ULA and USAF sign block buy over 36 Atlas and Delta cores

• #40 by Jim on 19 Feb, 2014 12:48
• DOD/NRO mission integration cycle is 5 years vs the NASA 24 -36 month or the commercial 18-24 month.
  Also, there is the acquisition cycle.  Spacex or ULA just doesn't get the missions.  There will be a solicitation, RFP and source selection.
  
  So the set back for the first mission is longer
• #41 by baldusi on 19 Feb, 2014 14:56
• When SpaceX starts bidding for standardized payloads, like GPS. Will they have to add the one time integration and mission specific mods and validations to their price, while EELV already sunk that cost? It could amount to a pretty hefty sum.
  
• #42 by joek on 19 Feb, 2014 23:33
• Quote from: Jim on 19 Feb, 2014 12:48

  DOD/NRO mission integration cycle is 5 years vs the NASA 24 -36 month or the commercial 18-24 month.
  Also, there is the acquisition cycle.  Spacex or ULA just doesn't get the missions.  There will be a solicitation, RFP and source selection.
  
  So the set back for the first mission is longer
  

  
  Yes, good point on integration lead time, at least for some missions.[1]  Any extended (5yr) LV-specific integration efforts would need to start very soon, as the current EELV Phase 1 plan has all launch service acquisitions complete end FY17; fulfilled (launched) by end FY19; and with open competition for launch services starting in FY18.
  
  While there may be "solicitation, RFP and source selection", at this time only 14 missions are potentially available for competition FY15-FY17.*  The remaining missions are ULA sole source.[2]  In short, ULA is guaranteed ELC through FY19 (end Phase 1 fly-out), 36 cores, and the majority of the launch service contract awards through FY17.  Assuming new entrants are certified, the landscape is likely to change significantly beginning FY18.  That gives ULA everyone less than 4 years to get ready for the sequel.
  
  
  [1] USAF FY2014 Missle Procurement budget submission (April 2013)
  

  Quote

  EELV launch services are usually ordered No-Later-Than 24 months prior to the planned mission launch. EELV launch services may be ordered earlier than the standard 24 months to allow a longer integration period for first-time or complex integrations.
  ...
  Once a New Entrant demonstrates a successful launch of an EELV-class launch system, the Air Force will award integration studies to the new entrant. Launch Services deemed as having higher risk tolerance by the Department may be awarded to service providers other than ULA as part of the certification process.
  

  Note that certification is not required before award of integration studies.  Granted, that doesn't mean a launch services contract, but it provides a head start.
  
  [2] Ibid
  

  Quote

  The Department has designated 14 cores, for AF and other organization missions, across FY15-FY17 procurement years as open to competition based on the projected performance of the designs described by potential New Entrants in their Statements of Intent (SOI) as well as providing 36 cores to United Launch Alliance in FY13-17. If competition is not viable at time of need; missions will be awarded to the incumbent ...
  

  
  
  * edit: To clarify, the fine print says "14 cores"[2] , not 14 missions, so the potentially competed missions might be less.
  
• #43 by Jim on 20 Feb, 2014 00:42
• Quote from: joek on 19 Feb, 2014 23:33

    Any extended (5yr) LV-specific integration efforts would need to start very soon,
  

  
  There needs to be a contract in place first.
• #44 by Jim on 20 Feb, 2014 00:43
• Quote from: joek on 19 Feb, 2014 23:33

  
  Note that certification is not required before award of integration studies.
  

  
  Integration studies are not the same as the work done in the integration cycle.
• #45 by joek on 20 Feb, 2014 01:29
• Quote from: Jim on 20 Feb, 2014 00:43

  Integration studies are not the same as the work done in the integration cycle.
  

  
  Right.  Sorry I was not clear and thought I had pointed that out ("Granted, that doesn't mean a launch services contract ...").  So to be clear: Of note in the DOD's statement the important point is not the integration work per-se, but the early insight provided to new entrants through integration studies--which does not require certification, only that they have demonstrated the successful launch of an EELV-class vehicle.  Having some insight into integration requirements better prepares new entrants to meet future requirements in a more timely and cost-effective manner.
• #46 by joek on 20 Feb, 2014 01:35
• Quote from: Jim on 20 Feb, 2014 00:42

  Quote from: joek on 19 Feb, 2014 23:33

  Any extended (5yr) LV-specific integration efforts would need to start very soon,
  

  There needs to be a contract in place first.
  

  
  Yes, and such a contract (assuming a 5yr integration effort coupled to a specific LV) needs to be in place no later then end FY14 (Sep this year, or "very soon" as I stated).  If not, they've missed the boat because according to the EELV Phase 1 plan, final fly-out will occur no later than end FY19.
• #47 by Prober on 28 Feb, 2014 03:33
• Quote from: Jim on 19 Feb, 2014 12:48

  DOD/NRO mission integration cycle is 5 years vs the NASA 24 -36 month or the commercial 18-24 month.
  Also, there is the acquisition cycle.  Spacex or ULA just doesn't get the missions.  There will be a solicitation, RFP and source selection.
  
  So the set back for the first mission is longer
  

  
  What is your opinion on this?  SpaceX Moves Closer to Launching Spy Satellites
  http://defensetech.org/2014/02/27/spacex-moves-closer-to-launching-spy-satellites/
  
• #48 by Jim on 28 Feb, 2014 11:34
• Hype
• #49 by RocketGoBoom on 05 Mar, 2014 18:12
• Quote from: Prober on 28 Feb, 2014 03:33

  
  What is your opinion on this?  SpaceX Moves Closer to Launching Spy Satellites
  
  http://defensetech.org/2014/02/27/spacex-moves-closer-to-launching-spy-satellites/
  

  
  But that has been the assumption since the DOD started the purchase process for the 36 cores from ULA and left the others out there for SpaceX to potentially grab.
  
  I don't think anyone will be shocked if SpaceX wins all 14 of the other launches that are in play. They are really SpaceX's to lose at this point.
  
  ULA will be in a tough spot after these 36  cores are done. I suspect in 5 years that 100% of the US gov't launches will be in play.
• #50 by Jim on 05 Mar, 2014 18:27
• Quote from: RocketGoBoom on 05 Mar, 2014 18:12

  
  I don't think anyone will be shocked if SpaceX wins all 14 of the other launches that are in play. They are really SpaceX's to lose at this point.
   
  

  
  Unfounded hype.  How many launches has Spacex won for NASA spacecraft since 2008 which Falcon 9 was onramped to the NLS contract?
• #51 by Lurker Steve on 05 Mar, 2014 19:12
• It will be interesting to see if ULA submits a bid for the ISS CRS-2 contract.
  Maybe they can partner with Blue Origin on a craft with capability for return cargo.
  
  If it's going to be a "Level Playing Field", then ULA must be allowed to compete in all the same markets as SpaceX.
  
  
• #52 by Jim on 05 Mar, 2014 19:15
• Quote from: Lurker Steve on 05 Mar, 2014 19:12

  It will be interesting to see if ULA submits a bid for the ISS CRS-2 contract.
  
  

  
  They can't.  They don't do spacecraft.  A spacecraft has to select them
• #53 by Lurker Steve on 05 Mar, 2014 19:19
• Quote from: Jim on 05 Mar, 2014 19:15

  Quote from: Lurker Steve on 05 Mar, 2014 19:12

  It will be interesting to see if ULA submits a bid for the ISS CRS-2 contract.
  
  

  
  They can't.  They don't do spacecraft.  A spacecraft has to select them
  

  
  They COULD if they played by the same business rules as SpaceX.
• #54 by USFdon on 05 Mar, 2014 19:42
• Quote from: Lurker Steve on 05 Mar, 2014 19:19

  They COULD if they played by the same business rules as SpaceX.
  

  
  Its a joint venture between two companies that do build spacecraft. I highly doubt that  ULA's masters want it building spacecraft all on its own (especially if it is not guaranteed to make money).
• #55 by Antares on 06 Mar, 2014 23:27
• It doesn't matter what the ULA masters want.  It's what's in the DoD/FTC consent decree that allowed the formation of ULA.
• #56 by Prober on 19 Mar, 2014 16:46
• Quote from: Jim on 05 Mar, 2014 18:27

  Quote from: RocketGoBoom on 05 Mar, 2014 18:12

  
  I don't think anyone will be shocked if SpaceX wins all 14 of the other launches that are in play. They are really SpaceX's to lose at this point.
   
  

  
  Unfounded hype.  How many launches has Spacex won for NASA spacecraft since 2008 which Falcon 9 was onramped to the NLS contract?
  

  
  a very good point just advanced again by this contract:  http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/03/atlas-v-launch-next-generation-sun-explorer-2017/
  
  
  
• #57 by Lurker Steve on 19 Mar, 2014 17:20
• Quote from: USFdon on 05 Mar, 2014 19:42

  Quote from: Lurker Steve on 05 Mar, 2014 19:19

  They COULD if they played by the same business rules as SpaceX.
  

  
  Its a joint venture between two companies that do build spacecraft. I highly doubt that  ULA's masters want it building spacecraft all on its own (especially if it is not guaranteed to make money).
  

  
  I was wondering about what kind of restraints are really on ULA.
  For instance, they have published a spacecraft design, based on the Centaur upper stage called DTAL.
  Then they donated a non-flight Centaur to Masten to allow them to basically refine that DTAL design.
  It is possible that some day, that would turn into an actual spacecraft design.
  
  Then what happens ? Does ULA build components and ship them to Masten to make a spacecraft out of them ?
  Is it possible for ULA to become a supplier to other vendors at all, or can they only build Delta and Atlas launch vehicles ? For instance, could they build a replacement core stage for Antares on a contract basis ? They obviously have the tooling, and extra volume would lower costs for all, right ?
• #58 by Jim on 19 Mar, 2014 17:44
• Quote from: Lurker Steve on 19 Mar, 2014 17:20

  can they only build Delta and Atlas launch vehicles
  

  
  Yes