Reuse business case

[Jim]

Clearly, Starship has changed the game.

Counting chickens before they hatch

[cscott]

Clearly, Starship has changed the game.

Counting chickens before they hatch

That's the point, isn't it, though?  "If you skate to where the puck is..."

They may be right, starship may fail, but even falcon 9 is eating SMART's lunch.  By the time that starship has definitely failed or succeeded it will be too late to change course.

[Jim]

They may be right, starship may fail, but even falcon 9 is eating SMART's lunch.  By the time that starship has definitely failed or succeeded it will be too late to change course.

Was looking at it as not failing, but Starship doesn't do much better than Falcon 9.  Just the cheapest method for launching large payloads

[rubicondsrv]

They may be right, starship may fail, but even falcon 9 is eating SMART's lunch.  By the time that starship has definitely failed or succeeded it will be too late to change course.

none of that matters for ula.  ULA exists to make a profit for boeing and lockheed, not to grow in market share.

as long as ULA provides specialized services at competitive prices they will exist.  If ULA is no longer competitive in those areas, most likely Boeing and lockheed will shut it down. 

vulcan should be reasonably competitive in the near term, that is all ULA needs. 

[Yggdrasill]

Was looking at it as not failing, but Starship doesn't do much better than Falcon 9.  Just the cheapest method for launching large payloads

If SpaceX succeeds in making a Starship launch cheaper than a Falcon 9 launch, then there's not much use for Falcon 9.

Falcon 9 will still be used for launching Dragon 2 for some time, due to it's proven safety and human rating, but I doubt we will see any launches of Falcon 9 in the 2030s.

So ULA needs to put some serious consideration into how they will compete with Starship. Merely having to compete with Falcon 9 is their absolute best case scenario.

[markbike528cbx]

....quotes from others snipped........

Not likely to be cheaper to have a totally different rocket with smaller payload. Smaller rockets have worse $/kg in general. An exceptional example: Pegasus costs like $35-40 million for half a ton to orbit. RTLS F9 would cost about the same (perhaps less) but should get over 10 times that much to orbit.

With this graded reuse strategy, SpaceX can launch basically 40 launches per year with the same platform without having to greatly expand production from where they are right now. Falcon Heavy for the largest payloads, but F9 RTLS for the smallest. That's a very efficient strategy, not too dissimilar to ULA's dial-a-rocket approach but usable for far smaller (read: lowest cost) payloads and with only having to deal with 1 propellant combination instead of 3 for ULA (solids, kerolox, hydrolox).

Nice crystal ball Robotbeat 2016!
ASDS F9 vs Pegasus does win on cost.  Example IXPE with a 28 degree plane change. IXPE was built assuming Pegasus, but switched on cost ( heresay/ opinion).

As far as I can see, your 2016 call on business model is on track with SpaceX's 2022 model.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The bottom line.

Reuse if implemented correctly is highly economically successful.

End result is more business even though at lower per launch prices results in a larger total revenue and profit stream. Because more payloads start showing up. 5 years after reuse got going full swing, more inexpensive low budget payloads were developed and are now flooding the launch market. Last year US did 45 launches. This year it could be >60. Globally last year the total was 135 successful launches. Up >50% from the numbers in 2016 (83 successful launches [Gunter's Space Page 2016 year of launches list]). This year could reach >150.  The payloads are mostly conglomerations of small sats both large number constellations and unique one and two's. Lower the cost of access to space and the number of payloads will increase. Launch supply for cheap launches is almost falling behind demand.

[TrevorMonty]

The bottom line.

Reuse if implemented correctly is highly economically successful.

End result is more business even though at lower per launch prices results in a larger total revenue and profit stream. Because more payloads start showing up. 5 years after reuse got going full swing, more inexpensive low budget payloads were developed and are now flooding the launch market. Last year US did 45 launches. This year it could be >60. Globally last year the total was 135 successful launches. Up >50% from the numbers in 2016 (83 successful launches [Gunter's Space Page 2016 year of launches list]). This year could reach >150.  The payloads are mostly conglomerations of small sats both large number constellations and unique one and two's. Lower the cost of access to space and the number of payloads will increase. Launch supply for cheap launches is almost falling behind demand.

Most that launch increase is Starlink, which wouldn't be happening if F9 wasn't reuseable.

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

[SoftwareDude]

  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.

New Avionics for Vulcan : https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/7hhmyi/united_launch_alliance_selects_l3_technologies_to/

[DreamyPickle]

Most SpaceX launches nowadays are Starlink, these are not profitable launches for external customers but rather internal investment in a business that is largely separate from launch. Other causes of the increase in launch rate are oneweb (which flies on Soyuz) and chinese launches.

It's not very realistic for ULA to gain any of that business.

ULA has a very weird relationship with Blue Origin where they're buying engines from another provider which makes it's own reusable launcher. It seems unlikely that an implementation of reuse for Vulcan would be able to compete with New Glenn for mega-constellation launches.

ULA's business is entirely in providing high-reliability access to space and they have no other viable paths.

[LouScheffer]

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

Is this still true? Honeywell build the inertial navigation and control for Atlas, and the rate gyros for stabilization, but L3 will build the avionics for Vulcan.

Now maybe this is just a change of general contractor for avionics, and L3 will continue to purchase the inertial nav units from Honeywell, but that seems odd since L3 makes their own inertial navigation units (though maybe not space based ones).  On the other hand, purchasing items from a competitor happens already in the ULA supply chain.

[spacenut]

Well, it looks like SpaceX proved out the business case.  Especially launching Starlink.  Even without Starlink, F9 has over 100 landings and have reused several rockets 10 times.  This drastically lowers cost for SpaceX the more times they can launch a rocket. 

[edkyle99]

The bottom line.

Reuse if implemented correctly is highly economically successful.

 Globally last year the total was 135 successful launches. Up >50% from the numbers in 2016 (83 successful launches [Gunter's Space Page 2016 year of launches list]).

91 of 2021's successes were performed by just three launch vehicle families:  CZ (DF-5 based), Falcon 9, and R-7.  Only 29 of those flights provided successful first stage recoveries (defined as returning a usable first stage).  The truth is that China's all-expendable program has been responsible for much of the growth in launch numbers recently, building whatever "space environmental sensing" network they are building up there.     

 - Ed Kyle

[Welsh Dragon]

The bottom line.

Reuse if implemented correctly is highly economically successful.

 Globally last year the total was 135 successful launches. Up >50% from the numbers in 2016 (83 successful launches [Gunter's Space Page 2016 year of launches list]).

91 of 2021's successes were performed by just three launch vehicle families:  CZ (DF-5 based), Falcon 9, and R-7.  Only 29 of those flights provided successful first stage recoveries (defined as returning a usable first stage).  The truth is that China's all-expendable program has been responsible for much of the growth in launch numbers recently, building whatever "space environmental sensing" network they are building up there.     

 - Ed Kyle

China's rockets don't have to be economically successful* (and neither do most of the R7s) so are totally irrelevant to the point oldAtlas was making.

*Barring the newer "commercial" solid ones perhaps.

[whitelancer64]

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

Is this still true? Honeywell build the inertial navigation and control for Atlas, and the rate gyros for stabilization, but L3 will build the avionics for Vulcan.

Now maybe this is just a change of general contractor for avionics, and L3 will continue to purchase the inertial nav units from Honeywell, but that seems odd since L3 makes their own inertial navigation units (though maybe not space based ones).  On the other hand, purchasing items from a competitor happens already in the ULA supply chain.

The common avionics system is now flown on Atlas and Delta, building up flight heritage for Vulcan. It was first flown on Atlas on the GPS IIF-12 launch in February 2016, and first flown on the Delta IV on the NROL-47 launch in January 2018.

[GWH]

Well, it looks like SpaceX proved out the business case.  Especially launching Starlink.  Even without Starlink, F9 has over 100 landings and have reused several rockets 10 times.  This drastically lowers cost for SpaceX the more times they can launch a rocket.

Some stats:

Delta IV had flown 41 times,  a total of 65 cores with the 12 DIV Heavy flights.

Atlas V has flown a total of 91 times.

Falcon 9 in its various iterations has flown 137 times plus 3 Falcon Heavies for a total of 140 flights more than the combined total of both of ULA's 2 active rockets.

Most importantly related to reuse with 103 successful landings and 81 reflights SpaceX has recovered more cores than Atlas Vs ever built and conducted significantly more reflights than Delta IV cores have ever flown.

We are quickly approaching a point in time where there will be more reflight history on one launch vehicle family than the total flight history of another 2 rocket families made by the company trying to throw cold water on the reuse business case.

[rpapo]

Well, it looks like SpaceX proved out the business case.  Especially launching Starlink.  Even without Starlink, F9 has over 100 landings and have reused several rockets 10 times.  This drastically lowers cost for SpaceX the more times they can launch a rocket.

Some stats:

Delta IV had flown 41 times,  a total of 65 cores with the 12 DIV Heavy flights.

Atlas V has flown a total of 91 times.

Falcon 9 in its various iterations has flown 137 times plus 3 Falcon Heavies for a total of 140 flights more than the combined total of both of ULA's 2 active rockets.

Most importantly related to reuse with 103 successful landings and 81 reflights SpaceX has recovered more cores than Atlas Vs ever built and conducted significantly more reflights than Delta IV cores have ever flown.

We are quickly approaching a point in time where there will be more reflight history on one launch vehicle family than the total flight history of another 2 rocket families made by the company trying to throw cold water on the reuse business case.

You forget one stat: the total number of Falcon 9 cores ever built.  Counting those that haven't flown yet, we have seen 72 numbered cores so far.  A number of them were structural test articles or were not launched for other reasons, and a couple haven't flown yet.  There have been roughly the same number of Falcon cores built as Delta IV cores.  Fewer than the Atlas cores.

[DanClemmensen]

Well, it looks like SpaceX proved out the business case.  Especially launching Starlink.  Even without Starlink, F9 has over 100 landings and have reused several rockets 10 times.  This drastically lowers cost for SpaceX the more times they can launch a rocket.

Some stats:

Delta IV had flown 41 times,  a total of 65 cores with the 12 DIV Heavy flights.

Atlas V has flown a total of 91 times.

Falcon 9 in its various iterations has flown 137 times plus 3 Falcon Heavies for a total of 140 flights more than the combined total of both of ULA's 2 active rockets.

Most importantly related to reuse with 103 successful landings and 81 reflights SpaceX has recovered more cores than Atlas Vs ever built and conducted significantly more reflights than Delta IV cores have ever flown.

We are quickly approaching a point in time where there will be more reflight history on one launch vehicle family than the total flight history of another 2 rocket families made by the company trying to throw cold water on the reuse business case.

You forget one stat: the total number of Falcon 9 cores ever built.  Counting those that haven't flown yet, we have seen 72 numbered cores so far.  A number of them were structural test articles or were not launched for other reasons, and a couple haven't flown yet.  There have been roughly the same number of Falcon cores built as Delta IV cores.  Fewer than the Atlas cores.

True, but it's more extreme than that, because the pre-block 5s had a low average reuse rate. They were mission-operational, but they were reuse test beds.  Of those 70 cores, about 50 were pre-block 5, and among them they flew about 60 missions. There have been about 20 block 5 cores. Among them they have flown about 70 missions and ten of them are in active service and about six have not yet flown. (These numbers are from a quick glance at the Wikipedia list, not a careful count.)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters#Block_5

[trimeta]

Well, it looks like SpaceX proved out the business case.  Especially launching Starlink.  Even without Starlink, F9 has over 100 landings and have reused several rockets 10 times.  This drastically lowers cost for SpaceX the more times they can launch a rocket.

Some stats:

Delta IV had flown 41 times,  a total of 65 cores with the 12 DIV Heavy flights.

Atlas V has flown a total of 91 times.

Falcon 9 in its various iterations has flown 137 times plus 3 Falcon Heavies for a total of 140 flights more than the combined total of both of ULA's 2 active rockets.

Most importantly related to reuse with 103 successful landings and 81 reflights SpaceX has recovered more cores than Atlas Vs ever built and conducted significantly more reflights than Delta IV cores have ever flown.

We are quickly approaching a point in time where there will be more reflight history on one launch vehicle family than the total flight history of another 2 rocket families made by the company trying to throw cold water on the reuse business case.

There's the other side to it, however: is there actually a business case for flying that often at all? SpaceX needed to create Starlink to generate that many launches because they couldn't sell enough to commercial or government customers. And sure, Starlink will likely make them a great deal of money in the long run, but do we expect ULA to also diversify into in-space applications which require high launch cadence?

The question becomes whether one can survive while only being a launch provider, and if so, whether a company which is only a launch provider will have enough launches to make reuse economical. In the long run, those excess internal launches which wouldn't have happened with paying customers alone also give you the flight history to win over the paying customers. This makes me doubt whether the presence or absence of reuse will ultimately be ULA's greatest concern.

[DreamyPickle]

Since this is inside the ULA section the question should be "is there a reuse business case for ULA". It matters less if SpaceX can make reuse to work.

In order to increase flight rate ULA would have to sell to other mega-constellation providers and they did actually manage to sell a large number of Atlas V launches to Amazon. Would SMART reuse help extend this deal to selling Vulcans?

Since Amazon is after rapid expansion they might decide to buy Vulcans anyway simply because they need all the payload capacity they can get. In the medium-to-long term ULA will have to compete against Neutron and New Glenn, both of which are claiming first-stage reusability.