Comments on: SpaceX wins another NASA launch contract

By: Edward

Edward — Sat, 08 Feb 2020 00:41:12 +0000

sippin_bourbon,
It seems that sun-synchronous orbit is new for SpaceX, but not unplanned. Robert had a story, a while back, that linked to a Space News article:
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/spacex-s-decision-to-slash-prices-provide-reliable-launch-schedule-upends-smallsat-industry/

From the linked Space News article:
“The original program also offered a limited number of dedicated Falcon 9 launches to sun-synchronous orbit (SSO) from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, with the first scheduled for between November 2020 and March 2021. Subsequent launches were tentatively scheduled for early 2022 and early 2023.”

It seems that PACE adds another launch, this one scheduled for late 2022.

By: sippin_bourbon

sippin_bourbon — Fri, 07 Feb 2020 04:26:55 +0000

So what I found as it says PACE is 1700kg fully fueled. Not particularly heavy. The target orbit is 98° inclination. A near polar, retrograde orbit. I do not have the orbital data of previous sats launched by SpaceX. Could be this is a new one for them. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

By: Edward

Edward — Fri, 07 Feb 2020 03:28:54 +0000

I doubt that the government is being overcharged. I suspect that the extra costs cover what the two articles phrase as “other mission related costs” and “related services.” What these services and costs are and whether these are pre-launch, post launch, or both is not stated by these articles, which is too bad. Undoubtedly, these were included in the bid package to all the eligible launch companies, and each company bid appropriately.

By: sturmudgeon

sturmudgeon — Thu, 06 Feb 2020 20:31:39 +0000

Robert: I agree…. Government “expenditures” are always suspect, considering the wealth of evidence regarding ANY past disregard of OUR money.

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Thu, 06 Feb 2020 18:54:31 +0000

In reply to Black Sheep. Black Sheep: You are welcome to your opinion. Mine is based on a long life of experience watching (and reporting on) how our federal government operates, or doesn't. Moreover, you are welcome to explore my website. I back up my opinions with numerous links, repeatedly. And have been doing so for just under ten years.

By: Black Sheep

Black Sheep — Thu, 06 Feb 2020 16:47:40 +0000

You haven’t offered any information other than what you assume to be the price of this mission, an assumption not established in any way, and then you start criticizing the government. Show us the actual contract or at least an actual official statement of the payout first. Then write about it. You want donations for this? My ISP just charged my over $150 yesterday in fees for my non-profit, no money requested, no ads blog that almost no one reads, and I’m on Social Security. I post opinions too, but at least I back them up with links and research.

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Wed, 05 Feb 2020 19:02:37 +0000

In reply to Jim Davis.

Jim Davis: You are correct of course. Nonetheless, considering the amount of money that NASA is sending SpaceX on its many other deals, most especially its manned Dragon contract, they did have some leverage.

I know that any sane businessman in NASA’s position would have pushed SpaceX for a reduction, and probably gotten something. I think NASA probably didn’t even try.

By: Jim Davis

Jim Davis — Wed, 05 Feb 2020 18:53:03 +0000

I suspect here however NASA could have driven a harder bargan.

Bob, I’m not seeing that they had any leverage. Since NASA is restricted to domestic launch providers SpaceX would be bidding against ULA, Northrup-Grumman/Orbital Sciences, and maybe Blue Origin. I can’t see any of those giving SpaceX any pressure to lower their bid. With the ongoing issues with Boeing’s CST-100, I can’t see that NASA can use commercial crew to force SpaceX to cut them any slack. NASA is not holding a strong hand.

By: mike shupp

mike shupp — Wed, 05 Feb 2020 18:42:08 +0000

Guessing, but it might be that the satellite is so heavy or headed for an unusual orbit and SpaceX figures they aren’t going to recover their 1st stage. I.e, they’re billing NASA for an expendable launch.

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Wed, 05 Feb 2020 17:40:16 +0000

In reply to Jim Davis. Jim Davis: I have an issue with the federal government, not SpaceX. If they can soak the government, they should do so. I suspect here however NASA could have driven a harder bargan.

By: geoffc

geoffc — Wed, 05 Feb 2020 17:39:44 +0000

In the case of Air Force launches, and I assume similar to NASA, the cost of extra paperwork is formidable.

However, 20-40 million dollars worth of paperwork is a terrifying prospect. Of course, the cost is in salaries and peoples time.

By: Jim Davis

Jim Davis — Wed, 05 Feb 2020 16:30:17 +0000

…I suspect this is merely the case of our vaunted federal government overpaying for a service, simply because it isn’t their money and they are willing to spend extra for no reason other than it makes their job easier.

Or perhaps they just accepted the lowest bid. Perhaps SpaceX decided to soak the government for some extra millions knowing no other bidder could come close to their bid. I’m not sure why you have an issue with SpaceX trying to maximize their profit. They have a duty to their shareholders, after all.