User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 6:52:26 PM EDT
[#1]
Good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 6:57:18 PM EDT
[#2]
FPNI
Sole source is one of the biggest licenses to print money on a govt contract. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 6:58:58 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:00:09 PM EDT
[#4]
Meh they didnt qualify for the contracts when they were bid, why should I care?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:01:09 PM EDT
[#5]
A lot of contracts that the government has had over the years with Boeing stink.
Wonder how many ex Pentagon brass Boeing has on the payroll these days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:01:31 PM EDT
[#6]
I'm thinking its hard to break into the defense club.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:01:35 PM EDT
[#7]
Good, hope he wins.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:03:54 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meh they didnt qualify for the contracts when they were bid, why should I care? They weren't bid contracts. Did you read at all? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:04:45 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They weren't bid contracts. Did you read at all? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Meh they didnt qualify for the contracts when they were bid, why should I care? They weren't bid contracts. Did you read at all? He did not. And apparently the waste of his tax money isn't a reason to care. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:04:51 PM EDT
[#10]
He's a foreigner. Fuck him.
Huh, apparently not. He has US citizenship and SpaceX is a US company. I thought he was a Boer and that SpaceX was Canadian. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:06:11 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They weren't bid contracts. Did you read at all? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Meh they didnt qualify for the contracts when they were bid, why should I care? They weren't bid contracts. Did you read at all? Yes or no is Space X certified to deliver DOD payloads? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:06:12 PM EDT
[#12]
ULA For The Win!! Fuck SpaceX. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:09:12 PM EDT
[#13]
I know many people from SpaceX, the company is doing a fine job and in a much shorter time frame than any Govt. run agency could do. They are being "out lobbied" by special interests.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:09:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes or no is Space X certified to deliver DOD payloads? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Meh they didnt qualify for the contracts when they were bid, why should I care? They weren't bid contracts. Did you read at all? Yes or no is Space X certified to deliver DOD payloads? Do you know? And if the DoD refuses to certify anyone else to deliver DoD payloads regardless of whether they have the capability then do you still call it a competitive bid process? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:09:34 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes or no is Space X certified to deliver DOD payloads? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Meh they didnt qualify for the contracts when they were bid, why should I care? They weren't bid contracts. Did you read at all? Yes or no is Space X certified to deliver DOD payloads? The whole point of the lawsuit is that they have been given literally zero avenues to obtain that cert. They've tried and keep hitting a bureaucratic wall that only exists to make sure the big 3 defense corps get big chunks of taxpayer cash on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:09:49 PM EDT
[#16]
Competition will breed better products.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:12:07 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Competition will breed better products. Apparently, it will breed lawsuits to get more government cheese. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:13:23 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes or no is Space X certified to deliver DOD payloads? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Meh they didnt qualify for the contracts when they were bid, why should I care? They weren't bid contracts. Did you read at all? Yes or no is Space X certified to deliver DOD payloads? Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:13:41 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you know? And if the DoD refuses to certify anyone else to deliver DoD payloads regardless of whether they have the capability then do you still call it a competitive bid process? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Meh they didnt qualify for the contracts when they were bid, why should I care? They weren't bid contracts. Did you read at all? Yes or no is Space X certified to deliver DOD payloads? Do you know? And if the DoD refuses to certify anyone else to deliver DoD payloads regardless of whether they have the capability then do you still call it a competitive bid process? They are in process of being certified when the the Air Force bid this round of launces, to me it sounds like they were late to the party. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:14:24 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes or no is Space X certified to deliver DOD payloads? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Meh they didnt qualify for the contracts when they were bid, why should I care? They weren't bid contracts. Did you read at all? Yes or no is Space X certified to deliver DOD payloads? Exactly. There is a lot more to sending satellites into space than the initial launch cost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:15:16 PM EDT
[#21]
In before SpaceX CEO dies from drug overdose, and bored of directors sells it to Boeing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:16:32 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are in process of being certified when the the Air Force bid this round of launces, to me it sounds like they were late to the party. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Meh they didnt qualify for the contracts when they were bid, why should I care? They weren't bid contracts. Did you read at all? Yes or no is Space X certified to deliver DOD payloads? Do you know? And if the DoD refuses to certify anyone else to deliver DoD payloads regardless of whether they have the capability then do you still call it a competitive bid process? They are in process of being certified when the the Air Force bid this round of launces, to me it sounds like they were late to the party. They have already been awarded missions for the DoD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:18:02 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are in process of being certified when the the Air Force bid this round of launces, to me it sounds like they were late to the party. Alternatively certification is being slow walked by the military in order to protect their close relationship with U.S. Launch Alliance (i.e. Boeing + Lockheed). As someone with some knowledge in the industry, let me assure you that anyone that can meet the criteria for launching a vehicle that rendezvouses and docks with the ISS has more than enough capability to launch a DoD payload. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:20:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Alternatively certification is being slow walked by the military in order to protect their close relationship with U.S. Launch Alliance (i.e. Boeing + Lockheed). As someone with some knowledge in the industry, let me assure you that anyone that can meet the criteria for launching a vehicle that rendezvouses and docks with the ISS has more than enough capability to launch a DoD payload. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They are in process of being certified when the the Air Force bid this round of launces, to me it sounds like they were late to the party. Alternatively certification is being slow walked by the military in order to protect their close relationship with U.S. Launch Alliance (i.e. Boeing + Lockheed). As someone with some knowledge in the industry, let me assure you that anyone that can meet the criteria for launching a vehicle that rendezvouses and docks with the ISS has more than enough capability to launch a DoD payload. Were they certified at the time of the bid ? Because it is a disservice to the taxpayer to accept a bid that is not does not meet the criteria. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:27:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Were they certified at the time of the bid ? Because it is a disservice to the taxpayer to accept a bid that is not does not meet the criteria. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are in process of being certified when the the Air Force bid this round of launces, to me it sounds like they were late to the party. Alternatively certification is being slow walked by the military in order to protect their close relationship with U.S. Launch Alliance (i.e. Boeing + Lockheed). As someone with some knowledge in the industry, let me assure you that anyone that can meet the criteria for launching a vehicle that rendezvouses and docks with the ISS has more than enough capability to launch a DoD payload. Were they certified at the time of the bid ? Because it is a disservice to the taxpayer to accept a bid that is not does not meet the criteria. They should of been certified BEFORE the bidding was closed but U.S. Launch Alliance (i.e. Boeing + Lockheed) used there paid for politicians and military commanders to slow down the process. Its only a matter of time, once they get in the race with the other big 3 the myth that sending things to space costs to much with go away because it was artificiality inflated by the big 3. They like there government FSA money and will do any thing to keep it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:30:09 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They should of been certified BEFORE the bidding was closed but U.S. Launch Alliance (i.e. Boeing + Lockheed) used there paid for politicians and military commanders to slow down the process. Its only a matter of time, once they get in the race with the other big 3 the myth that sending things to space costs to much with go away because it was artificiality inflated by the big 3. They like there government FSA money and will do any thing to keep it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are in process of being certified when the the Air Force bid this round of launces, to me it sounds like they were late to the party. Alternatively certification is being slow walked by the military in order to protect their close relationship with U.S. Launch Alliance (i.e. Boeing + Lockheed). As someone with some knowledge in the industry, let me assure you that anyone that can meet the criteria for launching a vehicle that rendezvouses and docks with the ISS has more than enough capability to launch a DoD payload. Were they certified at the time of the bid ? Because it is a disservice to the taxpayer to accept a bid that is not does not meet the criteria. They should of been certified BEFORE the bidding was closed but U.S. Launch Alliance (i.e. Boeing + Lockheed) used there paid for politicians and military commanders to slow down the process. Its only a matter of time, once they get in the race with the other big 3 the myth that sending things to space costs to much with go away because it was artificiality inflated by the big 3. They like there government FSA money and will do any thing to keep it. And I should have been given the contract to build higgen boats, but I wasnt. we can deal with the reality of the situation or space X can waste time and money trying to sue for contracts that they were not qualified for at the time of the bid. The reality is they are just now getting certification for DOD launches, they are free to bid on future contracts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:32:09 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Were they certified at the time of the bid ? Because it is a disservice to the taxpayer to accept a bid that is not does not meet the criteria. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are in process of being certified when the the Air Force bid this round of launces, to me it sounds like they were late to the party. Alternatively certification is being slow walked by the military in order to protect their close relationship with U.S. Launch Alliance (i.e. Boeing + Lockheed). As someone with some knowledge in the industry, let me assure you that anyone that can meet the criteria for launching a vehicle that rendezvouses and docks with the ISS has more than enough capability to launch a DoD payload. Were they certified at the time of the bid ? Because it is a disservice to the taxpayer to accept a bid that is not does not meet the criteria. What don't you get? If the DoD is slow walking accepting SpaceX as a launch provider then the fact they aren't certified means nothing. This really isn't that hard to understand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:33:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They should of been certified BEFORE the bidding was closed but U.S. Launch Alliance (i.e. Boeing + Lockheed) used there paid for politicians and military commanders to slow down the process. Its only a matter of time, once they get in the race with the other big 3 the myth that sending things to space costs to much with go away because it was artificiality inflated by the big 3. They like there government FSA money and will do any thing to keep it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are in process of being certified when the the Air Force bid this round of launces, to me it sounds like they were late to the party. Alternatively certification is being slow walked by the military in order to protect their close relationship with U.S. Launch Alliance (i.e. Boeing + Lockheed). As someone with some knowledge in the industry, let me assure you that anyone that can meet the criteria for launching a vehicle that rendezvouses and docks with the ISS has more than enough capability to launch a DoD payload. Were they certified at the time of the bid ? Because it is a disservice to the taxpayer to accept a bid that is not does not meet the criteria. They should of been certified BEFORE the bidding was closed but U.S. Launch Alliance (i.e. Boeing + Lockheed) used there paid for politicians and military commanders to slow down the process. Its only a matter of time, once they get in the race with the other big 3 the myth that sending things to space costs to much with go away because it was artificiality inflated by the big 3. They like there government FSA money and will do any thing to keep it. You have a reliable source and credible inside information to support your specific assertions of course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:35:37 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What don't you get? If the DoD is slow walking accepting SpaceX as a launch provider then the fact they aren't certified means nothing. This really isn't that hard to understand. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are in process of being certified when the the Air Force bid this round of launces, to me it sounds like they were late to the party. Alternatively certification is being slow walked by the military in order to protect their close relationship with U.S. Launch Alliance (i.e. Boeing + Lockheed). As someone with some knowledge in the industry, let me assure you that anyone that can meet the criteria for launching a vehicle that rendezvouses and docks with the ISS has more than enough capability to launch a DoD payload. Were they certified at the time of the bid ? Because it is a disservice to the taxpayer to accept a bid that is not does not meet the criteria. What don't you get? If the DoD is slow walking accepting SpaceX as a launch provider then the fact they aren't certified means nothing. This really isn't that hard to understand. Dec 2 of 2013 "This flight represents one of many certification requirements jointly agreed to between the Air Force and SpaceX," Lt. Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski, SMC commander, said of the September launch. Seems like they are not certified but on the track to being. Didnt they just get their 3rd successful launch? Look I hope Space X can drive down the price, but at the end of the day they were never going to compete or win any of these launces, the next set sure. This is just wasitng time and moeny |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:37:11 PM EDT
[#30]
Government is a bloated good old boy network , color me surprised
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:46:05 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dec 2 of 2013 "This flight represents one of many certification requirements jointly agreed to between the Air Force and SpaceX," Lt. Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski, SMC commander, said of the September launch. Seems like they are not certified but on the track to being. Didnt they just get their 3rd successful launch? Third successful launch to the ISS, several prior successful launches that did not dock with the space station. Ask yourself this ..... as a consumer of launch services in what way is it in your interest to sign a long term multi-year contract just prior to a new provider coming on line which promises to dramatically lower cost? Why not sign a short term contract to bridge the gap? Would any company in the private sector do something like this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:49:37 PM EDT
[#32]
There is a fine line to be walked here between preserving the industrial base and giving ULA a federal mandate to never try to compete with cost.
The reality is, if SpaceX can get its launch rate where it needs to be ULA is out of business. Atlas V is marginally cheaper than Delta IV, uses relatively cheap Russian engines, and still can't compete on price with a Falcon 9, which might wind up with a reusable booster stage. ULA is going to have to develop a new launch vehicle to compete with SpaceX (and eventually Blue Origin, and maybe further down the line XCor, and TSC), Just from a fly-to-by ratio standpoint when you're milling out 90% of the aluminum you buy to make your tank barrels and relying on an outside supplier for domes while you're competitor is using stringer and skin construction and flying 90% of the material he is buying and is almost completely vertically integrated you're not going to be cost competitive. As far as I'm concerned, with the exception of national asset payloads, if it's a U.S. government launch it should be open to competitive bid for US launch providers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:49:55 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Third successful launch to the ISS, several prior successful launches that did not dock with the space station. Ask yourself this ..... as a consumer of launch services in what way is it in your interest to sign a long term multi-year contract just prior to a new provider coming on line which promises to dramatically lower cost? Why not sign a short term contract to bridge the gap? Would any company in the private sector do something like this? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Dec 2 of 2013 "This flight represents one of many certification requirements jointly agreed to between the Air Force and SpaceX," Lt. Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski, SMC commander, said of the September launch. Seems like they are not certified but on the track to being. Didnt they just get their 3rd successful launch? Third successful launch to the ISS, several prior successful launches that did not dock with the space station. Ask yourself this ..... as a consumer of launch services in what way is it in your interest to sign a long term multi-year contract just prior to a new provider coming on line which promises to dramatically lower cost? Why not sign a short term contract to bridge the gap? Would any company in the private sector do something like this? Risk perhaps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:51:55 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Third successful launch to the ISS, several prior successful launches that did not dock with the space station. Ask yourself this ..... as a consumer of launch services in what way is it in your interest to sign a long term multi-year contract just prior to a new provider coming on line which promises to dramatically lower cost? Why not sign a short term contract to bridge the gap? Would any company in the private sector do something like this? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Dec 2 of 2013 "This flight represents one of many certification requirements jointly agreed to between the Air Force and SpaceX," Lt. Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski, SMC commander, said of the September launch. Seems like they are not certified but on the track to being. Didnt they just get their 3rd successful launch? Third successful launch to the ISS, several prior successful launches that did not dock with the space station. Ask yourself this ..... as a consumer of launch services in what way is it in your interest to sign a long term multi-year contract just prior to a new provider coming on line which promises to dramatically lower cost? Why not sign a short term contract to bridge the gap? Would any company in the private sector do something like this? How many services providers claim to provide dramatically lower costs? All of them. How many actually meet that pledge? At the end of the day Space X was not in position to bid the contract at the time and today they still arent. They will be in the short future, but wasting time in courts is not going to help anyone. The courts are not going to rule in Space X favor, ULA is still going to get their money. I guess taxpayers can pay lawyers some more cash. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:52:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Risk perhaps. Boeing and Lockheed haven't been risk free in the launch services business in the past and they certainly haven't been cheap. If you think SpaceX needs another year or two to build confidence, then why not sign a short term contract. This seems to be a 6 year contract with built in extensions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:53:04 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ULA For The Win!! Fuck SpaceX. .........and you work for Lockheed right? Which is like 1/2 of ULA? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:53:16 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have a reliable source and credible inside information to support your specific assertions of course. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are in process of being certified when the the Air Force bid this round of launces, to me it sounds like they were late to the party. Alternatively certification is being slow walked by the military in order to protect their close relationship with U.S. Launch Alliance (i.e. Boeing + Lockheed). As someone with some knowledge in the industry, let me assure you that anyone that can meet the criteria for launching a vehicle that rendezvouses and docks with the ISS has more than enough capability to launch a DoD payload. Were they certified at the time of the bid ? Because it is a disservice to the taxpayer to accept a bid that is not does not meet the criteria. They should of been certified BEFORE the bidding was closed but U.S. Launch Alliance (i.e. Boeing + Lockheed) used there paid for politicians and military commanders to slow down the process. Its only a matter of time, once they get in the race with the other big 3 the myth that sending things to space costs to much with go away because it was artificiality inflated by the big 3. They like there government FSA money and will do any thing to keep it. You have a reliable source and credible inside information to support your specific assertions of course. Would it surprise you any if i handle shipping manifests and other material billing items for the gov and the aerospace industry in my simple job of truck driving. To have the ability to get the correct amount of insurance you have to know the value of the load. You would also be amused at how much info about costs to a company you can get from the paper work they stick in a trailer with the load. So yea i'm sure i have a good grasp on the mark up you get to have when your the only one supplying the gov with something. Much like the truckers and have certs from the DOD to haul for them, sure Joe blow would haul that gov fright for $3.50 a mile and make a killing but hes not certified with them so the good old boys that are charge 7.50+ a mile. -------------------- I also have first hand knowledge about how much of a price hike the automotive unions have had on cars and trucks. But posting proof makes them union boy's froth at the mouth and threaten you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:53:42 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ULA For The Win!! Fuck SpaceX. 
Based on your location you're not going to be associated with either ULA, MSFC, or Aerojet-Rocketdyne. Personal ax to grind? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:54:01 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In before SpaceX CEO dies from drug overdose, and bored of directors sells it to Boeing. I doubt that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:56:30 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a fine line to be walked here between preserving the industrial base and giving ULA a federal mandate to never try to compete with cost. The reality is, if SpaceX can get its launch rate where it needs to be ULA is out of business. Atlas V is marginally cheaper than Delta IV, uses relatively cheap Russian engines, and still can't compete on price with a Falcon 9, which might wind up with a reusable booster stage. ULA is going to have to develop a new launch vehicle to compete with SpaceX (and eventually Blue Origin, and maybe further down the line XCor, and TSC), Just from a fly-to-by ratio standpoint when you're milling out 90% of the aluminum you buy to make your tank barrels and relying on an outside supplier for domes while you're competitor is using stringer and skin construction and flying 90% of the material he is buying and is almost completely vertically integrated you're not going to be cost competitive. As far as I'm concerned, with the exception of national asset payloads, if it's a U.S. government launch it should be open to competitive bid for US launch providers. Yep....and most the cost of the Atlas and Delta is in the Upper Stage. Most of the cost of Falcon is in the Lower Stage. Guess which one is easier to re-use? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 7:58:55 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many services providers claim to provide dramatically lower costs? All of them. How many actually meet that pledge? At the end of the day Space X was not in position to bid the contract at the time and today they still arent. They will be in the short future, but wasting time in courts is not going to help anyone. The courts are not going to rule in Space X favor, ULA is still going to get their money. I guess taxpayers can pay lawyers some more cash. SpaceX doesn't have to claim anything. They are currently providing launch services to NASA at a much lower cost. And you didn't answer my question. To quote you, SpaceX "will be in the short future" capable of providing these services (in fact they are capable today). So if the DoD will have another capable launch provider available "in the short future", why let a long term contract to US Launch Alliance? Why not a short term contract to bridge until your new lower cost provider is available? Perhaps because ULA has the clout to get a long term contract cut that will lock out their lower cost competition for years and years? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 8:00:50 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Boeing and Lockheed haven't been risk free in the launch services business in the past and they certainly haven't been cheap. If you think SpaceX needs another year or two to build confidence, then why not sign a short term contract. This seems to be a 6 year contract with built in extensions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Risk perhaps. Boeing and Lockheed haven't been risk free in the launch services business in the past and they certainly haven't been cheap. If you think SpaceX needs another year or two to build confidence, then why not sign a short term contract. This seems to be a 6 year contract with built in extensions. That sounds reasonable but I'm not privy to the specifics of the launch requirements nor those of the payloads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 8:04:36 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a fine line to be walked here between preserving the industrial base and giving ULA a federal mandate to never try to compete with cost. The reality is, if SpaceX can get its launch rate where it needs to be ULA is out of business. Atlas V is marginally cheaper than Delta IV, uses relatively cheap Russian engines, and still can't compete on price with a Falcon 9, which might wind up with a reusable booster stage. ULA is going to have to develop a new launch vehicle to compete with SpaceX (and eventually Blue Origin, and maybe further down the line XCor, and TSC), Just from a fly-to-by ratio standpoint when you're milling out 90% of the aluminum you buy to make your tank barrels and relying on an outside supplier for domes while you're competitor is using stringer and skin construction and flying 90% of the material he is buying and is almost completely vertically integrated you're not going to be cost competitive. As far as I'm concerned, with the exception of national asset payloads, if it's a U.S. government launch it should be open to competitive bid for US launch providers. Even if the AF stays with ULA rockets then there could still be a benefit if the open competition causes ULA to drop their prices. In 2006 something similar happened with the US Army and Colt M4s, the Army released a notice regarding a new carbine competition, about a month later Colt revised their prices and the Army canceled the competition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 8:05:53 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you know? And if the DoD refuses to certify anyone else to deliver DoD payloads regardless of whether they have the capability then do you still call it a competitive bid process? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Meh they didnt qualify for the contracts when they were bid, why should I care? They weren't bid contracts. Did you read at all? Yes or no is Space X certified to deliver DOD payloads? Do you know? And if the DoD refuses to certify anyone else to deliver DoD payloads regardless of whether they have the capability then do you still call it a competitive bid process? Depends on what Title 50 says. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 8:05:58 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep....and most the cost of the Atlas and Delta is in the Upper Stage. Most of the cost of Falcon is in the Lower Stage. Guess which one is easier to re-use? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There is a fine line to be walked here between preserving the industrial base and giving ULA a federal mandate to never try to compete with cost. The reality is, if SpaceX can get its launch rate where it needs to be ULA is out of business. Atlas V is marginally cheaper than Delta IV, uses relatively cheap Russian engines, and still can't compete on price with a Falcon 9, which might wind up with a reusable booster stage. ULA is going to have to develop a new launch vehicle to compete with SpaceX (and eventually Blue Origin, and maybe further down the line XCor, and TSC), Just from a fly-to-by ratio standpoint when you're milling out 90% of the aluminum you buy to make your tank barrels and relying on an outside supplier for domes while you're competitor is using stringer and skin construction and flying 90% of the material he is buying and is almost completely vertically integrated you're not going to be cost competitive. As far as I'm concerned, with the exception of national asset payloads, if it's a U.S. government launch it should be open to competitive bid for US launch providers. Yep....and most the cost of the Atlas and Delta is in the Upper Stage. Most of the cost of Falcon is in the Lower Stage. Guess which one is easier to re-use? That makes perfect sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 8:06:22 PM EDT
[#46]
SpaceX is not trying to get National Asset launches right now, they just want to get in on the more mundane stull like GPS Sat replacement launches.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 8:09:06 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SpaceX doesn't have to claim anything. They are currently providing launch services to NASA at a much lower cost. And you didn't answer my question. To quote you, SpaceX "will be in the short future" capable of providing these services (in fact they are capable today). So if the DoD will have another capable launch provider available "in the short future", why let a long term contract to US Launch Alliance? Why not a short term contract to bridge until your new lower cost provider is available? Perhaps because ULA has the clout to get a long term contract cut that will lock out their lower cost competition for years and years? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How many services providers claim to provide dramatically lower costs? All of them. How many actually meet that pledge? At the end of the day Space X was not in position to bid the contract at the time and today they still arent. They will be in the short future, but wasting time in courts is not going to help anyone. The courts are not going to rule in Space X favor, ULA is still going to get their money. I guess taxpayers can pay lawyers some more cash. SpaceX doesn't have to claim anything. They are currently providing launch services to NASA at a much lower cost. And you didn't answer my question. To quote you, SpaceX "will be in the short future" capable of providing these services (in fact they are capable today). So if the DoD will have another capable launch provider available "in the short future", why let a long term contract to US Launch Alliance? Why not a short term contract to bridge until your new lower cost provider is available? Perhaps because ULA has the clout to get a long term contract cut that will lock out their lower cost competition for years and years? Given the current situation will the courts rule in space x favor? Or will they say the af was ok to issue the contract and ual had the lowest qualified bid? Congress is oversight not the courts. Space x is wasting money and resources. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 8:10:20 PM EDT
[#48]
Deleted
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 8:11:47 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Raise of hands - how many here think that awarding a contract for military launches to a company that uses Russian engines is a good idea right now? Really? Why don't we just send the payloads to China and have them launch them, that would be really cheap. They would probably do it cost of materials alone. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 8:12:10 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Given the current situation will the courts rule in space x favor? Or will they say the af was ok to issue the contract and ual had the lowest qualified bid? Congress is oversight not the courts. Space x is wasting money and resources. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How many services providers claim to provide dramatically lower costs? All of them. How many actually meet that pledge? At the end of the day Space X was not in position to bid the contract at the time and today they still arent. They will be in the short future, but wasting time in courts is not going to help anyone. The courts are not going to rule in Space X favor, ULA is still going to get their money. I guess taxpayers can pay lawyers some more cash. SpaceX doesn't have to claim anything. They are currently providing launch services to NASA at a much lower cost. And you didn't answer my question. To quote you, SpaceX "will be in the short future" capable of providing these services (in fact they are capable today). So if the DoD will have another capable launch provider available "in the short future", why let a long term contract to US Launch Alliance? Why not a short term contract to bridge until your new lower cost provider is available? Perhaps because ULA has the clout to get a long term contract cut that will lock out their lower cost competition for years and years? Given the current situation will the courts rule in space x favor? Or will they say the af was ok to issue the contract and ual had the lowest qualified bid? Congress is oversight not the courts. Space x is wasting money and resources. I think it is likely that the courts will rule that the block buy was too large given the expected time table for SpaceX to receive launch certification. If I were a betting man I would guess that the block buy gets truncated to between 15 and 20 launches. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
