SpaceX is awarded two military flights by the USAF
8 replies, posted
[quote=SpaceX](Hawthorne, CA) -- [B]The United States Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center has awarded SpaceX two Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)-class missions[/B]: DSCOVR (Deep Space Climate Observatory) and STP-2 (Space Test Program 2). To be launched on SpaceX's Falcon launch vehicles in 2014 and 2015 respectively, the awards mark the first EELV-class missions awarded to the company to date.
"SpaceX deeply appreciates and is honored by the vote of confidence shown by the Air Force in our Falcon launch vehicles," said Elon Musk, CEO and chief designer, SpaceX. "We look forward to providing high reliability access to space with lift capability to orbit that is substantially greater than any other launch vehicle in the world."
[B]The DSCOVR mission will be launched aboard a Falcon 9 and is currently slated for late 2014, while STP-2 will be launched aboard the Falcon Heavy and is targeted for mid-2015[/B]. Both are expected to launch from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.
Both missions fall under Orbital/Suborbital Program-3 (OSP-3), an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the US Air Force Rocket Systems Launch Program. OSP-3 represents the first Air Force contract designed to provide new entrants to the EELV program an opportunity to demonstrate their vehicle capabilities.
The two missions will support the EELV certification process for both the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. Falcon Heavy, the most powerful rocket in the world, is expected to take its first flight in the second half of 2013. Building on reliable flight proven architecture, the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles are designed for exceptional reliability, meeting the stringent U.S. Air Force requirements for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program.
[/quote]
Source: [URL]http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121205[/URL]
Good on them.
Superb. They have a 100% success rate after launch so far, so they deserve it.
[QUOTE=Occlusion;38754024]Superb. They have a 100% success rate after launch so far, so they deserve it.[/QUOTE]
The Falcon 9 has a 100% success rate.
[QUOTE=Occlusion;38754024]Superb. They have a 100% success rate after launch so far, so they deserve it.[/QUOTE]
False.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1[/url]
2 Successes.
3 Failures.
Worlds first Space PMC? My body is ready.
[QUOTE=Riller;38754439]Worlds first Space PMC? My body is ready.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance[/url]
[editline]8th December 2012[/editline]
It's basically a coalition between all the government favorite go-to guys for military equipment. NASA or the military has never really built their own rockets. It's always been by a private company under contract. Mercury and Gemini were flown on basically nuclear ICBMs (Made by Martin (now known as Lockheed Martin) with the nuclear bit taken out. The Saturn V was made by a consortium of private companies, Douglas (now McDonnell Douglas), North American Aviation, and Boeing. The Space Shuttle was basically made by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and All those little rockets in between were made by any one of them. Now they banded together as the ULA. And SpaceX wants their contracts.
[editline]8th December 2012[/editline]
And if Elon is right, it would be crazy not to go with SpaceX:
[quote]Musk: Second, there’s this tendency of big aerospace companies to outsource everything. That’s been trendy in lots of industries, but aerospace has done it to a ridiculous degree. They outsource to subcontractors, and then the subcontractors outsource to sub-subcontractors, and so on. You have to go four or five layers down to find somebody actually doing something useful—actually cutting metal, shaping atoms. Every level above that tacks on profit—it’s overhead to the fifth power.
Anderson: Is that just a function of bureaucracy?
Musk: In many cases the biggest customer has been the government, and the government contracts have been what they call cost-plus: The company gets a built-in profit level no matter how wasteful its execution. There’s actually an incentive for it to make everything as expensive as it can possibly justify.
Anderson: That sort of bureaucracy must also play into the bidding process.
Musk: It’s infuriating. The Pentagon’s preferred approach is to do long-term, “sole-source” contracts—which means to lock up the entire business for one company! We’ve been trying to bid on the primary Air Force launch contract, but it’s nearly impossible, because United Launch Alliance, co-owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, currently has an exclusive contract with the Air Force for satellite launch. It’s totally inappropriate.
Anderson: Wow, really?
Musk: Even though we would save the taxpayers at least a billion dollars a year—and that’s a conservative estimate.
Anderson: It sounds like your value proposition is not to outperform your competition—instead, you compete on price.[/quote]
[url]http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/10/ff-elon-musk-qa/[/url]
[editline]8th December 2012[/editline]
The fact that the Government has decided to snub their old friends and give them two missions is a good sign. They're testing the water. If SpaceX can put these into orbit at a low cost, then they will probably get a lot more contracts in the future.
[QUOTE=Riller;38754439]Worlds first Space PMC? My body is ready.[/QUOTE]
Space PMC? Good god that sounds fucking amazing.
[QUOTE=OvB;38754465]Musk: Second, there’s this tendency of big aerospace companies to outsource everything. That’s been trendy in lots of industries, but aerospace has done it to a ridiculous degree. They outsource to subcontractors, and then the subcontractors outsource to sub-subcontractors, and so on. You have to go four or five layers down to find somebody actually doing something useful—actually cutting metal, shaping atoms. Every level above that tacks on profit—it’s overhead to the fifth power.
Anderson: Is that just a function of bureaucracy?
Musk: In many cases the biggest customer has been the government, and the government contracts have been what they call cost-plus: The company gets a built-in profit level no matter how wasteful its execution. There’s actually an incentive for it to make everything as expensive as it can possibly justify.
[/QUOTE]
Military bureaucracy in a nutshell
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.