Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tanrgith t1_j9v9smx wrote

Reply to comment by Adeldor in After Vulcan comes online, ULA plans to dramatically increase launch cadence by OutlandishnessOk2452

The idea that the ULA would be able to pump out 2 full new rockets consistently each month and have enough demand for it in a world where SpaceX can profitable launch mass to orbit for far less seems wildly unrealistic

22

Anderopolis t1_j9w7r9x wrote

ULA has already sold over 40 launches to Amazon.

Costumers are not an issue at the moment.

14

tanrgith t1_j9w8w8y wrote

Fair point

I still doubt they're gonna have the ability to pump out 2 rockets a month in less than 3 years

4

mfb- t1_j9x2wn6 wrote

Flying every two weeks is 25 launches per year. Let 10 of them be for the US government, then you can go through the Kuiper manifest in 2.5 years. "a couple of times a month" sounds even faster than 2 per month.

3

Triabolical_ t1_j9whgl2 wrote

Amazon has bought a ton of capacity but we don't know the details of those contracts. Amazon may have the ability to flex to the provider that is more successful or cheaper.

1

mfb- t1_j9x2zga wrote

You think Bezos is going to SpaceX?

Amazon already bought every large rocket that's not SpaceX. Maybe they get a few Neutron launches.

4

Triabolical_ t1_j9x7r4u wrote

I'm just pointing out that announced launches do not always translate to actual launches.

3

mfb- t1_j9xdaaf wrote

Sure, but if you are already buying every rocket you consider an option then there are not many ways to switch.

2

digifa t1_j9w6ezy wrote

ULA’s customer’s needs are quite different from SpaceX. They’re able to launch payloads to orbits and velocities that SpaceX does not offer, and the military, NASA, and many private entities already have contracts lined up with them. ULA and SpaceX are both launch providers, however they occupy different markets and there is a lot of demand for both. They aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.

0

Triabolical_ t1_j9wiaed wrote

The big government program is NSSL , and both SpaceX and ULA are certified to do all of their launches, as that was a requirement to bid. And NASA has chosen falcon heavy for Europa clipper, a high energy mission.

What launches is ULA able to do that SpaceX can't?

12

digifa t1_j9x2ep0 wrote

Not much difference, but enough to make a difference. The Atlas has wider flexibility and more options for its fairing load than the Falcon, and both the Atlas and Delta both have very specific high-energy orbits that the Falcon cannot offer—even when it is used fully expendable. And the Delta has a slightly higher payload mass maximum. Other than that, they have their proven track record of decades of reliability.

But I have to admit after reading up on it a bit more extensively, the differences between both companies isn’t as significant as I had previously thought. ULA needs to step up or they’ll be dead in the water very soon.

3

mfb- t1_j9x3owe wrote

> and both the Atlas and Delta both have very specific high-energy orbits that the Falcon cannot offer—even when it is used fully expendable

That's why Falcon Heavy exists... besides, Atlas and Delta are retiring, they cannot get new launches anyway.

> Other than that, they have their proven track record of decades of reliability.

The currently active version of Falcon 9, Block 5, has a 149/149 track record. Falcon Heavy is at 5/5. All these launches were made in the last 6 years, which is a much better indication of current performance than launches from 1990.

10

Triabolical_ t1_j9x7l11 wrote

Which orbits?

Wrt fairings, iirc SpaceX has an extended fairing launch as part of NSSL. They also have a vertical integration one.

4

OudeStok t1_j9xv8ci wrote

Comparing ULA to SpaceX is not realistic. Vulcan is yesterday's news. It is not re-usable, despite vague plans to try to recapture the engines by helicopters (plans which ULA has scrapped for the time being).

6

Xeglor-The-Destroyer t1_ja0d2bn wrote

ULA has been mumbling to themselves in a corner about engine parachute recovery since 2007 if not earlier, maybe even before the merger. It's not going to happen.

1