Author Topic: Reuse business case  (Read 318489 times)

Online rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #360 on: 05/07/2016 08:29 pm »
For many reasons, some of which have already been mentioned, ULA will be around for many years to come. In exactly what form, with what capabilities is another matter. Regardless...

I'm noticing a subtle shift in the way ULA (Tory) talks about their reuse strategy. It's becoming more about 2nd stage reuse with Smart thrown in for good measure. It used to be the either way around.(iirc)  Now that would be an interesting Biz Case comparison....

SpaceX Core reuse Vs. ULA 2nd Stage reuse. Now that's a spreadsheet I would't mind tearing into.

On a somewhat related note. The idea that there are certain payload types that SpaceX will not bother with (either initially or ever) for NASA, DOD-(NRO), etc., as currently designed, implies that most of those payloads will always need those requirements.

While I agree SpaceX will decide to pass on some because of the expense, I don't quite agree on the final outcome or the overall cause and effect. (ie. SpaceX passes, ULA gets) It assumes those payloads will only ever be designed, built to their current requirements, integration or otherwise. But what if that's not what happens.  Technical advancements and the response to Space no longer being seen as a benign operating environment will drive new requirements. That's where I begin to see where reuse, both in costs and speed to launch, being something the DOD begins to incorporate into their requirements in a meaningful way.  So within that context, I wonder where Core reuse Vs. 2nd stage reuse could potentially play out...
« Last Edit: 05/07/2016 08:31 pm by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #361 on: 05/07/2016 08:47 pm »
Sincerely doubt any serious reuse of either orbital US or booster (or components!) by any non SX vendor for foreseeable future.

Likely path for ULA near term is Atlas V and Delta IVH flights with limited manifest for the indefinite future, on a reduced operating footprint.

It's not exciting but that's just what will be happening.

« Last Edit: 05/07/2016 09:09 pm by Space Ghost 1962 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #362 on: 05/07/2016 09:38 pm »

And ULA has to do that without a mature in-house commercial marketing department.  So watching for hirings in their marketing department should also be an indicator of how they will approach this market.


Not true, ULA is supported by Boeing launch services and Lockheed Martin commercial launch services.

Yeah, not ULA but ULA's parents - and just in general, trying to keep track of what ULA can or can't do just goes to show how limited they are in being able to control their own future.

So regarding the survivability of ULA, both of the parents need to increase their commercial marketing abilities if ULA is going to survive, and seeing if they are doing that will be an indication of ULA's future.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #363 on: 05/07/2016 11:50 pm »
The recovered boosters have too many issues to be claimed as "aircraft like operations". The first clearly wasn't "flight worthy".
The third had a post-reentry fire like the first, so it could conceivably suffer from some of the same issues.  I'm beginning to wonder if these initial recovered boosters will, in the end, be "parted out" at best rather than outright re-flown.  Each recovery does, however, offer lessons learned that could improve the process.

I think ULA will be just fine.  SpaceX prices have already risen, and will continue to rise, even as it increases its "footprint" with new buildings and launch pads, etc..  Meanwhile ULA is slashing staffing and subcontractors and footprint, and therefore slashing its own costs.  The real unknowns are 1.) Falcon Heavy - will it work and what will it really cost?  2.) OATK's EELV goals and 3.) Blue Origin's long-term intentions.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/07/2016 11:59 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #364 on: 05/08/2016 12:05 am »
Jim is right: there is a need for a launch provider with ULA level reliability. SpaceX is going to have to attain that reliability at some point if they want to launch 100 man interplanetary liners, but the buisness is always better with a second hand on the rudder. A second opinion. You wouldn't want one party in politics, why one company to get out of the stratosphere?
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline yoram

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #365 on: 05/08/2016 12:16 am »
Quote
I think ULA will be just fine.  SpaceX prices have already risen, and will continue to rise, even as it increases its "footprint" with new buildings and launch pads, etc..  Meanwhile ULA is slashing staffing and subcontractors and footprint, and therefore slashing its own costs.  The real unknowns are 1.) Falcon Heavy - will it work and what will it really cost?  2.) OATK's EELV goals and 3.) Blue Origin's long-term intentions.

There's also 4) Stratolaunch to consider, but haven't heard from them for some time. At some point they claimed test flights in 2016. But if their plans work out they may also have an EELV class competitor?

Offline Steam Chaser

  • Member
  • Posts: 83
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #366 on: 05/08/2016 12:49 am »
Quote
I think ULA will be just fine.  SpaceX prices have already risen, and will continue to rise, even as it increases its "footprint" with new buildings and launch pads, etc..  Meanwhile ULA is slashing staffing and subcontractors and footprint, and therefore slashing its own costs.  The real unknowns are 1.) Falcon Heavy - will it work and what will it really cost?  2.) OATK's EELV goals and 3.) Blue Origin's long-term intentions.

There's also 4) Stratolaunch to consider, but haven't heard from them for some time. At some point they claimed test flights in 2016. But if their plans work out they may also have an EELV class competitor?

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/720736818216312832

"Beames: can’t talk about Stratolaunch launch vehicle strategy now; “we’ll make quite a series of announcements over the coming year.” #32SS"

There is also the possibility that some of the under-development small launchers from Firefly, Rocket Lab, Virgin Galactic, DARPA XS-1 competitors, etc will complete development, gain traction, and provide a foundation that allows their developers to migrate to larger launch vehicles.

There is also the possibility that SLS will be finished, and will compete politically with ULA for launches.  That might not amount to a lot of launches, but as an example, the SLS backers might shift funding for a half dozen smaller planetary science or astrophysics missions to a single SLS-launched mission, which could put a big dent in ULA's potential NASA business.

ULA could be seeing a lot of competition in a few years, so it would make sense for their parents to invest heavily in reuse (SMART, 2nd stage refueling, etc) to keep competitive.  I don't think giving up on ULA over the long term is a useful strategy, since it would leave lots of other Boeing and Lockheed-Martin business lines vulnerable (CST-100, SLS, Orion, satellites, planetary missions, etc) if the launch companies that take their place branch out.  Investing weakly in ULA (or getting partners to invest in it ... like perhaps Blue) amounts to giving up with this level of upcoming competition.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #367 on: 05/08/2016 01:33 am »

But the commercial side is being sewn up by SpX

Not true at all.  There are might not be enough for 4 suppliers but SX can't get and can't handle the whole commercial side.

While I agree that commercial customers aren't going to go exclusively with one provider, especially a provider who is more or less trying to also compete in their space (from what I hear commsat customers for some reason take a dim view on their launch provider trying to put them out of business... go figure), it's not at all clear that ULA has positioned itself as a strong second to SpaceX yet. They're trying, and it's not their fault that geopolitics are forcing them to focus on replacing the RD-180 when they'd really like to be pushing ACES and other technologies that could keep them in a good position compared to other providers. But I really, really hope they're adjusting their priors after the most recent SpaceX successes, and can find some way to accelerate their efforts to adapt and compete. They're making some painful and badly needed changes, but I really do worry that they're not evolving fast enough yet.

~Jon

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #368 on: 05/08/2016 02:10 am »


ULA will have its niche and Spacex isn't going to go play in that sandbox. There are requirements for DIV Heavy past 2020.

NASA is buying a vehicle for the Mars 2020 rover right now.  Guess who is going to fly it?
Yes, this will take time and they're not there yet, but I'm certain SpaceX will play in that sandbox eventually (unless there are serious financial problems for SpaceX, always a possibility). SpaceX has been climbing the value-chain ever since they started, and they're not likely to stop just short of large national security launches.

...which doesn't mean end-of-the-road for ULA. There's a national security imperative to have launcher redundancy.
« Last Edit: 05/08/2016 02:11 am by Robotbeat »
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #369 on: 05/08/2016 02:15 am »
As far as reliability: Falcon 9 has greater reliability (whether you include partial failures or just full failures) than Ariane 5 did at this point in its flight history. Ariane 5 is the same class of reliability as Atlas V.

I don't see any real reason to doubt that SpaceX will achieve Delta IV or Atlas V reliability (arguably basically there for Delta IV).


EDIT: But I still cross my fingers every Falcon 9 launch. I feel far more at ease watching an Atlas V launch.
« Last Edit: 05/08/2016 02:16 am by Robotbeat »
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 The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #370 on: 05/08/2016 03:18 am »
SpaceX prices have already risen, and will continue to rise

With inflation.

The increases have been fairly marginal and the performance gains have outpaced the increases, thus making more favourable the overall dollars-to-kilograms ratio offered by SpaceX.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #371 on: 05/08/2016 03:44 am »
By the time Vulcan launches in 2019; SpX is going to have been recovering boosters like clockwork for three years and the public (and congress) is going to ask why NASA/DoD contract money is being spent on something that dumps the first stage in the ocean (Vulcan isn't even going to have engine recovery until a few years down the line).

DoD can just explain they need two launchers for redundancy. Plus SpaceX may not bother with some of the weird requirements for DoD launches, so it looks to me that ULA would always have some business, it's just not as many as before.

Until Blue Origin or Firefly or Rocket Labs or Orbital or some other company realizes they can displace ULA by being the second provider more cheaply than ULA.  Blue Origin looks most likely to me.

If they put their full resources into it right now, ULA could probably still secure their place as a competitor to SpaceX.  But they would need to make massive investments in reusability.  Instead, they're leaving space for another company to grab the number two position.

Now, as others have pointed out, it's really LM and Boeing that pull the strings at ULA, so it's not necessarily ULA execs themselves that are to blame, but for whatever reason ULA is not moving aggressively enough.

I don't believe ULA can survive as number three.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #372 on: 05/08/2016 04:00 am »
SpaceX prices have already risen,

As has others have pointed out, the rise is roughly in line with inflation, so true prices have remained more or less the same, while performance has greatly increased.

and will continue to rise,

There's zero evidence to indicate they will rise and a whole lot of evidence their costs will decrease, starting with stage reuse.

even as it increases its "footprint" with new buildings and launch pads, etc..

SpaceX's footprint is not increasing because they need a bigger footprint to support their existing revenue stream.  It's increasing because they are supporting new revenue streams, including commercial crew, Falcon Heavy, and an increase in launch rate for Falcon 9.  All those things involve new costs but also allow some costs for Falcon 9 to be shared among more revenue streams.  All that indicates SpaceX's costs per Falcon 9 launch will go down, not up.  Whether they pass those costs on to their customers is up to them, but it's certainly not evidence that SpaceX prices to their customers will go up.

Meanwhile ULA is slashing staffing and subcontractors and footprint, and therefore slashing its own costs.

Some of that may lead to real cost reduction per-launch for ULA.  But some of that is also because their expected launch rate will be going down in the coming years (and Bruno himself has said).  When launch rates go down, fixed costs must be spread over fewer launches which tends to drive the cost per launch up.

So, it's unclear which is the bigger factor, and hence unclear whether ULA's per-launch costs will be going up or down.

The real unknowns are 1.) Falcon Heavy - will it work and what will it really cost?

There's so much commonality between Falcon Heavy and Falcon 9 that it's hard to believe there's much chance it would either not work or have costs very far from what SpaceX expects.  So, while we can never be 100% sure of either, it seems clear the odds are very high that it will work and will cost what SpaceX has said it will cost (and signed contracts for it to cost).

2.) OATK's EELV goals and 3.) Blue Origin's long-term intentions.

I agree that those are unknowns.

Offline AJW

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Liked: 1315
  • Likes Given: 136
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #373 on: 05/08/2016 05:30 am »


ULA will have its niche and Spacex isn't going to go play in that sandbox. There are requirements for DIV Heavy past 2020.

NASA is buying a vehicle for the Mars 2020 rover right now.  Guess who is going to fly it?
Yes, this will take time and they're not there yet, but I'm certain SpaceX will play in that sandbox eventually (unless there are serious financial problems for SpaceX, always a possibility). SpaceX has been climbing the value-chain ever since they started, and they're not likely to stop just short of large national security launches.

...which doesn't mean end-of-the-road for ULA. There's a national security imperative to have launcher redundancy.

I believe the Brits refer to this as the Heir and the Spare.
We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #374 on: 05/08/2016 12:52 pm »
Excuse me folks. As far as I can remember this thread is about the reuse business case. Not about ULA and/or SpaceX either shrinking or expanding or supposedly doing anything else.

So, let's get back on-topic:
An honest, but now removed, post by a ULA insider revealed that the business case model found earlier in this thread (and provided by a ULA employee) is way too simple and should not be taken seriously.
IMO, what remains is that the reuse business case is unproven at this point in time given that no reuse has actually taken place so far. Let SpaceX reuse a number of booster stages first and let's see how that turns out. Then we can really go back to discussing the reuse business case. Any discussion at this stage is uninformed speculation at best given that nobody here has direct access to whatever concrete (non-speculative) data SpaceX and or ULA have on the subject.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #375 on: 05/08/2016 01:03 pm »

There is also the possibility that SLS will be finished, and will compete politically with ULA for launches.  That might not amount to a lot of launches, but as an example, the SLS backers might shift funding for a half dozen smaller planetary science or astrophysics missions to a single SLS-launched mission, which could put a big dent in ULA's potential NASA business.


Never would happen. 

Offline AJW

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Liked: 1315
  • Likes Given: 136
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #376 on: 05/08/2016 05:20 pm »
This document uses Dr. Sower's work and provides some additional background.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Supporting_Technologies/LV_Recovery_and_Reuse_AIAASpace_2015.pdf

I think that Shuttle indeed taught us that refurbishment costs are key, and an interesting study would be on how projected refurbishment costs would differ using SMART, ADELINE and full recovery.   It also important to remember that while full recovery adds mass for legs, grid fins and consumes fuel, SMART's use of HIAD, recovery chutes, and structural requirements to allow separation of the engine(s) will also reduce performance.  ADELINE expects a 10% weight penalty.  I believe a scaled-down version of HIAD has only been tested successfully once.  This is crucial since SMART depends on this capability, so until we see HIAD tested at scale and actual loads, I expect we will continue to see limited progress on Vulcan.

Section V-A of the document is rather telling of ULA's attitudes, first comparing retro-propulsion to a comic book approach, and then discounting it as both 'not new' and 'Russian'. 
We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives.

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #377 on: 05/08/2016 05:53 pm »
I want to see people improve their posts. However, I agree, ULA is way behind the game, but saying they are "boned" is childish.

I can't see any other way of putting it in a short, succinct sentence.

If you asked me for a more detailed explanation (the $5 dollar option as opposed to the $0.50 option) -- I'd say that ULA is creeping very fast into "Death zone" of airplane performance graphs -- where you don't have sufficient altitude and/or airspeed to recover before Controlled Flight into Ground (CFIT). The disaster is coming, and it's going to be visible in slow motion; like CFIT from the Death zone.

As ChrisWilson68 posted; ULA did a study on engine recovery almost ten years ago:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Evolution/PartialRocketReuseUsingMidAirRecovery20087874.pdf

But they didn't really do anything with it until Spring 2015, when Vulcan was announced and that it'd use SMART recovery.

Now, its becoming apparent that Vulcan SMART won't actually happen until 2024, some sixteen years after that 2008 paper and five years after Vulcan's maiden flight in 2019.

SpaceX will have been recovering cores for EIGHT YEARS by the time ULA lands the first engine pod.

If ULA was only 12-18 months away from SMART recovery on Atlas V, then things would be different. But they're not; so...  :-X

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #378 on: 05/08/2016 06:04 pm »
I want to see people improve their posts. However, I agree, ULA is way behind the game, but saying they are "boned" is childish.

I can't see any other way of putting it in a short, succinct sentence.

If you asked me for a more detailed explanation (the $5 dollar option as opposed to the $0.50 option) -- I'd say that ULA is creeping very fast into "Death zone" of airplane performance graphs -- where you don't have sufficient altitude and/or airspeed to recover before Controlled Flight into Ground (CFIT). The disaster is coming, and it's going to be visible in slow motion; like CFIT from the Death zone.


Childish and just plain wrong.  Nothing supports that opinion.

Offline AJW

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Liked: 1315
  • Likes Given: 136
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #379 on: 05/08/2016 07:10 pm »
Jim,

Without violating confidentiality, can you provide your assessment of refurbishment beyond what most of us have only gleaned from photos?
We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives.

Tags: 8pv45o 756 812 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1