My issue from the beginning has been the whole concept of a "Core buy". It's such a ridiculous way to communicate what the product/service is. They're not buying 12 "Cores", they are buying 4 DHs to get their payloads to their intended destinations. It's not 24 cores, it's 24 AVs. (And yes, all the accompanying mission assurance costs, integration costs, etc...)
You don't buy cores, unless you plan on decorating your Hangar with nice metallic tubes on the walls instead of curtains. You buy a product / service to deliver your payload to it's intended destination.
And, without a redesign, while the expansion ratio would be higher...
Doesn't "no redesign" mean "same expansion ratio"?
cheers, Martin
Granted, it is admittedly a bit Tongue-in-Cheek. But what about the part you cut off? Is that kind of pricing / cost transparency request nonsense as well?

. But 36 cores is way too high unless the factory was designed for a huge production volume (I mean 2 a month or more).
It was designed for 40 per year
. But 36 cores is way too high unless the factory was designed for a huge production volume (I mean 2 a month or more).
It was designed for 40 per year
Yes ULA has lots of unused and potential capacity, but that has nothing to do with this core block buy. The block buy is an attempt to lower the procurement costs for launcher components within the current forecasted demand, not to address an increase in demand.
Every DoD COMSAT planned through 2018 is well outside of F9's max GTO throw weight. That includes at least 6 satellites already in the pipeline and more after. Ironically, they'd likely be amenable to horizontal integration the way NRO birds aren't. Too bad F9 is a bit small.
Every DoD COMSAT planned through 2018 is well outside of F9's max GTO throw weight. That includes at least 6 satellites already in the pipeline and more after. Ironically, they'd likely be amenable to horizontal integration the way NRO birds aren't. Too bad F9 is a bit small.
But FH won't be. And it could be qualified (3 flights) by 2017.
The last payload specifications for FH stated 7T to GTO with all 3 cores recoverable. So using FH for expendable F9E payload may work out slightly cheaper. Comes down to cost of a core vs extra costs of launching FH plus recovering 3 cores.
They don't really need DoD. First they have to actually cover their NASA and Commercial needs. Once they do, DoD would be a logical client. But currently they have about as much as they can handle.
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
36 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