Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Wins $130 Million Air Force Launch Contract, Marking a First For Falcon Heavy (geekwire.com)

Posted by msmash on from the marching-forward dept.

The U.S. Air Force has awarded a $130 million firm-fixed-price contract to SpaceX for the launch of its classified AFSPC-52 satellite on a Falcon Heavy rocket. From a report: It's the first national security contract won for SpaceX's heavy-lift rocket, which had its first test flight in February. AFSPC-52 is tue to lift off in 2020 from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The launch will support the Air Force Space Command's "mission of delivering resilient and affordable space capabilities to our nation while maintaining assured access to space," Lt. Gen. John Thompson, Air Force program executive officer for space and commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center, said today in a news release. In an emailed statement, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said her company was "honored by the Air Force's selection of Falcon Heavy to launch the competitively awarded AFSPC-52 mission."

11 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. Re:MAGA with American Rocket Engines by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Air Force"? Don't you mean...Space Force?

  2. Re:MAGA with American Rocket Engines by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Probably not by the end of the year.

        Everyone is mocking it, but this has been coming for a long time. Space is already a separate command in the Air Force, formed about 15ish years ago, more-or-less, to consolidate space acquistion (Los Angeles, mostly) and operations (Colordao, mostly). It's a logical development, they really are separate disciplines.

  3. Only one launch by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Note that $130M is only enough to pay for one Falcon Heavy launch with the additional government book-keeping. Commercial satellite vendors pay less, because they don't require as much compliance and paperwork.

    So, it's really nice that Falcon Heavy got a government contract. However, SpaceX is not even close to recovering the cost of the engineering it put into it, and the first test launch. And they may never recover it before this business shifts to their new rocket, fondly called "BFR".

    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re:Only one launch by WindBourne · · Score: 3

      LOL.
      SX launches for a fraction of what ULA does and you accuse SX of leeching tax dollars.
      Gads, I miss when the FUD was off-site and trolls were stopped quickly. Now, /. is nothing but a troll base and being destroyed. Sad.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  4. Payload adapter by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are they going to let SpaceX make the payload adapter this time? The Northrop Grumman one on Zuma resulted in mission failure.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  5. Reliability compared to ULA by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 3, Interesting

    SpaceX is good for commercial launches where they are willling to accept a little higher risk to launch off the shelf commercial satellites. For things relating to national security, and one off NASA stuff thats been underway for a decade like James Webb, can they be so confident that it will be as reliable as the ULA stuff. The idea of something like James Webb being lost is pretty scary after its taken so long. SpaceX not being there yet as far as having the same record as ULA, doesnt mean its a bad platform for lower risk launches.

    1. Re:Reliability compared to ULA by EnsilZah · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, they've definitely had a couple of bumps on the road, but they're getting there.
      They said they're pretty much locking down the design of the current iteration of the Falcon 9 and will continue flying it unchanged as they shift focus to the BFR.

      I think if you look a little bit further ahead, you'll have to ask the reverse question, does ULA's record of reliability hold when they retire their current rocket families (Which they must, one for being too expensive, and the other for using Russian engines) and start launching on a newly designed rocket with newly designed engines when SpaceX will have more than a hundred launches under their belt?

  6. Re:Compared to... by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ULA USED to charge over 300M per launch. SX has forced it way down and they are still too expensive. That $354M does not include the 1B yearly subsidy .

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  7. Re: Nice! by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative

    Note also that an Atlas at $177M can lift 4,750â"8,900 kg (10,470â"19,620 lb) to GTO, while a Falcon Heavy at $130M can lift 26,700 kg (58,900 lb) to GTO.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  8. Re: Nice! by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Gosh, I hate Slashdot's handling of Unicode. An Atlas at $177M can lift 4,750-8,900 kg (10,470-19,620 lb) to GTO, while a Falcon Heavy at $130M can lift 26,700 kg (58,900 lb) to GTO.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  9. Re: Nice! by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    Meanwhile, in the real world, Tesla sells four times more Model 3s in the US each month than the highest selling non-Telsla BEV. But don't worry your head about that. :)

    SpaceX has been, and continues to, save US taxpayers massive amounts of money versus a formerly literal monopoly, ULA.

    Hyperloop is a curious "scam" in that they released Hyperloop Alpha for free and did not attempt to pursue it, let alone raise money off of it. It's part of the long term plans of Boring Company, but low on their priority list.

    Boring Company has no public funding, and has not sought public funding.

    --
    I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!