And that is the economic question that ULA and it's parents are no doubt mulling over - would there be enough business that a new Atlas X could get that would be worth the investment?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/13/2014 10:41 pmAnd that is the economic question that ULA and it's parents are no doubt mulling over - would there be enough business that a new Atlas X could get that would be worth the investment?Wow, we sure burnt through Atlases VI, VII, VIII & IX pretty quickly! ;-) Cheers, Martin
What it says is that the Secretary of Defense may not enter into a new contract or renew an existing contract under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program with any person “if that person purchases supplies critical for space launch activities covered by the contract from a Russian entity.”
Or Boeing could reduce the price of the Delta IV, increase the launch rate, and make it a real competitor. The Delta was a "clean sheet" design. Why it's so expensive to operate is unclear. There might be some slack there. If they can't do it, it's hard to see how it is serving its stated purpose of being a backup to the Atlas.
had part of yesterdays RD-180 replacement conversation before congress.Some engine programs are locked together (scary). Delta IV is locked into pricing with SLS because of the shuttles engines. SLS solids are locked in with the US Navy missile program. Its a mess, and from what I heard from Congress they haven't got a clue.
Quote from: vulture4 on 07/14/2014 02:05 amOr Boeing could reduce the price of the Delta IV, increase the launch rate, and make it a real competitor. The Delta was a "clean sheet" design. Why it's so expensive to operate is unclear. There might be some slack there. If they can't do it, it's hard to see how it is serving its stated purpose of being a backup to the Atlas.had part of yesterdays RD-180 replacement conversation before congress.Some engine programs are locked together (scary). Delta IV is locked into pricing with SLS because of the shuttles engines. SLS solids are locked in with the US Navy missile program. Its a mess, and from what I heard from Congress they haven't got a clue.
Quote from: Prober on 07/17/2014 01:49 pmQuote from: vulture4 on 07/14/2014 02:05 amOr Boeing could reduce the price of the Delta IV, increase the launch rate, and make it a real competitor. The Delta was a "clean sheet" design. Why it's so expensive to operate is unclear. There might be some slack there. If they can't do it, it's hard to see how it is serving its stated purpose of being a backup to the Atlas.had part of yesterdays RD-180 replacement conversation before congress.Some engine programs are locked together (scary). Delta IV is locked into pricing with SLS because of the shuttles engines. SLS solids are locked in with the US Navy missile program. Its a mess, and from what I heard from Congress they haven't got a clue. Huh? That's ridiculous. How can Delta IV be locked into SLS? Delta IV doesn't use shuttle engines. RS-68 does not equal RS-25. Too many differences: gas-generator versus staged combustion, ablative nozzle versus regen nozzle, etc. About the only thing in common is the stuffs they run on: LH2 and LOX.
Quote from: woods170 on 07/17/2014 02:20 pmQuote from: Prober on 07/17/2014 01:49 pmQuote from: vulture4 on 07/14/2014 02:05 amOr Boeing could reduce the price of the Delta IV, increase the launch rate, and make it a real competitor. The Delta was a "clean sheet" design. Why it's so expensive to operate is unclear. There might be some slack there. If they can't do it, it's hard to see how it is serving its stated purpose of being a backup to the Atlas.had part of yesterdays RD-180 replacement conversation before congress.Some engine programs are locked together (scary). Delta IV is locked into pricing with SLS because of the shuttles engines. SLS solids are locked in with the US Navy missile program. Its a mess, and from what I heard from Congress they haven't got a clue. Huh? That's ridiculous. How can Delta IV be locked into SLS? Delta IV doesn't use shuttle engines. RS-68 does not equal RS-25. Too many differences: gas-generator versus staged combustion, ablative nozzle versus regen nozzle, etc. About the only thing in common is the stuffs they run on: LH2 and LOX.Prices of the RS-68 did go up recently.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35193.msg1228076#msg1228076
Here is something interesting:QuoteHowever, Shelton said there have already been disagreements between SpaceX and the service on three of the engineering review boards the two sides have completed. Sixteen more review boards remain, he said.http://spacenews.com/article/military-space/41287white-house-seeking-40-million-to-explore-engine-optionsSo there are apparently some issues.
However, Shelton said there have already been disagreements between SpaceX and the service on three of the engineering review boards the two sides have completed. Sixteen more review boards remain, he said.
The White House position on the new engine, while supportive, appears to be more cautious than that of the House, which in June passed a defense spending bill that provides $220 million next year for a crash program to develop a new liquid-fueled rocket engine. In reaction to the bill, the White House said it opposes the expenditure, arguing that new engine would take eight years to develop at a cost of $1.5 billion, and require another $3 billion investment in a new rocket to go with it. The Obama administration instead advocated studying “several cost-effective options” for reducing U.S. reliance on Russian engine technology, including “multiple awards that will drive innovation, stimulate the industrial base, and reduce costs through competition.”
The development costs floats being mentioned for new engine is around $1B over 5 years. I'm assuming these costs are for the traditional engine manufacturers. The question is how much could the new companies do it for eg XCOR, BO or SpaceX.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 07/18/2014 03:17 amThe development costs floats being mentioned for new engine is around $1B over 5 years. I'm assuming these costs are for the traditional engine manufacturers. The question is how much could the new companies do it for eg XCOR, BO or SpaceX.SpaceX would be unlikely to attempt development of an ORSC engine
Quote from: vulture4 on 07/18/2014 09:08 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 07/18/2014 03:17 amThe development costs floats being mentioned for new engine is around $1B over 5 years. I'm assuming these costs are for the traditional engine manufacturers. The question is how much could the new companies do it for eg XCOR, BO or SpaceX.SpaceX would be unlikely to attempt development of an ORSC engineSpaceX is already developing a full flow staged combustion engine (Raptor) which necessitates that one of the preburners be oxidizer rich.
An RFI was released today:https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=6900cbd5088703bad8a5a5e6862e7a55&tab=core&_cview=0
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/21/2014 09:36 pmAn RFI was released today:https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=6900cbd5088703bad8a5a5e6862e7a55&tab=core&_cview=0Surprising that they are pulling the link to commercial so hard. Maybe cost of the solution will be a principle selection criterion. Preservation of the Atlas V seems to only happen under option 1 of 3.
SUBJECT: Booster Propulsion and Launch System Request for Information (RFI)Reference: RFI No. 14-090 - Post Under Special Notice1. BackgroundAir Force Space Command (AFSPC) is considering an acquisition strategy to stimulate the commercial development of booster propulsion systems and/or launch systems for Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)-class spacelift applications. The Air Force has relied upon foreign sources for booster propulsion systems in the past. However, consistent with the 2013 National Space Transportation Policy, we are pursuing alternative domestic capability. The Government is seeking insight into booster propulsion and/or launch system materiel options that could deliver cost-effective, commercially-viable solutions for current and future National Security Space (NSS) launch requirements. The Air Force needs this information to inform near term decisions about how to best ensure that future launch requirements are fulfilled by reliable, commercially-viable sources. 2. PurposeIn order to maintain assured access to space, and get the best value for the taxpayer, the Air Force is requesting information from U.S. Industry to help determine the best way to ensure that future launch requirements can be met by reliable, commercially-viable sources of production. The Air Force is open to a range of possible options including but not limited to: 1. a replacement engine with similar performance characteristics to currently used engines, 2. alternative configurations that would provide similar performance (such as a multiple engine configuration) to existing EELV-class systems, and 3. use of alternative launch vehicles for EELV-class systems. The Air Force is particularly interested in exploiting any available synergies with commercial space launch systems. The Air Force is also highly interested in business opportunities for public-private ventures and would like to identify specific opportunities that capitalize on potential synergies between military and non-military space needs. Additionally, this RFI is intended to give launch vehicle and propulsion system contractors an opportunity to comment on proposed program requirements as well as identify any needed risk reduction areas and possible technology maturation efforts. In defining these objectives, the Government is interested in launch/propulsion strategies that are designed for affordability throughout the life cycle and that potentially could result in greater U.S. competitiveness in the commercial space arena. The government is also interested in how government-industry cost-sharing arrangements should be structured. Results of this RFI may constitute sufficient market research for any follow-on procurement by SMC. The Government encourages respondents to leverage analysis and work conducted in previous efforts. This RFI is for market research purposes only.
5. The majority of EELV launches are performed by ULA's Atlas family of launch vehicles, which use the RD-I80 rocket engine. The RD-l80 is made in Russia by NPO Energomash, which is owned and controlled by the Russian govemment.
9. Domestic competition using American rocket engines ls available, as SpaceX already is qualified to compete for most EELV launches. Today, the Air Force must on average budget $400 million for a ULA launch. By contrast, SpaceX estimates that it would reliably provide exactly the same services at a 75% cost savings (around $ 100 million per launch).10. In late December 2013-in the face of the widely acknowledged and critical need to inject competition into the EELV Program, and less than 20 days before SpaceX's final certification launch for the EELV Program-the Air Force executed a contract to procure 36 launch vehicle cores from ULA on a sole source basis, locking out competition for the vast majority of EELV missions for years to come. The Air Force should be required to comply with its legal obligations to fairly and openly compete launch opportunities, and it should end reliance on Russian rocket engines to carry national security payloads into space.And,12. The best evidence available to SpaceX shows that the Air Force will order 22 Single Core Launch Vehicles to use for missions that are now scheduled to launch in FY2017-FY2019. SpaceX's Falcon 9 is qualified to compete for all of these Single Core Launch Vehicles missions now, years in advance of their anticipated launch dates.
Faster -- ready now for majority of payloads, ready soon for heavies.Better -- already has "result(ed) in greater U.S. competitiveness in the commercial space arena."Cheaper -- launch system development free to USAF; ER/WR pads operational, too. (But OMG, no vertical integration capability or UHC nitrogen bottles in their racks!!!)You don't often get all three.Does the USAF have such a blind eye/deaf ear, or is the intent to just funnel more billions to their old space cronies?
Launch rate for cookie cutter spacecraft does not qualifyCheaper has not be proven for USG spacecraft.
Quote from: AncientU on 08/24/2014 07:39 pmFaster -- ready now for majority of payloads, ready soon for heavies.Better -- already has "result(ed) in greater U.S. competitiveness in the commercial space arena."Cheaper -- launch system development free to USAF; ER/WR pads operational, too. (But OMG, no vertical integration capability or UHC nitrogen bottles in their racks!!!)You don't often get all three.Does the USAF have such a blind eye/deaf ear, or is the intent to just funnel more billions to their old space cronies?Because there isn't all threeThey are not faster. Launch rate for cookie cutter spacecraft does not qualifyThat is not definition of betterCheaper has not be proven for USG spacecraft.Poo poo this ( vertical integration capability or UHC nitrogen bottles) just shows the lack of understanding.The USAF doesn't have a blind eye, you just don't know any better