Author Topic: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 133396 times)

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7039
  • N. California
  • Liked: 3491
  • Likes Given: 732
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #760 on: 03/21/2017 03:41 AM »
Excuse me. Is this not supposed to be a ULA thread? What's with all the SpaceX felgercarb here?

It is.  The topic being discussed is ULA's management attitude and response to challenges and to changes in the market.

This was relevant back with Michael Gass, and is relevant today with Tory Bruno.

SpaceX was only brought into the discussion when the rationale for their attitude was argued as "RTLS reuse is not proven yet".  It's just like the discussion might veer into "where can ULA and BO's relationship lead", or "how is ULA responding to BO's NG".  The discussion never went into the details of SpaceX-style reuse.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Negan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 137
  • Southwest
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #761 on: 03/22/2017 09:40 PM »

At this point, saying "cost reduction due to reuse is unproven" is akin to saying, in December, that Trump had not won the election since the electoral college had not yet met.  It's technically a true statement but almost sure to be overturned in the next few months.  After all, SpaceX has recovered several boosters, had plenty of time to inspect them, has test fired them, run them through structural testing, and after all that stated they expect to refurbish them for a few (2-3) million dollars each.  It seems unlikely that their cost estimates are off by an order of magnitude, and they should verify, within weeks, that there are no technical flaws that prevent reuse.  So a rational person should guess that cost reduction from reuse is extremely likely, and expect that within a few months it will be proven.

Wrong, they do not know if they will have shuttle orbiter issue and need to take more time to refurbish than build a stage.  They took 4 months on the first one.  We don't even know how much of the vehicle will be new hardware.

A rational person would not be suck into the hype.

Down to six to eight weeks now and only two to four weeks in a few months. How does that compare to building a new stage?