated" stuff already. It wasn't NASA's fault it was protecting its expensive orbiting asset.

Thank you. 

The problem is SpaceX's, and I'm sure they have "top men" working the problem.  Of course they want $900M of DoD biz, and of course they will have to get the reliability needed to earn this business.

The insurance companies will see that ULA's already tiny profit margin disappears.

Tiny?

Even so, I think your line of reasoning still holds.

The U.S. government self-insures launches; insurance companies' view of ULA's has little or no bearing on ULA's reliability record--unless and until ULA re-enters the commercial market, which given their cost structure and history...

While this is true, if ULA should have a flawless track record, that would be reflected in their future insurance premium.  So the relationship is not "irrelevant".  What the relationship is, between past track record and future premium, is: TBD and speculative.

In short, SpaceX's ability to establish a reliable launch record ... [is] a bit early to make such a call.

Yes.  Like I said, TBD and speculative.

[yg1968]

I understand testing the F9 v1.1 three times (compared to v1) as it is a whole new beast, but I wonder how the ULA rockets were certified considering how many different core and booster combinations are available.  Did every configuration need three successful launches to be certified?

Not sure about F9 v1.1 but I recall some of those Delta and Atlas configurations have never flown. For example IIRC part of the CCiCAP is to launch an Atlas with the a version of the Centaur that has not flown before to verify that configuration (I think Boeing got the money so presumably they will fly with a CTS-100 simulator).

I don't think that Boeing's CCiCap base period milestones actually includes flying a dual engine centaur on an Atlas V. The DEC must get to a CDR level but it doesn't need to fly on an Atlas V.

[Lars_J]

I understand testing the F9 v1.1 three times (compared to v1) as it is a whole new beast, but I wonder how the ULA rockets were certified considering how many different core and booster combinations are available.  Did every configuration need three successful launches to be certified?

Not sure about F9 v1.1 but I recall some of those Delta and Atlas configurations have never flown. For example IIRC part of the CCiCAP is to launch an Atlas with the a version of the Centaur that has not flown before to verify that configuration (I think Boeing got the money so presumably they will fly with a CTS-100 simulator).

I don't think that Boeing's CCiCap base period milestones actually includes flying a dual engine centaur on an Atlas V. The DEC must get to a CDR level but it doesn't need to fly on an Atlas V.

Where else would the DEC fly on, if not the Atlas V???

[yg1968]

I understand testing the F9 v1.1 three times (compared to v1) as it is a whole new beast, but I wonder how the ULA rockets were certified considering how many different core and booster combinations are available.  Did every configuration need three successful launches to be certified?

Not sure about F9 v1.1 but I recall some of those Delta and Atlas configurations have never flown. For example IIRC part of the CCiCAP is to launch an Atlas with the a version of the Centaur that has not flown before to verify that configuration (I think Boeing got the money so presumably they will fly with a CTS-100 simulator).

I don't think that Boeing's CCiCap base period milestones actually includes flying a dual engine centaur on an Atlas V. The DEC must get to a CDR level but it doesn't need to fly on an Atlas V.

Where else would the DEC fly on, if not the Atlas V???

I didn't mean that it could fly on another rocket. I meant that NASA is not paying for a flight to test the DAC as part of the CCiCap base period.

[baldusi]

I understand testing the F9 v1.1 three times (compared to v1) as it is a whole new beast, but I wonder how the ULA rockets were certified considering how many different core and booster combinations are available.  Did every configuration need three successful launches to be certified?

Not sure about F9 v1.1 but I recall some of those Delta and Atlas configurations have never flown. For example IIRC part of the CCiCAP is to launch an Atlas with the a version of the Centaur that has not flown before to verify that configuration (I think Boeing got the money so presumably they will fly with a CTS-100 simulator).

I don't think that Boeing's CCiCap base period milestones actually includes flying a dual engine centaur on an Atlas V. The DEC must get to a CDR level but it doesn't need to fly on an Atlas V.

Besides the fact the DEC has already flown, and the real issue are the new electric actuators on dual configuration, the test shouldn't be that expensive. They might get to offer the DEC for some LEO mission, and CCiCap competitor pay just the difference. Since the LEO performance is better, and might even have engine-out capability, they might even save the cost of a more expensive configuration to the payload's owner.
I'm guess that some of the commercial optical satellites, like WorldView-3, for example.

[ElonMuskFanboy]

Can SpaceX really overtake ULA? I think so, especially if the Falcon Heavy lives up to the hype. I've done the math.

At SpaceX's advertised price of 128 million max. And 119,000 pounds to LEO. Thats 1094 dollars per pound to orbit, am I correct?

So again if the Falcon Heavy lives up to the hype I believe ULA is in trouble.

[R7]

So again if the Falcon Heavy lives up to the hype I believe ULA is in trouble.

Yes, ULA is doomed. Their only hope is to create their own hype by posting humbug prices on their website and wish that the big money is in GTO.

[ElonMuskFanboy]

So again if the Falcon Heavy lives up to the hype I believe ULA is in trouble.

Yes, ULA is doomed. Their only hope is to create their own hype by posting humbug prices on their website and wish that the big money is in GTO.

Hey are you being sarcastic or are you being serious here? Are you implying that SpaceX's prices are humbug and hype? I'm trying to figure out whether or not you're being sarcastic here.

I mean I've been swept up by the Elon Musk hype train (as is obvious) and I'm a huge SpaceX fan! But can SpaceX really usurp ULA?

I see that the Falcon Heavy will supposedly lift 53,000 kg to LEO as opposed to Delta IV Heavy's 23,000 kg.

But here's where I get a little confused. The Delta IV Heavy can lift 13,130 kg to GTO whereas the Falcon Heavy can only lift a mere 12,000 kg to GTO, yet it can lift more than 4 times that amount to LEO.

I'm totally confused here cause SpaceX is stating that the Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket in use today yet thats not entirely true. Matter of fact I'm thinking about starting a whole thread dedicated to the matter cause I'm so perturbed over it.

Is this just hype on SpaceX's part or are they for real and will they eventually overtake ULA as topdog at the top of the rocket food chain?

[notherspacexfan]

ULA is not going anywhere. They make reliable rockets.

Re: delta IV vs FH performance to GTO - read up on ISP of hydrogen/oxygen vs RP1/oxygen

[Jim]

will they eventually overtake ULA as topdog at the top of the rocket food chain?

No

[ohlongjohnson]

will they eventually overtake ULA as topdog at the top of the rocket food chain?

No

I just love your posts, Jim!

[Atlan]

Well SpaceX can probably ger ULAs position but that would not hapen in a couple of years. If they prove reliability within say a decade(lets say 50-80 flights) wouldt ULA be then in serious trouble, because it might be hard to get their rockets to competitive prices and developing a new rocket might last a while?
Trying to keep the amazing peopleism out, so read this just as an what if....

[ElonMuskFanboy]

For those of you saying no I'd just like you to take 10 minutes out of your day to read this excellent article on the Falcon Heavy and its low price point. http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

I mean ULA is incredibly expensive and they're costs are projected to go up over the coming years, not down. I mean granted when it comes to GTO the Delta can lift just a little bit more than the FH but not a whole lot more. Whats the difference between 12,000 or 13,000 kg, negligible really. But on the other hand the FH can get 53 tons to LEO which is huge!!!! And at approximately 1094 dollars per pound to orbit. Thats a game changer right there.

If SpaceX can really deliver a payload to LEO at a little over a thousand dollars per pound to orbit. Then ULA's days of getting these huge DOD block buys for absurd amounts of money are over!

The US government is going to be over 17 trillion dollars in debt!!!! Just cant afford that.

Of course I'm no expert or genius so your guys input is much appreciated.

[Lar]

For those of you saying no I'd just like you to take 10 minutes out of your day to read this excellent article on the Falcon Heavy and its low price point. http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

I mean ULA is incredibly expensive and they're costs are projected to go up over the coming years, not down. I mean granted when it comes to GTO the Delta can lift just a little bit more than the FH but not a whole lot more. Whats the difference between 12,000 or 13,000 kg, negligible really. But on the other hand the FH can get 53 tons to LEO which is huge!!!! And at approximately 1094 dollars per pound to orbit. Thats a game changer right there.

If SpaceX can really deliver a payload to LEO at a little over a thousand dollars per pound to orbit. Then ULA's days of getting these huge DOD block buys for absurd amounts of money are over!

The US government is going to be over 17 trillion dollars in debt!!!! Just cant afford that.

Of course I'm no expert or genius so your guys input is much appreciated.

I'm almost the SpaceX  F A N B O I   that you are, but I know darn well that ULA has nothing to worry about until and unless F9 and F9H flight rates climb significantly, with good reliability, and the price points are adhered to.

Right now it's still 90% smoke and only 10% substance. Although each successful flight moves the needle in the substance direction.

Now, ULA ought to be making contingency plans[1], to be sure, but they don't have a clear and present danger. YET. ULA rockets work. They're reliable. They're delivering what DOD wants.

1 - schmoozing congressmen and generals, that's usually the most effective these days

[JohnFornaro]

Can SpaceX really overtake ULA? I think so, especially if the Falcon Heavy lives up to the hype. I've done the math.

At SpaceX's advertised price of 128 million max. And 119,000 pounds to LEO. Thats 1094 dollars per pound to orbit, am I correct?

So again if the Falcon Heavy lives up to the hype I believe ULA is in trouble.

Hey, I love the company too.

I'm sure you're a better math whiz than I am.  Most everybody here is.  There is a big difference between advertised price and guaranteed price.  In addition, in this field, it is political connections which make the deal, not pricing.

Like Jim said:

will they eventually overtake ULA as topdog at the top of the rocket food chain?

No  Pretty darn unlikely, knowing what I know about what's happening, how it happens, who the players are, and a host of other issues based on decades of industry involvement.

Didn't really fix it for him.   Just elaborated a mite for you, since two letters is a bit terse.

[Lurker Steve]

For those of you saying no I'd just like you to take 10 minutes out of your day to read this excellent article on the Falcon Heavy and its low price point. http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

I mean ULA is incredibly expensive and they're costs are projected to go up over the coming years, not down. I mean granted when it comes to GTO the Delta can lift just a little bit more than the FH but not a whole lot more. Whats the difference between 12,000 or 13,000 kg, negligible really. But on the other hand the FH can get 53 tons to LEO which is huge!!!! And at approximately 1094 dollars per pound to orbit. Thats a game changer right there.

If SpaceX can really deliver a payload to LEO at a little over a thousand dollars per pound to orbit. Then ULA's days of getting these huge DOD block buys for absurd amounts of money are over!

The US government is going to be over 17 trillion dollars in debt!!!! Just cant afford that.

Of course I'm no expert or genius so your guys input is much appreciated.

The problem is that most of the cost of the DOD missions in not in the launch vehicle, it's in the satellite itself.

Yes, the government is 17 trillion dollars in debt. NASA and the DOD will be getting less funding. That means missions are completely cancelled, not just shifted to a slightly less expensive launch provider.

Unless SpaceX learns how to pick up their launch pace, and launch more than 3 or 4 missions per year, they are not a viable supplier to the DOD. Of course, at that rate, they aren't a viable commerical launch provider either, since a reservation on their launch manifest is basically meaningless.

[apace]

The costs of the launch vehicle for DOD payloads is overrated here. If you have a multi-billion payload, the difference between D4H and FH is nothing.

[ElonMuskFanboy]

For those of you saying no I'd just like you to take 10 minutes out of your day to read this excellent article on the Falcon Heavy and its low price point. http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

I mean ULA is incredibly expensive and they're costs are projected to go up over the coming years, not down. I mean granted when it comes to GTO the Delta can lift just a little bit more than the FH but not a whole lot more. Whats the difference between 12,000 or 13,000 kg, negligible really. But on the other hand the FH can get 53 tons to LEO which is huge!!!! And at approximately 1094 dollars per pound to orbit. Thats a game changer right there.

If SpaceX can really deliver a payload to LEO at a little over a thousand dollars per pound to orbit. Then ULA's days of getting these huge DOD block buys for absurd amounts of money are over!

The US government is going to be over 17 trillion dollars in debt!!!! Just cant afford that.

Of course I'm no expert or genius so your guys input is much appreciated.

The problem is that most of the cost of the DOD missions in not in the launch vehicle, it's in the satellite itself.

Yes, the government is 17 trillion dollars in debt. NASA and the DOD will be getting less funding. That means missions are completely cancelled, not just shifted to a slightly less expensive launch provider.

Unless SpaceX learns how to pick up their launch pace, and launch more than 3 or 4 missions per year, they are not a viable supplier to the DOD. Of course, at that rate, they aren't a viable commerical launch provider either, since a reservation on their launch manifest is basically meaningless.

"slightly less expensive launch provider." Uh as far as I know at the advertised prices the FH is literally a fraction as expensive as a Delta IV Heavy launch.


And you're all not getting the bigger picture here. In order for commercial space to take off there has to be a cheap and affordable means of getting to orbit. If Bigelow Aerospace or any other private venture in space is to survive and become profitable then space access has to become cheaper, by many orders of magnitude cheaper.

And out of the ones vying to do that SpaceX is the one whom I believe has the best chance of succeeding. Elon Musk is a doer ladies and gents. This is a man that does!!!!!

I could totally see space tourism taking off and families taking vacations on the Moon for a couple of weeks and then coming back down to Earth. I could totally see people visiting Mars and then literally going back to Earth. I on the other hand, if given the opportunity, would relocate to Mars. The only way any of this will be possible is if somebody can make space access affordable! ULA will not do this but SpaceX (hopefully) will.