March 5, 2014 Hearing on National Security Space Launch Programs (Musk and Gass)

[john smith 19]

Istarted a nozzle design two years ago. Spent about two or three full days on an initial iteration.  Real life got in the way, I dropped it and never picked it up again.  One lesson learned:  Rocket science may be hard for guys like me, but the texts are accessible, in general.  However.  There are bits and pieces missing in the text, probably considered basic to engineers and engineering students, but crucial to primitive man, who is looking for a recipe book that leaves nothing out.

That's tricky. Some of the original papers by Rao describe an approximation method for the throat and the bell of a pair of parabolas, and of course there's SP8120 on nozzle design.

Personally I always found the trouble was inter converting between all those ridiculous Imperial units ("now should I divide by 12 or 144 to get square feet or inches?")

Of course you could just cheat and buy a nozzle design program and dial in the size you need with one of the "pre baked" propellant combos. 

But I'll admit that returning to topic this is probably not a problem for either ULA or Spacex, although I've seen people comment that Russian bell nozzles are not the same shape as American bell nozzles, (possibly due to different design assumptions and/or ability to solve the equations in a reasonably efficient manner).

Subtle but possibly important when every second (of Isp) counts.

[JohnFornaro]

... Some of the original papers by Rao describe an approximation method for the throat and the bell of a pair of parabolas...

Interestingly enough, I was fiddling with a parabola, and trying to understand the net force implications of varying the algebraic expression of the curve, with an eye towards understanding the Isp trend lines for various iterations of the expression.

But we digress.

[Lar]

Inflation and nozzle designs are off topic. By very wide margins. Don't make me stop this car and turn around.

[john smith 19]

Returning to topic would it be fair to say that

a) Monopolies eliminate the chance for competition based on price.

b) ULA has such a monopoly on large US government launches.

c) That monopoly is at least partly of the USG's own making. There are other LV's with as good a track record in  other countries but the USG refuses to use them.

d) There is an "Economical batch quantity" for launch vehicles, as there is for most manufactured goods.

e) 36 cores is likely to be much bigger than this level, but 1 is likely to be much smaller.

f) The USG needs new LV service providers, but not another monopoly situation.

g) Part of the justification for the ULA merger was the lack of market for 2 LV's and the acceptance that one of them would have to be retired. This situation does not appear to have radically changed.

h) It is time to a) retire a design whose core subsystems are manufactured in a country the US is presently in dispute with or b) Implement indigenous manufacturing of the RD180, not necessarily at full rate but enough to keep the pipeline filling and in a way that could be ramped up in future.

i)With complete RD180's being made in the US and a supplier cutoff no longer a possibility the question of which is the better design should be reviewed and one or other finally phased out (which I think is what the stockholders want  ).

[EDIT re-lettered as there was no g in OP. Ooops]

[JohnFornaro]

Returning to topic would it be fair to say that ...

A thru E: Yes.

F: Perhaps, but the monopolists, even in congressional testimony, do not like competition.

G: Reply hazy.

H thru J:  Subject to much debate, which this wall of text touches upon.

[vulture4]

Although ULA is required to bid on EELV launch services and provide data to justify cost increases, in reality it is not difficult to let cost increase if that is your goal.  Boeing was having difficulty getting enough business for the Delta IV it because users preferred the cheaper (and less profitable) Delta II. I have it on good authority that both accounting practice (i.e. charging of overhead for the combined program to Delta II) and supplier costs (shifting intentionally to more expensive vendors) were utilized to justify increasing user charges on the Delta II. Moreover, while some in that program wanted to bid on using the Delta II for the next gen GPS (would have required using the Delta III SRBs and a larger fairing, but still a major cost saving) the company chose not to propose this, cutting customers for the Delta II until it could justify halting the program.

So, being effectively a monopoly, it was logical for ULA to use the minimum cost supplier for the RD-180 while also raising the launch cost. Although keeping both the Atlas and Delta in production is more expensive, this was successfully justified to the "customer" on the basis that a failure in one program would not ground both.

Adding SpaceX to the field will change strategies. ULA will have to reduce costs to avoid losing business,and there may no longer be a justification for keeping both the Atlas and Delta operational. I suspect Russia will continue to supply the RD-180 however, as it brings in income and can be used as leverage.

[Jim]

I have it on good authority that both accounting practice (i.e. charging of overhead for the combined program to Delta II) and supplier costs (shifting intentionally to more expensive vendors) were utilized to justify increasing user charges on the Delta II.

False, the bulk of the cost increases was due to the USAF removing the GPS 60 day callup requirement.  That subsided a large portion of the Delta II program manpower. 

[Jim]

Moreover, while some in that program wanted to bid on using the Delta II for the next gen GPS (would have required using the Delta III SRBs and a larger fairing, but still a major cost saving) the company chose not to propose this, cutting customers for the Delta II until it could justify halting the program.

 Wrong, it was a USAF decision to use direct insertion for GPS that reduced customer base for Delta II.  This had nothing to do with Boeing or ULA.  The decision happened early in the EELV program when the USAF eliminated the small versions of the EELV's.  The GPS spacecraft that are now flying on Delta IV's are too heavy for any configuration of Delta II's ( and Delta III for the that matter). 

Your "good" authority is otherwise.

[john smith 19]

A thru E: Yes.

That sounds like a good start.

F: Perhaps, but the monopolists, even in congressional testimony, do not like competition.

I do hope people have archived that particular item. It's rare to hear such unguarded comments.

G: Reply hazy.

H thru J:  Subject to much debate,

The context is a bit different but I think the thrust is broadly similar.

I wonder. Assuming Spacex does start to fly payloads on the EELV contract wheather ULA will still fight to retain both Delta and Atlas vehicles because of the parts of the payload envelope F9 (or F9H?) can't cover and you still need a back up if one of the designs suffers a failure. 

Something tells me they probably will.

[Jim]

I wonder. Assuming Spacex does start to fly payloads on the EELV contract wheather ULA will still fight to retain both Delta and Atlas vehicles because of the parts of the payload envelope F9 (or F9H?) can't cover and you still need a back up if one of the designs suffers a failure. 

They have been planning a down select for awhile.  Common Avionics, RL-10C and  Common Upperstage are all steps in that direction.

[USFdon]

Crawling towards a wide-body Atlas?

[vulture4]

Perhaps I went a little far afield. However there was a lot of discussion regarding whether the increase in EELV costs was inflation-driven, and I just wanted to point out that while costs to the supplier are inflation-driven, market price is determined by the curves of supply and demand, which are affected more directly by the question of whether the market is competitive, monopoly-supplier, or something else.

[john smith 19]

They have been planning a down select for awhile.  Common Avionics, RL-10C and  Common Upperstage are all steps in that direction.

I would suggest that until at least 1 complete RD180 has been mfg in the US, fitted to an Atlas and flown that subject is irrelevant.

If the common upper stage is such a good idea, and is common to both designs, why has it not been done already?

[JohnFornaro]

Although ULA is required to bid on EELV launch services and provide data to justify cost increases, in reality it is not difficult to let cost increase if that is your goal.

Shocked.  Shocked I am that you would suggest this. 

How many EELV's have you designed and launched?  What do you know about costs?

You know the drill.

[JohnFornaro]

I have it on good authority that both accounting practice (i.e. charging of overhead for the combined program to Delta II) and supplier costs (shifting intentionally to more expensive vendors) were utilized to justify increasing user charges on the Delta II.

False, the bulk of the cost increases was due to the USAF removing the GPS 60 day callup requirement.  That subsided a large portion of the Delta II program manpower.

I'm sure that it would be highly unlikely to have the true accounting costs laid out in a verifiable manner for the public to review.  Just sayin'.

[JohnFornaro]

I wonder. Assuming Spacex does start to fly payloads on the EELV contract wheather ULA will still fight to retain both Delta and Atlas vehicles...

They have been planning a down select for awhile.  Common Avionics, RL-10C and  Common Upperstage are all steps in that direction.

I was aware of the several areas of commonality that you refer to.  Theoretically, that would have resulted in lower costs, making the arbitrary inflation of the block buy even more questionable from the taxpayer's viewpoint, while quite understandable from the viewpoint of increasing quarterly profits per Moore's Sales Quota.

Grab the money while they can, while quietly hedging their bets on the future chances of a seemingly inevitable downselect, because of the new commercial provider.

[jongoff]

Crawling towards a wide-body Atlas?

If they can solve the RD-180 supply issues a widebody Atlas with a widebody Centaur would be awesome.

~Jon

[Jim]

If the common upper stage is such a good idea, and is common to both designs, why has it not been done already?

Time and money.  ULA has only existed for 7 years.  Also, items like common avionics come first.

[jongoff]

Perhaps I went a little far afield. However there was a lot of discussion regarding whether the increase in EELV costs was inflation-driven, and I just wanted to point out that while costs to the supplier are inflation-driven, market price is determined by the curves of supply and demand, which are affected more directly by the question of whether the market is competitive, monopoly-supplier, or something else.

I was hearing that a big cost driver is the propulsion. The rocket engines they get from Aerojet/Rocketdyne (or whatever they're calling the combination now) have been going up in price much faster than inflation. Part of why monopoly/monopsony arrangements suck (even if the technical quality of the engines is great).

~Jon

[Jim]

I was aware of the several areas of commonality that you refer to.  Theoretically, that would have resulted in lower costs, making the arbitrary inflation of the block buy even more questionable from the taxpayer's viewpoint, while quite understandable from the viewpoint of increasing quarterly profits per Moore's Sales Quota.

No, those are outside the block buy timeframe