The money SpaceX has saved for taxpayers

[su27k]

https://spacenews.com/nelson-criticizes-plague-of-cost-plus-nasa-contracts/

In contrast to the problems with cost-plus contracts, he cited as an example of the benefits of competition reduced launch costs thanks to the emergence of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy by SpaceX. He said that, before his retirement last year, Air Force Gen. John Hyten, vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, claimed that the competition those vehicles enabled provided the Defense Department $40 billion in savings, although he did not say over what period of time.

[Hog]

Just to put that US$40,000,000,000 into perspective, the US Space Force has been budgeted US$24.5 billion for FY2023.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1629191351211261952

Another nugget from Pentecost [USAF]: For the heaviest missions now launched, the current providers (Falcon Heavy now, Vulcan soon-ish), the Space Force is saving "over 60 percent" from what the government was paying for Delta IV Heavy launches.

https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1629218444599230464

Delta IV Heavy went for about $400M, so that confirms that the US military is paying less than $150M for most Falcon Heavy launches!

[Newton_V]

Eric failed to mention that FH is unable to fly the DIV Heavy missions that flew for the NRO.  And if I remember correctly, USSF-67 was bid and awarded at about 320 million.  I hate spin like this.

[Robotbeat]

Eric failed to mention that FH is unable to fly the DIV Heavy missions that flew for the NRO.  And if I remember correctly, USSF-67 was bid and awarded at about 320 million.  I hate spin like this.

Just to clarify: Youre accusing Colonel Pentecost (the source for the claim of “over 60% cost savings”) of spin? Also, which Eric are you referring to?

[spacenuance]

Eric failed to mention that FH is unable to fly the DIV Heavy missions that flew for the NRO.  And if I remember correctly, USSF-67 was bid and awarded at about 320 million.  I hate spin like this.

https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-on-ulas-big-win-we-knew-we-were-going-to-be-competitive/

In reference to SpaceX's USSF-67 bid from Tory Bruno (Later confirmed to be correct, fairings and VIF specifically):

He said the likely explanation is that SpaceX built into its bid the cost of vehicle upgrades — such as a larger fairing and higher performing upper stage for the Falcon Heavy — to meet the requirements of the mission.

[DanClemmensen]

Eric failed to mention that FH is unable to fly the DIV Heavy missions that flew for the NRO.  And if I remember correctly, USSF-67 was bid and awarded at about 320 million.  I hate spin like this.

As I understand it, those DIV missions required vertical stacking of the payload, which FH cannot yet do. But SpaceX is (supposed to be) building an enclosure thingee that will enable vertical stacking.

Is there some other issue with using FH?

Going the other way, FH can handle larger payloads that DIV, and AFAICT any payload mass the DIV was capable of can be handled by an FH without even expending the core booster.  Expending either the core or all three boosters allows much heavier payloads, and NROL and USSF could choose to design bigger satellites. The reason the biggest NSSL missions could be handled by DIV was that the contract requirements implicitly recognized that larger payload requirement would have excluded ULA.  This is not a complaint: USSF had a mission and they needed to do this.

[Newton_V]

Eric failed to mention that FH is unable to fly the DIV Heavy missions that flew for the NRO.  And if I remember correctly, USSF-67 was bid and awarded at about 320 million.  I hate spin like this.

Just to clarify: Youre accusing Colonel Pentecost (the source for the claim of “over 60% cost savings”) of spin? Also, which Eric are you referring to?

Where did I accuse Col. Pentecost of anything? lol   I'm telling you Eric is comparing apples and oranges.  So when those missions come up for re-bid, I guess we'll see if FH wins them at 160M.

[Newton_V]

Eric failed to mention that FH is unable to fly the DIV Heavy missions that flew for the NRO.  And if I remember correctly, USSF-67 was bid and awarded at about 320 million.  I hate spin like this.

As I understand it, those DIV missions required vertical stacking of the payload, which FH cannot yet do. But SpaceX is (supposed to be) building an enclosure thingee that will enable vertical stacking.

Is there some other issue with using FH?

Going the other way, FH can handle larger payloads that DIV, and AFAICT any payload mass the DIV was capable of can be handled by an FH without even expending the core booster.  Expending either the core or all three boosters allows much heavier payloads, and NROL and USSF could choose to design bigger satellites. The reason the biggest NSSL missions could be handled by DIV was that the contract requirements implicitly recognized that larger payload requirement would have excluded ULA.  This is not a complaint: USSF had a mission and they needed to do this.

To date, some of the capabilities you mentioned still don't exist, and probably won't for a couple more years, if they even happen at all.

[Newton_V]

The reason the biggest NSSL missions could be handled by DIV was that the contract requirements implicitly recognized that larger payload requirement would have excluded ULA.

Not sure how I missed that sentence.  What on Earth are you talking about?

[deadman1204]

Imagine how much more delta iv would be cost if now if falcon heavy never came along.  It'd probably be closing in on a billion dollars.

[Newton_V]

Imagine how much more delta iv would be cost if now if falcon heavy never came along.  It'd probably be closing in on a billion dollars.

Unsubstantiated

[alugobi]

Well, there's a turnaround.

[Newton_V]

You're welcome to not believe anything I ever post.

[Alvian@IDN]

Eric failed to mention that FH is unable to fly the DIV Heavy missions that flew for the NRO.  And if I remember correctly, USSF-67 was bid and awarded at about 320 million.  I hate spin like this.

As I understand it, those DIV missions required vertical stacking of the payload, which FH cannot yet do. But SpaceX is (supposed to be) building an enclosure thingee that will enable vertical stacking.

Is there some other issue with using FH?

Going the other way, FH can handle larger payloads that DIV, and AFAICT any payload mass the DIV was capable of can be handled by an FH without even expending the core booster.  Expending either the core or all three boosters allows much heavier payloads, and NROL and USSF could choose to design bigger satellites. The reason the biggest NSSL missions could be handled by DIV was that the contract requirements implicitly recognized that larger payload requirement would have excluded ULA.  This is not a complaint: USSF had a mission and they needed to do this.

To date, some of the capabilities you mentioned still don't exist, and probably won't for a couple more years, if they even happen at all.

Falcon Heavy literally has a Gateway contract that may require vertical processing, are you saying it won't exists at all?

[DanClemmensen]

Eric failed to mention that FH is unable to fly the DIV Heavy missions that flew for the NRO.  And if I remember correctly, USSF-67 was bid and awarded at about 320 million.  I hate spin like this.

As I understand it, those DIV missions required vertical stacking of the payload, which FH cannot yet do. But SpaceX is (supposed to be) building an enclosure thingee that will enable vertical stacking.

Is there some other issue with using FH?

Going the other way, FH can handle larger payloads that DIV, and AFAICT any payload mass the DIV was capable of can be handled by an FH without even expending the core booster.  Expending either the core or all three boosters allows much heavier payloads, and NROL and USSF could choose to design bigger satellites. The reason the biggest NSSL missions could be handled by DIV was that the contract requirements implicitly recognized that larger payload requirement would have excluded ULA.  This is not a complaint: USSF had a mission and they needed to do this.

To date, some of the capabilities you mentioned still don't exist, and probably won't for a couple more years, if they even happen at all.

The only NSSL capability I mentioned was vertical payload stacking, I think. They won their NSSL contract based on the promise that they would have this capability, just as ULA won their NSSL contract based on the promise that Vulcan would be available. Neither of these capabilities is actually available yet. I have no reason to believe that either of these promises is more valid than the other. SpaceX proposed to build a mobile service structure for FH. To my non-professional eye, building a mobile service structure to support vertical payload stacking for FH is less problematical than qualifying a rocket that has not yet flown. You may feel differently, and I am not qualified to argue with you.

[Jim]

Falcon Heavy literally has a Gateway contract that may require vertical processing, are you saying it won't exists at all?

No, it does not.

[ZachF]

Eric failed to mention that FH is unable to fly the DIV Heavy missions that flew for the NRO.  And if I remember correctly, USSF-67 was bid and awarded at about 320 million.  I hate spin like this.

That includes the cost to build a vertical integration capacity and a new PLF, IIRC

[DanClemmensen]

Eric failed to mention that FH is unable to fly the DIV Heavy missions that flew for the NRO.  And if I remember correctly, USSF-67 was bid and awarded at about 320 million.  I hate spin like this.

That includes the cost to build a vertical integration capacity and a new PLF, IIRC

IIRC SpaceX said they added the entire cost of the required vertical integration infrastructure to the price of the first (or first and second?) missions, because the contract does not guarantee that there will be any more such missions. The implications was that they intend to lower the price for subsequent missions, at least somewhat. We'll see.

[abaddon]

Eric failed to mention that FH is unable to fly the DIV Heavy missions that flew for the NRO.  And if I remember correctly, USSF-67 was bid and awarded at about 320 million.  I hate spin like this.

He also failed to mention the billions upon billions of dollars ULA was given to build all of those capabilities and facilities in the form of ELC payments.  Is that “spin” too?