Author Topic: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle (as announced/built) - General Discussion Thread 3  (Read 972503 times)

Offline Rocket Jesus

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 97

Correct. With this latest development AR-1 is basically out of the engine competition for Vulcan. BE-4 is therefore the only remaining option and thus automatically becomes the highest risk, long lead item to Vulcan.

BE-4 always was the long pole... thus the discussion on Twitter last week about 2023 as first year Vulcan carries NSS payloads in on industry observer's estimation.  Only thing that would be later, more expensive, and with a dimmer future is waiting for AR-1.  Seems that AJR has passed on the crown of industry leader.

Surely this news must mean an official downselect to BE-4 is coming soon? 
Mr. Bruno announced a Vulcan CDR was "underway" about 2 months.  Now, AJR is essentially bailing on AR-1.   I'd guess we hear an unofficial announcement by the end of March and an official announcement by early June (to allow AJR and USAF to hash things out).

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Unlikely.
The only thing ULA wins by making the decision official is a lot of scrutiny and political problems.
With this weeks news I think that there are two likely triggers left: ARJD officially folds AR-1, or BE-4 completes the test stand program. (The one decided upon at the beginning of the cooperation.)

The moment ULA selects BE-4 politicians will demand answers. Highly distracting and expensive too. Why preempt that step if the unfavored option seems to be falling apart without outside influence?

Offline Rocket Jesus

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 97
Unlikely.
The only thing ULA wins by making the decision official is a lot of scrutiny and political problems.
With this weeks news I think that there are two likely triggers left: ARJD officially folds AR-1, or BE-4 completes the test stand program. (The one decided upon at the beginning of the cooperation.)

The moment ULA selects BE-4 politicians will demand answers. Highly distracting and expensive too. Why preempt that step if the unfavored option seems to be falling apart without outside influence?

It could very well be the case that AR-1 is falling apart due to a looming downselect.

In the long run, ULA wins by downselecting.  It helps firm up a schedule.  They can stop spending resources on the AR-1 version.  It's even possible they could get increased funding for the BE-4 powered Vulcan if AR-1 gets less funding going forward. 

It definitely will result in increased political scrutiny.  This is a high profile and very important decision.  ULA is thoroughly prepared to defend its business decision.  ULA has had to defend other business decisions in the past which were not very well liked.  Examples include shutting down Delta IV production, no bidding the first NSS competitive acquisition, and continued use of the RD-180 for NSS missions.  Given that ULA has very publicly indicated that BE-4 is the primary path forward, the political impact of announcing downselect should be lessened.



Relevant tweet from September: Tory Bruno, CEO @ulalaunch: CDR for Vulcan rocket by end this yr; we'll determine engine choice - @AerojetRdyne v @blueorigin before then


Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2784
  • Likes Given: 1097
Do you really think they are in a position to compete with Blue or SpaceX? 
Aerojet Rocketdyne is earning hundreds of millions (profits) each year and has a roughly $4.5 billion backlog.  Blue likely hasn't earned a dime to date.  Whether SpaceX has recorded any real profits so far is doubtful, given the billions they've had to spend developing rockets, landing technology, etc., and paying those 6,000 workers.  If these companies want to lose money or barely break even launching stuff into space, Aerojet Rocketdyne would probably be happy to let them, because it means more satellite thruster sales.

Meanwhile, AJRD has RS-25 and RL-10 and maybe new AJ-10 for Orion, along with a lot of other little thruster things most of us don't know about, and missile motors, and fewer workers.

Question is not whether AJRD is profitable-viable as a company (I believe they are).  With respect to this thread, question is whether AJRD has a future producing-selling medium-large liquid engines.  The answer appears to be no, with the possible exception of a niche market selling to NASA.  No argument that AJRD appears to have a thriving business selling other solutions.

In any case, does not matter what Blue or SpaceX has or has not earned, spent or lost.  This is the (commercial) market AJRD has to play in today if they want to compete.  Welcome to the real world of commercial competition.  Only thing that matters is who can produce-sell medium-large liquid engines which satisfy customer requirements at lowest cost.  If AJRD can't compete in that market then they should get out and pursue more profitable efforts; so be it and no one should fault them for that.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115

With all due respect since i love reading your insight on NSF, I'd say that's very relevant for this topic. 
If ULA downselects to an engine or uses tech which they don't have IP rights, they're in some deep dung.  AR would 100% sue a company using its IP to launch a rocket.  Given Bezos track record on the patent (specifically concerning rocket landings on barges), I wouldn't put it past BLUE to do the same if it fit their interests.

IP rights are crucial for ULA here and in the future.

ULA has never had IP rights.  ULA buys the hardware from the supplier, who retains the IP. 

The issue was ULA has "little engine development expertise".  ULA has people that have supported engine development in the past, even though they don't do it themselves.  Also, as a smart buyer, ULA has engine experts.
I wonder if the last few years of layoffs have effected their in-house engine expertise.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline testguy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Clifton, Virginia
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 599
And AJR can't afford to finish AR-1, so "buy my mostly dead, over extended company", no matter what govt lobbyist/contracts can do.
Thriving, actually.  I would so love to compare AJRD's financials with those of Blue Origin.

 - Ed Kyle
You didn't include the huge debt and worthless equity.

I also believe AR-1 is a money pit with little prospect of finding a way into a launch vehicle unless the US government keeps it alive as the engine for a possible future SLS liquid side booster.  This would be a jobs program just as SLS is today.  IMHO.

As a former retired Aerojet employee, I am aware of their product mix and assets.  The demise of AR-1 will not mean the end of the company because large liquid engines do not provide as much revenue and profit as the strategic and tactical rocket motors do. 

The Aerojet Holding company OWNs more that 10000 acers near Sacramento.  This land was needed for test cells but because of encouragement is rapidly being deactivated.  The encouragement only makes the property more valuable and is currently being developed into a planned city.  The property is equity that can be converted into a huge amount of revenue.  BTW relocating test facilities to other Aerojet facilities around the country is in process.




Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
As a former retired Aerojet employee, I am aware of their product mix and assets.  The demise of AR-1 will not mean the end of the company because large liquid engines do not provide as much revenue and profit as the strategic and tactical rocket motors do. 
Indeed. People see the high profile RL10's (and now the SSME) AR-1 programmes but IRL the bulk of the revenue is the bread-and-butter solids for various weapon systems.  So I suspect they could shut down the Liquid Engine business and still keep running. Some people will see a long term future in the running SSME programme for SLS, others won't. That would leave only the RL10 as the long term LRE to support.
Quote from: testguy
The Aerojet Holding company OWNs more that 10000 acers near Sacramento. 
That's a lot of laptops.  :)
Quote from: testguy
This land was needed for test cells but because of encouragement is rapidly being deactivated.  The encouragement only makes the property more valuable and is currently being developed into a planned city.  The property is equity that can be converted into a huge amount of revenue.  BTW relocating test facilities to other Aerojet facilities around the country is in process.
So that's a nice piece of real estate as an asset, but nothing that advances their cause as liquid rocket engine mfgs.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline testguy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Clifton, Virginia
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 599
As a former retired Aerojet employee, I am aware of their product mix and assets.  The demise of AR-1 will not mean the end of the company because large liquid engines do not provide as much revenue and profit as the strategic and tactical rocket motors do. 
Indeed. People see the high profile RL10's (and now the SSME) AR-1 programmes but IRL the bulk of the revenue is the bread-and-butter solids for various weapon systems.  So I suspect they could shut down the Liquid Engine business and still keep running. Some people will see a long term future in the running SSME programme for SLS, others won't. That would leave only the RL10 as the long term LRE to support.
Quote from: testguy
The Aerojet Holding company OWNs more that 10000 acers near Sacramento. 
That's a lot of laptops.  :)
Quote from: testguy
This land was needed for test cells but because of encouragement is rapidly being deactivated.  The encouragement only makes the property more valuable and is currently being developed into a planned city.  The property is equity that can be converted into a huge amount of revenue.  BTW relocating test facilities to other Aerojet facilities around the country is in process.
So that's a nice piece of real estate as an asset, but nothing that advances their cause as liquid rocket engine mfgs.

Acreage comment made me laugh. Thanks.

Only mentioned the land because it is a huge amount of liquidity.  Agreed you don’t want to waste that asset in an investment (AR-1) unless you can see a return.



Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Acreage comment made me laugh. Thanks.
Sorry, it was just too tempting to pass up.

Quote from: testguy
Only mentioned the land because it is a huge amount of liquidity.  Agreed you don’t want to waste that asset in an investment (AR-1) unless you can see a return.
It's one of those things that was bought for business purposes but over time things have changed. IIRC when Rocketdyne bought their test area they had no issues with neighbours, but when it came time to leak test the SSME they used LN2 instead of LH2, as the area was (they felt) too built up to test safely in.  This lead to the "Summer of Hydrogen," with repeated stand downs of Shuttle launches as they did not realize where the LH2  was leaking from.

While AR-1 is still in the game ULA are in a position to negotiate further changes with Blue, but once AJR drops out then ULA is pretty much joined at the hip with Blue going forward.

It's pretty clear that walking away from AR-1 won't kill AJR as a business but it should have Congress asking hard questions of AJR, not ULA. Specifically why it took so much money to achieve what seems to be not very much, given a) It's very long history of engine development. b)Access to RD-180 paperwork and hardware to study.  :(
« Last Edit: 02/18/2018 10:53 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2784
  • Likes Given: 1097
More likely will be Congress finding a different reason to send them more buckets of money.  Must keep AJR afloat since they are the sole source for Congress' rocket engines.

Won't disagree that there is pressure to keep AJRD whole given their health is critical to several DoD-NASA efforts.  Then again AJRD's overall health does not appear to be a concern.

With respect to this transaction, is there anything to suggest anyone wants to throw more money at AJRD?  I don't see it, with the possible exception that the USAF might want to add some to the pot to keep AR-1 on life support as a potential option if Blue does not come through.

In any case, the contracts for, e.g., AR-1 and other developments are clearly separated.

Offline testguy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Clifton, Virginia
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 599
Acreage comment made me laugh. Thanks.
Sorry, it was just too tempting to pass up.

Quote from: testguy
Only mentioned the land because it is a huge amount of liquidity.  Agreed you don’t want to waste that asset in an investment (AR-1) unless you can see a return.
It's one of those things that was bought for business purposes but over time things have changed. IIRC when Rocketdyne bought their test area they had no issues with neighbours, but when it came time to leak test the SSME they used LN2 instead of LH2, as the area was (they felt) too built up to test safely in.  This lead to the "Summer of Hydrogen," with repeated stand downs of Shuttle launches as they did not realize where the LH2  was leaking from.

While AR-1 is still in the game ULA are in a position to negotiate further changes with Blue, but once AJR drops out then ULA is pretty much joined at the hip with Blue going forward.

It's pretty clear that walking away from AR-1 won't kill AJR as a business but it should have Congress asking hard questions of AJR, not ULA. Specifically why it took so much money to achieve what seems to be not very much, given a) It's very long history of engine development. b)Access to RD-180 paperwork and hardware to study.  :(

It is fair to look at why AR-1 costs are what they are.  I know Aerojet is addressing them because they must to be competitive. Cultural norms are being worked as well as reductions in overhead.  The US government must also consider ways to reduce contract prices.  The way Specifications and Statements of Work are written by the government will structure a contractors Program Plan.  The contractors bid is therefore in response to government requirements.  Both BO and SpaceX have been successful in bringing engines to market for apparently low cost and quickly because they can afford to self fund and therefore not as encumbered by government requirements.
« Last Edit: 02/19/2018 04:32 pm by gongora »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
AJR can afford to self fund if you look at Ed's posts.
They just choose not to.

Boeing/LockMart/ULA could also fund the development since it is for their rocket.
They also choose not to.

(The taxpayer didn't get to choose.)
« Last Edit: 02/18/2018 06:16 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
I wonder if that base cost gets the full Vulcan-Centaur V 504 performance of ~8t to GTO, or if that is only for 4-5 tonnes to GTO like F9R and Ariane lower berth.

Offline Sknowball

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 13
I wonder if that base cost gets the full Vulcan-Centaur V 504 performance of ~8t to GTO, or if that is only for 4-5 tonnes to GTO like F9R and Ariane lower berth.

The GTO performance of Centaur V is an interesting question.   We know one of the key elements that distinguishes Centaur V and ACES is IVF.  Previous sources have listed IVF as providing a performance boost to GEO of "greater than 1000 lbs", so the question becomes how much performance does IVF add to GTO? 

Based on previous sources we have an estimate for Vulcan/ACES 504 GTO payload at between 18000lb-19000lb.  A simple extrapolation of the percentage ratio of GEO to GTO performance based on Atlas V and Delta IV 5 meter variants shows a ratio between 39%-46%. 

Using 44% we get (18000*.44)-1000 = 6920lb GEO for Vulcan/Centaur V 504 (2853kg)
6920/.44 = 15727lb GTO Vulcan/Centaur V 504 (7133kg)

A few caveats this is an extremely simplistic calculation that is strongly dependent on on the ratio between GEO/GTO performance, my 44% is somewhat arbitrary you could easily use the 32% of AV411 or the 46% of D4H, and given that the ratio increases as SRB's are added a lower ratio may make sense for V504C.  There is some evidence that this ratio is higher for Vulcan ACES as two presentations on distributed lift have given GSO numbers of 8000kg (in 2015) and 10000kg (in 2017/2018) respectively for Vulcan ACES (the Vulcan ACES configuration was not given in these presentations, however the 2015 GTO numbers on the same line are 17000kg or 37478 lb which are a strong match for V564A incidentally a 47% ratio).  Finally, IVF should have a larger influence on performance at GEO than at GTO as current GEO missions require performance losses associated with long duration kit elements that IVF replaces. 
« Last Edit: 02/19/2018 04:36 pm by Sknowball »

Online TrevorMonty

I wonder if that base cost gets the full Vulcan-Centaur V 504 performance of ~8t to GTO, or if that is only for 4-5 tonnes to GTO like F9R and Ariane lower berth.
Tory said Centuar has same energy as ACES so 8t to GTO is not un realistic.

When comparing prices to F9 or F9R use $/kg to orbit. If using fixed launch price eg $65m vs $85m then Electron $4.9m beats them both.

$10m/1000kg to GTO seems competitive with F9 and F9R.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Moved a few of the most recent posts over to the "Business Case/Competition" thread (probably could have moved a lot more.)  Trimmed out some of the "AJR SUCKS" posts.
« Last Edit: 02/19/2018 04:54 pm by gongora »

Offline Rocket Jesus

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 97
I wonder if that base cost gets the full Vulcan-Centaur V 504 performance of ~8t to GTO, or if that is only for 4-5 tonnes to GTO like F9R and Ariane lower berth.

The GTO performance of Centaur V is an interesting question.   We know one of the key elements that distinguishes Centaur V and ACES is IVF.  Previous sources have listed IVF as providing a performance boost to GEO of "greater than 1000 lbs", so the question becomes how much performance does IVF add to GTO? 


https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/leag2017/presentations/wednesday/sampson.pdf
The above presentation coupled with Rocket Builder does not answer the question directly, but may allow for some insight.  We could use the performance figure of Atlas V 531 to GTO, as listed on Rocket Builder, and subtract "greater than 1000 lbs" to get a rough Vulcan Centaur V performance guesstimate.   The key assumption is that Atlas V 531 performance is the most comparable configuration.
Atlas V 531 performance to GTO is 8289 kg (based off a very simplistic RocketBuilder.com analysis).  In turn, this gives us Vulcan Centaur V performance of less than 7289 kg to GTO (-1800 m/s)
« Last Edit: 02/20/2018 11:22 am by Rocket Jesus »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
I wonder if that base cost gets the full Vulcan-Centaur V 504 performance of ~8t to GTO, or if that is only for 4-5 tonnes to GTO like F9R and Ariane lower berth.
Tory said Centuar has same energy as ACES so 8t to GTO is not un realistic.

When comparing prices to F9 or F9R use $/kg to orbit. If using fixed launch price eg $65m vs $85m then Electron $4.9m beats them both.

$10m/1000kg to GTO seems competitive with F9 and F9R.

Same energy yes, but do you get it for the base price? Or are they eating part of the cost on light launches to increase flight rate and making it up on the heavier launches? Profit margin does not need to be constant, or even positive, across all performance classes. It's the profit margin of the full mix that determines the bottom line.

Offline Sknowball

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 13
The GTO performance of Centaur V is an interesting question.   We know one of the key elements that distinguishes Centaur V and ACES is IVF.  Previous sources have listed IVF as providing a performance boost to GEO of "greater than 1000 lbs", so the question becomes how much performance does IVF add to GTO? 


https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/leag2017/presentations/wednesday/sampson.pdf
The above presentation coupled with Rocket Builder does not answer the question directly, but may allow for some insight.  We could use the performance figure of Atlas V 531 to GTO, as listed on Rocket Builder, and subtract "greater than 1000 lbs" to get a rough Vulcan Centaur V performance guesstimate.   The key assumption is that Atlas V 531 performance is the most comparable configuration.
Atlas V 531 performance to GTO is 8289 kg (based off a very simplistic RocketBuilder.com analysis).  In turn, this gives us Vulcan Centaur V performance of less than 7289 kg to GTO (-1800 m/s)

Similar configuration is not a terrible approach, but I can't tell if you made two mistakes that cancel each other out or you extrapolated and didn't show your math.   The source for IVF increased performance specifically said "Increased performance (>1000lb GEO)", so I didn't convert the units to kg in the quote (>453kg GEO).  As part of your approach you took away 1000kg from GTO rather than 1000lb.  However this is partially cancelled out by applying GEO performance gains to GTO as the performance ratio between GEO and GTO, as discussed earlier, is close to 45% (and the ratio between a kg/lb is close to 45%).

If we used the comparable configuration method it would probably be best to calculated performance ratio of AV-541 GEO to AV-541 GTO (I think you had a typo above as you used AV-541 values which matches Dr Sampson's statement and the Vulcan performance chart, but said AV-531) subtract 1000lbs (453kg) from the GEO value and divide by the ratio.

3,530 kg/8,290 kg = .425

(3530kg-453kg)/.425 = 7240kg


Offline Rocket Jesus

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 97

Similar configuration is not a terrible approach, but I can't tell if you made two mistakes that cancel each other out or you extrapolated and didn't show your math.

I made many mistakes; terrible, drunk math was used on my above post.  Thanks for correcting my math and thanks for keeping NSF fact based.

 

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