Author Topic: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap  (Read 90834 times)

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #100 on: 02/22/2017 06:17 am »
ULA's backup plan might be to buy several New Glenn first stages and fly their ACES stage on top.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #101 on: 02/22/2017 09:06 am »
ULA's backup plan might be to buy several New Glenn first stages and fly their ACES stage on top.
Blue and ULA are already partnering on BE4 why not for distributed launch. Use New Glenn for fuel tanker with Vulcan carrying payload. Allows launches to be days apart.

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #102 on: 02/22/2017 08:17 pm »
They are building on a strong foundation and will cede nothing.

They are gambling on the competition failing and the status quo remaining, I wouldn't call that a very strong foundation. Especially with the block buys going away. They might cede things despite not wanting to.

Why do you think they are gambling on the competition failing?   
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #103 on: 02/22/2017 08:28 pm »
They are building on a strong foundation and will cede nothing.

They are gambling on the competition failing and the status quo remaining, I wouldn't call that a very strong foundation. Especially with the block buys going away. They might cede things despite not wanting to.

Why do you think they are gambling on the competition failing?

Why? Because they are not investing in any kind of reuse. (powerpoints don't count) ACES is also years away. Now they are streamlining and slimming down - true - but without significant investment in new technology, they are betting that what they have is sufficient.

That doesn't mean they are doomed to fail. Their gamble may actually pay off. But it is still a gamble.
« Last Edit: 02/22/2017 08:29 pm by Lars-J »

Offline jabe

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #104 on: 02/22/2017 08:29 pm »
They are gambling on the competition failing and the status quo remaining, I wouldn't call that a very strong foundation. Especially with the block buys going away. They might cede things despite not wanting to.
Why do you think they are gambling on the competition failing?   
my take...~Jon made a point earlier in thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38769.msg1645468#msg1645468) that, not putting words in his  mouth, I take it (and think is true) as they aren't being aggressive enough with the changes they need to make.  The goalposts will have moved a lot by the time SMART and/or Vulcan is ready and by then these changes may not be enough to have them survive competitively.  Only chance for them to survive is if the other groups fail.  Only time will tell..
jb

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #105 on: 02/22/2017 09:28 pm »

Why do you think they are gambling on the competition failing?

Why? Because they are not investing in any kind of reuse. (powerpoints don't count) ACES is also years away. Now they are streamlining and slimming down - true - but without significant investment in new technology, they are betting that what they have is sufficient.

That doesn't mean they are doomed to fail. Their gamble may actually pay off. But it is still a gamble.

When a powerplant is 50%+ of a 1st stage cost, why doesn't the re-use of a power plant count? 

Bruno is making as many changes as he can considering his funding is controlled by two public companies (Boeing and LM). 

Let's also be fair, ULA's main competitor is controlled by someone; who moves goal posts so rapidly that even his own employees have a hard time keeping up, constantly puts out goal deadlines that can only be called impossible and are frequently missed, and wasn't founded to maximize profit. 

So any company compared to ULA's main competitor is going to be considered conservative.  ULA's is moving forward prudently and deliberately.  ULA's announcing Rapid Launch was a wise move considering a competitor constant flight delays.  ULA's push to move away from the D-IV was a wise move.  ULA's push to pay BO to develop the BE-4 engine, another wise move.  The Development of the Vulcan and ACES another wise move. 

So is ULA gambling on their competitor not being as successful as their founder thinks they are going to be? I would say yes.  I would not say that ULA is planning on their competitor failing and going out of business.  They know that competition is here and it is not going anywhere.  ULA is not planning on large fully re-usable SHLV lifting off from Brownsville going to Mars in either 2022 or 2024.  So if this is the criteria you use for "ULA gambling on their competition failing" then yes ULA is gambling on their competition failing.  However let's be fair, it is a long shot that their competitor will have a full re-usable SHLV flying before 2025. 
« Last Edit: 02/22/2017 09:36 pm by Brovane »
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #106 on: 02/22/2017 09:41 pm »
PowerPoints don't account for 50% of the cost of anything.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #107 on: 02/22/2017 09:59 pm »
SpaceX is not their only competitor, they also compete with Ariane for commercial sats. With current pricing on Atlas they are not competitive but Vulcan should change that.


Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #108 on: 02/23/2017 01:04 am »
Considering the increasing number of competitive launch providers around the globe, the stagnant launch forecasts, and the increasing lifespan of satellites, a company that plans for fewer launches rather than more is probably on a more solid long term footing.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #109 on: 02/23/2017 01:18 am »
ULA's backup plan might be to buy several New Glenn first stages and fly their ACES stage on top.
Blue and ULA are already partnering on BE4 why not for distributed launch. Use New Glenn for fuel tanker with Vulcan carrying payload. Allows launches to be days apart.

If both the New Glenn and the Vulcan enters service at about the same time with basically the same components. Then Bezos will just buyout ULA or halt BE-4 shipments to have the secondary launch business all for himself. Especially since Bezos have a ever growing piggy bank with the various Amazon ventures. Somehow Blue putting up a LV assembly facility in Florida is not a sign that Blue will share the secondary launch business with ULA in the long run.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #110 on: 02/23/2017 02:14 am »
Bruno is making as many changes as he can considering his funding is controlled by two public companies (Boeing and LM).

Boeing and Lockheed Martin own ULA, and they are running the way they want, not the way Bruno wants.  Let's not forget that.  And they can change that anytime they want, but so far they haven't wanted to.  ULA is not a victim here.

Quote
Let's also be fair, ULA's main competitor is controlled by someone; who moves goal posts so rapidly that even his own employees have a hard time keeping up, constantly puts out goal deadlines that can only be called impossible and are frequently missed, and wasn't founded to maximize profit.

I'm assuming you mean SpaceX and Elon Musk.  It would be wrong to think that Musk is moving goal posts without his employees knowing anything about what he's saying, since while it's true that they miss schedule dates, they have met the capabilities that Musk advertises.  And you can't do that without validating what you're promising BEFORE you promise it.

As to profits, SpaceX has been profitable (for the most part) for years, and Musk has not been supporting SpaceX with funding the way Bezos has.  SpaceX is in the business of making a profit, as that is the only way they can afford to pursue their Mars goals.

Quote
So any company compared to ULA's main competitor is going to be considered conservative.

I don't want to start a debate about "NewSpace" vs "OldSpace", but my definition of "NewSpace" has been that they are willing to risk their own money to create new products and services, while "OldSpace" is not.

As to ULA, I'm not sure we're seeing a willingness by ULA's parents to truly pursue technologies and business models that will compete with SpaceX and other significant competitors so that they can be in the top rung of competitors when Vulcan becomes operational.

Quote
ULA's is moving forward prudently and deliberately.

To me that sounds like you're trying to justify why they don't seem to be responding to the competitive threat reusability means to them, since it's not just SpaceX but Blue Origin also that are committed to reusability.

Quote
So if this is the criteria you use for "ULA gambling on their competition failing" then yes ULA is gambling on their competition failing.  However let's be fair, it is a long shot that their competitor will have a full re-usable SHLV flying before 2025.

There is no business case for SHLV's at this point, so I would not blame ULA for not pursuing that market.  But then again both Musk and Bezos are positioning themselves for the markets that come AFTER where we are today.  And maybe those markets won't appear, but if they do then ULA won't be positioned to take advantage of them.  Food for thought.

But ULA is working on some good technologies, like ACES and IVF, that could be very useful for expanding humanity out into space.  However I'm not sure if they are positioned to survive that long as a launch provider and still have the money to pursue that next market using ACES and IVF.  And that would not be good, because I want them to continue to be a competitor - competition is good, because it keeps everyone on their toes.
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 Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #111 on: 02/23/2017 04:03 am »
Bruno is making as many changes as he can considering his funding is controlled by two public companies (Boeing and LM).

Boeing and Lockheed Martin own ULA, and they are running the way they want, not the way Bruno wants.  Let's not forget that.  And they can change that anytime they want, but so far they haven't wanted to.  ULA is not a victim here.

Boeing and LM have certain expectations of financial returns from ULA back to them.  Which means that Bruno has to answer to his parent companies about what he is spending money on and expectations of those returns.  Which means ULA doesn't have the same freedom to spend money on R&D that SpaceX or BO have.  I have yet to see a long-term commitment on investment from Boeing or LM in ULA.  This lack of long term commitment from the parent companies imposes restrictions on what Bruno can do.  He doesn’t have the same freedom to decide company strategy that Musk or Bezos have. 

Let's also be fair, ULA's main competitor is controlled by someone; who moves goal posts so rapidly that even his own employees have a hard time keeping up, constantly puts out goal deadlines that can only be called impossible and are frequently missed, and wasn't founded to maximize profit.

I'm assuming you mean SpaceX and Elon Musk.  It would be wrong to think that Musk is moving goal posts without his employees knowing anything about what he's saying, since while it's true that they miss schedule dates, they have met the capabilities that Musk advertises.  And you can't do that without validating what you're promising BEFORE you promise it.

Have you read the book "Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a fantastic Future by Ashlee Vance"?
The point I am making is that any company is slow moving compared to any of Musk run companies. 

As to profits, SpaceX has been profitable (for the most part) for years, and Musk has not been supporting SpaceX with funding the way Bezos has.  SpaceX is in the business of making a profit, as that is the only way they can afford to pursue their Mars goals.
I don’t disagree.  However Musk doesn’t have to provide financial return back to parent companies that want to maximizing financial return and return on investment. 
 
So any company compared to ULA's main competitor is going to be considered conservative.

I don't want to start a debate about "NewSpace" vs "OldSpace", but my definition of "NewSpace" has been that they are willing to risk their own money to create new products and services, while "OldSpace" is not.
As to ULA, I'm not sure we're seeing a willingness by ULA's parents to truly pursue technologies and business models that will compete with SpaceX and other significant competitors so that they can be in the top rung of competitors when Vulcan becomes operational.

ULA’s parents are not going to purse technologies that don’t provide a reasonable rate of return on that investment.  Boeing and LM are public companies with stockholders that don’t really care about how cool it would be to land a spacecraft on Mars unless somebody pays for it.  We cannot fault the parent companies for not having altruistic behavior that Musk and Bezos have shown with their space enterprises.       

ULA's is moving forward prudently and deliberately.

To me that sounds like you're trying to justify why they don't seem to be responding to the competitive threat reusability means to them, since it's not just SpaceX but Blue Origin also that are committed to reusability.



ULA is responding the competitive threat that reusability means to them.  They are responding with smart engine re-use. 



So if this is the criteria you use for "ULA gambling on their competition failing" then yes ULA is gambling on their competition failing.  However let's be fair, it is a long shot that their competitor will have a full re-usable SHLV flying before 2025.

There is no business case for SHLV's at this point, so I would not blame ULA for not pursuing that market.  But then again both Musk and Bezos are positioning themselves for the markets that come AFTER where we are today.  And maybe those markets won't appear, but if they do then ULA won't be positioned to take advantage of them.  Food for thought.

But ULA is working on some good technologies, like ACES and IVF, that could be very useful for expanding humanity out into space.  However I'm not sure if they are positioned to survive that long as a launch provider and still have the money to pursue that next market using ACES and IVF.  And that would not be good, because I want them to continue to be a competitor - competition is good, because it keeps everyone on their toes.

Potentially a fully reusable LV lowers the price of launch to the point that any potential competitors without this technology would not be able to reasonably compete.  There is such extremely high risk on the path of development for a fully reusable LV that I cannot blame Boeing or LM for not wanting ULA to pursue this path.  I think they would be perfectly happy if Musk and Bezos are successful on this path to just fold up ULA and walk away from the launch market.  For Boeing and LM the financial risk isn't worth the potential reward.   
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #112 on: 02/23/2017 05:06 am »
ULA's is moving forward prudently and deliberately.

To me that sounds like you're trying to justify why they don't seem to be responding to the competitive threat reusability means to them, since it's not just SpaceX but Blue Origin also that are committed to reusability.



ULA is responding the competitive threat that reusability means to them.  They are responding with smart engine re-use.

Except they aren't. "Smart engine re-use" does not appear to be part of the initial Vulcan design. (Unless I am mistaken)

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #113 on: 02/23/2017 11:07 am »
Except they aren't. "Smart engine re-use" does not appear to be part of the initial Vulcan design. (Unless I am mistaken)

Engine reuse is supposed to be introduced at a later point.
Question is how much (is any) preparatory work gets included into the first Vulcan generation. ULA must have an idea how SMART is going to work.

Offline jabe

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #114 on: 02/23/2017 12:10 pm »
ULA must have an idea how SMART is going to work.
As mentioned earlier I think ULA can't do what it really wants to do since it parent companies have control of their funding..can't dive into "distributed launch" type system with SLS being made by ULA purse holders.
Theory of how SMART will work and practice are different For ULA's sake not too different)..they probably have a good idea how it will work.  Problem is Spacex and BO will have evolved their systems many times over before smart comes into play  They need SMART flying ASAP to have the evolution to happen.  I think SMART flying now make not be enough for the current market..so with it flying in 6(?) years time will be a tough road..
jb

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48140
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81623
  • Likes Given: 36931
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #115 on: 02/23/2017 02:24 pm »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #116 on: 02/23/2017 05:04 pm »
A write-up of the workshop by Paul D. Spudis:

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/cislunar-space-next-30-years-180962249/

Dr. Spudis has been a very consistent advocate for doing things in cis-lunar space.  That said, the main challenge is that people and institutions are advocating solutions for problems and markets that don't yet exist, so the accuracy of their proposed solutions are likely to be off by quite a bit.

Only by listening to customers can you truly understand what the problems are, and what the potential solutions are - unfortunately there is a distinct lack of customers, so I think everyone needs to first understand why that is?

- Is it because "space" costs too much, and if so what parts are the cost drivers?

- Is it because for space mining we don't yet know what we can mine, and what the value of that would be?

- Is it because we don't yet know how long we can keep employees in space, and what they can do when they are there?

Everyone has their own biases and interests, and certainly ULA has an interest in selling their services.  But doing things in space will be a new market, so you can't use current market techniques to anticipate what will be needed.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think this conference was too premature to really be useful.  What someone really needs to do is go out and talk with prospective customers to find out what will cause them to start spending money on space.  THAT will provide the real indications of what the challenges are, and only then can solutions start to be proposed.

My $0.02
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 Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #117 on: 02/24/2017 04:25 pm »
ULA's is moving forward prudently and deliberately.

To me that sounds like you're trying to justify why they don't seem to be responding to the competitive threat reusability means to them, since it's not just SpaceX but Blue Origin also that are committed to reusability.



ULA is responding the competitive threat that reusability means to them.  They are responding with smart engine re-use.

Except they aren't. "Smart engine re-use" does not appear to be part of the initial Vulcan design. (Unless I am mistaken)

They are, just at a more deliberate pace. 

ULA's is in a potentially difficult spot, depending on how well SpaceX can ramp up a consistent launch rate.

ULA's #1 priority is a transition off the RD-180 to the BE-4 and the Vulcan.  They don't want the AR1 because BE-4 gives them a better cost point for launches.  So far they have fended off attempts by Congress to cut off the RD-180 supply but the writing is clearly on the wall.

After this then Smart-Engine Re-use and ACES come into play. 

The other possibility that I thought about with ULA is that Boeing and LM might eventually fold up ULA and sell the assets and IP to Bezos.  Bezos might be very interested in the ACES technology, particularly the IVF part of ACES.  He is just waiting for ULA to start losing business to SpaceX and loose value.  He waits until things look bleak for ULA and then floats a proposal out to Boeing and LM.  He could have his pick of any ULA assets he wants for a considerable discount off current value. 
« Last Edit: 02/24/2017 04:34 pm by Brovane »
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48140
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81623
  • Likes Given: 36931
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #118 on: 03/01/2017 01:16 pm »
Quote
Tory Bruno‏ @torybruno 18m18 minutes ago

Some cool concept art from one of our #CisLunar1000 Marketplace partners
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/836937305201885186

Quote
Robert Bigelow‏ @RobertTBigelow 13m13 minutes ago

What if the B330 was launched to LEO, then redeployed by two @ulalaunch ACES busses to a low lunar orbit to serve as a lunar depot?
https://twitter.com/RobertTBigelow/status/836938597181726720
« Last Edit: 03/01/2017 01:16 pm by FutureSpaceTourist »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48140
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81623
  • Likes Given: 36931
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #119 on: 03/01/2017 04:28 pm »
Quote
What if the @SpaceX V2 and/or the @LockheedMartin Orion were engaged as the transportation vehicles to and from the lunar depot?

https://twitter.com/roberttbigelow/status/836969249235062785

Quote
If initiated soon, a lunar depot could be in operation by the end of 2020.

https://twitter.com/roberttbigelow/status/836990639560519683

So it's not just SpaceX with aggressive schedules! Although SpaceX has the advantage of customers for their 'moon shot'.

Tags:
 

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