SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 7, 2017 : DISCUSSION

[Jim]

But ULA already has 3 launches booked for August, 2 at Canaveral and 1 at Vandenberg. If this was put out for very quick bid in May, than I think ULA would have been hard pressed to get this one added to August without bumping one of the other launches.

Spacex could not do a reaction for this mission.  It is not a standard spacecraft bus.  It requires specific integration analyses.

[Jim]

Is this definitely on an F9?   Remember Musk was making quips about a strange FH payload.

It launched on an Atlas V 501 previously

[ulm_atms]

Is this definitely on an F9?   Remember Musk was making quips about a strange FH payload.

F9 has more than enough performance. No need for heavy.

That and there is not enough time to finish the pad for FH with all the launches scheduled.

[mme]

But ULA already has 3 launches booked for August, 2 at Canaveral and 1 at Vandenberg. If this was put out for very quick bid in May, than I think ULA would have been hard pressed to get this one added to August without bumping one of the other launches.

Spacex could not do a reaction for this mission.  It is not a standard spacecraft bus.  It requires specific integration analyses.

OK, so I totally over-assummed about the "responsive" part.

[gongora]

Wow, that's unexpected, and wonderful to hear.

Anyone know why there wasn't a public request for bids put out on this launch?  As much as I like the idea of SpaceX winning this launch, it would bother me if they didn't win it in an open bidding process.  Letting all launch providers bid in a public process is really the most important thing.

An open bidding process for a launch in two months?   I am a fan of open bidding but it's hard to imagine anyone else could do this today.  I think this is more a proof of concept for the AF of "responsive" launch capabilities.

ULA can do 3 months.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-announces-rapidlaunch.aspx

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

But ULA already has 3 launches booked for August, 2 at Canaveral and 1 at Vandenberg. If this was put out for very quick bid in May, than I think ULA would have been hard pressed to get this one added to August without bumping one of the other launches.

Why do you think this needs to fly in August?  Maybe that's just where it ended up on the SpaceX schedule when the contract was signed.

[QuantumG]

LOL - we all have it wrong - SpaceX will be launching the model of the X-37B that is sitting there on her desk.







I'll see myself out now.

It needs to be at least three times bigger than this.

[cppetrie]

Wow, that's unexpected, and wonderful to hear.

Anyone know why there wasn't a public request for bids put out on this launch?  As much as I like the idea of SpaceX winning this launch, it would bother me if they didn't win it in an open bidding process.  Letting all launch providers bid in a public process is really the most important thing.

An open bidding process for a launch in two months?   I am a fan of open bidding but it's hard to imagine anyone else could do this today.  I think this is more a proof of concept for the AF of "responsive" launch capabilities.

ULA can do 3 months.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-announces-rapidlaunch.aspx

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

But ULA already has 3 launches booked for August, 2 at Canaveral and 1 at Vandenberg. If this was put out for very quick bid in May, than I think ULA would have been hard pressed to get this one added to August without bumping one of the other launches.

Why do you think this needs to fly in August?  Maybe that's just where it ended up on the SpaceX schedule when the contract was signed.

Because they said it would launch in August and it is June. At this point there is little reason to believe they would quote an original contract date from some time ago that would have slipped by now. If they said August today I think it's pretty reasonable to assume they fully intend on this going up in August based on today's current schedule and manifest.

[envy887]

Is this definitely on an F9?   Remember Musk was making quips about a strange FH payload.

Musk said "the silliest thing we can imagine" would launch on FH test flight. I'm not sure what that is, but it's definitely not X-37B.

[gongora]

But ULA already has 3 launches booked for August, 2 at Canaveral and 1 at Vandenberg. If this was put out for very quick bid in May, than I think ULA would have been hard pressed to get this one added to August without bumping one of the other launches.

Why do you think this needs to fly in August?  Maybe that's just where it ended up on the SpaceX schedule when the contract was signed.

Because they said it would launch in August and it is June. At this point there is little reason to believe they would quote an original contract date from some time ago that would have slipped by now. If they said August today I think it's pretty reasonable to assume they fully intend on this going up in August based on today's current schedule and manifest.

The NROL-76 launch date didn't seem to slip after the AMOS-6 accident.  You're throwing together a whole bunch of assumptions.  You're making assumptions about what the mission requirements were, you're making assumptions about when it was bid, you're making assumptions about SpaceX schedule priority.

edit: trimmed quotes

[LouScheffer]

But ULA already has 3 launches booked for August, 2 at Canaveral and 1 at Vandenberg. If this was put out for very quick bid in May, than I think ULA would have been hard pressed to get this one added to August without bumping one of the other launches.

Spacex could not do a reaction for this mission.  It is not a standard spacecraft bus.  It requires specific integration analyses.

The X-37B has been around for a while.  Is it possible the Air Force could have given Orbital and SpaceX the integration data perhaps a year or so ago, and said that at some future point they would do a quick response bid, and they could improve their chances by pre-doing the analysis?

Some process such at this would be needed for quick response to become routine.  If the AF wants a launch next week, or even next month, they'll need to accept whatever launcher is ready and has slack in the schedule.  It's entirely possible that this launcher has never launched this payload before, so the integration analysis must already be pre-done.

[OnWithTheShow]

There goes my pet NROL-76 theory...

Not so fast ... there are two X-37b vehicles, right? :-)

Two that we know of......

[Dante80]

We have come a long way since SpaceX was certified to carry toilet paper and Tang for the USG. With the surprise cheese wedge thrown in for good measure.

A long way, in a little time.

[Newton_V]

This launch service was probably the result of the lawsuit settlement a couple years ago.

[Jim]

The X-37B has been around for a while.  Is it possible the Air Force could have given Orbital and SpaceX the integration data perhaps a year or so ago, and said that at some future point they would do a quick response bid, and they could improve their chances by pre-doing the analysis?

That is a large chunk of money and man power and Spacex has shown reluctance to such a thing in the past.  They want to do the work only if they are going to fly it.  They have enough on their plate without doing special studies.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Not surprised. This was to be expected.

AF has the spaceplane they've wanted since Dyna-soar (got into trouble once mocking it to an officer because though heard "dinosaur", and was confused by why they'd want to launch such on a Titan III  ...).

With F9R you'd have lower cost and more potential operational responsiveness to change tempo/schedule, by use of buying flights on available boosters. More flexibility for programs, more flights for the same annual budget.

The limiting factor would be availability of F9US and SC integration, both which could be dealt with fairly easily.

[Robotbeat]

It might be that X37b really only makes sense operationally with cheap reusable rockets. Like, a surveillance asset that makes multiple large plane change maneuvers and so depletes propellant within a few months and needs relaunching.

(More likely: x37b has gotten a whole bunch of mission objectives to justify its existence like Shuttle did, so you can't necessarily point to one specific killer app... Although cheap launch would help with just about anything, and makes a reusable spaceplane for surveillance actually kind of make sense instead of just being an extravagance.)

After decades of wanting cheap launch and funding things like XS1 etc, USAF must be thrilled to have Falcon 9 land almost literally in their lap (with New Glenn not too far in the future).

[EspenU]

Ooo, how cool would it be if this is launched on the NROL-76 core. Core 1032, the USAF/NRO core.
Although the turnaround might be a bit tight, it's probably possible.

[david1971]

So, what's the ballpark estimate for savings in launch cost?  I can't imagine that the AF needs to pinch pennies, discussion on the relative importance of the following factors?

A) Launch costs
B) Schedule flexibility due to core re-use
C) Support or appearance of support of competition in the LV market

What other important angles have I overlooked?

If the savings is "small", then does it make sense to do this as a trial run for what would amount to a block-buy?  Making up numbers, $25M savings might not be much, but if you then decide that Falcon 9 opens new doors for how you run the program and you buy 10 flights?

How does the fact that the spacecraft is reusable make the calculations different?  I know that there are rules of thumb about LV costs as compared to the spacecraft, even if the spacecraft is already "paid for" it still has value.  How is this figured?

[macpacheco]

There goes my pet NROL-76 theory...

Not so fast ... there are two X-37b vehicles, right? :-)

You're missing the simple conclusion that if some X37B launches were classified, then why wouldn't all of them be classified ?
For me that's what strikes your pet theory down...

[Star One]

Pretty exciting news and a very bad result for ULA.

Were we aware the X-37B was launcher agnostic?

yes

Thank you. Thought it might have been the case but it's good to have it confirmed.