Author Topic: Reuse business case  (Read 318479 times)

Offline rst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #460 on: 05/12/2016 05:18 pm »
In addition, I'll add that we've not been hearing about hotfires, so engine issues are also on my "hot list"  8)

Would we necessarily hear about them?  In the photo of the aft ends of the first two returned boosters, the OG-2 booster had several engines removed.  Without specific info, I kind of assumed that they'd been taken to the test stand.  And checking them out wouldn't necessarily look all that different from more typical activity at McGregor, when viewed from over the property line.

Agreed on broader structural issues, though; I was surprised to see Elon talking about re-firing the engines, but not re-qualifying the structure.  Significant expense for that is one of ULA's assumptions in the business memo, and I would have thought a reasonable one at least for the first few launches.  But that may ultimately wind up being between SpaceX, their relanch customer(s), and their insurance companies...

Offline saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #461 on: 05/12/2016 05:19 pm »
With the model presented as being discredited for being applicable to the Reuse Business Case (other than by ULA executives for justifying their own decisions possibly)

While the model is getting disparaged left and right it might be worth reminding that it's non-applicability is not a consensus opinion. Some people, me included, still believe the model is valid despite it's limitations and a great source of insight that explains a lot of SpaceX's actions happening now and for some time and their challenges going forward.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #462 on: 05/12/2016 05:50 pm »
With the model presented as being discredited for being applicable to the Reuse Business Case (other than by ULA executives for justifying their own decisions possibly)

While the model is getting disparaged left and right it might be worth reminding that it's non-applicability is not a consensus opinion. Some people, me included, still believe the model is valid despite it's limitations and a great source of insight that explains a lot of SpaceX's actions happening now and for some time and their challenges going forward.

Please elaborate ... I'm always interested in explanations for actions, and in identification of challenges...  That's a serious question because I didn't see this model predicting much given its inapplicability (as I perceive it)

Also, as a note, "consensus" does not mean unanimous agreement.  That would be "unanimous consensus" ... if a small minority disagrees that's not a block to calling consensus.

We are NOT going to have a poll on this but I think far more posters have found and identified significant flaws than have said "this model, as is, is accurate and a good predictor"
« Last Edit: 05/12/2016 05:55 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

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 #463 on: 05/12/2016 05:51 pm »
That's not at all what I was trying to say. I was just saying that so far most of the cost savings they've had compared to their competitors has come from design/operations choices, and little so far from reusability, but that I'm optimistic that eventually a larger share of the relative cost savings will start coming from reusability.

I agree with Jon's first point whole-heartedly, and I'll agree with his second point on a long enough time scale.  I also think that there is nothing in SpaceX's near-term re-usability scheme that will come close to the cost savings SpaceX would have by just upping their flight rate first into the 12 / year range and then in the 18-20 / year range.

E.g. be "traditional provider" for a few years longer. Which suggests that they don't want such. Something that ULA would give its eye teeth for, modulo "parents" own issues.

Quote
So if I had to rank SpaceX's potential cost advantages over their competition, my ranking would be

1) Design / operational choices
2) High flight-rate
3) High-value component re-use (engines, system components, etc.)
4) Intact stage re-use

This, I think, is the underlying bone of contention (can you feel it?) in this thread between the seasoned veterans at ULA and other places and the SpaceX fans.  SpaceX is trying to jump straight from #1 to #4 when there is much more bang for the buck to be had in steps 2 and 3.

Sensible given what we've seen. But perhaps the reason one jumps steps is that a) you can't envision the end result until you're there (and you get the "flying faireys" toting an Ariane 6 engine pod back to land  ::) solutions),  and b) what you're really shooting for is so far out of the picture (entire vehicle reuse) that the interim steps actually hurt in that they distract/slow you down.

Quote
ULA has it worse.  They have to start at #1.  There's no point in even attempting #4 if you don't have a low-cost design or operations.

Keep in mind that to the "parents", ULA's business is a means to an end. The only reason they'll commit to such is if it incrementally appears to "pay off" for them. The only reason ULA is even talking reuse at all, is to appear "competitive", because they lost the monopoly and risk having it used against them. Defensive.

Quote
This, in my opinion, is all that Dr. Sowers was trying to say with his spreadsheet.  There's no need to get too deep into the numbers -- it's meant to be more of a big-picture look at things.

Its a weak apology to serve for why they aren't allowed to pursue head to head competition. Which is very frustrating for its remaining workforce.

they are going to win a lot of launches after the block buy is over.

Not really.  Spacex is not going to bend to DOD requirements.  They want to keep the F9 generic.
That may be the situation now, but it wasn't during the early cycles of certification. Remember the conclusions of the panel that investigated the dragged-out certification process for F9? It became evident that USAF had forced SpaceX into changing parts of the F9 design. Once this practice was exposed by the panel, the practice was discontinued at the suggestion of the secretary of the air force. From that point forward the certification process became more smooth. Now that USAF can effectively no longer force SpaceX to change the design it is quite easy for SpaceX to say: "Hey general Hyten, we're not gonna bend to you and your boys anymore."

That was unfortunate in so many ways. AF did wear out its welcome for no gain (and not for the first time).

Suggest though SX always wanted a "generic" launcher in F9. The missed advantage for both was AF's involvement in taking SX further/faster along its "evolution" with same time/resources, instead of butting heads for who's anatomy is longer. Was done for agendas clearly.

Quote
The obvious disadvantage is that Falcon 9 will not be suitable for all USAF and NRO missions. So yeah, they will continue to lose missions to ULA. But then again, in the current situation, that's welcome news for Tory et al..

No, suggest actually that it is what will doom ULA eventually, like a slow acting poison. Believe that ULA needed even more than SX the above mentioned "evolution" for its survival - it was a part of Tory's reinvention that was missed due to shortsightedness of holding off an upstart. Too busy defending the turf thru advocates, didn't see the larger goal in the distance.

We already know from an earlier removed post (from a ULA employee) that the reuse business-case model posted by another ULA employee is not to be taken seriously. It holds no merit. Besides, the folks here were very good at taking the model apart and exposing the many flaws in it.
Can we just forget about it? It's pointless to continue discussing a model that is pretty much useless.

Apologies, I wasn't following upthread, I thought I was the first to notice.

This was posted by Dr. Sowers though, and he's more than just an employee - he's a high ranking persona there.

Not cool, not for him, and not for ULA.

EDIT:  Fixed spelling

I agree. It's not cool for Dr. Sowers and ULA to publically post a seriously flawed model and then use it to spread FUD. This was pointed out by the discrediting ULA employee and Lar upthread. Given his senior role within ULA Dr. Sowers really should have known better.

Sowers is exhibit B for the prior mentioned case. I watched him rudely treat an aerospace grad who took him to task over this. Fine to want your team to win, unfortunate that the "parents" handcuff this, but no excuse for such. Same one who talked to Bruno at another get together got an entirely different convo. Was not surprised at the Tobey meltdown given the spread between Bruno and Sowers.

Jim, as of right now, based on what you know, what do you personally think the probability is that SpaceX will fly at least one reused booster at some point? And what do you think the conditional probability of success is, given that they fly one?

An educated guess based on little to no data (but arguably more than most of us have) from you would be interesting.


From what I saw, the aft end needs much more protection.  There were panels that were damaged and opened on the previous booster.  The fires on the current booster may have been internal.   
Careful Jim. You might be giving too much information. Temporary inside insight is good, but you may be walking a red line here.

The red line is in using your expertise to improve the state of the art beyond what is obvious in the public domain. Easy to cross when you think everyone see's what you see, but doesn't say it.

Quote
That aside: it is to be expected that the first succesfully recovered boosters will reveal issues that need addressing. After all, when was the last time someone tried to propulsively recover the first stage of an orbital launcher? SpaceX are the first ones to do so and are therefore the first ones to get a good understanding of the unique problems associated with it.
What I don't doubt for a minute is that SpaceX will ultimately fully understand the causes of the issues and fix them. And given how SpaceX works, the issues will probably be fixed sooner than most competitors expect.

In this case, its a difficult issue and the 1-10 reflight solution won't be the 10-100 one. Also, how much do you do to the vehicle to affect the CONOPs that limit as well? How much do you leave for a future vehicle on the drawing boards? Scope?

I believe what they have done up to this point on the design and operation of the vehicle without reuse is a larger impact to the cost of the vehicle than what they will get out of reuse.

But none of this would and probably even could have happened without the promise of reuse and Mars. Mars colonization and rocket reusability have already halved the cost of spaceflight even though no-one has gone to Mars and no rocket has been reused.

How about that for a business case?

This thread is about ULA reuse business case, not SX. But you're right. Suggest that F9 reuse is about a generic LV that enters EELV territory for global market dominance, but stops there before specialization while retaining max payload advantage. This forces ULA's hand in order to bid competitively, yet "parents" have no belly for enduring actual "reuse". SX's "stepping stone" to BFR/BFS is like Thor's hammer on their chest - pinning them down.


Would like to point out that all of the structural concerns for recovered boosters as well as most of the retropropulsion plume impingement issues seem to have gone by the wayside.
I'm somewhat surprised they have not taken a used booster, hauled it to Texas, put it in the structural test stand, filled it with an inert fluid, pressurized it, then subjected it to 140% flight loads (or whatever they use for a new booster).  If that test passes, the avionics work, and the engines check out (tested by hot fire) then it would seem they could retire almost all risk.  I would think a full structural test would also a big confidence boost for the first customer of re-use. 

Yup, me too. Suggest they already think they are golden as far as those issues. That was the plan. Obviously not going to plan.

Quote
There are several possibilities here.  Maybe they have not gotten to it yet.  Maybe they are sure it would fail from the inspections they have already done, and are waiting for some revision that will do better.

Doubt that. My contacts suggest they are more confident than ever, that they are overwhelmed with flight data and ways to proceed further. Everyone thinks that these guys know more than they do. I think they are just as shocked as the rest of us that they have actually recovered LV's.

Quote
Maybe such a ultimate load test tweaks the booster to the point it can't the re-used, and they are not willing to give up on any recovered boosters yet.  Maybe they are so certain it will pass that it's not worth the trouble to test (though this one seems unlikely to me - SpaceX would surely like to make sure there are no unanticipated problems, and customers would surely like to know SpaceX has checked for this).  Anyway I'm surprised they've not done a full up structural test.

Suggest that they think they have enough to prove that the flight envelopes that they were to explore in NM SA were more of a "plan B" when things didn't work out. And that the real test for structural is reflight itself, and then again reflight. They want to build a corpus where you see the fatigue issues telling the story "in system".

They are probably right too, given experience in airframes, which isn't perfectly transferable to this.

The problem is we don not know yet. And will not until new prices for launches using reuse is published. We can speculate that SpaceX has answered these and it is in the direction of true. Otherwise they would have stopped an.d  started new significant vehicle modifications to make them true or to go in in a different direct in the seeking of lower launch costs.

I think we are in uncharted territory, with a half completed program. Consider it a inflection (or "wild") point.

They are flooded with flight data, with more on the way. My bet is short term remediation and reflight, while they factor in a revised vehicle. How fast they iterate is unclear.

In addition, I'll add that we've not been hearing about hotfires, so engine issues are also on my "hot list"  8)

Would we necessarily hear about them?  In the photo of the aft ends of the first two returned boosters, the OG-2 booster had several engines removed.  Without specific info, I kind of assumed that they'd been taken to the test stand.  And checking them out wouldn't necessarily look all that different from more typical activity at McGregor, when viewed from over the property line.

I think we're not and they are busy on those engines, likely on the design side in Hawthorne and in the test/analysis of wear/environ issues. Keep in mind that they my have scheduling issues with keeping up production schedules to work down the manifest, while also figuring "how to test" reused engines. Not many have experience with what to do with a flown engine.

Quote
Agreed on broader structural issues, though; I was surprised to see Elon talking about re-firing the engines, but not re-qualifying the structure.  Significant expense for that is one of ULA's assumptions in the business memo, and I would have thought a reasonable one at least for the first few launches.

Me too. SX isn't ULA again, and ULA's assumptions spring from the hyperfine "systems engineering" refinements of EELV. SX does "agile with SE feedback", so they are "mutually incomprehensible" if not antagonistic. FWIW those like me are considered "heretics" 8)

Quote
But that may ultimately wind up being between SpaceX, their relanch customer(s), and their insurance companies...

Suggest they convince with the "eventually reuse vehicles will be more trusted, not less" meme. They are probably right in the long term. Which is something that traditional launch should take seriously but do not.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #464 on: 05/12/2016 06:02 pm »
With the model presented as being discredited for being applicable to the Reuse Business Case (other than by ULA executives for justifying their own decisions possibly)

While the model is getting disparaged left and right it might be worth reminding that it's non-applicability is not a consensus opinion. Some people, me included, still believe the model is valid despite it's limitations and a great source of insight that explains a lot of SpaceX's actions happening now and for some time and their challenges going forward.
I did not say that all of its concepts can be ignored, just using it in its entirety. The basic concept of $/kg is one that  should be still evaluated but its significance is that you are attempting to keep the $/kg equal or less, using the concept of a LV capable of larger (expendable) payload for same basic launch costs. Launch costs generally go down $/kg as launcher size increases. So by using a larger launcher to do reuse for a smaller payload the $/kg you are using for an evaluation is lower that the smaller expendable vehicle that you are comparing $/kg for same size payload on the reusable system. It is this basic phenomena that invalidates some of the conclusions made in the model. A reusable system starts with a larger LV that has a lower $/kg before it lowers the costs/launch in the reuse case applicable for use on smaller payloads. So the result is a lower $/kg for the same size payload using the reusable LV vs a equal capable expendable LV. The only thing you can do for comparison of $/kg between using the same LV as expendable vs reusable is that it does not make the $/kg worse or not much worse when used as reusable LV. The gain in cost savings as a system per payload size is realized by the reusable system vs an equal sized expendable LV.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #465 on: 05/12/2016 07:25 pm »
Using generic $/kg omits the elephant in the room -- that SpaceX $/kg is already half (or lower) than ULA $/kg, with reuse hardware installed and tested on the SpaceX vehicle.

If/when the advertised 30% reduction in price of a launch with a reused booster is realized, ULA will have to cut their price by a factor of three instead of two to be comparably cost competitive.  Comparing business cases with actual dollars per kilogram is the only honest way to analyze the value of reuse strategies.

The second elephant in the as-presented business case room is that a 30% price reduction on first reuse isn't predicted at all... ten non-SMART reuses are needed to break even by the model.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #466 on: 05/12/2016 07:36 pm »
1) IF you keep the number of launches per year constant, you'll almost always have a lower cost per kilogram if you use a bigger, more capable rocket.

2) On the other hand, a bigger rocket than you need is (potentially) wasteful and will increase your cost per kg.


Additionally:
0) Cost is basically always lower per launch with a higher launch rate, if you keep the rocket payload constant.

So reuse allows you to use a bigger rocket (#1) without being wasteful (avoiding the problem of #2). And since this means you have 1 rocket doing the flights that you'd otherwise need multiple rocket types for, it improves #0 as well. (Dial-a-rocket sort of also does this.)

So even if you take for a given that reuse doesn't lower the cost-per-kg for a rocket launch, it still allows big cost reductions by allowing you to use a big rocket without being wasteful.
« Last Edit: 05/12/2016 07:37 pm 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 meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #467 on: 05/12/2016 07:48 pm »
With the model presented as being discredited for being applicable to the Reuse Business Case (other than by ULA executives for justifying their own decisions possibly)

While the model is getting disparaged left and right it might be worth reminding that it's non-applicability is not a consensus opinion. Some people, me included, still believe the model is valid despite it's limitations and a great source of insight that explains a lot of SpaceX's actions happening now and for some time and their challenges going forward.

Even if the model was robust, like in all models: "garbage in, garbage out".

What caught my eye first was the 60% value for "fraction of mission cost that is hardware".   It's clearly a critical input parameter, and if you plug in 70%, for example, the conclusion regarding RTLS becomes completely opposite.

So why 60%?  And why not put the obligatory note that says "This value results in conclusion A, but a slightly different value results in conclusion B, and so neither conclusion really stems from this analysis"?

(And mind you, I'm open to the argument that as hardware cost drops, that fraction will actually decrease....  But I also think that as launch rate increases, and missions become repetitive (e.g. LEO comm sats), then overhead will decrease too...)
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1860
  • Germany
  • Liked: 4010
  • Likes Given: 2738
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #468 on: 05/14/2016 05:09 pm »
In my opinion the original model might be good enough to describe ULA's business case and decide (for ULA) which way to go for recovery options with short time development.

All the assumptions - approximately constant number of launches, optimizing for $ per kg with a fixed size rocket and known cost ratios, hold surprisingly well for ULA - considering ULA's current roadmap.

For a comparison with SpaceX the model is completely useless for a number of reasons.
1. SpaceX optimized the rockets capability for an existing launch market - based on $ per launch for a certain set of payload classes. (The model doesn't work like that)

2. SpaceX compensated for the performance penalty involved with reuse by scaling the rocket up. Instead of limiting themselves to smaller payloads in case of re-use - they evolved the launch vehicle to get the extra power (through 1.1 and eventually FT) to still launch the same payload and be reuseable. With likely only small changes in cost.

3. There's a large number of unknowns in the equation that make it almost impossible to use the model to SpaceX even if it could apply. Take for example the FT changes. The engine was already designed with this in mind, so there's almost no additional cost to the stage hardware from making it more powerful - on the other hand, handling the superchilled propellant on the ground must have had a massive effect on their static as well as per launch handling cost - at least short term (remember the delays with OG2 and tanking, that must have cost a fortune) - but not necessarily long term (I assume with enough experience the deep cryo propellant handling won't be a large factor in their pad operational cost per launch)

There's so many unknowns in the equation, and attempt to model this from the outside would come to arbitrary results - ranging from "SpaceX must be making millions of losses with every recovered launch" to "Recovery will reduce SpaceX launch cost by 2/3 or more"

----

Beyond that, a question that kinda crystallizes out is if the roadmap of ULA leads in the right direction. The model originally posted is good to analyse which kind of reuse scheme is optimal for a Vulcan type rocket, and putting in the parameters and expected launches for the Vulcan, SMART seems to be the way to go. But is there a market for Vulcan, with and without SMART - beyond a limited number of Vulcan tailored US Government launches?

The model is not able to tell that. It only compares relative prizes. It's actually possible that no rocket ULA might design can ever be competitive. If ULA's fixed and operational launch cost are just high enough, they'd always fight an uphill battle, and no matter how cheap the vehicle is and how much of it can be reused, they'd still be too expensive.

Assume both competitors launch comparably sized payloads per launch, then we can calculate $ per launch instead of $ per kilogram and simplify as follows:

Let Cf in $/year be the fixed cost
R in launches/year the launch rate
Cv in $/launch the variable cost
Cn in $/launch the price of a new vehicle
and
Cr in $/launch the price of a recovered vehicle (refurbishment cost, including new second stage, tanks, etc...)

If we have Launch provider A (ULA, or ArianeSpace) and Launch provider B (Competitor)
If
(Cf(A)/R(A)) + Cv(A) > (Cf(B)/R(B))+Cv(B)+Cr(B)
then A will not be able to compete, no matter what recovery scheme they use, even if they make the rocket for free.

The same happens if
(Cf(A)/R(A)) + Cv(A) + Cr(A) > (Cf(B)/R(B))+Cv(B)+Cn(B)
aka if launching a refurbished Vulcan (with reused engines) is still more expensive than launching a brand new vehicle of a low cost competitor (in the same class of launch vehicles)

Those are the two hard limits. They are both still dependant on the launch vehicle, because both Cf and Cv are dependant on the complexity of the vehicle and how complicated handling is.

I'm quite convinced SpaceX brought both Cf and Cv up by introducing recovery. Densified fuel, operating drone- and support ships, those are all cost drivers.
But SpaceX also has faciliated massive cost savers: Horizontal assembly, truck road transport, one fuel for both stages, highly automated launch procedures.

Even with the recovery penalty applied, we can assume Cv to be a lot cheaper than Cv(Atlas) or Cv(Delta).  Cv(Vulcan) needs to be optimized to be Cv(Falcon) or lower to be competitive.

Cf is less critical, it can be compensated by a higher launch rate - IF the market flexibility allows it. This is also the term where the companies profits come from. If you are competitive with a low R (10/y), then a high R allows you to finance the development of the next gen launch vehicle with the extra profits.

All the discussion about launch vehicle cost and reuse distract from these basics. Only if the homework on the fixed costs is done, can one even consider reducing the launch vehicle price, and/or reuse technology.

The more expensive the launch vehicle, the more re-uses it needs to break even. Also the more of it needs to be re-used. There's no point of having 80% reuse on an expensive vehicle, when the remaining 20% are still more expensive than the competitors 50% reuse, or another competitors entire rocket.

SpaceX is aiming for a high reuse percentage on a cheap vehicle. That sets the bar pretty high. Only recovering Vulcan's engine, considering an expensive expendable upper stage, might not be able to be competitive.

But it would be absolutely wrong to blame the SMART technology. SMART might be still be the most profitable reuse technology possible considering Vulcan's design, but it would be the cost of its upper stage that makes or breaks its business case.


All this considered, I think the role of reuse for the overall business case is currently overhyped. Reuse might eventually be needed, once the launch cost of one competitors reused vehicle drop below the manufacturing cost of the cheapest possible (solid state, throw away stick) booster thinkable. Once that happens, one HAS to adapt reuseability. But for that to make sense, one has to play in the same league in the first place, and be able to compete with expendable launch prizes of the same vehicle (and the non-recoverable parts) at least.

ULA, Arianespace, Orbital ATK, the Indians, even the Chinese (if you drop subsidies) aren't there yet.
If your launch operational costs are already too high, then just simply adding re-use to everyone's rocket solution increases the gap between competitors instead of reducing it.

Edit:

The reuse technology applied to Vulcan will eventually become vital (sooner than later once SpaceX starts re-launching used boosters regularly) but its just the keystone on the very top of an architecture - combining a rocket design from one side and the organizational and operational overhead from the other side. And all together it defines if there's a business case or not.

It makes sense only if you both optimize the vehicle flow for high launch rates with lowest possible per launch costs, and at the same time design the vehicle with very low non-recoverable costs.

Or in other words, reuse only really makes sense when you designed for a reuse-optimized business case from the get go.

Looking at the economics of reuse alone and isolated is pointless.

So I really really hope for ULA's sake that they looked at the whole picture, and did not treat component recovery as an isolated problem.
« Last Edit: 05/14/2016 07:03 pm by CorvusCorax »

Offline Lemurion

Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #469 on: 05/15/2016 11:49 pm »
The more I look at it, the less sense a direct reusability comparison between ULA and SpaceX makes. Both SpaceX's launchers and its business plan were designed with the transition to at least partial reusability in mind. It's been on the company's roadmap for years. SpaceX's plans and infrastructure were designed to account for reusability.

ULA has been studying it, but the company hasn't been planning for it. It is something to consider, but it's not a company-wide goal. ULA is not in the same position to exploit it that SpaceX is.

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1860
  • Germany
  • Liked: 4010
  • Likes Given: 2738
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #470 on: 05/16/2016 11:25 am »
The more I look at it, the less sense a direct reusability comparison between ULA and SpaceX makes. Both SpaceX's launchers and its business plan were designed with the transition to at least partial reusability in mind. It's been on the company's roadmap for years. SpaceX's plans and infrastructure were designed to account for reusability.

ULA has been studying it, but the company hasn't been planning for it. It is something to consider, but it's not a company-wide goal. ULA is not in the same position to exploit it that SpaceX is.

Vulcan has a lot in common with Ariane 6.

They are both rocket designs that have been in the drawers for a while - worked on in design studies and on CAD files but without the commitment to really throw funds and massive development at them until recently.

When they were dug out, both were designs for a more powerful and more cost effective expendable launch vehicle using 21st century technology, but basically still 20th century design paradigms.

The reason they were dug out and worked on with pressure now is the pressure put on the market primarily by SpaceX - and maybe a bit by Blue Origin looming on the horizon, as well as other international players that might decide to copy these new paradigms in their own low cost approach.

However at the time they were dug out, SpaceX recovery option was just a distant design study - envisioned in a very sci-fi rendered video that showed such crazy things as a booster returning to the launch site and a second stage reentering and landing.  At the time that video was published it would have likely caused a knowing grin upon the faces of managers at any established launch providers, together with a comment among the lines of "well, they are certainly ambitions, but delusional, no one will manage that in this century, its not even possible."

Nevertheless, SpaceX put money into reuseability, and every big launch provider had enough reuseability studies in the drawer to know it *could* save money if done right (aka, not like space shuttle). So to cover for the eventuality that SpaceX might indeed be on to something, better dig them out and put them on the roadmap for real.

And tadaaa: Vulcan gets a returnable engine pod.
Hey, guess what: So does Ariane 6!

And both approaches make perfect sense, they are the most promising approaches to squeeze the business case of Vulcan/Ariane by applying reuse. That proofs that ULA/Arianespace are still "on it" with a reliable, powerful and cost effective rocket.... right?


What both ULA and Arianespace would have needed to do instead is scrap the Vulcan and Ariane6 concepts and start over with an entirely new design paradigm. Except that at the time that decision would have had to be made, it wasn't obvious yet. And now that it's obvious, it might be too late.

Unless a new vehicle has already secretly been designed on since like 3 years ago that no one outside the company has even heard of yet. Maybe there is an ace up ULA's sleeve. There better is.

But Vulcan isn't it. And if they only design a new rocket by the time they realize that neither Vulcan nor Ariane6 has a real chance on the international launch market (unless offered at diminishing profits, like Arianespace is rumored to be doing right now with Ariane5) then it won't be ready for action before 2025-2030. Who knows where SpaceX might be by then. Maybe busy setting up new all robotic launch facilities. On Mars ;)

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #471 on: 05/16/2016 12:25 pm »
And tadaaa: Vulcan gets a returnable engine pod.
Hey, guess what: So does Ariane 6!

No, they don't. It is not baselined in the design for both rockets. There is just some talk that they may one day decide to look into it, after their rockets are flying.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #472 on: 05/16/2016 03:30 pm »

What both ULA and Arianespace would have needed to do instead is scrap the Vulcan and Ariane6 concepts and start over with an entirely new design paradigm. Except that at the time that decision would have had to be made, it wasn't obvious yet. And now that it's obvious, it might be too late.


Based on what?  Reuse hasn't been proven yet.  It could still end up like the shuttle

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #473 on: 05/16/2016 03:36 pm »

What both ULA and Arianespace would have needed to do instead is scrap the Vulcan and Ariane6 concepts and start over with an entirely new design paradigm. Except that at the time that decision would have had to be made, it wasn't obvious yet. And now that it's obvious, it might be too late.


Based on what?  Reuse hasn't been proven yet.  It could still end up like the shuttle

I'm not sure that assuming limited reuse will fail is the most business-conservative approach for ULA to take. In business it seems like the conservative approach would be to assume your competitors will be more successful than you think. Now for fans and launch customers, the conservative approach would be to assume that claims of reusability won't pan out as quickly or as awesomely as they're hyped, but I don't see why that approach makes sense for ULA.

And frankly, I haven't seen evidence of a showstopper that suggests SpaceX reuse is going to be a flop. Do they still have a ton of work until they have it working well enough for it to start saving them money? Sure. But now that they're getting stages back, it seems like only a matter of time and iteration before they get at least some economic benefit from it. I'm cautiously optimistic.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 05/16/2016 03:39 pm by jongoff »

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1860
  • Germany
  • Liked: 4010
  • Likes Given: 2738
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #474 on: 05/16/2016 04:59 pm »

What both ULA and Arianespace would have needed to do instead is scrap the Vulcan and Ariane6 concepts and start over with an entirely new design paradigm. Except that at the time that decision would have had to be made, it wasn't obvious yet. And now that it's obvious, it might be too late.


Based on what?  Reuse hasn't been proven yet.  It could still end up like the shuttle

That sounds a bit like the stance some people have towards their CO2 emissions and global warming.
What happens if SpaceX does get to refly a booster somewhen this or next year and actually manages to make the changes to get to a profitable "repaint,refuel,relaunch" flow within lets say 5 to 7 years? That would be a lot less optimistic than SpaceX is, but still it would be a problem for ULA. Even if it takes them 10 years.

It's like watching a speeding bus coming towards you, saying "it's not proven yet that it'll hit me, it could still brake, or evade..."

The problem is, if you wait until you have definite proof, it might be too late.

One glance at the beat and burnt stage SpaceX just put into their 39A hangar makes clear, they aren't there yet. But still that stage just managed the feat of a controlled suicide burn landing, which also proves that even in that battle-worn state after a hot re-entry it is still capable of high powered precision manoeuvres.

If I were in charge at ULA, I'd better have a contingency plan ready for the case that my competitor DOES make this work and it does not end up like the shuttle. And since that latest landing, that contingency plan would be on my desk, open, with stuff highlighted with a marker - as opposed to sitting idly in a drawer.

I agree with you, a few month ago, in fact before the first landed booster, landing first stages was still vaporware, and reflying them a purely theoretical problem. But with 3 stages back in the hangar, recovery is suddenly real, and reflying - in some form - a matter of time.

SpaceX likely won't manage "refuel and relaunch" this year or even the next. That will likely need a few technology iterations, and maybe it can't work at all because the extra shielding needed would be too heavy. But even right now SpaceX could almost certainly take *some* components from the used booster and put them on a new one. That wouldn't proof quick and rapid booster reuse yet, but that one could at least save money and manufacturing time on new boosters that way is - at this point in time - very very plausible.

SpaceX would consider that a failure, but for ULA - or any other active launch provider - it would still be a huge problem, because SpaceX is already the cheapest provider (while already shouldering the overhead of launching the booster with recovery technology and recovering them) They already have all the reuse penalties and expenses - extra weight, extra fuel, droneship operation, ... , anything they achieve from now - even if they reuse but a single screw - on will be on their profit side.

Frankly ULA's business case looks more and more like a huge gamble. A gamble for SpaceX' plans to fail, or at least not succeed fully for at least most of the product life span of a rocket currently still in development. A gamble with quickly diminishing win probability.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #475 on: 05/16/2016 05:07 pm »

That sounds a bit like the stance some people have towards their CO2 emissions and global warming.


No where close to the same thing

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #476 on: 05/16/2016 05:09 pm »

One glance at the beat and burnt stage SpaceX just put into their 39A hangar makes clear, they aren't there yet. But still that stage just managed the feat of a controlled suicide burn landing, which also proves that even in that battle-worn state after a hot re-entry it is still capable of high powered precision manoeuvres.


No different than the shuttle. Still doesn't have a bearing on the cost to refurb.

Offline jg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Liked: 188
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #477 on: 05/16/2016 06:03 pm »

What both ULA and Arianespace would have needed to do instead is scrap the Vulcan and Ariane6 concepts and start over with an entirely new design paradigm. Except that at the time that decision would have had to be made, it wasn't obvious yet. And now that it's obvious, it might be too late.


Based on what?  Reuse hasn't been proven yet.  It could still end up like the shuttle

I agree it's not proven, but....

As I understand the shuttle reuse problems hurting economics, they were four:

1) fragile tiles, that were easily damaged during launch due to the shuttle being launched next to the boosters and the main tank, and prone to damage from falling debris, and required a lot of hand labor to replace by trained technicians.
2) The main engines required refurb, on an almost every flight basis.
3) The main tank was thrown away.
4) The solid boosters required return to factory refurbishment and ended up nearly/as as expensive as fully expendable solids.

SpaceX, on the other hand:

1) does not have the tile problem
2) designed Merlin's presuming reuse: we have some statements from SpaceX to what degree.
3) recovers the main tank.
4) avoids the solids entirely.

Against this, SpaceX may have:

a) does not have the tile problem; it does have some issue for sure with the grid fins.  Some tuning of ablative/materials on the rocket to avoid damage, e.g. SPAM, changing materials/designs.  This is exactly analogous to the shuttle on its early flights, where modeling had failed to correctly predict exactly where the heating problems were going to be; e.g. the now known problem with the grid fins. These were severe enough on shuttle that they could have caused loss of space-craft had they not been fixed.

And do we now know for sure the access panels are having issues?  Has anyone seen that closely enough? Or are we waving our hands still?

b) unknown (to us) issues with heating on the tank walls themselves, though some here have jumped to conclusions that seem so far unjustified due to soot and colors on the stage making our inspections as armchair rocket designers poor.  I'd love to see concrete data here; dunno if we'll get it soon though.  This last flight seems to maybe have had some problem, but it still may be cosmetic.  It certainly isn't the "tanks are cracked" that some have suggested.

c) the engines seem to have survived and been refired quite quickly, with a hickup on one engine that may or may not have been related to prior use.

So personally, on net, I think it likely SpaceX is well on their way to economic re-use.  And trotting out the "it could end up like the shuttle" bug-a-boo every time seems very unproductive. 

More productive seems to be to try to identify, as best we can, the problems SpaceX is having, and how difficult the solutions may or may not be to real issues as they are identified.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #478 on: 05/16/2016 06:04 pm »


SpaceX, on the other hand:

1) does not have the tile problem
2) designed Merlin's presuming reuse: we have some statements from SpaceX to what degree.
3) recovers the main tank.
4) avoids the solids entirely.


Throws away second stage

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Reuse business case
« Reply #479 on: 05/16/2016 06:20 pm »
And tadaaa: Vulcan gets a returnable engine pod.
Hey, guess what: So does Ariane 6!

No, they don't. It is not baselined in the design for both rockets. There is just some talk that they may one day decide to look into it, after their rockets are flying.

He was just being generous for the sake of the argument...
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

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
0