-
#20
by
Star One
on 04 Jul, 2013 19:46
-
The more other launch providers either delay or fail (for whatever reason) the more respect I have for ULA.
Those prices don't seem that bad.
World's best launch contractor and will be for a long time.
If you want a good price you need to block buy. That's the clear message here and it's smart business.
Why therefore does it seem to be a hobby by some space enthusiasts to run ULA down?
-
#21
by
edkyle99
on 04 Jul, 2013 20:19
-
Why therefore does it seem to be a hobby by some space enthusiasts to run ULA down?
ULA is perceived to be a monopoly. The only people who typically like monopolies are those who profit from them.
- Ed Kyle
-
#22
by
QuantumG
on 04 Jul, 2013 22:35
-
Why therefore does it seem to be a hobby by some space enthusiasts to run ULA down?
ULA is perceived to be a monopoly. The only people who typically like monopolies are those who profit from them.
A monopoly in what market? Certainly not the commercial launch market.
-
#23
by
kevin-rf
on 05 Jul, 2013 00:26
-
Selling the EELV sized payloads to the DOD and NASA. Outside of ISS resupply SpaceX and Orbital have yet to on ramp. But you know that already.
-
#24
by
QuantumG
on 05 Jul, 2013 00:39
-
Selling the EELV sized payloads to the DOD and NASA.
A government monopoly selling to the government. That's not exactly unusual.
-
#25
by
newpylong
on 05 Jul, 2013 02:09
-
It's all the rave. Like how it has become a hobby to prop SpaceX on a pedestal no matter what.
The more other launch providers either delay or fail (for whatever reason) the more respect I have for ULA.
Those prices don't seem that bad.
World's best launch contractor and will be for a long time.
If you want a good price you need to block buy. That's the clear message here and it's smart business.
Why therefore does it seem to be a hobby by some space enthusiasts to run ULA down?
-
#26
by
spectre9
on 05 Jul, 2013 04:34
-
Non-ULA launchers that get U.S. government business just off the top of my head.
Falcon 9
Falcon Heavy
Minotaur V
Pegasus
Antares
Obviously Falcon Heavy is the only real competitor for large GEO Sats and it doesn't exist yet.
There's nothing that prevents any aerospace company from building a launcher that can get a 6-8mt payload to GTO. You don't even need a launch pad on the ground as Sea Launch has shown.
-
#27
by
QuantumG
on 05 Jul, 2013 04:44
-
Non-ULA launchers that get U.S. government business just off the top of my head.
Falcon 9
Falcon Heavy
Minotaur V
Pegasus
Antares
Well, yeah. The typically way you claim someone is a monopolist is to define the "applicable market" so narrowly that they're the only significant competitor left.
-
#28
by
Oli
on 05 Jul, 2013 05:18
-
So those $60m per core are included in the 1.088bn?
-
#29
by
vapour_nudge
on 05 Jul, 2013 10:23
-
...
USAF:
* Atlas V 401
* Atlas V 501
* Delta IVM 4,2
* Delta IVM 5,4
Fourth X-37B flight? I only see the 501 used for X-37B and FIA radar, which would have been NRO. And the fist bird flew twice, so it would be fitting to give the second one a chance of reuse.
Speculation:
USAF:
* Atlas V 401 GPS-IIF-7 ?
* Atlas V 501 As suggested by other posters, another OTV?
* Delta IVM 4,2 AFSPC-4 ?
* Delta IVM 5,4 WGS-7 ?
NRO:
* Atlas 401 NROL-33 ?
* Atlas 541 NROL-67 ?
* Delta IVM 5,2 ??
-
#30
by
Bean Kenobi
on 05 Jul, 2013 10:41
-
-
#31
by
Jim
on 05 Jul, 2013 12:00
-
...
USAF:
* Atlas V 401
* Atlas V 501
* Delta IVM 4,2
* Delta IVM 5,4
Fourth X-37B flight? I only see the 501 used for X-37B and FIA radar, which would have been NRO. And the fist bird flew twice, so it would be fitting to give the second one a chance of reuse.
Speculation:
USAF:
* Atlas V 401 GPS-IIF-7 ?
* Atlas V 501 As suggested by other posters, another OTV?
* Delta IVM 4,2 AFSPC-4 ?
* Delta IVM 5,4 WGS-7 ?
NRO:
* Atlas 401 NROL-33 ?
* Atlas 541 NROL-67 ?
* Delta IVM 5,2 ??
The new buy is for missions 3 to 5 years out, 2016 and beyond.
-
#32
by
vapour_nudge
on 05 Jul, 2013 12:18
-
Thanks for the info gentlemen.
I'll speculate further in that case (just guesswork and not wanting to go off topic)
Speculation:
USAF:
* Atlas V 401 GPS-IIF-8, SBIRS GEO 3 or 4 ?
* Atlas V 501 As suggested by other posters, another OTV?
* Delta IVM 4,2 AFSPC-6 ? (AFSPC-5 is on an Atlas)
* Delta IVM 5,4 WGS-7 ?
NRO:
* Atlas 401 NROL-79 ?
* Atlas 541 NROL-42 ?
* Delta IVM 5,2 No idea at all ?
-
#33
by
edkyle99
on 05 Jul, 2013 15:01
-
Non-ULA launchers that get U.S. government business just off the top of my head.
Falcon 9
Falcon Heavy
Minotaur V
Pegasus
Antares
Obviously Falcon Heavy is the only real competitor for large GEO Sats and it doesn't exist yet.
There's nothing that prevents any aerospace company from building a launcher that can get a 6-8mt payload to GTO. You don't even need a launch pad on the ground as Sea Launch has shown.
ULA has something that newcomers don't have, which is an ongoing contract that includes massive annual funding whether
any launches occur and an ongoing close relationship with the USAF and NRO.
- Ed Kyle
-
#34
by
Targeteer
on 05 Jul, 2013 20:52
-
Maybe OT but any thoughts on AF payloads needing a generic "AFSPC" description?
The Intel birds are definitively in NRO's lane and launched on NROL designations and all other AF payloads are acknowledged (GPS, AEHF, SBIRs, even OTV)...
-
#35
by
joek
on 05 Jul, 2013 23:11
-
So those $60m per core are included in the 1.088bn?
No, based on projected D-IV launches ULA will be paid up in 2014;
per Jim's post these launches are after 2014.
