-
Missions for ULA 36 core block buy vs Falcon 9 capabilites
by
Jim
on 25 Apr, 2014 18:50
-
Using the manifest here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1183418#newand this thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33911.036 total cores minus 12 cores for the 4 heavies. Those 4 missions F9 can not compete for since their heavy is not ready. So 24 cores remain.
The first 4 USAF vehicles (non heavy) are:
1 Atlas-V(501) Possible X-37, performance wise it is F9 compatible. Integration wise, unknown
1 Atlas-V(511) USAF doesn't have a LEO mission for 5m, so possible GTO, Atlas V 11.5klb vs F9 10.7klb.
1 Delta-IVM+(4,2) GPS? GSSAP? GTO, Delta IV 13.6klb vs F9 10.7klb.
1 Delta-IVM+(5,4) USAF doesn't have a LEO mission for 5m, so possible GTO, Delta IV 15.2klb vs F9 10.7klb.
will get back to this later
Have not cross referenced any of these with the NSF launch manifest or Gunter's
-
#1
by
NovaSilisko
on 25 Apr, 2014 19:23
-
I'm a bit skeptical as to whether a relative newcomer like SpaceX would be entrusted with something as precious as an X-37B (or a large spy satellite for that matter), at least not until they have many more successful flights behind them.
-
#2
by
Helodriver
on 25 Apr, 2014 19:37
-
I'm a bit skeptical as to whether a relative newcomer like SpaceX would be entrusted with something as precious as an X-37B (or a large spy satellite for that matter), at least not until they have many more successful flights behind them.
Pieces of a launch vehicle operated by an experienced space company that carried a precious spy satellite still litter a Vandenberg hillside as of yesterday. This same space company went on to lose at least three more tier 1 national security payloads on similar vehicles and still kept US government business. Number of successful past flights is not an all encompassing metric nor a predictor of future success.
-
#3
by
butters
on 25 Apr, 2014 19:40
-
The GPS program is the low-hanging fruit for SpaceX. It may take more time for them to gain the trust they need for X-37B or NRO.
-
#4
by
Jim
on 25 Apr, 2014 19:56
-
Pieces of a launch vehicle operated by an experienced space company that carried a precious spy satellite still litter a Vandenberg hillside as of yesterday. This same space company went on to lose at least three more tier 1 national security payloads on similar vehicles and still kept US government business. Number of successful past flights is not an all encompassing metric nor a predictor of future success.
No, it was not the all same company. CSD was responsible for Titan pieces in your photos. Martin was only the integration and airframe contractor. CSD was an associate contractor and the USAF held the contract. It was Boeing for the IUS problem on the DSP loss. So Lockheed Martin was only responsible for the bad wiring on the NRO mission and bad data entry for Milstar.
-
#5
by
Garrett
on 25 Apr, 2014 21:15
-
possibly naive question: why is the notion of capability important?
If a satellite weighs 10klb (4.5 metric tonnes) and an F9 and say, an Atlas V 511 can both lift that amount to GTO, then why would the extra capability of the Atlas V 511 (0.8 klb) be important?
I would have presumed that price, reliability, integration constraints, etc, would play a bigger role.
-
#6
by
Garrett
on 25 Apr, 2014 21:23
-
also, I'm pretty sure that Shotwell said that the F9 figures (10.7 klb to GTO for example) include the fuel reserve for 1st stage boost back. Couple that with Musk's comments that the Merlin 1D can be pushed harder (> 10% I think), then it's probably not a conclusive exercise if only the published website figures are used.
-
#7
by
Nick L.
on 25 Apr, 2014 21:29
-
possibly naive question: why is the notion of capability important?
If a satellite weighs 10klb (4.5 metric tonnes) and an F9 and say, an Atlas V 511 can both lift that amount to GTO, then why would the extra capability of the Atlas V 511 (0.8 klb) be important?
I would have presumed that price, reliability, integration constraints, etc, would play a bigger role.
Because they wouldn't upgrade to something more powerful for no reason - either it weighs too much or the customer wants the extra performance margin. Those solids do cost money, after all. So likely the 511 is required because it really does weigh that extra 800 lbs.
-
#8
by
RedLineTrain
on 25 Apr, 2014 22:46
-
In his presser today, Musk mentioned that the split for national security payloads would be two-thirds Falcon 9 versus one-third Falcon Heavy -- meaning to me that two-thirds of national security payloads are within Falcon 9's capabilities.
If there ultimately is a difference between Jim's analysis and this statement, I would like to know why.
-
#9
by
Lars_J
on 25 Apr, 2014 22:50
-
In his presser today, Musk mentioned that the split for national security payloads would be two-thirds Falcon 9 versus one-third Falcon Heavy -- meaning to me that two-thirds of national security payloads are within Falcon 9's capabilities.
Or it could imply be that the number of payloads they have current or near term capability for would be split that way.
-
#10
by
Avron
on 25 Apr, 2014 22:53
-
In his presser today, Musk mentioned that the split for national security payloads would be two-thirds Falcon 9 versus one-third Falcon Heavy -- meaning to me that two-thirds of national security payloads are within Falcon 9's capabilities.
If there ultimately is a difference between Jim's analysis and this statement, I would like to know why.
Nope you don't need to know why..
If you are a US citizen that question should be directed at your senator/rep.. or just stay on the fence and let Elon
do the fighting
(please don't take that as directed at one but at the masses ( US citizens))
-
#11
by
Avron
on 25 Apr, 2014 22:58
-
I'm a bit skeptical as to whether a relative newcomer like SpaceX would be entrusted with something as precious as an X-37B (or a large spy satellite for that matter), at least not until they have many more successful flights behind them.
Pieces of a launch vehicle operated by an experienced space company that carried a precious spy satellite still litter a Vandenberg hillside as of yesterday. This same space company went on to lose at least three more tier 1 national security payloads on similar vehicles and still kept US government business. Number of successful past flights is not an all encompassing metric nor a predictor of future success.
Thanks ... its not about flights or successes but money.. so future success is all about moving tax dollars from the US citizen in the boyz back pockets ..
-
#12
by
rcoppola
on 25 Apr, 2014 23:10
-
The primary driver for such a large core buy was cost savings. So, I'm curious what the revised launch costs would be for the Atlas V if they lose, say, 40% of the contested block buy?
-
#13
by
Avron
on 25 Apr, 2014 23:13
-
The primary driver for such a large core buy was cost savings. So, I'm curious what the revised launch costs would be for the Atlas V if they lose, say, 40% of the contested block buy?
27 Billion was the award in total or some thing to that value.. do you really believe that its about "cost savings" as a primary driver.. ?
-
#14
by
rcoppola
on 26 Apr, 2014 00:16
-
The primary driver for such a large core buy was cost savings. So, I'm curious what the revised launch costs would be for the Atlas V if they lose, say, 40% of the contested block buy?
27 Billion was the award in total or some thing to that value.. do you really believe that its about "cost savings" as a primary driver.. ?
Primary? No. But that is how it has been justified. And so, playing along, if one knows what savings you are passing along to the customer when they buy in bulk, if that bulk is decreased, it is reasonable to expect that you should now know to what extent those prices need to be raised again. I'm being a bit facetious here...
-
#15
by
Coastal Ron
on 26 Apr, 2014 00:58
-
The primary driver for such a large core buy was cost savings. So, I'm curious what the revised launch costs would be for the Atlas V if they lose, say, 40% of the contested block buy?
ULA stated that the Air Force would be saving ~$4B by doing the block buy, but from a bulk procurement standpoint the cost curve for saving money could be on a far smaller number than 36 cores. For instance, for buying the aluminum for the rocket bodies and tanks the aluminum supplier may just have a price that says "if you buy over X amount, it's this price regardless of how much you buy".
So the price the Air Force would pay/core for 18 cores might not be any different than for the 36 core buy, or within a few percentage points. That alone would make opening the contract for competition worthwhile.
-
#16
by
deltaV
on 26 Apr, 2014 02:58
-
-
#17
by
ncb1397
on 26 Apr, 2014 06:29
-
Using the manifest here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1183418#new
and this thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33911.0
....
1 Atlas-V(511) USAF doesn't have a LEO mission for 5m, so possible GTO, Atlas V 11.5klb vs F9 10.7klb.
....
The next step down from Atlas-V(511) at 5,250 kg to GTO is Atlas-V(401) at 4,750 kg to GTO. That means that presumeably this satellite weighs between 4750 kg and 5250 kg. Falcon 9s published GTO figure which apparantly has margin for engine out/first stage recovery is 4850 kg. All masses having equal probability, there is a 100/500 or 20% chance that Falcon 9 can deliver this satellite with the published numbers. Anyways, Gwynne Shotwell indicated on the Space Show that Falcon 9 v1.1 performance is 30% greater than the web published value as to provide margin for recovery testing(probably engine out as well). With that taken into account, this launch I think is doable on Falcon 9 without booster recovery.
Historical launches are also worth looking at. On average about 2 Atlas launches a year are heavier configurations than 401/501(which are within the realm of Falcon 9 published numbers). This means that Delta + Falcon 9(non-heavy) can likely do the block buy if Delta picks up two payloads(launching ~5 times vs ~3 times). Of course, Atlas + Delta was only considered and not Falcon + Delta or Falcon + Atlas.
-
#18
by
MP99
on 26 Apr, 2014 09:22
-
also, I'm pretty sure that Shotwell said that the F9 figures (10.7 klb to GTO for example) include the fuel reserve for 1st stage boost back. Couple that with Musk's comments that the Merlin 1D can be pushed harder (> 10% I think), then it's probably not a conclusive exercise if only the published website figures are used.
Elon said today that certification required three flights of that distinct configuration.
Therefore, they'd need to fly three with those upgrades before they could propose those for any payload. FH might be available before then.
Depending when those upgrades become available, it even seems conceivable they might upgrade FH after the first couple of flights, then need to fly three more to get certified. Would seem to make sense for the initial FH flights to use the upgraded configs.
Cheers, Martin
-
#19
by
QuantumG
on 26 Apr, 2014 09:32
-
Ya know, by any sufficiently strict definition, they haven't done that and couldn't without giving up continuous improvement.