Reuse business case

[Paul451]

Tory seems to be doubling down on their previous analysis instead of taking in new data.

I don’t blame him for propulsive landing to work they would need far more engines.  I doubt designing and building another rocket at this point really makes sense.

It wouldn't make sense for Vulcan, but designing a larger rocket to be the thing they make reusable seems wiser than developing SMART-Vulcan. Clearly, Starship has changed the game. It's not enough to merely catch up to Falcon Heavy, they need to make some attempt to match or even exceed SS. So keep Vulcan expendable while rapidly developing its successor. Or die.

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

Tory seems to be doubling down on their previous analysis instead of taking in new data.

I don’t blame him for propulsive landing to work they would need far more engines.  I doubt designing and building another rocket at this point really makes sense.

It wouldn't make sense for Vulcan, but designing a larger rocket to be the thing they make reusable seems wiser than developing SMART-Vulcan. Clearly, Starship has changed the game. It's not enough to merely catch up to Falcon Heavy, they need to make some attempt to match or even exceed SS. So keep Vulcan expendable while rapidly developing its successor. Or die.

I don’t see how the business case for that could credibly close. A strategy of ‘hang in there and hope for either the competition to fail or the government to keep funding you’ isn’t the most dynamic response, but ULA are playing a bad hand as well as they can here.

[edzieba]

Their business case is "offer a product nobody else does, and customers who need it will pay what it cost to deliver it". For ULA, that's handling (not just launch, they have decades of experience with all the esoteric groundside rigmarole that comes with National Security payloads or RTG-based vehicles too) one-off high-value payloads to very precise trajectories on no-slip schedules with high reliability.
Frankly, the recent Delta IV delays have done more damage to that business case than SpaceX providing lower prices have. When you have a $2.5Bn satellite (NRO's 2014 estimate for the last KENNENs) you can no longer readily manufacture a replacement for, $250mn to the guys who have handled all your previous launches vs. $100mn to the guys who have not handled any of your secret-squirrel flying faberge eggs before is not a massive saving vs. the increased (perceived or actual) risk. 'Heritage' is not always a boat anchor.

[LouScheffer]

Their business case is "offer a product nobody else does, and customers who need it will pay what it cost to deliver it". For ULA, that's handling (not just launch, they have decades of experience with all the esoteric groundside rigmarole that comes with National Security payloads or RTG-based vehicles too) one-off high-value payloads to very precise trajectories on no-slip schedules with high reliability.
Frankly, the recent Delta IV delays have done more damage to that business case than SpaceX providing lower prices have. When you have a $2.5Bn satellite (NRO's 2014 estimate for the last KENNENs) you can no longer readily manufacture a replacement for, $250mn to the guys who have handled all your previous launches vs. $100mn to the guys who have not handled any of your secret-squirrel flying faberge eggs before is not a massive saving vs. the increased (perceived or actual) risk. 'Heritage' is not always a boat anchor.

It's true that this is ULA's strategy, but it's very fragile and unsustainable, in my opinion.  All it takes is one failure (and no-one in this business is immune from failure) and they are not even the highest reliability vendor any more.  It's already close - I believe F9 has more consecutive successful launches than Atlas.  As far as special handling, SpaceX is doing military missions, building vertical integration and so on.  For trust with high value payloads, SpaceX is launching humans, scheduled to launch Europa Clipper, and other expensive payloads, so parties are getting more comfortable with that.  Even as far as their good rapport with DoD, people on both sides retire, age out, and take new jobs all the time.

So I agree that's ULA's niche, but don't think it's a good one, as all the advantages you noted are eroding.  And once they erode  enough, then cost is a major factor, and they are in trouble.

[meekGee]

Tory seems to be doubling down on their previous analysis instead of taking in new data.

I don’t blame him for propulsive landing to work they would need far more engines.  I doubt designing and building another rocket at this point really makes sense.

It wouldn't make sense for Vulcan, but designing a larger rocket to be the thing they make reusable seems wiser than developing SMART-Vulcan. Clearly, Starship has changed the game. It's not enough to merely catch up to Falcon Heavy, they need to make some attempt to match or even exceed SS. So keep Vulcan expendable while rapidly developing its successor. Or die.

I don’t see how the business case for that could credibly close. A strategy of ‘hang in there and hope for either the competition to fail or the government to keep funding you’ isn’t the most dynamic response, but ULA are playing a bad hand as well as they can here.

A "bad hand" is something that was handed to you.

What ULA is playing with is "consequences".

[rpapo]

A "bad hand" is something that was handed to you.

What ULA is playing with is "consequences".

They are a corporation that was and tries to continue playing by the old rules, which had been reasonably stable for several decades.  Then some guy showed up who decided he didn't like the old rules, and had the guts and energy to start changing things.

IIRC, the same thing happened to the buggy-whip manufacturers.  And more recently to IBM.

[nicp]

A "bad hand" is something that was handed to you.

What ULA is playing with is "consequences".

They are a corporation that was and tries to continue playing by the old rules, which had been reasonably stable for several decades.  Then some guy showed up who decided he didn't like the old rules, and had the guts and energy to start changing things.

IIRC, the same thing happened to the buggy-whip manufacturers.  And more recently to IBM.

Can we drop the buggy whip metaphor?  If i see it again I may have to commit bloody murder.

EDIT: Forgive my reaction to the buggy whip. But it is a tired metaphor. And if anyone, ever uses 'the little <take your pick> that could' I will.... get very annoyed.

[Paul451]

Can we drop the buggy whip metaphor?  If i see it again I may have to commit bloody murder.
EDIT: Forgive my reaction to the buggy whip. But it is a tired metaphor. And if anyone, ever uses 'the little <take your pick> that could' I will.... get very annoyed.

Aphorisms are familiar, so people know they won't be misunderstood. Sometimes a bird in the hand is worth a second bite of the apple.

[Paul451]

Their business case is "offer a product nobody else does, and customers who need it will pay what it cost to deliver it". For ULA, that's handling (not just launch, they have decades of experience with all the esoteric groundside rigmarole that comes with National Security payloads or RTG-based vehicles too) one-off high-value payloads to very precise trajectories on no-slip schedules with high reliability.
Frankly, the recent Delta IV delays have done more damage to that business case than SpaceX providing lower prices have. When you have a $2.5Bn satellite (NRO's 2014 estimate for the last KENNENs) you can no longer readily manufacture a replacement for, $250mn to the guys who have handled all your previous launches vs. $100mn to the guys who have not handled any of your secret-squirrel flying faberge eggs before is not a massive saving vs. the increased (perceived or actual) risk. 'Heritage' is not always a boat anchor.

Vulcan has no heritage. Nor does its engine maker. This ain't your grandfather's EELV.

And as LouScheffer noted, DoD has been getting as thick as thieves with SpaceX too. After a rocky start, they get on like a house on fire.

So what's ULA's party trick now? "Expensive backup to SpaceX"? Is that really something to make a song and dance out of?

[Jim]

[
Vulcan has no heritage. Nor does its engine maker. This ain't your grandfather's EELV.

Wrong.  Same upper stage, just fatter.  Same avionics, same fairing,same launch site

[AllenB]

I would swear I’ve seen “that’s a whole new rocket” in response to changing booster engines and/or fuel. The only part of Vulcan that I can see as meaningful heritage are the RL-10s themselves. Everything else is, at minimum, significantly redesigned.

Avionics might be an exception, had it not been for Ariane 5.

[Jim]

I would swear I’ve seen “that’s a whole new rocket” in response to changing booster engines and/or fuel. The only part of Vulcan that I can see as meaningful heritage are the RL-10s themselves. Everything else is, at minimum, significantly redesigned.

Avionics might be an exception, had it not been for Ariane 5.

wrong.  Not the same thing.  Atlas V, Detla IV and Vulcan all use the same avionics.

My post stands.

[trimeta]

I would swear I’ve seen “that’s a whole new rocket” in response to changing booster engines and/or fuel. The only part of Vulcan that I can see as meaningful heritage are the RL-10s themselves. Everything else is, at minimum, significantly redesigned.

Avionics might be an exception, had it not been for Ariane 5.

wrong.  Not the same thing.  Atlas V, Detla IV and Vulcan all use the same avionics.

My post stands.

I think AllenB's point with the Ariane 5 was that using the exact same avionics can actually be detrimental, if it means you forgot to reprogram them to handle the different flight profile of the new rocket. Of course, totally new avionics also need to be programmed correctly, so this isn't a unique hazard of flight-heritage avionics, but it shows that something (specifically, the software) will necessarily be new for the new vehicle.

[LouScheffer]

  Atlas V, Delta IV and Vulcan all use the same avionics.

Be careful what you wish for.  Same avionics does not necessarily mean you inherit the same successful heritage.

Ariane 5 thought they would decrease risk by using EXACTLY the heritage avionics and software that was used on the Ariane 4.  Instead it doomed the mission, as the different trajectory caused numbers to overflow.

[RotoSequence]

A "bad hand" is something that was handed to you.

What ULA is playing with is "consequences".

They are a corporation that was and tries to continue playing by the old rules, which had been reasonably stable for several decades.  Then some guy showed up who decided he didn't like the old rules, and had the guts and energy to start changing things.

IIRC, the same thing happened to the buggy-whip manufacturers.  And more recently to IBM.

I think a better comparison is Amazon and most legacy retailers.

[TrevorMonty]

I would swear I’ve seen “that’s a whole new rocket” in response to changing booster engines and/or fuel. The only part of Vulcan that I can see as meaningful heritage are the RL-10s themselves. Everything else is, at minimum, significantly redesigned.

Avionics might be an exception, had it not been for Ariane 5.

wrong.  Not the same thing.  Atlas V, Detla IV and Vulcan all use the same avionics.

My post stands.

I think AllenB's point with the Ariane 5 was that using the exact same avionics can actually be detrimental, if it means you forgot to reprogram them to handle the different flight profile of the new rocket. Of course, totally new avionics also need to be programmed correctly, so this isn't a unique hazard of flight-heritage avionics, but it shows that something (specifically, the software) will necessarily be new for the new vehicle.

The HW was reliable and programming with wrong information isn't something ULA is likely to do given their history.



Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[AllenB]

Be careful what you wish for.  Same avionics does not necessarily mean you inherit the same successful heritage.

Ariane 5 thought they would decrease risk by using EXACTLY the heritage avionics and software that was used on the Ariane 4.  Instead it doomed the mission, as the different trajectory caused numbers to overflow.

Yes, that is exactly the reference I was making. Carrying over the avionics makes good sense and I’m glad they’ve chosen to do so, but it is no guarantee against failure. Certainly not the same level of risk as the 100th AV flight on the same avionics.

[Jim]

Be careful what you wish for.  Same avionics does not necessarily mean you inherit the same successful heritage.

Ariane 5 thought they would decrease risk by using EXACTLY the heritage avionics and software that was used on the Ariane 4.  Instead it doomed the mission, as the different trajectory caused numbers to overflow.

Yes, that is exactly the reference I was making. Carrying over the avionics makes good sense and I’m glad they’ve chosen to do so, but it is no guarantee against failure. Certainly not the same level of risk as the 100th AV flight on the same avionics.

Not relevant.  Vulcan is the same configuration as Atlas V. ULA took Atlas V avionics and put it in the Delta IV.   Also Atlas V avionics was used in Ares I-X. 

I think they have this area covered and the risk is about the same as the 100th AtlasV flight

[meekGee]

Can we drop the buggy whip metaphor?  If i see it again I may have to commit bloody murder.
EDIT: Forgive my reaction to the buggy whip. But it is a tired metaphor. And if anyone, ever uses 'the little <take your pick> that could' I will.... get very annoyed.

Aphorisms are familiar, so people know they won't be misunderstood. Sometimes a bird in the hand is worth a second bite of the apple.

Only the early one tho.

[baldusi]

  Atlas V, Delta IV and Vulcan all use the same avionics.

Be careful what you wish for.  Same avionics does not necessarily mean you inherit the same successful heritage.

Ariane 5 thought they would decrease risk by using EXACTLY the heritage avionics and software that was used on the Ariane 4.  Instead it doomed the mission, as the different trajectory caused numbers to overflow.

They used the same software, different avionics. Didn't handle the higher resolution of the new hardware graciously. Here we mean avionics, as in whole boxes.