4 ms·

I don't think it's quite a fair direct comparison. The $96.5M is for a single launch. The $422 million is for each individual launch, plus assured access in a

I don't think it's quite a fair direct comparison. The $96.5M is for a single launch. The $422 million is for each individual launch, plus assured access in a 24-hour window. That is, the US Government is paying SpaceX for a launch. They're paying ULC for a launch, and a guarantee that if the US Government asks to launch a rocket tomorrow ULC will say "yes". If the US Government asked SpaceX for a launch tomorrow, they would probably get a response of "No can do. We don't have a rocket fueled, on stand-by, and ready to go."* It costs a lot to maintain a spare rocket, launch pad, and other infrastructure necessary to launch a rocket within 24-hours around the year. I still think SpaceX is a lot cheaper as a launch provider, but I don't think it's quite as extreme as the article makes it seem. I would imagine if SpaceX had to maintain 24-hour launch capacity their "unit cost" would be significantly higher than their individual launch cost. * That's actually not quite true. By coincidence, SpaceX has a launch scheduled for June 17. If there were a national emergency the US Government could probably pay SpaceX to commandeer that launch. However, this is just a coincidence. If I were writing this comment on June 18 it would not be true.

brickmack 9y ago
Thats not what assured access means. ULA absolutely cannot conduct a launch on 24 hours notice, nor can any launch provider. It takes months for them to prepare a launch. Payload integration alone (assuming, by some miracle, they actually had a rocket fully built, in the configuration needed, and all the development work needed to certify the combination of the rocket with a particular payload was done, and that the pad is available, exactly none of which will actually be true) takes multiple days. ULA does have, as a commercial service, RapidLaunch which is the fastest launch service in the world from order placement to liftoff, and that still takes 3 months minimum. Assured access, as defined by the EELV program, just means there are at least 2 launch vehicles in service (in this case, Atlas V, Delta IV, and partially Falcon 9) which are capable and certified to carry the full range of national security payloads, which means problems with a single rocket design will never ground all national security payloads
rst 9y ago
ULA does not and cannot offer guaranteed launch at any point in time -- their launches, including launches of government payloads, can be and are delayed for days by anything from technical glitches to unfavorable wind conditions to planes wandering into the launch corridor. (Google "Atlas V launch delay" for numerous examples.) And they don't have boosters "on standby, ready to go"; like everyone else, they refer to launch preparations as "campaigns", and they extend for weeks after the rocket and payload are both at the pad. (There are other capabilities ULA offers that SpaceX still can't match, but those are all about babying the payloads -- mounting them vertically on the rocket, rather than tilting as is SpaceX's current practice; providing clean-room access to payloads already on the rocket, and so forth.)

brickmack 9y ago

Thats not what assured access means. ULA absolutely cannot conduct a launch on 24 hours notice, nor can any launch provider. It takes months for them to prepare a launch. Payload integration alone (assuming, by some miracle, they actually had a rocket fully built, in the configuration needed, and all the development work needed to certify the combination of the rocket with a particular payload was done, and that the pad is available, exactly none of which will actually be true) takes multiple days. ULA does have, as a commercial service, RapidLaunch which is the fastest launch service in the world from order placement to liftoff, and that still takes 3 months minimum. Assured access, as defined by the EELV program, just means there are at least 2 launch vehicles in service (in this case, Atlas V, Delta IV, and partially Falcon 9) which are capable and certified to carry the full range of national security payloads, which means problems with a single rocket design will never ground all national security payloads

rst 9y ago

ULA does not and cannot offer guaranteed launch at any point in time -- their launches, including launches of government payloads, can be and are delayed for days by anything from technical glitches to unfavorable wind conditions to planes wandering into the launch corridor. (Google "Atlas V launch delay" for numerous examples.) And they don't have boosters "on standby, ready to go"; like everyone else, they refer to launch preparations as "campaigns", and they extend for weeks after the rocket and payload are both at the pad. (There are other capabilities ULA offers that SpaceX still can't match, but those are all about babying the payloads -- mounting them vertically on the rocket, rather than tilting as is SpaceX's current practice; providing clean-room access to payloads already on the rocket, and so forth.)