I don't see Vulcan being developed to compete for commercial launches. That is not how ULA has operated. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 01/02/2018 07:45 amWhere have ULA stated Vulcan price of $99M. Only price I've heard is less than $100M. They are not same thing.He said $99M for Vulcan, about a year and a half ago:Quote ULA is working on a next-generation rocket called Vulcan that will be less expensive to manufacture and fly than its current Atlas booster.Quote from: Tory BrunoOur prices are coming down every day, we now talk about a $99 million launch service.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-ula-layoffs/united-launch-alliance-to-lay-off-up-to-875-by-end-of-2017-ceo-idUSKCN0XB2HQ
Where have ULA stated Vulcan price of $99M. Only price I've heard is less than $100M. They are not same thing.
ULA is working on a next-generation rocket called Vulcan that will be less expensive to manufacture and fly than its current Atlas booster.
Our prices are coming down every day, we now talk about a $99 million launch service.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 01/02/2018 04:37 amBut ULA will have to compete with more than Falcon Heavy to win commercial customers. They will also be competing against Falcon 9, Ariane 5/6, Proton and others. ULA needs to find their competitive differentiator that will allow them to hold onto and grow their marketshare - and so far it's not clear what that will be.I don't see Vulcan being developed to compete for commercial launches. That is not how ULA has operated.
But ULA will have to compete with more than Falcon Heavy to win commercial customers. They will also be competing against Falcon 9, Ariane 5/6, Proton and others. ULA needs to find their competitive differentiator that will allow them to hold onto and grow their marketshare - and so far it's not clear what that will be.
Today, ULA gets about 60% of its revenues from national-security launches, with the remainder split almost evenly between civil and commercial work. Looking out to 2020, though, Bruno sees national-security missions falling to 42% of revenues, with NASA and commercial launches providing the rest.
In other words, ULA has to do more business with NASA and commercial customers otherwise the Air Force competitive model will break down.
QuoteBut ULA will have to compete with more than Falcon Heavy to win commercial customers. They will also be competing against Falcon 9, Ariane 5/6, Proton and others. ULA needs to find their competitive differentiator that will allow them to hold onto and grow their marketshare - and so far it's not clear what that will be.I don't see Vulcan being developed to compete for commercial launches. That is not how ULA has operated. - Ed Kyle
NGL is not going to launch astronauts.
Quote from: envy887 on 01/02/2018 01:38 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 01/02/2018 07:45 amWhere have ULA stated Vulcan price of $99M. Only price I've heard is less than $100M. They are not same thing.He said $99M for Vulcan, about a year and a half ago:Quote ULA is working on a next-generation rocket called Vulcan that will be less expensive to manufacture and fly than its current Atlas booster.Quote from: Tory BrunoOur prices are coming down every day, we now talk about a $99 million launch service.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-ula-layoffs/united-launch-alliance-to-lay-off-up-to-875-by-end-of-2017-ceo-idUSKCN0XB2HQI have never been certain if he was referring to Vulcan costs or Atlas V costs when he made this statement as at the time Atlas V costs were on a downward trend having hit 109M.
SMART saves 90% of the booster propulsion cost according to ULA. The last contract for RD-180 was $24M per engine, so they can save $22M off a base Atlas V a $109M. This is about 20% off, while SMART reduces payload by around half that. BE-4 is estimated at $16M, so taking the 90%, $99M, and $16M at face value a SMART launch base Vulcan would be $85M for ~4.5 tonnes to GTO. That is competitive with Ariane 5. To compete with Ariane 6 and Proton (6 or 7 t to GTO) it will need either 2 SRBs or Centaur 5, which likely add some cost.
Performance for this new Centuar version without SRBs is likely to be close to 8t GTO.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 01/02/2018 04:37 amYou're telling me that the Vulcan SMART system will be less complex than what SpaceX does? As I said earlier, I haven't mentioned SMART. I'm not assuming for this discussion that it will be developed.QuoteBut ULA will have to compete with more than Falcon Heavy to win commercial customers. They will also be competing against Falcon 9, Ariane 5/6, Proton and others. ULA needs to find their competitive differentiator that will allow them to hold onto and grow their marketshare - and so far it's not clear what that will be.I don't see Vulcan being developed to compete for commercial launches. That is not how ULA has operated. - Ed Kyle
You're telling me that the Vulcan SMART system will be less complex than what SpaceX does?
Quote from: envy887 on 01/02/2018 02:39 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 01/02/2018 02:33 pmI don't see Vulcan being developed to compete for commercial launches. That is not how ULA has operated. - Ed KyleHow do you interpret Bruno's statements that they need commercial customers to survive with Vulcan? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-martin-boeing-ula/lockheed-boeing-rocket-venture-needs-commercial-orders-to-survive-idUSKBN0O62M720150521Note that the story says "commercial and civil space launch orders". Civil space is also government work, which I don't consider to be "commercial". ULA has launched a bare handful of "commercial" satellites, but I'm not sure it has any such contracts on its current backlow. It anticipates more work for NASA, most certainly, now that it has the "commercial" crew contract. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 01/02/2018 02:33 pmI don't see Vulcan being developed to compete for commercial launches. That is not how ULA has operated. - Ed KyleHow do you interpret Bruno's statements that they need commercial customers to survive with Vulcan? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-martin-boeing-ula/lockheed-boeing-rocket-venture-needs-commercial-orders-to-survive-idUSKBN0O62M720150521
Quote from: envy887 on 01/02/2018 01:38 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 01/02/2018 07:45 amWhere have ULA stated Vulcan price of $99M. Only price I've heard is less than $100M. They are not same thing.He said $99M for Vulcan, about a year and a half ago:Quote ULA is working on a next-generation rocket called Vulcan that will be less expensive to manufacture and fly than its current Atlas booster.Quote from: Tory BrunoOur prices are coming down every day, we now talk about a $99 million launch service.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-ula-layoffs/united-launch-alliance-to-lay-off-up-to-875-by-end-of-2017-ceo-idUSKCN0XB2HQThe $99m is target price for Atlas 401, still no price for Vulcan. Given they haven't finalised the engine choice or design its no surprise there isn't an published price. With BE4 engines and existing Centuar price should be closer to $90M as BE4 are 30% cheaper (ULA quote) than RD180. Vulcan should be cheaper than Atlas to build and operate as it clean sheet design. Losing He for tank pressurisation alone should be big saving. They are now planning to use a new larger Centuar (50t?) with more engines, which may or may not be much dearer than existing Centuar. If it uses IVF and lower cost RL10 may well be same price as current Centuar. Performance for this new Centuar version without SRBs is likely to be close to 8t GTO.
Even Vulcan-ACES needs at least a single SRB to get 8 t to GTO. See the ULA graphic above. The first SRB adds a lot of capability, after that there's diminishing returns.
Note that the story says "commercial and civil space launch orders". Civil space is also government work, which I don't consider to be "commercial".
ULA has launched a bare handful of "commercial" satellites, but I'm not sure it has any such contracts on its current backlow.
It anticipates more work for NASA, most certainly, now that it has the "commercial" crew contract.
Quote from: envy887 on 01/02/2018 05:36 pmEven Vulcan-ACES needs at least a single SRB to get 8 t to GTO. See the ULA graphic above. The first SRB adds a lot of capability, after that there's diminishing returns.Are you reading that chart as the base Vulcan/ACES starting at 10k lb or at 18k lb GTO? That particular chart is a little confusing as the steps are in the background with the rocket in the foreground. Looking at the equivalent chart from their AIAA presentation in 2016 http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Evolution/Vulcan_ACES_and_Beyond_2016_AAS_16-052_DEROY_REED.pdf(steps in foreground, rocket in background) it looks like the base Vulcan/ACES starts at 18k lb to GTO (otherwise there would be 7 SRB steps rather than 6 SRB steps).
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 01/02/2018 06:05 pmNo, not NASA, Boeing. Boeing's customer is NASA, ULA's customer is Boeing. And Commercial Crew contracts would be considered "commercial" since they are not U.S. Government.Where the money comes from is what matters. The money is coming from the U.S. Government.QuoteRegardless, Tory Bruno has stated that Vulcan will need commercial customers to be successful, and there is plenty of evidence to support his statements.That's his plan, and I expect ULA to gain a few truly commercial satellite launches, but Vulcan is essentially being custom-designed to meet the needs of one government customer. It will be less competitive for commercial launches than other launch systems that are not designed primarily to meet DoD/EELV requirements. I know there are quotes from ULA's CEO about plans to compete for commercial satellite launches, but I could probably dig up similar quotes from 10 or 20 years ago from other CEOs who said the same, but did not produce serious action to follow the words. Remember, when it comes to commercial GTO launches, ULA would be competing against not just U.S. launch companies, but against the entire planet, including providers in India, Europe, Russia, Japan, and probably China. "Winning" such contracts may not be profitable in the long run. - Ed Kyle
No, not NASA, Boeing. Boeing's customer is NASA, ULA's customer is Boeing. And Commercial Crew contracts would be considered "commercial" since they are not U.S. Government.
Regardless, Tory Bruno has stated that Vulcan will need commercial customers to be successful, and there is plenty of evidence to support his statements.
Quote from: envy887 on 01/02/2018 06:59 pmI think you're right. Although, that ACES has 68 t of hydrolox and 4x RL-10. If Centaur 5 has ~50 t and 2x RL-10 it will get more like 6.5 t to GTO without SRBs and about 13 t to GTO with 6x GEM-63XL, which would be enough to hit all the EELV reference payloads and orbits by my calcs.To meet the EELV requirements list, Vulcan needs to lift 8.165 t to a GTO that is about 1,800 m/s short of GEO or 6.577 tonnes to GEO. Those are the goals that I suspect Vulcan Centaur 5 is being designed to meet. - Ed Kyle
I think you're right. Although, that ACES has 68 t of hydrolox and 4x RL-10. If Centaur 5 has ~50 t and 2x RL-10 it will get more like 6.5 t to GTO without SRBs and about 13 t to GTO with 6x GEM-63XL, which would be enough to hit all the EELV reference payloads and orbits by my calcs.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 01/02/2018 07:07 pmQuote from: envy887 on 01/02/2018 06:59 pmI think you're right. Although, that ACES has 68 t of hydrolox and 4x RL-10. If Centaur 5 has ~50 t and 2x RL-10 it will get more like 6.5 t to GTO without SRBs and about 13 t to GTO with 6x GEM-63XL, which would be enough to hit all the EELV reference payloads and orbits by my calcs.To meet the EELV requirements list, Vulcan needs to lift 8.165 t to a GTO that is about 1,800 m/s short of GEO or 6.577 tonnes to GEO. Those are the goals that I suspect Vulcan Centaur 5 is being designed to meet. - Ed Kyle6+ t to GEO is by far the harder of those two requirements, and the Vulcan core with a 50 t dual RL-10 upper stage and six GEM-63XL can most likely do it with plenty of margin. They will need the SRBs, but that's no issue for NSS launches.They can bring ACES in later and drop most (for GEO) or all (for GTO) of the SRBs for the same performance.