4 ms·
ULA's reasoning was pretty straightforward. The main reason they dropped out of the competition is because the bidding was to be decided largely on price, and t
by pjscott 11y ago
ULA's reasoning was pretty straightforward. The main reason they dropped out of the competition is because the bidding was to be decided largely on price, and they can't compete with SpaceX on price -- their selling point these days is that they're the boring, less-risky option that nobody ever got fired for buying. This is totally a valid selling point, until SpaceX gets a longer track record, but GPS satellites are the kind of payload that wouldn't be too disastrous to lose, so in this case going for the cheaper launch option makes a lot of sense.
- peteretep 11y ago> This is totally a valid selling point Respectfully, a selling point is only valid if your customer base care.
- sslayer 11y agoOnce you start losing a couple of 250 -750 million dollar payloads, your customer base will care. This isn't KSP.
- ceejayoz 11y agoIf they're not time critical, chances are they don't care that much. They've got insurance on the launch and payload. It'd have to happen enough for the premiums to start going up.
- rory096 11y agoThe US government doesn't buy launch insurance.
- ceejayoz 11y agohttp://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2012/05/22/248566.htm http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2012/05/22/248566.... says NASA self-insures, and the CRS missions appear to carry commercial insurance http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/10/29/345363.htm http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/10/29/345...
- rory096 11y ago>NASA self-insures This just means they don't insure and instead absorb losses. AFAIK they don't even set aside a pool of money like corporate self-insurance tends to do. >CRS missions appear to carry commercial insurance This is to (partially) cover the losses to the commercial space companies, since NASA withholds money in the event of a failure. None of it covers the payload. (Actually at least in Orbital's case they get paid a portion of the CRS contract, since there's technically two milestones – ignition/liftoff and mission success. They lose out on the latter.[1]) [1] http://spacenews.com/42658orbital-sciences-entitled-to-partial-nasa-payment-for-antares-failure/ http://spacenews.com/42658orbital-sciences-entitled-to-parti...
- hydrogen18 11y agoThanks for bringing this up. This is a oft forgotten point as to why private space flight is so difficult in the US. Private ventures can't compete when the rules are set up so they've been kneecap'd from the start. Ironically, I can't drive my car without insurance but I can fly a plane without it.
- SHIT_TALKER 11y agoULA's reasoning was pretty straightforward. The main reason they dropped out of the competition is because the bidding was to be decided largely on price, The reason they had to drop out is because they're a space launch company without any goddamned engines. The chatter about the bid process is just the typical jawing members of the defense cartel engage in when they deign to speak of competitors. Sometimes they're even successful in reopening the bid process. [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X
- fleitz 11y agoAs they say in the space industry... All rocket, no engines.
- tgb 11y agoI don't understand. Can you explain this and the parent's comment on engines?
- danmaz74 11y agoThe ULA launchers use the Russian produced RD-180 engine
- avmich 11y agoOnly Atlas-V. Delta-IV uses American hydrogen engines (RS-68); however Delta-IV is rather more expensive than Atlas-V. Even though Atlas-IV is rather more expensive than Falcon-9 - which uses simpler, less performant but cheaper technology.
- JumpCrisscross 11y agoULA's vehicles were designed around the RD-180 rocket engine [1][2]. This is an engine built and designed in Russia. After Russia annexed Crimea, Congress banned the Pentagon from using Russian rocket engines. Russia responded by counter-banning the Pentagon from using its engines [3]. This made things complicated for ULA. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180 [2] http://www.ulalaunch.com/faqs-rd-180.aspx http://www.ulalaunch.com/faqs-rd-180.aspx [3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-13/russia-bans-rocket-engine-sales-to-u-s-military http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-13/russia-ban...