Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Triabolical_ t1_j9wiaed wrote

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

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