Quote from: baldusi on 10/17/2014 11:52 amIf the consolidate on a single rocket that's half the pads, building, probably just one third of the production lines, tec.But is it? True they are running single shift on four pads, but they are pretty much tapped out on the Atlas pads. Reducing the number of pads would reduce the number of missions they can fly a year. While this may work for Vandenberg, They would be hard pressed to meet the flight rate with only one east coast pad. Didn't a planetary mission recently get manifested for Vandenberg?I suspect the savings come from cheaper first stage engines, single assembly line in a single location, ditching the Hydrogen first stage, and he didn't say it, but they must be looking to reduce the upper stage costs. That would mean a low cost RL-10 replacement and cheaper tankage.
If the consolidate on a single rocket that's half the pads, building, probably just one third of the production lines, tec.
There is also the longstanding claim that SpaceX costs would rise to match the market as set by ULA.
Nice to see that Jim is finally proven wrong with regards to ULA.He has stated a number of times that developing all new launch systems is off limits for ULA. Supposedly, the ULA charter allows ULA to only work on Atlas V and Delta IV, including improvements, but nothing else.Example of improvements is the common avionics suite now under development for Atlas V and Delta IV.However, now we have the new ULA CEO (no less) clearly stating that ULA is actively working on an all new rocket, with new engines. Not an Atlas V, not a Delta IV, but an all new rocket.Under Jim's reasoning that would be a violotion of ULA's charter. I see two possible explanations for this:1. Jim was wrong all the time because ULA's own charter did not actually prevent them from working on anything but Atlas V and Delta IV.2. ULA's charter was recently changed to allow for work on a new launcher.My guess is Jim will pick the second option for his bail out.
...The problem with building large RL-10 batches is you end up putting a large number of engines into inventory. Bean counters do not like that. ULA got caught in that trap during the formation of ULA. They inherited a large number of DeltaIV RL-10's from Boeing. It also leads to an unhealthy relationship between you and your engine supplier. If you order a large batch of RL-10's every five years, what do they do in the meantime? Do you continue to offer them? Is it worth it? That is part of the overhead problem...
Quote from: kevin-rf on 10/17/2014 03:52 pm...The problem with building large RL-10 batches is you end up putting a large number of engines into inventory. Bean counters do not like that. ULA got caught in that trap during the formation of ULA. They inherited a large number of DeltaIV RL-10's from Boeing. It also leads to an unhealthy relationship between you and your engine supplier. If you order a large batch of RL-10's every five years, what do they do in the meantime? Do you continue to offer them? Is it worth it? That is part of the overhead problem...That is why I think the RL-10 will be retired after the current inventory is reduced. With something like the Blue BE-3 (in-house production). CEO Bruno will have to make a call on this soon.
That is why I think the RL-10 will be retired after the current inventory is reduced.
Quote from: AncientU on 10/17/2014 10:00 amThere is also the longstanding claim that SpaceX costs would rise to match the market as set by ULA.They are
Quote from: Jim on 10/17/2014 04:40 pmQuote from: AncientU on 10/17/2014 10:00 amThere is also the longstanding claim that SpaceX costs would rise to match the market as set by ULA.They are...roughly with inflation (from 56,5 mln$ to 61.2 mln$). But hey, spin is spin.Behaviour of ULA shows they do not assume that this empty claim is true. I hope you will not try to pull "ULA lowers price, so they matches prices of SpaceX, so I was right".
1. ...roughly with inflation (from 56,5 mln$ to 61.2 mln$). But hey, spin is spin.2. Behaviour of ULA shows they do not assume that this empty claim is true. I hope you will not try to pull "ULA lowers price, so they matches prices of SpaceX, so I was right".
... More significantly, you can mothball a 3D printer for 5 years.
This guy is the right guy to do this. What he claims to do, sounds about right. What about timing and resources?To shrink down to 1/3, you must address near term demand (both DIV/H and AV) and new designs, shutdown facilities/lines EOLing what you are launching as you launch them for years, discharge staff while bringing up a new line with a differently assembled staff. In essence, stuff unheard of in past incarnation(s).All the above is strictly survival. Will get you to competitive company position, and retain current customers.Where do you get the cash/investment to accomplish this? From unsplit profits not returned to shareholders revenue share? From "block buy" upfront? From JV earnest monies of some kind? From a friendly loan?One can "cost reduce" existing product to make it both attractive to existing customers, and while still a premium performance vehicle (as also is Ariane 5 and H II A/B and likely even Angara A5), it may be attractive and cheap enough to garner commercial market share. Is that competitive enough as a goal for the new CEO?If not, he's got a considerably larger job and game plan than is yet revealed. As well as needs well beyond what likely can fit within the bounds of the firm he's described.What does he not have? A base economical vehicle from the lowest cost, fewest/most used components, smallest manufacturing and test footprint.Does he need this? Sooner or later? What happens if someone crawls under his costs relentlessly hammering? One with seemingly endless financial resources?