4 ms·

>Did ULA actually do anything to deserve this Yes, they put in a winning bid on the contract. I imagine some of the things that put them ahead of the competiti

>Did ULA actually do anything to deserve this Yes, they put in a winning bid on the contract. I imagine some of the things that put them ahead of the competition would be- Vertical integration. I don't think oMeGa or BO are capable of doing this. Neither is SpaceX. Horizontal integration complicates certain missions More complicated orbits. ULA has demonstrated in the past that they can inject direct to GEO. I don't think any of the other bidders have, and I'm not sure if they claimed they'll be capable of doing so. Precision. Depending on who you ask, ULA is the best when it comes to actually hitting their desired orbits. This can add life to the payload. For a billion dollar satellite, an extra year of fuel can totally justify $20 million more in launch costs (or whatever the difference happens to be) Other than SpaceX (since F9 and F9H already exist) I think they're the closest to actually building the rockets that they put in their bid. The second stage draws heavily from existing designs.

valuearb 6y ago
SpaceX now offers vertical integration. And the difference in launch costs is closer to $100M, not $20M. That should obviate the other minor differences.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  Would you mind sharing concrete numbers? I can't imagine that Vulcan is going to cost that much more than an Atlas V. Even if SpaceX reduces their prices by 80% compared to what they charged during EELV, a $100 million difference seems unlikely to me.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    There is little evidence the Vulkan will cost less than the Atlas V, since it’s a higher capacity launch system with a highly capable but expensive second stage. It’s going to be about the same as an Atlas V & Falcon Heavy, but much cheaper than a Delta IV Heavy. It’s payload to LEO are about 20% higher than a Falcon 9 and about half that of a Falcon Heavy, but it’s payload to GTO/GEO are close to the Falcon Heavy. A commercial contract Atlas V is roughly $50M more than a Falcon 9, but government contracts have a lot of more expensive handling/launch requirements that can easily double the cost. It’s likely the difference is not $100M more, but it’s still going to be easy more than $20M.

valuearb 6y ago

SpaceX now offers vertical integration. And the difference in launch costs is closer to $100M, not $20M. That should obviate the other minor differences.

Rebelgecko 6y ago
Would you mind sharing concrete numbers? I can't imagine that Vulcan is going to cost that much more than an Atlas V. Even if SpaceX reduces their prices by 80% compared to what they charged during EELV, a $100 million difference seems unlikely to me.
- valuearb 6y ago
  There is little evidence the Vulkan will cost less than the Atlas V, since it’s a higher capacity launch system with a highly capable but expensive second stage. It’s going to be about the same as an Atlas V & Falcon Heavy, but much cheaper than a Delta IV Heavy. It’s payload to LEO are about 20% higher than a Falcon 9 and about half that of a Falcon Heavy, but it’s payload to GTO/GEO are close to the Falcon Heavy. A commercial contract Atlas V is roughly $50M more than a Falcon 9, but government contracts have a lot of more expensive handling/launch requirements that can easily double the cost. It’s likely the difference is not $100M more, but it’s still going to be easy more than $20M.