Did ULA actually do anything to deserve this or is this just to give a cut to some of the more traditional private contractors?
The government also wants to maintain redundant capabilities, and ULA, which has an incredible success rate and is an incredibly reliable company, is a pretty damn good option for one of the two.
That video basically mentions three things: fairing size, vertical integration and the fact that SpaceX's rockets in reusable mode don't lift as much as competitors. This contract pays SpaceX to fix the first two issues and the third can be solved by using the SpaceX rocket in expendable mode.
However, SpaceX insertion is good enough for nearly every mission and they can make up for upper stage efficiency with brute force via Falcon Heavy--at a similar or better price point.
They also have a few paperwork advantages. Their vehicles have nuclear ratings, though SpaceX can certainly get that any time they want now. And they have demonstrated high reliability, which is important for uninsured billion-dollar payloads. Though it's getting harder to argue against F9.
An of course, they're owned by two major defense contractors with plenty of political clout.
But: their main advantage now is that they exist and are in the US and The Customer wants to maintain multiple options. Once Blue Origin comes online ULA's going to lose that one too, and will have to either figure out a way to make Vulcan price competitive, go on a crash course to develop a new competitive rocket (for which they're already too late), or lean on their relationship advantages and existing contracts to hang on for a while until at some point reality finally overcomes politics.
There's a lot of moving parts but they're not moving in a direction favorable to ULA, and given how hamstrung they are by their ownership structure I'd lean towards that last one.
Space force will spark an arms race, be it a sprint or a marathon
As a taxpayer, I'm totally enthusiastic on board with this strategy. Said another way, I demand that our government hedges and mitigates risks.
Many of our current challenges are because of previous ill-advised efficiency efforts.
Paying billions extra for inferior hardware adds little redundant benefit.
Point being - and tangentially, it's somewhat of a blind spot in tech industry - besides scaling, you also really need ownership/control redundancy. Legal single points of failure are still single points of failure.
It may or may not actually be cheaper to pay both in the long run. On one hand theoretically if they were the only option in the world they could charge absurd amounts. On the other hand it seems they stand to make more in the coming years commoditizing launches to attract more overall customers/launches and charge them each millions than to charge a few customers billions. Also they'll never be the only one in the world but it is a risk they could end up the only commercial venture in the US capable of launching.
One option is medium cost with low risk of astronomical (pun intended) cost and the other a low cost with a medium risk of astronomical cost.
SpaceX is a private company (regardless of how many gov $ it receives) and can’t simply be restructured like a government agency could if it got into serious enough trouble. (Legal, financial, managerial, market, etc.)
Since SpaceX can expose itself to potentially fatal risk (by definition), it is in the government’s national security interests to spread that risk among several companies, regardless of the price tag.
Technically it can, its just that the US government doesnt like to.
The press release quotes I've seen on the topic were high on "eliminating redundant work" (aka competition).
Rather than have Boeing endure the criminal and civil liability a joint venture with advantageous terms to Lockheed was decided on.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-probe-intensifi...
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.
And the difference in launch costs is closer to $100M, not $20M. That should obviate the other minor differences.
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.
One of the big issues is that SpaceX doesn't do vertical payload integration. It's upper stage options are also very different than those of ULA. For many sats that isn't an issue, for some military sats it is a very big deal. When the payload is worth many times as much as the rocket, with incalculable trickledown impacts should its launch not go perfectly, your choice of rocket has to tick absolutely every box.
They have never done it so far, but they will definitely do it in the near future.
The Falcon 9 is assembled rolled out to the pad horizontally, then it raised into the vertical position in preparation for launch.
It can be more complicated to design satellites (esp satellites that have large optics in them) to deal with gravity in two different orientations.
Atlas 5 "roll out": https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/07/28/photos-atlas-5-rolled-...
Falcon 9: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYJuHuhPxGU
Bonus video, Smarter Every Day chatting w/ the CEO of ULA while watching a Delta IV Heavy roll out to the launch pad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdPoVi_h0r0
"When he wants more thrust, Ivan doesn't look for a fancy propellant with a higher specific impulse. He just builds himself a bigger rocket. Maybe he's got something there." - J. Clark, Ignition! https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pd...
On the other hand the Soviet Union did develop syntin... (also from Ignition!)
Only exotic (presumably optical) sats from three-letter agencies really demand it, and even then we don't know if they really need it or would rather just spend the money to make it the launcher's problem rather than do a redesign or evaluation of their system.
How much tine does the industry need to adjust?
Here's a good overview of the process (though in this case it's a satellite that can safely be transported in multiple orientations): https://qz.com/1346279/big-plane/
Treating the ULA bid as if it were lower risk than SpaceX appears to be contrary to the facts. The Falcon 9 has been flying for a decade, and has a very good safety record.
The Vulkan is a paper rocket that is years from actual service using an unproven engine, being designed by an effectively new team.
Yeah, gee, if only they'd do something.
I'm all for competition bringing down ULA's prices, however to pretend they haven't done anything to deserve contracts, is obscene.
Orbital ATK, the only other active US based provider would have been another contender but they don't have a heavy launch system yet.
So, all in all, this awarding is quite expected.
Not true. It has the highest capacity of any operational rocket.
Falcon Heavy can do that in recoverable mode and a lot more in expendable mode.
To see available vehicles, select high energy and 18.4 into the c3 box.
EDIT: Also another thing I thought of is that SpaceX may not be certified to launch nuclear payloads (given their infrequency it probably doesn't make sense for them to bother).
The alternative is "horizontal integration" where you bolt the payload on the rocket while the rocket is laying on its side. You transport the rocket to the launch pad on it's side, and only there do you tip the rocket+payload together to be upright.
This sounds like a very small detail, but many payloads turns out to be highly optimized to only receive forces in one direction, and their structure is not certified to be cantilevered in such a way to "hang" from the tip of the rocket body.
It appears that it means the assembly of the rocket—whether it is assembled horizontally or vertically. SpaceX rockets and payload are apparently assembled horizontally and then lifted upright.
Given the design constraints in a rocket I don't know how much you could really do to "harden" it otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk%27s_Tesla_Roadster#/...
Fortunately another company came along and dramatically undercut their monopolistic pricing while providing the most valuable technological innovations space launch has seen since the 1960s. And now ULA is irrelevant and on a long term path to dissolution. Bailing them out with this contract is a near criminal act by the Air Force that shows nothing but favoritism.
It’s like Henry Ford focusing on making the original Model T higher quality, but not cheaper. It would be a great accomplishment if he doubled the number of miles between servicing and halved the rate at which key components broke. But if he’s not also reducing its costs dramatically, it robs the world of the worst affordable car for the masses, a far higher achievement.
This thread though has been really interesting and I definitely feel like I have a more nuanced view than I held before, so thanks.