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

[Grendal]

I'm thinking it's a mistake - the article indicates that SpaceX isn't in the mix at all (no mention)l. That's the mistake I see, and I think it's more likely the article (which makes for abysmal journalism) as opposed to the choice the Air Force has made (presuming that SpaceX bid for the contract) is abysmal.

EDIT: I'll leave what I've already written, but reading comprehension for the win (I fail). I see that SpaceX is listed right at the top of the article, and then isn't discussed further (presumably because they're so much better). And that makes sense.

It's true. The article isn't very clear because the procurement process isn't very clear. Basically, there was a "development" phase of money because the only company with a legal approved launch system is SpaceX. That development money of $2.3 billion went to ULA, NG, and BO. The asterisk on that money is continued funding of the development money will end when the two companies are chosen this year. ULA has the lead for the second spot with the Vulcan but BO and NG are fighting hard. This article is about how BO is making waves saying there should be a third provider to continue to get the development money for more development of a potential third launch system. I don't think NG needs to win this contract because they have a major contract to replace ICBMs but getting some development money is just second nature to the government contractor. The actual launch contract is coming up and SpaceX will be one of the two and ULA lobbyists will guarantee that ULA is the second. BO will argue hard that there should be a third and may get some concessions because the same thing happened to SpaceX on the last contract. That turned out to be a win in costs when SpaceX was allowed a few military launches.

 

[Grendal]

Space Force!
Space Force more receptive to reusable rockets as it continues to review SpaceX missions - SpaceNews.com

 

[HVM]

"The @blueorigin #BE4 engine for #VulcanCentaur arrived at our Decatur, AL factory. ULA’s next-gen rocket is on track for launch in 2021!"
https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1278381463168184321

Bit sad that ULA is going to drop those in the drink. Ok, not this engine specifically, engine in the image is "a pathfinder" one. I don't even know will ULA do "a hot fire" with them (static fire in SpaceX lingo).

 

[HVM]

The engine Blue Origin delivered is a pathfinder engine to be used in tests.
"...According to sources, frustration has been mounting at ULA as the company’s future is tied to the success of Vulcan Centaur and there is no room for error when it comes to the main engine."
Blue Origin delivers the first BE-4 engine to United Launch Alliance - SpaceNews.com

 

[mspohr]

"The @blueorigin #BE4 engine for #VulcanCentaur arrived at our Decatur, AL factory. ULA’s next-gen rocket is on track for launch in 2021!"
https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1278381463168184321
View attachment 559511

Bit sad that ULA is going to drop those in the drink. Ok, not this engine specifically, engine in the image is "a pathfinder" one. I don't even know will ULA do "a hot fire" with them (static fire in SpaceX lingo).

Interesting how our perspective has changed with SpaceX reusable rockets. Now it seems incredibly wasteful to just dump all of that expensive machinery in the ocean.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Remind me again why ULA chose BO to make an orbital class engine, when they have zero experience doing so? It was obvious then that they move as slow as molasses, and that hasn’t changed.

 

[bxr140]

Interesting how our perspective has changed with SpaceX reusable rockets. Now it seems incredibly wasteful to just dump all of that expensive machinery in the ocean.

To be a bit pedantic, the perspective change is that SpaceX has shown it can be practical to reuse rocket parts. Nobody ever thought reusing rocket parts was implausible. Nobody ever thought dropping billions of dollars into the drink was a good idea, it was just never the most cost effective idea.

 

[SmartElectric]

Interesting how our perspective has changed with SpaceX reusable rockets. Now it seems incredibly wasteful to just dump all of that expensive machinery in the ocean.

Um, I do recall the Space shuttle program reused large parts of the rocket system.
Granted, NASA is looking to throw all of the remaining SSME into the Ocean for their big fancy new rocket... so yeah.

 

[hmcgregoraz]

Um, I do recall the Space shuttle program reused large parts of the rocket system.
Granted, NASA is looking to throw all of the remaining SSME into the Ocean for their big fancy new rocket... so yeah.

Except the Space Shuttle taught the industry that just because it was reusable did not make it cheaper.

That is why capsules and single use boosters became the norm again for human space flight.

At this point NASA does not even "really" care about the Falcon 9 being reusable, or the Dragon 2 being refurbish-able.

It all comes down to cost even as a one time use is better vs the alternatives.

SpaceX really changed the dynamics with booster landing.

-Harry

 

[mspohr]

Um, I do recall the Space shuttle program reused large parts of the rocket system.
Granted, NASA is looking to throw all of the remaining SSME into the Ocean for their big fancy new rocket... so yeah.

I know the shuttle was reused but what "large parts of the rocket system" were reused?

 

[mongo]

I know the shuttle was reused but what "large parts of the rocket system" were reused?

Only part not refurbished was the external fuel tank.
Engines (orbiter) and SRBs were recovered.

 

[Bipo]

Remind me again why ULA chose BO to make an orbital class engine, when they have zero experience doing so? It was obvious then that they move as slow as molasses, and that hasn’t changed.

Is was (and is) a win-win for both ULA and BO. In this case BO gets a large number of orders to split the fixed costs (ULA does not recover the engines, that's 2 new units per rocket). On the other hand, ULA gets a great methane engine developed with a blank check by Bezos'. The timeline and budget for ULA to develop a brand new engine would have been completely out of scope to get the new contract from the government on time.

 

[Grendal]

Is was (and is) a win-win for both ULA and BO. In this case BO gets a large number of orders to split the fixed costs (ULA does not recover the engines, that's 2 new units per rocket). On the other hand, ULA gets a great methane engine developed with a blank check by Bezos'. The timeline and budget for ULA to develop a brand new engine would have been completely out of scope to get the new contract from the government on time.

Also the backup choice, the Aerojet Rocketdyne"s AR-1 was at the same level of development in the initial stages but AR really didn't spend a lot of effort or money to truly develop the engine while BO really did. AR was waiting on the government to subsidize their engine development. That didn't happen to any greater extent.

 

[doug]

NASA’s inspector general report roasts Lockheed Martin for Orion fees

NASA's inspector general on Thursday released a detailed report that investigates the time and money that the space agency has spent to develop its Orion spacecraft. This is the vehicle NASA hopes to use to fly its astronauts to and from lunar orbit as part of the Artemis Program.

 

[mspohr]

Here's an opinion

NASA’s inspector general report roasts Lockheed Martin for Orion fees

He writes that the agency's contract with Lockheed for Orion, "In our judgement disincentivizes contractor performance by offering the contractor the opportunity to, at the end of a final award fee period, earn previously unearned award fees. We calculate that, at a minimum, NASA paid at least $27.8 million in excess award fees to Lockheed throughout development for the 'Excellent' performance ratings it received while the Orion Program was experiencing substantial cost increases and schedule delays."

 

[miimura]

Here's an opinion

NASA’s inspector general report roasts Lockheed Martin for Orion fees

He writes that the agency's contract with Lockheed for Orion, "In our judgement disincentivizes contractor performance by offering the contractor the opportunity to, at the end of a final award fee period, earn previously unearned award fees. We calculate that, at a minimum, NASA paid at least $27.8 million in excess award fees to Lockheed throughout development for the 'Excellent' performance ratings it received while the Orion Program was experiencing substantial cost increases and schedule delays."

Sounds like they need to tighten up the definition of "Excellent Performance".

 

[Grendal]

Sounds like they need to tighten up the definition of "Excellent Performance".

It is excellent performance for Lockheed's management and shareholders. It is also a win for the politicians who funnel the funds into their own districts.

 

[miimura]

It is excellent performance for Lockheed's management and shareholders. It is also a win for the politicians who funnel the funds into their own districts.

Exactly. This is why defining terms is important. Contract wording matters and performance metrics have to measure things "as intended". I would never assert that the Locheed Martin outcome was not intended.

 

[e-FTW]

Sierra Nevada just got an interesting contract: US military whips out credit card for unmanned low-Earth-orbit outpost prototype (aka a repurposed ISS cargo pod) — The Register

Shooting Star and Dream Chaser were built for an earlier contract awarded by NASA to send 10,000lbs of supplies, such as food and scientific equipment, to the International Space Station (ISS). Now it appears that, while the Dream Chaser is a busted flush for ISS deliveries – it's missing its windows – the Shooting Star capsule could be lofted into orbit as a free-flying craft.

 

[mongo]

ULA wins 60% of phase 2 launch contracts.
SpaceX wins the rest.
Nothing to Blue Origin nor Northrup.

Space Force awards National Security Space Launch Phase 2 launch service contracts to ULA, SpaceX > U.S. Air Force > Article Display