Priorities here. ULA first needs to be ULA with a current ULA product that has a future.
There are still customers for that, just like there are customers for Ariane. They are not going away.
What you are talking about is addressing the longer term competitive landscape, where SX hasn't yet made economics work. That is a business yet to happen.
Everyone likes to get ahead, because that's exciting. But SX is not in the same position as ULA. ULA is a mature provider, SX is a rival with a compelling story in the future, with exciting things happening in the present.
Don't get the cart before the horse. Also, don't count ULA out. It is wise to have concerns for the future.
This question is for Coastal Ron,
In one form or another, on multiple threads, you state over and over how Vulcan won't work, ULA is dead, ULA can't compete in the future, the future is reusable boosters, it's just a matter of time, etc, etc, etc.I'm curious why you need to constantly post this over and over and over.
Who are you trying to convince? Are you posting on behalf of somebody? I honestly want to know. You seem to have an axe to grind (maybe that's not the correct phrase).
SpaceX's accomplishment was impressive, but jeez, I've never seen so much gloating, boasting, and cockiness after a launch.
Not only was their accomplishment vindication for SpaceX, but also for those that have defended SpaceX and their efforts on reusability for years on forums like NSF.But regardless who proved reusability was possible, I believe this accomplishment signals a change in the business model for space transportation, and there is no going back. Which is why I advocate that ULA should accept that reusability is here to stay, and that they should not commit to being the LAST organization to build a new expendable rocket, but to being the NEXT organization to build a reusable rocket.I don't see how that can be interpreted as anything but wanting ULA to do well in the future...
Boeing and Lockheed see ULA as a means to insure their sats arrive. Vulcan does that. Compactly.
Also, there are other sources of sats ... who need the same kind of insurance.
Can they? And if so, how?
On NSF maybe. The same discussions and debates were happening on Space Politics where I used to hang out,.
Not only was their accomplishment vindication for SpaceX, but also for those that have defended SpaceX and their efforts on reusability for years on forums like NSF.But regardless who proved reusability was possible, I believe this accomplishment signals a change in the business model for space transportation, and there is no going back. Which is why I advocate that ULA should accept that reusability is here to stay, and that they should not commit to being the LAST organization to build a new expendable rocket, but to being the NEXT organization to build a reusable rocket.
I think for ULA the die has already been cast that ULA will be building the Vulcan as currently designed and that design will be doing engine only recovery for reusability.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/04/2017 03:23 amBoeing and Lockheed see ULA as a means to insure their sats arrive. Vulcan does that. Compactly.Please elaborate on "their sats". Who's sats are those? Not quite understanding what you meant here.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/04/2017 03:23 amAlso, there are other sources of sats ... who need the same kind of insurance.It's not just ULA that's positioned to do that. There's more LSP's than just ULA and a certain company from Hawthorne.
Quote from: Brovane on 04/04/2017 02:48 amI think for ULA the die has already been cast that ULA will be building the Vulcan as currently designed and that design will be doing engine only recovery for reusability.I doubt there is much serious intent behind it.
ARJ gets Congress to do its thing and ULA does cost plus for years to come.
Quote from: Brovane on 04/04/2017 02:48 amI think for ULA the die has already been cast that ULA will be building the Vulcan as currently designed and that design will be doing engine only recovery for reusability.You're an optimist. Because the current design of Vulcan does *NOT* include engine recovery. This is merely a "future enhancement" that ULA has thrown out there to assure people that they too can do re-usability. I doubt there is much serious intent behind it.
Quote from: Lars-J on 04/04/2017 05:15 pmQuote from: Brovane on 04/04/2017 02:48 amI think for ULA the die has already been cast that ULA will be building the Vulcan as currently designed and that design will be doing engine only recovery for reusability.You're an optimist. Because the current design of Vulcan does *NOT* include engine recovery. This is merely a "future enhancement" that ULA has thrown out there to assure people that they too can do re-usability. I doubt there is much serious intent behind it.No, you are just a ULA pessimist. I am too tired to split hairs with you about "design" and "enhancement" and engine recovery.
Wrong. See shuttle and reusability. Reusability =! cost reduction
Would it be a feasible/logical move for ULA to ditch the Vulcan booster entirely and focus on developing ACES/Cislunar 1000? They could form a partnership with Blue Origin to refuel ACES using reusable NG upper stages, or invest money in an orbital fuel depot since they wouldn't be funding the booster anymore. It would allow them to be ahead of the curve for the Cislunar economy, the same way SpaceX is with reusability.Hearing Tory on the TMRO interview... He mentioned ACES every chance he got, but didn't start talking about SMART reuse until explicitly asked about reusability.