ULA can't sell to Orbital.
I wonder if this is true anymore. Boeing and LM may have substantially revised the original ULA charter. A lot of the noises Bruno has been making are not compatible with it.Only governmental flights can be sold and managed directly by ULA. Commercial flights are the responsibility of the original designer that deveoloped and flew their launcher before the creation of ULA. ULA will in turn be contracted for building the rocket and Launcher ops as well as some other areas. SC processing and checkout are managed by LM/Boeing according to the given contract instructions arranged by the customer. Jim is capable of providing additional details and corrections as I'm going off my memory of previous commercial flights.
Atlas V Launch: Orbital has contracted with United Launch Alliance for an Atlas V launch of a Cygnus cargo spacecraft from Cape Canaveral, Florida, in the fourth quarter of 2015, with an option for a second Atlas V launch in 2016 if needed. The Atlas rocket’s greater lift capacity will allow Cygnus to carry nearly 35% more cargo to the ISS than previously planned for CRS missions in 2015.
It is still a gov't mission and not really a commercial mission. Much like EFT-1.
It is still a gov't mission and not really a commercial mission. Much like EFT-1.You just defined a grey area.
NASA buys not a launcher and not even a spacecraft, but a service under CRS-1. Yet that is enough to classify it as a 'government mission' to be compatible with the ULA charter. Nice get away.
You just defined a grey area.
NASA buys not a launcher and not even a spacecraft, but a service under CRS-1. Yet that is enough to classify it as a 'government mission' to be compatible with the ULA charter. Nice get away.
It actually saves money for the gov't, which was the point of ULA.
Sorry, but how is NASA the customer when CRS providers procure launch services?
One thing that's not super clear to me is how ULA can build a brand new expendable launcher under the current charter.
It actually saves money for the gov't, which was the point of ULA. There is no need to pay for the "tax" of the commercial launch company.
That is why there is no issue with it being done this way.
So that means Orbital/ULA will not have to make a ELC reimbursement payment to the DoD for this launch? Do we know how much that would be if they had to pay it?
So that means Orbital/ULA will not have to make a ELC reimbursement payment to the DoD for this launch? Do we know how much that would be if they had to pay it?
If this is the case SpaceX should sue right now. This would mean that SpaceX's competitors in CRS, CRS2 and commercial crew can have their launches subsidized by DOD to the tune of $70M per launch (ELC ~$1B/year divided by 14 ULA launches this year).
That's not how it works. Just for starters, its a subsidy to many things, some of which no commercial entity needs
Pad maintenance is a small part of it. Not even ULA needs $250M/year to keep a pad working.
That's not how it works. Just for starters, its a subsidy to many things, some of which no commercial entity needs
Yes, the subsidy is to everything. Pads, factories, employees... all fixed costs. And that is absolutely huge competitive advantage. There are no doubt some things unnecessary for a commercial launch, but they are a small fraction. Pad maintenace is a small part of it. Not even ULA needs $250M/year to keep a pad working.
Pretty sure that any non-ELC mission results in an offset back to the government. Just because it's a government mission doesn't exempt it from that treatment. If it's not part of the EELV buy, then ULA gives some money back. I wish I could offer sources, but I'm not one to spend much time looking through public documentation to find it.
So that means Orbital/ULA will not have to make a ELC reimbursement payment to the DoD for this launch? Do we know how much that would be if they had to pay it?
ULA provided a small reimbursement to DOD for the resources used to launch missions sold to other customers, such as NASA or other government or commercial customers.
That's not how it works. Just for starters, its a subsidy to many things, some of which no commercial entity needsYes, the subsidy is to everything. Pads, factories, employees... all fixed costs. And that is absolutely huge competitive advantage. There are no doubt some things unnecessary for a commercial launch, but they are a small fraction.
From speaking with ULA folks (several years ago), he said a lot of their costs were driven by having NRO and USAF as key customers. That they required a lot of stuff commercial companies didn't, and that was part of what made it hard for them to compete commercially.
Yes, the subsidy is to everything. Pads, factories, employees... all fixed costs. And that is absolutely huge competitive advantage. There are no doubt some things unnecessary for a commercial launch, but they are a small fraction.
How sure are you of the part I bolded?
From speaking with ULA folks (several years ago), he said a lot of their costs were driven by having NRO and USAF as key customers. That they required a lot of stuff commercial companies didn't, and that was part of what made it hard for them to compete commercially.
If ULA's business philosophy has been to maximize their profit by concentrating on the U.S. Government as their primary customer, they have to have commercial pricing that is not too far out of line with what they charge the USG. Which means that regardless how much it costs them to launch a commercial payload, they will make it seem like it costs in the same range as a DoD/NRO payload.
Sorry, but how is NASA the customer when CRS providers procure launch services?Because they're procuring launch services to fulfill a "Government" contract. And so it is within ULA's current charter.
This is absolutely a gray area. Otherwise, what the heck does the "C" in COTS and CRS stand for?
No doubt that some of their costs are driven by unique customer requirements. But unless the person you talked to was pretty high up in ULA, I doubt they would know how much that was. That's usually pretty tightly held info.