Serious competition in the launch business

[Eric Hedman]

The general case however is still a CLA and that seems to need multiple cycles to get right. I find it strange very few people seem to use vibration and shock dampening mounts for their payloads.

Because it not really viable.  It would take a large amount of mass to do it and it would introduce control issues.  Think trying to deal with a cantilever mass on a flexible joint and trying to control it from the opposite end.

Do you mean similar to what was proposed for Ares I in the constellation program between the first and second stage to dampen thrust oscillations?  That seemed like a bizarre fix for a poor design.

[rocx]

Keep in mind that F9 represents still the fastest way to jump manifest wait.

That may change soon. As I understand it from the Cygnus thread ULA is now offering a launch on demand service once per quarter. Probably more expensive, but faster than waiting for SpaceX to catch up on its manifest.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

A view into the future was provided by a historian's comment I heard on the news on the incoming administration probable emphasis on fair competition for government contracts and a push against insider (sole source) awards.

This can have a significant reorientation of the goals of the launch providers. But I do not think the reorientation will be as much as some would think. SpaceX has already caused the start of this shift. ULA has changes its business goals to provide lower cost space access to compete in the global commercial market.

What will be the things to watch for are new acquisition policies for the DOD and NASA or just a enforcement/emphasis of the existing commercial LV first laws.

But end item is that serious fair competition across the board for all aspects of the launch market has been reinforced.

[WHAP]

Keep in mind that F9 represents still the fastest way to jump manifest wait.

That may change soon. As I understand it from the Cygnus thread ULA is now offering a launch on demand service once per quarter. Probably more expensive, but faster than waiting for SpaceX to catch up on its manifest.

My highlighting of term. How many SX per quarter in comparison?

How can SX offer any launch on demand until they clear the backlog of spacecraft that are now behind schedule?

[WHAP]

Sorry that you read cynicism into my post.

That said, my point was that any "excess" capacity that occurs before they clear their backlog will likely go to one of those customers waiting to launch - those whose launch dates have already passed.  If none of their existing customers are ready to go, then certainly they would be able to offer a ride to a payload looking to fly in the very near term.  Your statement about reflights is valid - not all of their existing customers may be willing to fly on a reflown booster, and those could also be offered.  But offering "excess" capacity when you're late sending other payloads to orbit doesn't seem to be a model for customer satisfaction, IMO.