ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2

[Chasm]

ULA must be able to provide a set of launch services that on both coasts for government customers that SpaceX simply can't (at this time, waived to the future). That makes comparisons harder and the SpaceX GPS launch costs are already on a steep rise. ULA would not get away with that trick.

Reality is that above all else ULA has to get off the RD-180.
If they could buy a fully certified BE-4 yesterday they would do so. Only after that they have the chance to really do something else. Well, without having to justify themself in Congress all the way that is...

Doing vertical landings with Vulcan.
Changing out the engines again? I really doubt that. Upping engine count and size to almost New Glenn size? Maybe, but also really complex and expensive.
I'd be tempted to buy a (not yet existing) BE-3 methane version or two and bodge them into the launcher as landing engines. Not very efficient but less change. Tempted to go with two so there is no need to move the BE-4 engines apart.

[Coastal Ron]

ULA must be able to provide a set of launch services that on both coasts for government customers that SpaceX simply can't (at this time, waived to the future).

The pickle that ULA is in is that they currently depend on one customer for the majority of their revenue - the U.S. Government.

Now ULA knows that with the Vulcan that they will need commercial customers, and that's for two reasons:  1)  SpaceX is likely to win an increasing number of USG launches in the future, and 2) it is projected that there will be fewer USG launches in the future.

USAF launches are not commodity launches, and ULA will have a competitive edge (and in some cases a virtual monopoly) on some classes of USAF payloads, but that is a shrinking pool of business - and they still have to maintain two launch sites on two coasts.

For the commercial marketplace I'm not sure what their competitive advantage is, since we're seeing that price is a major factor, and the Vulcan will be too new to market it for reliability.

So the challenge for ULA's parents is whether they are OK with a business that won't be robust, and won't be able to provide the revenue that ULA of yesteryear did?  The Vulcan of today can't fix any of those problems.

That makes comparisons harder and the SpaceX GPS launch costs are already on a steep rise. ULA would not get away with that trick.

Oh please.  ULA has been getting away with massive price increases for years, and it was only with the certification of SpaceX as an official competitor that they started focusing on lowering their costs.

Reality is that above all else ULA has to get off the RD-180.

It's not the cost of the RD-180 or the availability of it that makes the Atlas V a competitive liability in the coming years, it's the overall cost of the launcher.  Once you have designed a complex system it's virtually impossible to lower it's costs in any significant way, which is why ULA has to get Vulcan (or whatever their next launcher will be) right on day one.

Doing vertical landings with Vulcan.

ULA has not committed to an engine yet, and they are not yet locked into a launcher design.  I would not be surprised if ULA hasn't already been working on figuring out how to create a reusable (and complete) 1st stage.  But will ULA's corporate parents want to commit to a new design and a potentially risky development cycle?

Boeing and Lockheed Martin have a lot of decisions to make here in the near future, including whether they want to stay in the launch market and compete with far more nimble competitors.

And they may not after the events of this week...

[joek]

Oh please.  ULA has been getting away with massive price increases for years, and it was only with the certification of SpaceX as an official competitor that they started focusing on lowering their costs.

Have to call foul there.  Fire drill on lowering costs goes back to circa 2010 with the DoD "EELV should cost review".  That did produce results, although not optimal (only so much you can do with no competition).  That said, I would agree that there has not been substantive pressure or progress until SpaceX emerged as an effective competitor.

[joek]

ULA must be able to provide a set of launch services that on both coasts ...

Cite please?  Been looking for something that suggests SpaceX has been relieved of the requirement(?) to provide heavy launch capability from VAFB.[1]


[1] Which is maybe less than an iron-clad requirement.  LM was granted a waiver for the same way-back-when and few seemed upset given D-IV heavy's ability to satisfy the limited demand.

[Newton_V]

Oh please.  ULA has been getting away with massive price increases for years, and it was only with the certification of SpaceX as an official competitor that they started focusing on lowering their costs.

The complete opposite is true.

[Coastal Ron]

Oh please.  ULA has been getting away with massive price increases for years, and it was only with the certification of SpaceX as an official competitor that they started focusing on lowering their costs.

The complete opposite is true.

Not the place to debate this, but the government has said this too:

GAO: Lack of EELV Pricing Transparency Could Hamstring Launch Negotiations - SpaceNews.com

Key quote:

“Minimal insight into contractor cost or pricing data meant DoD may have lacked sufficient knowledge to negotiate fair and reasonable launch prices,” the report said. “Coupled with uncertainties and possible instability in the launch vehicle industrial base, EELV program costs were predicted to rise at an unsustainable rate.”

ULA was not a benign monopoly, and I don't advocate for monopolies of any kind since they don't have incentives to not only keep costs down, but also to innovate.

ULA's Vulcan is being built to compete on the expendable launcher market, which until this past week might have been an OK strategy, but now they will likely be one of the last major rocket manufacturers to commit to building an expendable rocket - in the new age of reusable rockets.

If I was a board member of Boeing or Lockheed Martin I'd be asking hard questions about what they are doing with their joint venture, because the ROI for building an expendable rocket is no longer so clear.

[joek]

Oh please.  ULA has been getting away with massive price increases for years, and it was only with the certification of SpaceX as an official competitor that they started focusing on lowering their costs.

The complete opposite is true.

Has ULA been "getting away with massive price increases for years"?  No.  It takes two to tango, and DoD bears as much of the blame for EELV price increases as ULA.

Have ULA-DoD made substantive efforts to reduce costs?  Yes.  You may not agree with their means and methods, but they did reduce costs.

Has SpaceX as a competitive entrant been significant in reducing EELV costs?  Certainly we have early indications that SpaceX's entry is reducing costs and putting pressure on ULA.

However, to claim that SpaceX is the sole or primary reason for reducing EELV costs is questionable and at best premature--as efforts to reduce EELV costs pre-date SpaceX's entry.

[Newton_V]

Oh please.  ULA has been getting away with massive price increases for years, and it was only with the certification of SpaceX as an official competitor that they started focusing on lowering their costs.

The complete opposite is true.

Not the place to debate this, but the government has said this too:

GAO: Lack of EELV Pricing Transparency Could Hamstring Launch Negotiations - SpaceNews.com

Key quote:

“Minimal insight into contractor cost or pricing data meant DoD may have lacked sufficient knowledge to negotiate fair and reasonable launch prices,” the report said. “Coupled with uncertainties and possible instability in the launch vehicle industrial base, EELV program costs were predicted to rise at an unsustainable rate.”

ULA was not a benign monopoly, and I don't advocate for monopolies of any kind since they don't have incentives to not only keep costs down, but also to innovate.

ULA's Vulcan is being built to compete on the expendable launcher market, which until this past week might have been an OK strategy, but now they will likely be one of the last major rocket manufacturers to commit to building an expendable rocket - in the new age of reusable rockets.

If I was a board member of Boeing or Lockheed Martin I'd be asking hard questions about what they are doing with their joint venture, because the ROI for building an expendable rocket is no longer so clear.

They're not price increases.  If the customer wants to pay to keep a pad and LV capability up and running for 1 launch ever 2 years or so, it's going to be expensive.  It has nothing to do with ULA "prices".  The integration costs (and hardware) have been steadily decreasing per launch for the last 7 or 8 years.

[rayleighscatter]

The pickle that ULA is in is that they currently depend on one customer for the majority of their revenue - the U.S. Government.

True of SpaceX as well.

[joek]

“Minimal insight into contractor cost or pricing data meant DoD may have lacked sufficient knowledge to negotiate fair and reasonable launch prices,” the report said. “Coupled with uncertainties and possible instability in the launch vehicle industrial base, EELV program costs were predicted to rise at an unsustainable rate.”

Yeah... EELV program costs were predicted to rise at an unsustainable rate.... That is 2010 news, which seems to be repeated ad-nauseum every few years; not sure why they are repeating it as it is of questionable releveance today.  Steps were taken way-back-when to mitigate EELV/ULA cost increases.

Did EELV cost containment measures start with SpaceX as an EELV entrant?  No; and that is a matter of pulic record.  Have EELV cost containment measures improved with SpaceX as an EELV entrant?  Likely yes, although details (contract specifics) are not public, the $ for some missions are public.

[joek]

The pickle that ULA is in is that they currently depend on one customer for the majority of their revenue - the U.S. Government.

True of SpaceX as well.

Only if you consider USG as a single entity.  Which they are not...
NASA CRS != NASA CCP != NASA LSP != DoD EELV.

[rayleighscatter]

The pickle that ULA is in is that they currently depend on one customer for the majority of their revenue - the U.S. Government.

True of SpaceX as well.

Only if you consider USG as a single entity.  Which they are not...
NASA CRS != NASA CCP != NASA LSP != DoD EELV.

ULA flies all of those too.

[joek]

ULA flies all of those too.

Irrelevant.  The requirements and contractual stipulations are different.

[Chasm]

That makes comparisons harder and the SpaceX GPS launch costs are already on a steep rise. ULA would not get away with that trick.

Oh please.  ULA has been getting away with massive price increases for years, and it was only with the certification of SpaceX as an official competitor that they started focusing on lowering their costs.

In the past? Yeah, certainly as the commercial market went bust and the government decided to decide things once more.
Today? I really doubt it.

April 2016 GPS contract: This is a firm-fixed price, standalone contract with a total value of $82,700,000.
March 2017 GPS contract: This is a firm-fixed price, standalone contract with a total value of  $96,500,490.

~16% increase a year, no additional requirements as far as I know.
If SpaceX keeps that up ULA should be competitive in no time at all.

ULA must be able to provide a set of launch services that on both coasts ...

Cite please?  Been looking for something that suggests SpaceX has been relieved of the requirement(?) to provide heavy launch capability from VAFB.[1]


[1] Which is maybe less than an iron-clad requirement.  LM was granted a waiver for the same way-back-when and few seemed upset given D-IV heavy's ability to satisfy the limited demand.

I meant vertical integration. SpaceX can't offer that right now, and does not have to at this time.  As I understand both LM and Boeing had to demonstrate the ability in order to get certified.
Other requirements are less clear to the public. We know there is late access to the interior of the payload fairing (on top of the stack).

[rayleighscatter]

ULA flies all of those too.

Irrelevant.  The requirements and contractual stipulations are different.

How do ULA requirements and contractual stipulations differ from SpaceX in the CRS program?

How do ULA requirements and contractual stipulations differ from SpaceX in the CCP program?

How do ULA requirements and contractual stipulations differ from SpaceX in the LSP program?

[joek]

If SpaceX keeps that up ULA should be competitive in no time at all.

About 3-4 years if my calculations are correct?

[HIP2BSQRE]

That makes comparisons harder and the SpaceX GPS launch costs are already on a steep rise. ULA would not get away with that trick.

Oh please.  ULA has been getting away with massive price increases for years, and it was only with the certification of SpaceX as an official competitor that they started focusing on lowering their costs.

In the past? Yeah, certainly as the commercial market went bust and the government decided to decide things once more.
Today? I really doubt it.

April 2016 GPS contract: This is a firm-fixed price, standalone contract with a total value of $82,700,000.
March 2017 GPS contract: This is a firm-fixed price, standalone contract with a total value of  $96,500,490.

~16% increase a year, no additional requirements as far as I know.
If SpaceX keeps that up ULA should be competitive in no time at all.

ULA must be able to provide a set of launch services that on both coasts ...

Cite please?  Been looking for something that suggests SpaceX has been relieved of the requirement(?) to provide heavy launch capability from VAFB.[1]


[1] Which is maybe less than an iron-clad requirement.  LM was granted a waiver for the same way-back-when and few seemed upset given D-IV heavy's ability to satisfy the limited demand.

I meant vertical integration. SpaceX can't offer that right now, and does not have to at this time.  As I understand both LM and Boeing had to demonstrate the ability in order to get certified.
Other requirements are less clear to the public. We know there is late access to the interior of the payload fairing (on top of the stack).

Why would if you are Spacex leave money on the table?  Lets assume the govt paid $180 million the last time they  purchased the rocket sole source to ULA.  Now with two companies bidding - the govt. hopes that the total cost of the contract is $130 million.  That is a saving of $50 million, since the last time they contracted.  Remember with inflation - the govt might be paying more if it was sole sourced.   Lets assume in 2016 ULA would have proposed $150 m for the flight, SpaceX bid <90 m and won the contract.  The next time the contract comes up ---ULA bids $130, SpaceX has a range of bids that they can make.  They can bid the same amount or raise their bid to $100 million and increase their profit margin.  The chances of getting the contract at $80+ million were maybe 70+ percent, at $100 the chances go down to 65%.  ULA is not bidding $100 million for the flight.  The govt. got a contract for <$100 million.  Remember the govt was prepared to pay over $120 -$150 m.  The govt saved money.  Yes - the contract cost the govt more in 2017.  Ask the govt.  if they are mad at paying SpaceX approx. $96 million.  They would say no. 

For the next contract:

SpaceX will probably keep the price at approx.  $100 million.

ULA can do one of two things - lower their bid to under <$100 million if they are serious about the contact.  ULA can also put in a bid for the approx the same amount that they did in 2017, and guess what - they will probably not get the contract unless the Air force changes the requirements.

[joek]

How do ULA requirements and contractual stipulations differ from SpaceX in the CRS program?
How do ULA requirements and contractual stipulations differ from SpaceX in the CCP program?
How do ULA requirements and contractual stipulations differ from SpaceX in the LSP program?

ULA does not have a NASA CRS contact.  ULA does not have a NASA CCP contract.  ULA does have a NASA LSP contract.  The ULA or SpaceX LSP contract has no intersection with CRS or CCP.  The differences in contract requirements and stipulations are manifold...

Start with the fact that CCP requires a human rated LV, whereas CRS and LSP do not.  Or that CRS does not require a category III LV, whereas some LSP missions do.  Or...

... go read the requirements for CRS, CCP, LSP, etc.  They are all different based on different  requirements.  That the ultimate customer happens to be the "US government" is irrelevant, because there are many customers within the "US government".

[Coastal Ron]

Oh please.  ULA has been getting away with massive price increases for years, and it was only with the certification of SpaceX as an official competitor that they started focusing on lowering their costs.

The complete opposite is true.

Has ULA been "getting away with massive price increases for years"?  No.  It takes two to tango, and DoD bears as much of the blame for EELV price increases as ULA.

If you're going to jump into the middle of a debate you should understand what is being debated.  The original claim that I retorted was:

That makes comparisons harder and the SpaceX GPS launch costs are already on a steep rise. ULA would not get away with that trick.

And ULA did, as the article I cited showed.

Have ULA-DoD made substantive efforts to reduce costs?  Yes.  You may not agree with their means and methods, but they did reduce costs.

Which was never a point I was debating.  If you want to debate yourself on this point, go ahead...   

Has SpaceX as a competitive entrant been significant in reducing EELV costs?  Certainly we have early indications that SpaceX's entry is reducing costs and putting pressure on ULA.

I'm not sure anyone could seriously claim that SpaceX has not been applying competitive pressure to ULA.  But focusing only on Atlas V and Delta IV price issues is really irrelevant, since it's what ULA replaces them with that matters.

And as of today ULA plans to replace the expendable Atlas V and Delta IV with an expendable Vulcan rocket - just as the age of reusable rockets is starting.

Does that sound like a good business decision?

[rayleighscatter]

... go read the requirements for CRS, CCP, LSP, etc.  They are all different based on different  requirements.  That the ultimate customer happens to be the "US government" is irrelevant, because there are many customers within the "US government".

So why does SpaceX have many government customers while ULA has one monolithic government customer? Afterall lets wind this back around to the post you originally took offense with.

The pickle that ULA is in is that they currently depend on one customer for the majority of their revenue - the U.S. Government.

True of SpaceX as well.

You showed no issue with ULA being characterized as having a single government customer but took issue with SpaceX being portrayed similarly.