Comments on: Hearing set for today on motion to lift RD-180 injunction

By: Denise

Denise — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 07:59:58 +0000

Hey, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your website in Chrome, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, terrific blog! Here is my weblog ... make some money (Denise)

By: back-ups

back-ups — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 01:45:33 +0000

What a information of un-ambiguity and preserveness of valuable know-how on the topic of
unexpected feelings.

By: Byeman

Byeman — Mon, 12 May 2014 19:44:28 +0000

FUD? Dark Blue Nine
Here is some in your post. F9 falls short of the performance of these vehicles too.
– A5421: 3 launches
– A5431: 2 launches
– A5531: 3 launches
– A5541: 2 launches

By: Dark Blue Nine

Dark Blue Nine — Sun, 11 May 2014 12:28:19 +0000

“ULA has averaged 11 flights a year throughout its entire seven-year history”

Not national defense payload launches, which is what we’re talking about here and which are often delayed months to years by payload issues outside the launcher’s control.

Moreover, the block buy explicitly covers through 2017-2019.

“the seven competed launches”

Which, again, USAF has warned are headed to zero (or one).

“so SpaceX wasnâ€™t ‘locked out’ of EELV launches”

Don’t put words in my mouth — I didn’t use the term “locked out”. But I will say again that between the block buy and the remaining competed launches heading towards zero, competition for national defense payload launches is effectively eliminated for the next half-decade.

This is happening at exactly the same time that new entrants can make competition possible. Totally boneheaded on USAF’s part, which is not surprising given that the EELV PEO who oversaw this decision (now retired) used to run roads and commodes at Ogden before arriving at the Pentagon.

By: Michael Kent

Michael Kent — Sat, 10 May 2014 22:51:21 +0000

There are 36 cores in the block buy. Four of the missions are Delta IV Heavy missions which require three cores each. The end result: 28 launches.
ULA has averaged 11 flights a year throughout its entire seven-year history. 28 launches are 2-1/2 years worth of launches. Not a decade nor a half-decade.
Of course the two awarded EELV-class launches and the seven competed launches will be happening in this timreframe, so SpaceX wasn’t “locked out” of EELV launches.

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Sat, 10 May 2014 17:15:06 +0000

The more relevant question is who is paying your salary… you sure are a champion of taxpayers supporting the pork train.

By: Dark Blue Nine

Dark Blue Nine — Sat, 10 May 2014 06:51:36 +0000

“They didnâ€™t tie up EELV for a half decade.”

For all intents and purposes, the block buy does that. Competed launches have dropped from 14 to 7 and are headed toward zero, while the sole-sourced block buy covers 36 cores through at least 2017 and likely 2019 given usual schedule slips. That effectively shuts down competition in the EELV program for the next half-decade.

“1) SpaceX already has two EELV-class launches from the Air Force in this time period.”

Those aren’t EELV launches.

“2) Fourteen launches were withheld from the block buy for SpaceX to bid on.”

Which have been reduced to seven, with the USAF warning that they will likely go to zero.

“3) The Air Force concluded that SpaceX couldnâ€™t perform the 28 launches awarded to ULA”

Thereâ€™s 36 launches in the block buy. USAF made no such determination because SpaceX was not allowed to bid.

By: Dark Blue Nine

Dark Blue Nine — Sat, 10 May 2014 06:47:07 +0000

“The fourteen competed launches didnâ€™t go away. Seven of them remain in the FY-15 to FY-17 timeframe covered by the proposed buy.”

Most likely not. USAF has warned that those seven will probably go away, too.

“The other 28 launches were put in the block buy because the Air Force concluded that SpaceX would not be able to launch them.”

There’s 36 launches in the block buy. USAF made no such determination because SpaceX was not allowed to bid.

“That isnâ€™t some conspiracy.”

No one said it was. In fact, I think I’ve used the term “boneheaded”. Never ascribe to malice what is usually just stupidity.

By: Michael Kent

Michael Kent — Sat, 10 May 2014 02:22:00 +0000

The fourteen competed launches didn’t go away. Seven of them remain in the FY-15 to FY-17 timeframe covered by the proposed buy. SpaceX will still be eligible to bid on those.

Five others were GPS III satellites which will still launch but later than the covered time period. That isn’t some conspiracy. It’s because the GPS IIA, GPS IIR, and GPS IIF satellites are all lasting way longer than their design life (a good thing, I would think). SpaceX will still be eligible to bid on those when they are put out for bid.

One was a payload that grew too heavy for the Falcon 9 — SpaceX can’t launch it. I’m not sure what happened to the last one.

The other 28 launches were put in the block buy because the Air Force concluded that SpaceX would not be able to launch them.

You act like this is some conspiracy. It is not. When the Air Force concludes that SpaceX can perform the launches SpaceX will be allowed to bid on them. But not before.

By: Michael Kent

Michael Kent — Sat, 10 May 2014 02:08:17 +0000

They didn’t tie up EELV for a half decade.

1) SpaceX already has two EELV-class launches from the Air Force in this time period.

2) Fourteen launches were withheld from the block buy for SpaceX to bid on.

3) The Air Force concluded that SpaceX couldn’t perform the 28 launches awarded to ULA, so they might as well wrap them up in the block buy and save some money over awarding them to ULA individually.