4 ms·

why did the article compare spacex's costs for one flight, to the maximum ULA may receive for a flight... these are not equivalent things. Is the spacex rocket

why did the article compare spacex's costs for one flight, to the maximum ULA may receive for a flight... these are not equivalent things. Is the spacex rocket used for that GPS sat equivalent to a delta heavy ($350m) or an atlas v ($100m)? Edit: this is a better article than the one linked: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-launch-ula-idUSKCN0XP2T2 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-launch-ula-id... it's the article for the gps sat, which clearly says Spacex undercut ULA by 40% on that contract -- so 83m vs 140m for ULA That is a big difference, but much less than the 83m vs 422m in the article

JshWright 9y ago
Falcon 9 (the rocket used for the GPS launch) is comparable to the ~$100m Atlas. The Falcon 9 (in 'expendable' mode) is roughly equivalent to an Atlas V in the 551 configuration (it's not an apples to apples comparison because the upper stage Atlas uses (Centaur) is _really_ capable). In reusable mode, it's closer to a 511. Delta IV Heavy is comparable to the (upcoming) Falcon Heavy (though again, due to the capabilities of Centaur, DIVH will be able to fly missions that FH cannot). It will be interesting to see just how big the price difference is there (I expect it to be pretty significant).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dasmoth 9y ago
  Delta IV Heavy is comparable to the (upcoming) Falcon Heavy (though again, due to the capabilities of Centaur, DIVH will be able to fly missions that FH cannot). The Delta Cryogenic Second Stage is not a Centaur. Yes, it uses the same propellants and a related (though not identical) RL-10 engine. The tanks are very different, though, and those are arguably the most unique thing about Centaur: pressure-stabilised ("ballon") tanks made of stainless steel, plus a common bulkhead between fuel and oxidiser tanks make for a very good propellant mass fraction.
- nickik 9y ago
  SpaceX has already been testing the upgrades to the Upper Stage. They will soon be able to fly all missions. Vertical integration is something they are still missing.

JshWright 9y ago

Falcon 9 (the rocket used for the GPS launch) is comparable to the ~$100m Atlas. The Falcon 9 (in 'expendable' mode) is roughly equivalent to an Atlas V in the 551 configuration (it's not an apples to apples comparison because the upper stage Atlas uses (Centaur) is _really_ capable). In reusable mode, it's closer to a 511. Delta IV Heavy is comparable to the (upcoming) Falcon Heavy (though again, due to the capabilities of Centaur, DIVH will be able to fly missions that FH cannot). It will be interesting to see just how big the price difference is there (I expect it to be pretty significant).

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dasmoth 9y ago
Delta IV Heavy is comparable to the (upcoming) Falcon Heavy (though again, due to the capabilities of Centaur, DIVH will be able to fly missions that FH cannot). The Delta Cryogenic Second Stage is not a Centaur. Yes, it uses the same propellants and a related (though not identical) RL-10 engine. The tanks are very different, though, and those are arguably the most unique thing about Centaur: pressure-stabilised ("ballon") tanks made of stainless steel, plus a common bulkhead between fuel and oxidiser tanks make for a very good propellant mass fraction.
nickik 9y ago
SpaceX has already been testing the upgrades to the Upper Stage. They will soon be able to fly all missions. Vertical integration is something they are still missing.