SpaceX vs. Everyone - ULA, NG, Boeing, Lockheed, etc.

[Cosmacelf]

The thing that had me confused in the article was that it said that the latest F9 could lift the payload to geosync orbit. The extra payload capacity of the FH wasn’t actually needed. Then again, it is a secret military launch, so the published numbers could be all wrong (Bidders meeting: Btw, double payload mass...).

 

[mongo]

The thing that had me confused in the article was that it said that the latest F9 could lift the payload to geosync orbit. The extra payload capacity of the FH wasn’t actually needed. Then again, it is a secret military launch, so the published numbers could be all wrong (Bidders meeting: Btw, double payload mass...).

This might be key :

The final request for proposals released by the Air Force last year did not include the mass specification and orbit information.

 

[Electroman]

I thought the military needed 6 successful launches before they certify? or is that only for super secret missions?

 

[Grendal]

I thought the military needed 6 successful launches before they certify? or is that only for super secret missions?

It's probably not written in stone so they seem to have allowed SpaceX to do what needs to be done.

 

[ggr]

Another article: The Air Force Is Already Betting on SpaceX's Brand-New Falcon Heavy
According to this one only three more flights are needed.

 

[Grendal]

It looks like ULA has made the decision and it is Blue Origin's BE-4 over Aerojet's AR-1.
Financial document reveals Vulcan rocket engine competition is over

 

[ggr]

It looks like ULA has made the decision and it is Blue Origin's BE-4 over Aerojet's AR-1.
Financial document reveals Vulcan rocket engine competition is over

I think of Aerojet as "the old guard", so I think I'm in favor of this.

 

[Grendal]

No SpaceX. Though it makes sense when you understand that SpaceX doesn't want the government involved with BFR and slowing up its development.
Air Force awards launch vehicle development contracts to Blue Origin, Northrop Grumman, ULA - SpaceNews.com

 

[Cosmacelf]

And somehow ULA still manages to snag about double what the small fry competitor (Blue Origin) is getting. Sigh.

 

[Grendal]

ULA's Vulcan replacement for the Atlas is delayed another year to 2021.
Rocket Report: SpaceX nabs another contract, Vector cashes in, Vulcan delay

 

[bxr140]

And somehow ULA still manages to snag about double what the small fry competitor (Blue Origin) is getting. Sigh.

ULA's Vulcan replacement for the Atlas is delayed another year to 2021.
Rocket Report: SpaceX nabs another contract, Vector cashes in, Vulcan delay

"Okay, here's how its going to go.
Step 1: Get more money.
Step 2: Drag out the program since we have more money."

 

[e-FTW]

In today's press conference after the Insight [spoiler!] landing, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine was present. He was asked about returning to Mars past the 2020 lander mission, and when humans will go to Mars. His answer recapped all of the current policy's goals with the moon as a stepping stone to Mars and so on.
But the most striking part of his answer is that he must have said “reusability” 10 times in the first minute.

So, how is the establishment's re-use game?
Oh, right...

[Edit: typo in admin's name]

 

[ecarfan]

But the most striking part of his answer is that he must have said “reusability” 10 times in the first minute.

And he’s not the only NASA admin who is using that word a lot these days. I think Bridenstine is being quite transparent lately about his heavy launch vehicle preferences.

 

[ecarfan]

Interesting interview at ULA chief Tory Bruno on competing with Blue Origin, SpaceX rocket landings

Quote from Tony Bruno in response to a question asking him his reaction to seeing SpaceX achieve booster reusability: “You know that we have a different approach to reusability, driven entirely by our assessment of the economics and the lack of our need to have a vertical landing and take-off model for Mars. That’s not something that’s in our equation. They have a different problem than the one we’re trying to solve. I remain confident in our model, and that’s why we’re sticking to our approach.”

But what is the ULA “approach to reusability”? Is it “We don’t re-use rockets”? And that is based on their “assessment of the economics”?

 

[Electroman]

Translation: NASA and Pentagon is giving us enough money for us to make good profit, why worry about all this reusability and such. Business as usual is good enough.

 

[Grendal]

Interesting interview at ULA chief Tory Bruno on competing with Blue Origin, SpaceX rocket landings

Quote from Tony Bruno in response to a question asking him his reaction to seeing SpaceX achieve booster reusability: “You know that we have a different approach to reusability, driven entirely by our assessment of the economics and the lack of our need to have a vertical landing and take-off model for Mars. That’s not something that’s in our equation. They have a different problem than the one we’re trying to solve. I remain confident in our model, and that’s why we’re sticking to our approach.”

But what is the ULA “approach to reusability”? Is it “We don’t re-use rockets”? And that is based on their “assessment of the economics”?

Currently, it is "we don't bother" since we make money (since the government will pay whatever we ask) the way we do it. The tentative future plan is to drop the engines and capture them with a helicopter. 2025-ish or something like that.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Currently, it is "we don't bother" since we make money (since the government will pay whatever we ask) the way we do it. The tentative future plan is to drop the engines and capture them with a helicopter. 2025-ish or something like that.

I can’t tell if you’re being serious

 

[JohnSnowNW]

I can’t tell if you’re being serious

He absolutely is. Seems ridiculous to me, as well.

 

[RDoc]

That's not actually very different from what Arianespace is doing either, although apparently they aren't yet convinced that reuse actually lowers cost.

 

[Electroman]

Grendal is always serious..