back to article SpaceX yoinks $96m GPS launch deal from under ULA's nose

The US Air Force has awarded a $96m contract to SpaceX to launch one of its next-generation GPS satellites, in a competitive contract that left the United Launch Alliance in the dust. The launch, which must take place by April 30, 2019, will see the GPS III satellite launched from SpaceX's spaceport. As it's a low-Earth orbit …

  1. a_yank_lurker

    SpaceX Development

    SpaceX is getting plenty of practice at reusing rockets while their competitors get the navel gaze. I suspect Musk realizes the current rockets are only first in a long line reusables. As they gain experience they can develop a second or even third generation while ULA is still gazing at its navel.

    Personally, I doubt snagging a rocket out of mid air by a helicopter is a very workable idea.

    1. Kharkov
      Pirate

      Re: SpaceX Development

      Two things. One, Vulcan uses all the fuel in the first stage and then the engines fall out, deploy a parachute and that's what the helicopters catch. The rest goes ka-blooey somewhere.

      Two, SpaceX's next-generation rocket? It's I.T.S., a freaking monster rocket lifting 300 tonnes and more, fully reusable, with really short turnaround times. Check wikipedia.

      1. Sampler

        Re: SpaceX Development

        Catching parachutes - think someone's being watching too much Dark Knight, though at least he had the sense to use a plane instead of da choppa!

    2. Bubba Von Braun

      Re: SpaceX Development

      This is a thought bubble, military tried this repeatedly during the cold war trying to recover film and camera capsules with very mixed results in some programs a less than 10% chance of recovery.

      And a rocket engine weighs allot more than a camera or film pack.

      Sounds like desperate/wishful thinking of BO and ULA's part. If they are that desperate maybe a move to solid clusters for their first stage, parachute them into the sea like SRB's ATK could restart that program and there are lots of old SRB segments rusting around the Provo manufacturing site.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Any idea what ULA thinks is "dumb" about SpaceX's approach?

        Naively it seems very frugal: just need some extra fuel and a restartable engine. Whereas the ULA approach adds bespoke hardware and has a human helicopter pilot up close and personal. Does the extra hardware weigh a lot less than the extra fuel for Falcon 9?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Any idea what ULA thinks is "dumb" about SpaceX's approach?

          In the video, an engineer states the attitude that recovering the entire booster the SpaceX way adds a lot of cost and keeps the profits low, compared to their engine cluster catch method. They do however, admit there are "costs" associated with their method as well. Definitely. So, there are two competing methods and one is already proven feasible, if not yet coining much money.

          SpaceX seems to have the inside track now, but there's no sure way to tell who's right until lengthy real world testing happens. Sure hope ULA's plans aren't just blowing smoke (so to speak).

        2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

          Re: Does the extra hardware weigh a lot less than the extra fuel for Falcon 9?

          Probably.

          The rocket equation is really horrible. The basic idea is fuel+oxidiser go down, payload goes up. At the start, most of the power is used to accelerate the remaining fuel+oxidiser in the wrong direction. As the rocket goes up, things get worse - more an more power has to go into dealing with the fuel+oxidizer going very fast the wrong way. Near the end of the burn, you are lifting a big empty fuel tank. Recovering a Falcon 9 first stage requires an extra 30% fuel+oxidiser. The reason SpaceX is pays for the extra fuel (and reduced payload) is that it costs 1% of the launch fee and recovers a stage 1 that costs 25% of the launch fee.

          ULA's initial concept did not include recovering the engines. In order to look remotely credible they had to bolt some kind of engine recovery onto their partially developed design. Some bombs to blow away the fuel tank, an inflatable heat shield and a parachutes should be much lighter than the SpaceX solution. Explosive bolts have been around for decades, so the separation should be as easy as rocket science. The inflatable heat shield is an old idea with one successful 3m diameter test (the shield on the video looked about 25m across). Catching tiny payloads with a helicopter sometimes used to work, and a pair of rocket engines are easily small enough to be carried around by a big modern helicopter (How much do helicopters and drone ships cost?).

          ULA's plan is not bat shit crazy. It does have plenty of R&D cost and enough development to keep ULA out of the cost competitive launch business until well after the first reusable Falcon 9s get retired.

          [SpaceX should be launching Echostar 23 about now. No landing this time.]

          1. Paul 129
            Coat

            Re: Does the extra hardware weigh a lot less than the extra fuel for Falcon 9?

            It sounds good, but when space X will have years of practical experience with turning around and re-certifying engines and space frames, will they be able to catch up? I wouldn't bet on it

    3. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: SpaceX Development

      ULA is still gazing at its navel.

      They are not - they have a contract with Bezos. A lot of the Blue Origin stuff is pre-sold to ULA already.

    4. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: SpaceX Development

      "SpaceX is getting plenty of practice at reusing rockets"

      They've yet to re-use anything for an actual mission, so far all they've done is re-use test stages, and run engine checks on recovered boosters. Hopefully in the next few months we'll get to see an actual launch on a recovered booster.

      1. DaLo

        Re: SpaceX Development

        "Hopefully in the next few months we'll get to see an actual launch on a recovered booster."

        Next couple of weeks!

  2. el_oscuro
    WTF?

    Supposed to launch in 2024?

    SpaceX is doing it now. By 2024, they will probably strap 5 Falcon 9's around a centre one, call it the "Falcon 42" and have single stage to moon. :)

    Even if ULA does launch, I would hate to be that helicopter pilot who tries to catch it. I mean what could possibly go wrong?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Black Helicopters

      Re: Supposed to launch in 2024?

      The engine pod is to be under a large parasail, giving it a relatively low sink rate and some nice forward speed for control. The copter should have little trouble lining up on it from behind (no pun intended). With modern computer guidance it ought to be pretty easy.

      But, it's a big ocean out there, and the helicopter needs to be within a critical radius of the reentry point or the engine pod will go in the drink. That could require a dispersed helicopter fleet on station, driving up costs considerably.

      1. DaLo

        Re: Supposed to launch in 2024?

        And of course, having a helicopter hovering over a 'chute will not upset it at all. It will continue to glide down nicely as you snag it?

        Anyone who has stood under a large Sikorsky will attest to the rather unsettling airflow that engages you.

    2. roytrubshaw
      Trollface

      Re: Supposed to launch in 2024?

      "SpaceX is doing it now. By 2024, they will probably strap 5 Falcon 9's around a centre one, call it the "Falcon 42" and have single stage to moon. :)"

      Wouldn't that be *8* Falcon 9's? And Falcon Ultar-Super-Duper Heavy? But not SST-Mars :(

  3. Kharkov
    Thumb Up

    Wait, we CAN'T overcharge you any more? UNFAIR!

    Wow, there's so much to unpack there...

    First, SpaceX is already cheaper than ULA, even without re-use. Anyone remember that 60-65 million dollar figure? ULA, on its best day, wasn't even close to that.

    Second, SpaceX is already doing first-stage recovery. If, as CEO G. Shotwell has said, there's 75% of the total cost in the first stage then re-use allows... well, the math's been done before, check for yourself. ULA, is only funding Vulcan on a quarter-to-quarter basis and the first flight is... 2019? Possibly slipping to 2020? Quarter to quarter funding isn't exactly showing great faith in their vehicle and...

    Third, does anyone think that a behemoth like ULA, hooked on government 'cost-plus' contracts, with a long tradition of 'make it more expensive so we get more revenue and profit' is going to make something that can even compete with SpaceX? A probably more expensive vehicle, with longer turnaround times, entering the market several years after SpaceX...

    As I've said before, the Executives & Directors of ULA have no reason to care, they can retire rich or return to Boeing or Lockheed Martin. The ULA workers, on the other hand... I hope they've got alternatives lined up.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Wait, we CAN'T overcharge you any more? UNFAIR!

      "ULA, is only funding Vulcan on a quarter-to-quarter "

      It's worse than that IMO ULA, being a Lockheed and Boeing conglomerate, have effectively been in the rocket business almost from the beginning and they don't appear to have the in house skills to design a new rocket so have outsourced it. You'd almost think they'd assumed they had a "job for life" and didn't see any possible future competition, even when SpaceX were actually launching.

      1. imanidiot Silver badge

        Re: Wait, we CAN'T overcharge you any more? UNFAIR!

        @John Brown,

        Boeing and Lockheed have always outsourced a lot of their spaceverhicle design to other firms. They've always operated as a sort of "central contractor", farming out the smaller sub jobs to their own subcontractors and then integrating the final results. They've never had all the inhouse knowledge to do it all themselves.

      2. rh587

        Re: Wait, we CAN'T overcharge you any more? UNFAIR!

        being a Lockheed and Boeing conglomerate, have effectively been in the rocket business almost from the beginning and they don't appear to have the in house skills to design a new rocket so have outsourced it.

        That has been my thought.

        The joint might of the Boeing and Lockheed behemoths - two companies who have been involved in the US Space Programme since day one - carries so much weight and experience, that they've outsourced the design of their new hardware to a company founded in 2000 which has never performed a production launch and only ever performed sub-orbital tests and demonstrator flights.

        Wow.

    2. Youngone Silver badge

      Re: Wait, we CAN'T overcharge you any more? UNFAIR!

      It sounds to me that it's not a case of ULA not being able to match SpaceX's price, it's more like they don't want to.

      All the reasons given in the article for ULA being more expensive, sound like reasons they ought to be cheaper.

      They will also have these guys breathing down their necks one day

      Their payload is tiny at the moment, but they will put your satellite into LEO for about $5 million I understand.

      1. Bubba Von Braun

        Re: Wait, we CAN'T overcharge you any more? UNFAIR!

        Brett Tobey, vice president of engineering at ULA (well now very EX-VP) admitted during a presentation to students that ULA was walking away from some bids as SpaceX is cheaper.. allot cheaper. ULA lowest cost with a subsidy is $125Mil SpaceX $60mil with the subsidy the ULA price goes up to around $200Mil.

        And there are others working on LEO with allot more progress than RocketLaunch lets see if the engineering matches the marketing :-)

        1. hplasm
          Headmaster

          Re: Wait, we CAN'T overcharge you any more? UNFAIR!

          "...allot cheaper."

          Once is alittle mistake. Twice, however....

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    reusable rockets

    "fire off parachutes, and then be caught in mid-air by a helicopter"

    That sounds... more suicidal than I'd expect for an experienced Aerospace company. Mid-air nabbing of a rocket has the James Bond villain vibe you might expect from Musk.

    1. Captain DaFt

      Re: reusable rockets

      "Mid-air nabbing of a rocket has the James Bond villain vibe you might expect from Musk."

      It sounds more like something I'd expect from Wiley Coyote.

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge

        Re: reusable rockets

        It has the advantage of being something that the US military have tried before.

        They've even successfully done it once or twice, and so far no aircrews killed! Majority of payloads lost of course.

        Frankly the FAA should shut them down. This operation is ridiculously dangerous and simply cannot be considered for routine operations.

        Risking an aircrew is just stupid. There's a reason SpaceX use a robot barge.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: reusable rockets

          "Risking an aircrew is just stupid. There's a reason SpaceX use a robot barge."

          Although I agree with you in principle, I don't think it's anywhere near as dangerous as you think. It's only the engine module, not the whole first stage, and it's hanging under a huge parasail, not a standard round parachute, so it's likely to be under some form of control and probably have minimal downwards velocity at capture time.

          My concern is the downwash from the very large helicopter as it comes up from behind. It it misses on the first attempt, will the downwash collapse the parasail? Or, for that matter, will the downwash collapse the parasail anyway during the attempt, making catching it harder?

          1. Richard 12 Silver badge

            Re: reusable rockets

            It's also a long way from land. With a boostback burn, SpaceX are landing around 200miles out to sea. That's within the (eg) Sea King endurance but doesn't leave much margin for time on-station.

            And very heavy, orders of magnitude heavier than anything previously attempted.

            Helicopters aren't particularly stable at the best of times, and the airframes aren't designed for shock loading.

            Ditching a helicopter is not fun.

      2. hplasm
        Happy

        Re: reusable rockets

        "Mid-air nabbing of a rocket has the James Bond villain vibe you might expect from Musk."

        ULA rocket goes up, ULA engines paracute down... SpaceX giant Quadcopter swoops in...

        cue Bond music...

  5. MD Rackham

    I expect some surprised faces...

    ...on their neighbors if they are going to launch from their HQ in Hawthorne. Not only surprised, but probably singed too.

    I think you'll find that they are going to launching from Canaveral in Florida.

  6. goldcd

    I can't help but wonder

    what it would be worth to ULA

    For the SpaceX launch to suffer a "misfortune"

    1. Paul J Turner

      Re: I can't help but wonder

      Again?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Holmes

      Re: I can't help but wonder

      Be fair, that sort of action could be committed by anyone, even Musk. Remember the famous quote: "It's the quiet ones you have to watch out for."

  7. Bubba Von Braun

    No Spaceport at Hawthorne

    Ahhh last time I visited there was no Spaceport built at SpaceX's plant at Hawthorne there is an airport next door, perfect for Elon's private jet, but I don't think the folks next door would take kindly to a Falcon 9 roaring off into the LAX approach paths :-)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: No Spaceport at Hawthorne

      They can get used to anything in LA.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hopefully the helicopter is unmanned

    That trying to snag a parachute, which would have a ton of cords coming off it to hold a heavy rocket, with something that depends on blades spinning at a high speed to stay airborne sounds potentially dangerous.

    They would avoid the wasted fuel for the landing, and the additional chance of something going wrong due the engine restart/landing sequence, so if they got it to work it should be more efficient and cost effective (if less cool) than SpaceX's approach.

    1. rh587

      Re: Hopefully the helicopter is unmanned

      They would avoid the wasted fuel for the landing, and the additional chance of something going wrong due the engine restart/landing sequence

      One the other hand, although you have recovered your expensive engines, you still have to manufacture a new first stage. Does that cost more or less than the additional fuel? And if your engines didn't restart for landing, you didn't want to reuse them for the next launch anyway!

      It's a "proven" technique in that it's been done under duress to recover spy sat film canisters and NASA had a go for a sample-return mission (they missed and it crashed into the desert). Refining it for routine missions might increase the reliability but unless you develop a drone-helicopter to do the job, it still exposes human crews to far higher risk than SpaceX's autonomous landing.

      1. eldakka

        Re: Hopefully the helicopter is unmanned

        @rh587:

        One the other hand, although you have recovered your expensive engines, you still have to manufacture a new first stage. Does that cost more or less than the additional fuel?

        Most of the expense, probably 90%, is in the engines.

        The rest of the first stage is just some fuel/oxidiser tanks, streamlining/environmental protection, and mounting for the engines and 2nd stage. Engines the size of the ones on the proposed ULA, the BE-4s, would be millions, if not tens of millions, each.

        And the fuel cost is pretty much irrelevant, as a cost of the overall launch, the fuel/oxidizer is minuscule, think of it like a nuclear reactor in that the expense is in the construction and equipment, the fuel cost is trivial.

        However, while the direct cost of fuel is trivial, the more fuel you reserve for landing means less cargo launch capacity. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9, the payload reduction in a reusable launch to GTO is 2,800kg (payload of 5500kg vs expendable payload of 8300kg, a 33% reduction), which translates to several (possibly 10's) millions of dollars in lost launch payload revenue.

        The cost for a helicopter to intercept the engines would be in the $10's of thousands, just look at helicopter lease rates for a guide.

        I am not supporting ULAs attitude here with regards to engine capture vs entire stage 1 return, nor rejecting it. The proof is in the pudding when (if) ULA ever implement the Vulcan, then we'll have a direct economic comparison with SpaceX's (and BTW Blue Origin who I believe will be using the reusable stage 1 vs just the engines approach) vs ULAs system. It's called competition, and we are finally getting some in the space industry!

      2. Bert.Douglas

        Re: Hopefully the helicopter is unmanned

        The nasa sample return mission failed because the parachute did not open. A critical sensor was mounted backwards. This sensor measured acceleration due to atmospheric drag and was supposed to trigger release of the parachute. The sign of acceleration was reversed, and the software did not see the expected signal. The computer was stuck in a loop waiting for a signal that would never come when it hit the ground. I guess you could say that the loop was terminated by an exception.

  9. jzl

    Dumb?

    If someone from ULA calls your idea "dumb", you know you're onto something good.

  10. lglethal Silver badge
    Facepalm

    ULA not willing to let go of the gravy train?

    I guess ULA have been too used to the gravy train for too long.

    Normally, if your producing the same thing over and over and it's old tech, you can make continuous improvements to the manufacture process, to reduce your costs (and improve your profits).

    Either ULA has been crazily lazy and not bothered with process improvement, or they arent willing to pass those savings to the government. Or perhaps they dont want to admit, how much theyve been gouging the US government for throughout the years. So perhaps we can expect over the next few years for the price they're charging to drop significantly, in line with "process improvements that we've only just implemented, really, guv!".

    1. nematoad
      Happy

      Re: ULA not willing to let go of the gravy train?

      This situation reminds me of the one with IE. Microsoft had had a near monopoly on browsers for a long time and that got lazy and more or less said "Here's the browser, take it or leave it." That lasted until Mozilla popped up and shook things up much like SpaceX is now doing.

      Rest on your laurels for long enough and someone *will* come and knock you off your perch.

      Oh, note for ULA, it's supposed to be a "free market" not a benefit scheme.

  11. Vulch

    Support ship

    No currently flying helicopter has the range to do a mid-air recovery of an engine pack from a Cape Canaveral launch if setting off from land. That means a support ship is going to be required on station, and it's going to need a big helicopter to carry the engine pack so it's going to be a big ship. Probably doesn't need to be quite as big as HMS Albion or HMS Bulwark, but that sort of sized flight deck will be needed to hold the helicopter and recovered engine pack.

    1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: Support ship

      They could rent the new British carriers for that, at least for the first few launches until the planes are ready.

  12. imanidiot Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Uhhm right...

    Because having an extra failure mode being your engines fall off is a good thing...

    Or risking a helo crew to snag an engine block out of mid air...

    Or having to lug up the extra dead weight of a heatshield and parachute instead of extra fuel that also gives you extra options in case of an engine out scenario...

    Sounds to me like they needed a: "Look, we do recovery too" marketing blag that wasn't too similar to SpaceX

  13. James Hughes 1

    Arianespace too..

    Are looking at mid air recovery.

    But I think BO are landing the first stage like SpaceX with their New Glenn rocket.

  14. DuncanL
    WTF?

    Strangley specific cost

    Given the enormous sum involved - $96,500,490 - where does the last $490 dollars come from? Why on earth didn't it just get rounded to a flat 96.5 million? Did some schmoozing lunch get added to the final bill?

    1. DaLo

      Re: Strangley specific cost

      In the 1850s Everest was measured to be exactly 29,000 ft. However it was changed to 29,002 ft so it didn't look like the recorded height was a vague/approximate measurement.

      P.S. The actual height using modern instruments is 29,029 ft, so the original measurement, using theodolites and very difficult conditions, was remarkably close.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Retro-Rocket Ulterior Motive

    SpaceX is doing recovery the way they are because it's part of an overall plan. The same technology used to recover their first stages on Earth will be used to land spaceships with passenger and equipment loads on any other world in the solar system. They all have considerably less gravity than Earth which makes retro-rockets the best approach to landing on a world without much existing infrastructure. So having Earth launch customers cover the cost of the R&D now will just make their future plans cheaper.

    Helicopter capture of engine pods doesn't help accomplish that vision at all. You won't have helicopter infrastructure on Mars waiting for you, and you need to land the whole rocket, not just the engines.

    1. IglooDude

      Re: Retro-Rocket Ulterior Motive

      ULA was probably also proceeding according to an overall plan: When serious money was to be laid out for a Mars launch, they'd do the necessary design at that time, and get paid for it. Cost-plus contracts don't incentivize designing cheaper and more efficient alternatives.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Retro-Rocket Ulterior Motive

      SpaceX tried straight parachute recovery of the boosters first. it was a hopeless failure for a number of reasons. Propulsive landing was the second attempt which just happens to be a viable solution for Mars too.

  16. MisterNineThousand

    The other thing

    SpaceX learned to land boosters via the bloody nose method. Even after getting the grasshopper working reliably and the software doing the tricky bits, they still had a year of converting multimulion dollar space robots and boat robots in a rocking boat and an orange fireball.

    Fast forward to 2025 or w/e this ULA thing takes off and SpaceX will have a full decade of sticking landings and making it look easy, ULA's image will get tarnishing for making the news for blowing up 5-20 rockets and Elon can casually tweet about it being the 500th successful landing or w/e is true by then. At that point they are even more boned, giving up means you admit they are not as good at building rockets, and taking too long means that ULA isn't ran as well. Several groups landed a test rocket before (and including!) SpaceX but doing it for real seems to be genuinely much harder.

    Oh and running 2 engines instead of 9 may actually make it impossible if they don't throttle to 1-2%, since Falcons land on 1-3 engines, and 3 engines at full throttle crushed one of the cores on landing approach last year. Their whole architecture might make it a non starter.

  17. Phil Blick

    Very smart, in the bigger picture.

    To look at a bigger picture, SpaceX is doing very nicely with R&D efforts for Mars landing, where rocket assist is currently vital due to atmospheric thinness, considering that, as pointed out above, there is a profit margin to be had. Smart. When combined with a similarly intentioned broad technology portfolio and manufacturing know-how that could be geared to operate anywhere with appropriate resources, the pieces, namely economic, energy and transport infrastructures, could be said to be in assembly to facilitate sustainable planetary colonisation on a civilisation scale. Nice one, Mr.Musk! And this is just one multi-billionaire sci-fi fan's efforts. That I find encouraging.

  18. Grunchy Silver badge

    Helicopter Snatch vs Rocket Landing

    When NASA landed on the Moon way back when, I do believe they used rocket thrusters to do that.

    The parachutes don't work well there.

    However: I can imagine a helicopter technique being more reliably successful.

    Because if you miss the first time, presumably you could swing around & have another go, maybe two.

    If the rocket landing doesn't work out, that was your one chance.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like