TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
  1. TMC is currently READ ONLY.
    Click here for more info.

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

Discussion in 'SpaceX' started by Bgarret, Apr 25, 2014.

Tags:
  1. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    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.
     
    • Like x 2
    • Informative x 1
  2. HVM

    HVM Savolainen

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    969
    Location:
    Finland
    #483 HVM, Jul 2, 2020
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2020
    "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
    ulas_be4.jpg

    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).
     
    • Informative x 1
  3. HVM

    HVM Savolainen

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    969
    Location:
    Finland
    • Informative x 2
  4. mspohr

    mspohr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    8,943
    Location:
    California
    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.
     
  5. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    8,229
    Location:
    San Diego
    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.
     
  6. bxr140

    bxr140 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    Bay Area
    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.
     
  7. SmartElectric

    SmartElectric Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,373
    Location:
    Toronto,Canada
    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.
     
  8. hmcgregoraz

    hmcgregoraz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    Location:
    Tucson AZ USA
    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
     
  9. mspohr

    mspohr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    8,943
    Location:
    California
    I know the shuttle was reused but what "large parts of the rocket system" were reused?
     
  10. mongo

    mongo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,857
    Location:
    Michigan
    Only part not refurbished was the external fuel tank.
    Engines (orbiter) and SRBs were recovered.
     
    • Informative x 1
    • Like x 1
  11. Bipo

    Bipo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    277
    Location:
    Spain
    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.
     
    • Informative x 2
    • Like x 1
  12. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    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.
     
    • Informative x 1
    • Like x 1
  13. doug

    doug Administrator / Head Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,843
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    • Informative x 3
  14. mspohr

    mspohr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    8,943
    Location:
    California
    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."
     
    • Like x 2
  15. miimura

    miimura Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    5,971
    Location:
    Los Altos, CA
    Sounds like they need to tighten up the definition of "Excellent Performance".
     
    • Funny x 3
  16. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    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.
     
    • Like x 2
  17. miimura

    miimura Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    5,971
    Location:
    Los Altos, CA
    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.
     
    • Like x 1
  18. e-FTW

    e-FTW New electron smell

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,216
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    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
     
  19. mongo

    mongo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,857
    Location:
    Michigan

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC