NRO discloses previously unannounced SpaceX launch contract

[Flyaway]

No doubt the first of many.

launch a payload for the National Reconnaissance Office in March 2017 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, a spokeswoman for the intelligence agency said May 18 in response to questions from SpaceNews.

SpaceX has not announced the launch. The NRO, which builds and operates the nation’s spy satellites, is thought to have previously mentioned the contract in a public setting just once, during a congressional hearing three years ago.

The March 2017 mission is known as NROL-76, but further details about the launch, including which rocket SpaceX would use to lift the satellite, the cost of the launch, or whether the mission was competitively bid were not immediately available, an NRO spokeswoman said.

http://spacenews.com/nro-discloses-previously-unannounced-launch-contract-for-spacex/

 

[Michel Van]

Not a surprise to me

SpaceX has ideal moment in Time
ULA got several problems
They hardware is to expensive, are depending on Russian rocket engine and once Putin say NO, They got a serious Problem.
but there is more in Background

in 1990s the United States Air Force Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program and commercial satellite business.
by competition with several Launch system at launch cost of $150 Million, what let to Atlas V and Delta IV rocket
But instead to offer cheap launch, Boeing and Lockheed unite in ULA and bamboozled the USAF and NASA
The Delta IV Heavy cost $435 million for NRO spysat
The Atlas V cost $225 million

Now came in 2002 SpaceX, in greet with smiles by big aerospace companies, it became Serious competitor in 2010s.
The Falcon 9 cost $61.2 million
The Falcon Heavy cost should be $90 million in 2017.

The Heavy version can launch NRO spy sat in orbit.
Let's compare launch this Cost $435 million vs. $90 million or 1/5 of ULA
Capitol Hill began now to questioning what to hell cost the ULA rocket really ?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/elon-musk-rocket-defense-223161

And SpaceX try TO REUSE THERE ROCKETS
big aerospace companies stop smiling, they start to scream
ULA offert Vulcan an semi reusable Rocket using new US rocket Engine yet to build
for engine we have Aerojet Rocketdyne AR1 and Blue Origin BE-4 engine both ready for testing in 2019
As vice president of engineering of ULA Brett Tobey criticized ULA cost and Vulcan in public. He got summary dismissal by his Boss...
http://spacenews.com/ula-intends-to-lower-its-costs-and-raise-its-cool-to-compete-with-spacex/

In mean time Arianespace overwork there Ariane 6 three times looking now for Semi Reuse of core stage engine.
Both can make test flight of Vulcan and Ariane 6 in 2020
wenn make Falcon Heavy it first flight ? November 2016 with landing of there Boosters...
so in 2020 hast SpaceX launching NRO spysat since three years

But that ULA and Arianespace own fault...
they became Fat, greedy and inflexible
had they take this SpaceX business Consultant advice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIfBHXjYgBY

 

[Archibald]

The issue with EELVs is that they were originally to be competitors to Ariane on the commercial market, and the production line (such as the brand new Decatur plant) was dimensionned for a lot of rocket cores that ultimately never happened, so cost went up and up.

I still wonder how ULA was allowed to happen in 2006 - its a little scandalous, when one thinks about Microsoft monopoly legal issues or mobile phone operators. Just look at it that way: EELV 1995 deal specifically and strongly required TWO launch vehicles so that a Challenger / Titan 1987 situation never happened again - there were also hope for competition between Delta IV and Atlas V that would drop rocket unit cost.
And then out of the blue in 2006 Boeing and LockMart creates a joint company which is given de facto monopoly of military launches.
Then four years later (how surprising !!) that same ULA rise costs of his rockets. A lot.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23619.0

I would say the US military was lucky to have SpaceX providing lower cost, and competition, to ULA scandalous monopoly.

 

[Byeman]

1. The issue with EELVs is that they were originally to be competitors to Ariane on the commercial market, and the production line (such as the brand new Decatur plant) was dimensionned for a lot of rocket cores that ultimately never happened, so cost went up and up.

2. I still wonder how ULA was allowed to happen in 2006 - its a little scandalous, when one thinks about Microsoft monopoly legal issues or mobile phone operators. Just look at it that way: EELV 1995 deal specifically and strongly required TWO launch vehicles so that a Challenger / Titan 1987 situation never happened again - there were also hope for competition between Delta IV and Atlas V that would drop rocket unit cost.

3. And then out of the blue in 2006 Boeing and LockMart creates a joint company which is given de facto monopoly of military launches.


4. Then four years later (how surprising !!) that same ULA rise costs of his rockets. A lot.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23619.0

5/ I would say the US military was lucky to have SpaceX providing lower cost, and competition, to ULA scandalous monopoly.

All lot of wrong statements

1. No, EELV was to replace Delta II, Atlas II and Titan IV. Commercial market was secondary.

2. No, the original intent was for the the military to down select to only one (winner take all). But with the event of the large meo satellite constellations that were going happen in the late 90's, the military decided use both and the commercial market would help sustain the two fleets.

3. It wasn't out of the blue, the military approved it. It was partially due to the suit brought on by Lockheed Martin against Boeing. Also, it was no different than before. Martin Marietta had most of the military launches with Titan IV.

4. Your source specifically mentions that it is not due to the formation of ULA but the demise of the shuttle program.

5. It is not scandalous, and many military missions can't and won't be done by SpaceX.

This mission is just a bone thrown to SpaceX. The military is finding that they are more inflexible when it comes to requirements.

 

[blackstar]

1. No, EELV was to replace Delta II, Atlas II and Titan IV. Commercial market was secondary.

I think that's over-simplifying. One needs to consider what time period we're talking about. The production line was clearly scaled to handle a lot more than the existing government payloads. That was primarily fueled by the "Asian boom" of the mid-1990s when there was an expectation that Asia would be buying a lot of comsats and there would be a huge demand for commercial launches. I cannot remember if the Big-LEO/Little-LEO constellations that everybody expected to boom in the 1990s were also part of the EELV calculation. But back in the 1990s a lot of people thought that there would be an incredible demand for launch vehicles, and EELV was expected to capture a big chunk of that market.

There was at least one point later on (I cannot remember when--2003?) when they formally announced that they were no longer going to try to commercial launches at all. It represented a significant reduction in scope.