Given that the savings by going to SpaceX instead of ULA for the 60% of launches they can currently accommodate amount, well let’s see:
SpaceX, say $100 million (add 10% to Elon’s figure just for the hell of it and round up) compared to ULA of what $460 million which is say around $2.4 billion for say 15 launches. Marginal savings per launch of $360 million.
That’s quite a savings.

Then there’s the seven that have been apparently allocated for competitive tender with savings of another $2.5 million if they all go to SpaceX.

Shucks, that’s about $5 billion savings over ULA.
Even if we increase SpaceX prices a bit and decrease ULA’s we still end up with considerable savings by using SpaceX.

These numbers are mindblowing and it’s no wonder every launch company in the world is starting to get concerned.

Then there’s the hairy topic of reusability. If SpaceX pull it off only for their first stage and prove up reliability, the impacts are going to be more than considerable. It would seem that SpaceX is going to sew up the commercial market completely, particularly if they manage to get FH up and running even in expendable form.

I’m sure that cancellation wouldn’t cost anywhere near those savings but happy to stand corrected.

Agreed, timing is, as they say, everything.

Interesting times. I await the outcome of this with considerable interest and in the meantime there is the continuing launch and test program of reusable SpaceX boosters as they continue to progress their launch manifest.

Cheers.

“That’s pretty impressive considering it’s only flown nine times.”

I was using Ad Astra’s figures, so talk to him about it.

But just out of curiosity, what happened on the 9th Atlas V flight? Was it successful?

My apologies – I was confusing you with Michael Listner.

“The last time he sued to have the courts force the Air Force to give him EELV launches was in 2005…”

No, SpaceX did not sue the Air Force (i.e. U.S. Government), they sued Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

Specifically, “In court documents filed Oct. 19 [2005], SpaceX is suing Boeing and Lockheed Martin “for violations of antitrust, unfair competition and racketeering laws.””

You’re the legal person – how does that change your assumptions now?

“The point is, defense contracts are awarded based on demonstrated contractor ability, not on the promises of its CEO.”

So let’s start with the fact that SpaceX has already demonstrated the minimum needed to qualify for consideration by the Air Force, which is three successful launches (the paperwork certification just confirms the qualification).

That being the case, it’s quite easy for the Air Force to validate his claim – the Falcon 9 public specs are on their website, and the Air Force likely already has the proprietary info that only qualified customers get (i.e. they are ITAR compliant, financially secure, etc.).

“The Air Force has said that it looked at SpaceX’s capability, pulled the launches that SpaceX could perform out of the block buy, and awarded ULA the launches that SpaceX couldn’t perform.”

Actually that’s not true, and I’m not sure where you’re getting that from. Do you have a public reference for that?