Author Topic: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser  (Read 26163 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #20 on: 03/18/2015 08:36 pm »
This isn't capitalism.

Of course it's capitalism. What you mean is that it isn't free market capitalism. To which I'd respond that it never was, is not anywhere in the world, never will be, and cannot be. Launch vehicles are a government-dominated market, everywhere, heavily regulated and subsidized.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #21 on: 03/18/2015 08:37 pm »
This has all gotten a bit ridiculous imo.

-Remove the RD-180 language. Use them as long as we can for any launches ensuring AtlasV can fly out their current  manifest and get them close to when NGLV will be ready.

<snip>

One major (as in MAJOR) flaw in your reasoning. The minute you remove the RD-180 legal language you remove any incentive for USAF and ULA to develop a domestic alternative. USAF and ULA are not going to be spending hundreds of millions of US dollars on a replacement engine if they don't have to. That has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt in the past two decades, since no effort was put into a domestic engine until Putin started acting silly in the Ukraine and US Congress got all jittery about that.

And there are tell-tale signs that even WITH the RD-180 legal language in place there is less-than-zero enthusiasm at USAF to do a replacement engine development program. Step one in the USAF SOP for such a situation is crying foul over the deadline. We saw that happen yesterday at the house hearing. My prediction is that next they will yell "it can't be done for the money appropriated". Etc, etc.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2015 08:42 pm by woods170 »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #22 on: 03/18/2015 08:39 pm »
Not for nothing, but McCain is a former (highly decorated) Navy man who has always struck me as someone who is quite critical of the USAF. (I also have gotten the feeling over the years that he feels the same about Boeing). You just have to look at his comments on the tanker mess (occurred at about the same time as the Boeing Delta IV mess that led to the formation of ULA).

His antipathy toward the Air Force may stem from his Navy background or may not. But he was vindicated by the tanker fiasco, but Boeing still won in the end, so he may feel both self-righteous and aggrieved at the same time.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #23 on: 03/18/2015 08:43 pm »
Not for nothing, but McCain is a former (highly decorated) Navy man who has always struck me as someone who is quite critical of the USAF. (I also have gotten the feeling over the years that he feels the same about Boeing). You just have to look at his comments on the tanker mess (occurred at about the same time as the Boeing Delta IV mess that led to the formation of ULA).

His antipathy toward the Air Force may stem from his Navy background or may not. But he was vindicated by the tanker fiasco, but Boeing still won in the end, so he may feel both self-righteous and aggrieved at the same time.
Possibly, but since we can't look into the senators personal thoughts, your comment will remain an assumption at best.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #24 on: 03/18/2015 09:01 pm »
This has all gotten a bit ridiculous imo.

-Remove the RD-180 language. Use them as long as we can for any launches ensuring AtlasV can fly out their current  manifest and get them close to when NGLV will be ready.

<snip>

One major (as in MAJOR) flaw in your reasoning. The minute you remove the RD-180 legal language you remove any incentive for USAF and ULA to develop a domestic alternative. USAF and ULA are not going to be spending hundreds of millions of US dollars on a replacement engine if they don't have to. That has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt in the past two decades, since no effort was put into a domestic engine until Putin started acting silly in the Ukraine and US Congress got all jittery about that.

And there are tell-tale signs that even WITH the RD-180 legal language in place there is less-than-zero enthusiasm at USAF to do a replacement engine development program. Step one in the USAF SOP for such a situation is crying foul over the deadline. We saw that happen yesterday at the house hearing. My prediction is that next they will yell "it can't be done for the money appropriated". Etc, etc.
That's a good point. And I would completely agree if it wasn't for one other very important variable. SpaceX.
Regardless of the RD-180, ULA had/has to re-invent itself to be viable into the 2020s.

Having said that, I guess all I'm looking for is a little balance then. I'm ok with a deadline, but not so arbitrary where it puts what could be an orderly transition into potential chaos.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #25 on: 03/18/2015 09:04 pm »
The minute you remove the RD-180 legal language you remove any incentive for USAF and ULA to develop a domestic alternative.
That's not entirely true. They still have SpaceX coming up as competition as well as any foreign launch service provider for non-national security launches. Even if the engine language were dropped ULA will have a nearly 20 year old design at that point which will become harder and harder to compete.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #26 on: 03/18/2015 09:23 pm »
Not for nothing, but McCain is a former (highly decorated) Navy man who has always struck me as someone who is quite critical of the USAF. (I also have gotten the feeling over the years that he feels the same about Boeing). You just have to look at his comments on the tanker mess (occurred at about the same time as the Boeing Delta IV mess that led to the formation of ULA).

His antipathy toward the Air Force may stem from his Navy background or may not. But he was vindicated by the tanker fiasco, but Boeing still won in the end, so he may feel both self-righteous and aggrieved at the same time.
Possibly, but since we can't look into the senators personal thoughts, your comment will remain an assumption at best.
All one has to do is to read this man's biography, and those of his father and grandfather.  All three are or were national heroes, each multiple times over.  John McCain has more than earned the right to stand for what he believes is the right thing for his country, whether or not it turns out to be the right thing.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/18/2015 09:24 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2783
  • Likes Given: 1097
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #27 on: 03/18/2015 11:51 pm »
Regardless of the RD-180, ULA had/has to re-invent itself to be viable into the 2020s.

Question is: Who is going to pay for ULA to reinvent itself?  Which is closely coupled to the RD-180 or its replacement.  Specifically: (a) who pays for an RD-180 replacement; and (b) who benefits from it?

ULA has asserted that it is willing to reinvent itself at no additional cost to the government (no comment)... if only given enough time to certify an Atlas V replacement.

Could the Atlas V replacement/certification be accelerated with additional US government funds?  I don't know.  However, would not surprise me if that was the flip side of this play (more than just trying to extend RD-180); ULA, BO and maybe AJ could benefit.

SpaceX would not appear to benefit.  It is unlikely they would receieve funds to develop an RD-180 replacement.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #28 on: 03/19/2015 08:35 am »
The minute you remove the RD-180 legal language you remove any incentive for USAF and ULA to develop a domestic alternative.
That's not entirely true. They still have SpaceX coming up as competition as well as any foreign launch service provider for non-national security launches. Even if the engine language were dropped ULA will have a nearly 20 year old design at that point which will become harder and harder to compete.
SpaceX is coming up as competition to ULA for both national security and other launches. National security payloads will never be launched by foreign launch service providers. Another major customer of ULA (NASA) also holds a firm tradition of launching most of it's payloads on US-provided rockets. IMO, both policies will not change in the forseeable future.

So, under that scenario ULA will face stiff competition from SpaceX for national security and NASA launches, and ULA will indeed have to transform to be able to compete. However, it's not a given that transformation means "all new rocket with all new US engine".
Currently, Orbital-ATK is competing with SpaceX on an unrelated NASA contract and Orb-ATK is using a Russian engine for that. It is not inconceivable that RD-180 would actually be the propulsion starting-point for ULA's attempt to all-out compete with SpaceX. RD-180 has a number of things going FOR it:
- Relatively dirt-cheap
- Reliable as hell
- Powerfull yet compact
- No US domestic alternatives available

The threat, posed by SpaceX, to ULA's monopoly on US national security launches and to ULA's (near) monopoly of NASA launches, has been in-work for nearly five years. Yet it was not until a year ago that US Congress started ordering the replacement of RD-180. The reason for ULA now developing (with Blue) a US domestic engine, to go with NGLS, is not SpaceX, but Russia.
Had the whole Russia-Crimea-Ukraine situation not developed the way it did, there still would have been a NGLS. Simply because current Delta-IV and Atlas-V cannot compete with SpaceX launch vehicles. So, yes, a different ULA vehicle was inevitable. But IMO, in absence of any legal language barring the RD-180, there would have been no reason for ULA to NOT use RD-180, or an RD-180 derivative. More specifically: there would not have been a compelling argument for ULA to initiate development of a US alternative engine.
« Last Edit: 03/19/2015 08:36 am by woods170 »

Offline HarryM

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • California
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #29 on: 03/19/2015 03:09 pm »
He's been extremely critical of the Navy's LCS program and the F-35 (joint Navy/USMC/AF), so I think he's pretty equal across the services.
« Last Edit: 03/19/2015 03:09 pm by HarryM »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #30 on: 03/19/2015 04:37 pm »
My goodness, where to begin. There are lots of self-serving inaccuracies in this statement. Among them:

Quote
If the RD-180 is prematurely cut off before a new engine and vehicle is certified, there will be no other launch provider who can perform the full range of launch capabilities currently required under the law, Bruno said …

That is categorically untrue. The ban on RD-180’s doesn’t go into effect for another 4 years. Long before that the Falcon 9, in both medium and heavy versions will be certified.
 
Here’s another:

Quote
The current narrow interpretation of the Defense Authorization bill could preclude ULA from receiving previously ordered engines, which means the Air Force would only have one provider. Not only is that anti-competitive, it puts the Air Force national security mission requirements at risk.

Not true. Previously ordered engines are specifically allowed to be delivered and used. They just can’t be used for national security launches after 2019.

And "... which means the Air Force would only have one provider"? That would be four years from now, when the ban goes into effect. What is SpaceX; chopped meat? Unless he means SpaceX would be the sole provider because ULA was out of business.  ::)

There is another bit of information that bears on this that wasn’t mentioned in the statement. Less than an hour ago I was reading in the January 2015 issue of Defense Magazine a statement from the Air Force Undersecretary of Space Acquisitions about the dropping number of satellites the USAF has or will have available for launch. Since the T-Sat program was cancelled for being over budget and years late, there has been NO new satellite program kicked off. It takes years to design and build a satellite and currently there aren’t any brand new ones underway – at all.  There are a few satellite busses being populated that were started long ago that would be available in that timeframe. According to ULA their new LV will be tested in 2019 (the year the ban takes affect) and be certified by 2022-2023, just about the same timeframe it would take to get a satellite ready for launch if a new program were started TODAY.  But there just are not going to be that many USAF satellite launches before the new ULA LV is ready to lift them and ULA has the Block Buy in place that puts most of the existing satellite builds solidly on the Atlas or Delta. The Air Force national security mission requirements will be at risk not because of the ban on the RD-180 but because the Air Force can't get its act together and accomplish the mission. They have been dragging their feet on satellite design and construction - LONG before the RD-180 ban was created.

There are other self-serving inaccuracies, but I want to leave some meat on the bones for the rest of you.
« Last Edit: 03/19/2015 04:40 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #31 on: 03/19/2015 11:24 pm »
DIV was intended as the sole winner riding the Shuttle economics chain. Almost made it to, and in comparison to Shuttle, with enough flights it would have. Since they went all out with the "new" to do this, a lot of things left for "improvement" after winning followed. Unlike AV where much was "evolved" with past increments of development, more of a repackaging of what was there, and not dependent on Shuttle economics chain, given the rather cynical view of it paying off from LM.


Yea, I always sort of wondered if a D4 with two RS-25's might have been able to work out a little better in the long run.  More directly part of the shuttle economics chain.  Despite the cost savings RS-68 was to impliment, if many of those part reduction imporvements had went into RS-25 instead (like channel walls, etc), along with a more automated manufacturing system (as there'd hopefully be enough production to justify the investment), I wonder if the price of those engines could have been brought down sufficiently?  And perhaps turn the engines over faster (fewer STS flights per engine) and then allocate those retiring engines to D4 launches to give them a final flight.
I wonder if that could have made for a more economical Delta in the long run?  It should have made a better performing Delta with better ISP and more thrust.

Offline RocketGoBoom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Idaho
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 315
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #32 on: 03/19/2015 11:47 pm »
Often when government is faced with not getting what they want, they will announce the most draconian cuts imaginable to try to scare their voters into giving them a tax increase, or bond approval, to spend whatever the government wants.

For example: "If the voters don't approve the sales tax increase, we will fire 20% of the teachers and 20% of the police department." The government doesn't even propose more reasonable cuts elsewhere. They go straight for the most crazy off the wall cuts possible to get the taxes increased. They hold a figurative gun to the head of the city in order to extort the funds from the taxpayers.

We have a version of that disgusting game currently happening with ULA.

ULA recognizes that their world is in turmoil. They recognize that the $1 billion annual subsidy is at risk. They recognize that even with cuts, they will have difficulty making competitive bids for launches versus SpaceX. So ULA is now creating the "fear" that SpaceX will be a monopoly if they don't get more RD-180 engines. I think part of this is also to get the $1 billion annual subsidy extended for as long as they can.

I found the comment from the committee chair, Rep. Mike Rogers very interesting. He is from Alabama and I would have expected to be more of a ULA supporter. But he seems to be supporting Falcon Heavy as a replacement for Delta Heavy.

“We are going to keep the cost down, it’s in our nation’s interest, so please hurry and get that Falcon 9 Heavy working and certified!”
« Last Edit: 03/19/2015 11:48 pm by RocketGoBoom »

Offline RocketGoBoom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Idaho
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 315
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #33 on: 03/19/2015 11:54 pm »

And there are tell-tale signs that even WITH the RD-180 legal language in place there is less-than-zero enthusiasm at USAF to do a replacement engine development program. Step one in the USAF SOP for such a situation is crying foul over the deadline. We saw that happen yesterday at the house hearing. My prediction is that next they will yell "it can't be done for the money appropriated". Etc, etc.

Why is the USAF involved at all with a replacement engine development program?

Let ULA and Jeff Bezos fund their own engine development program. The other provider did it with Paypal money. Let Amazon money pay for the next one.
« Last Edit: 03/19/2015 11:55 pm by RocketGoBoom »

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #34 on: 03/20/2015 12:31 am »

Why is the USAF involved at all with a replacement engine development program?

Let ULA and Jeff Bezos fund their own engine development program. The other provider did it with Paypal money. Let Amazon money pay for the next one.

They have a vested interest.  It's their billion dollar spacecraft that is flying on top of the rocket using that engine.  Maybe the rocket engine experience of Bezos makes them nervous.
ULA was created with the main purpose of launching payloads for the DoD.  ULA's money IS the governments money.  If you're referring to the profit that goes back to LMT and BA when you say "use their money", the parents have to make that decision as to how much ULA can spend on development.  Right now, they are investing in NGLS.  If they think it's a bad investment (losing most launches to SpaceX), they'll pull the plug. 

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #35 on: 03/20/2015 03:52 pm »
This has all gotten a bit ridiculous imo.

-Remove the RD-180 language. Use them as long as we can for any launches ensuring AtlasV can fly out their current  manifest and get them close to when NGLV will be ready.

<snip>

One major (as in MAJOR) flaw in your reasoning. The minute you remove the RD-180 legal language you remove any incentive for USAF and ULA to develop a domestic alternative. USAF and ULA are not going to be spending hundreds of millions of US dollars on a replacement engine if they don't have to. That has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt in the past two decades, since no effort was put into a domestic engine until Putin started acting silly in the Ukraine and US Congress got all jittery about that.

And there are tell-tale signs that even WITH the RD-180 legal language in place there is less-than-zero enthusiasm at USAF to do a replacement engine development program. Step one in the USAF SOP for such a situation is crying foul over the deadline. We saw that happen yesterday at the house hearing. My prediction is that next they will yell "it can't be done for the money appropriated". Etc, etc.

So if the RD-180 engine language is removed you think that ULA will walk away from it's partnership with Blue Origins and the development of the BE-4? 
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #36 on: 03/20/2015 04:56 pm »
If I was to gamble, I would put money on No! At the end of the day, they want to be able to compete with SpaceX and the other providers.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #37 on: 03/20/2015 05:11 pm »
If I was to gamble, I would put money on No! At the end of the day, they want to be able to compete with SpaceX and the other providers.

I think everybody realizes the RD-180's days are over.  It's only a matter of:

1.  How many more engines will/should be allowed to cover the gap (gap is still unclear) to vehicle B.
2.  Is vehicle B the NGLS or Atlas with AR-1.  I believe some type of initial decision will be announced in 3 weeks at NSS.  Then we'll just have to see how this BE-4 thing unfolds.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #38 on: 03/20/2015 06:58 pm »
Stop playing games with RD-180. I don't see anyone blocking Exxon from their their billion dollar contracts for Natural gas exploration with Russia. Keep buying them as long as we can or need to. And remove any arbitrary language about how many or what they can or can't launch.

Agreed, what's all the fuss about?

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser
« Reply #39 on: 03/20/2015 10:35 pm »
I had not thought about this, but this means they will not be meeting the needs of the Delta II class payloads. So either you buy a larger rocket (NGLS) or someone else fills the nitch (Orbital ATK, SpaceX, ect.).
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0