I am not suggesting that the Delta II parts lines get restarted. What I am saying is there are some important sats needing to be launched. There has been past failures that added years to the date the data can start to be collected.

The Delta II are there, they are the most reliable rocket in the US inventory, and that extra reliabilty ( 96 successful launches in a row) is worth that premium, for these couple flights.

After, I am more than comfortable with SpaceX being utilized.

So far SpaceX has not had a failure of their F9 and it is not yet operational. 3 for 3. In fact, it’s actually 5 for 5 if you include the last 2 flights of the F1.
So why is NASA prepared to pay around 20% more for the Delta II, a vehicle that they decided not to support any longer? Apparently it’s a premium for reliability. The facts don’t support that argument.
Other posters have made much of the forthcoming SpaceX price increases. Frankly, blowing in the wind. The basic launch vehicle is complete. It follows, therefore that SpaceX will know exactly right down to the last dime, what it costs to produce and fly one. I don’t foresee any price increases over perhaps normal inflation. Additionally SpaceX has most of the production and launch costs within their control which will majorly assist in price stability.
As Robert says, it’s going to be interesting watching the fight for the scraps.

“the individual launch cost are “entertaining”…if these hold Musk will own the launch industry”

As much as I am a self admitted fan of the work SpaceX is doing, I am actually glad they decided on the Delta II for the OCO 2. The loss of climate sats, when they can definitively give us better data for how the climate is changing, is something that can be avoided by utilizing a launch vehicle with a great track record.

I am fine with a premium over Falcon 9 costs if it gets those birds in the sky and doing their job.

Just the beginning of what I said would happen winning the launch market worldwide. Of course it comes with caveat. Europe is a protected market and probably Russia and China. However there are a lot of countries that need LVs. These countries are in Asia and Africa, possibly Eastern Europe. And that is a lot of people that will suddenly be able to afford a launch that they were not before. And of course if the price holds at SpaceX.

A big IF but so far so good.

Let’s watch in amazement.

I had to laugh at the part about local employers saying they don’t want any references for space workers because their compensation demands are unreasonably high. They’ve been used to fat government salaries for so long that they just can’t grasp what it’s like in the real world.

At my current job, I make about $11/hour but my commute is 10 miles one way. I have health coverage which is more important at my age. Unlike some of these space workers, I actually planned for an economic downturn and was frugal with my money. I paid off my mortgage, not spending the equity to buy a Corvette or a speedboat or more housing than I could afford.

Some of these workers have skills that were unique to Shuttle but don’t really apply anywhere else. Okay, so you sewed together thermal blankets for an orbiter. That doesn’t translate to the private sector, unless you want to work in a sweatshop somewhere sewing garments for minimum wage. They just don’t seem to grasp that in the real world these skills aren’t worth what they were paid by the government.

the individual launch cost are “entertaining”…if these hold Musk will own the launch industry RGO

Sorry but if you do not make any money, 40 miles is a little price to pay. Ever been in a situation like that?

Further they are in Florida, not Chicago. No snow storm. These are excuses from people who think they deserve better based on past work.

This is NOT the way it works in the private sector. You get what you deserve and sometimes you do not even get what you deserve yet you may be working odd hours, in traffic or anything.

There is NO excuse to refuse a work when you are out of one, while millions wait for a job.

I agree with much of your points but that depends on a lot of factors. Cost of gas and time it takes to get to work do factor into the equation as well as any other responsiblities. I am a Chicagoan and if I had to drive 40 miles to a job in the north burbs (say Skokie) through downtown rush from the south side, it wouldn’t make much sense. I have a pretty reasonably fuel efficient car but I would burn a lot of gas sitting in traffic and it could easily take me well over an hour to get to work one way in good weather and lord help if there is snow storm. If I went south to the south burbs the same distance it might make more sense. Esp. as the traffic would not be so heavy.

I think you are being very naive wrt ISS and China.

The shuttle workforce is in trouble? Well that is everyday life to a lot of people in this country. Why would they be spared – to be blunt? Why? What national need they provide is so important? Why did they all blame and vote against Obama who wanted to give them free money to transition with less drama?

Sorry but there this guy who is rejecting an $11/hr job just because it is 40 miles away. How arrogant! Why not?

The shuttle was cancelled back in 2004, they had what 8 years to find something else. It is kind of a good advance notice don’t you think? What is the average advance notice to those who work in the private sector? Any idea?

So enough with the lamenting of the shuttle workforce.