Since BE-4 failed its first test and AR-1 has its first test, would AR-1 now be in the lead? ULA could still use BE-3 for ACES and AR-1's for first stage.
Quote from: rcoppola on 09/05/2017 06:05 pm(Treamed quote)Perhaps the real question is, are the parents in or out?ULA called the bluff... they know they are going to get the engines they needed... so the pressure to transition is no longer fixed... they have time to finish engine qualification and down select.. go at the pace they see fit.
(Treamed quote)Perhaps the real question is, are the parents in or out?
Quote from: spacenut on 09/05/2017 07:26 pmSince BE-4 failed its first test and AR-1 has its first test, would AR-1 now be in the lead? ULA could still use BE-3 for ACES and AR-1's for first stage. To my understanding, that wasn't BE-4's "first test". The first full-scale start still has yet to take place. The failure was of a powerpack. I suspect powerpack testing was underway for awhile before the May incident, but I admit I'm guessing. According to the infamous Peter de Selding speech in 2016, Blue had also blown up a powerpack at least once before. - Ed Kyle
There are substantial cost implications of maintaining multiple launchers. Especially without future ELC payments. I would think ULA (and parents) would move with all possible haste to Vulcan.
After all, the pad, workforce and manufacturing reductions were supposed to prepare the way for Vulcan and a more commercially viable future. So I just don't see doing a slow roll of Vulcan as being a sound business strategy.
Maybe they're reassessing Ms. Shotwell's comment about "launch as commodity". A notion Tory was emphatically against. I'm just not seeing evidence of an "all in" with Vulcan. Something has changed their calculations. Perhaps the real question is, are the parents in or out?
The first full-scale start still has yet to take place. The failure was of a powerpack. I suspect powerpack testing was underway for awhile before the May incident, but I admit I'm guessing.
So while you'd be able to bid for most govt/NSS/some commercial (as a compliant ULA is expected to), you'd only expect to win those where your unique capabilities made you effectively the "sole source", as a "long goodbye" strategy.
It is essential for Vulcan's core vehicle to 1) replace Atlas as a "biddable" even if not qualified alternative. Because the political winds might shift at any time to lock out non-indigenous sources. What hangs over ULA's head.It is essential that Vulcan have a low cost footprint because its rival already has one, so that it can afford to constantly bid as expected.Eventually Vulcan will be qualified for NSS missions. Eventually Vulcan will regain DIVH capability/capacity. These are your potential "slow roll" items.
Tory Bruno Verified account @torybruno 5m5 minutes agoLots of questions re: 9/4 WSJ article on RD180 replacement. Unclear who their source is. No change to Vulcan Baseline.
Wasn't that means the ER of BE-4 will almost certain to be different? Assuming ULA Vulcan endup using BE-4?
In Blue Origin staff were quite explicit in their public talks and following Q&A sessions. The BE-4 engines on Vulcan and New Glenn will be the same. "Same part number."We'll find out how that evolves. I can see Blue flying improved engine iterations sooner than ULA who has to satisfy certification requirements.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/05/2017 08:39 pmSo while you'd be able to bid for most govt/NSS/some commercial (as a compliant ULA is expected to), you'd only expect to win those where your unique capabilities made you effectively the "sole source", as a "long goodbye" strategy.That may be what all the "smart money" thinks. I wonder if Bruno agrees with them? Maybe he thinks they can deliver a design that's got a real fighting chance of competing head to head with SX on cost.Didn't the "smart money" also think SX was a joke that would never fly?
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962It is essential for Vulcan's core vehicle to 1) replace Atlas as a "biddable" even if not qualified alternative. Because the political winds might shift at any time to lock out non-indigenous sources. What hangs over ULA's head.It is essential that Vulcan have a low cost footprint because its rival already has one, so that it can afford to constantly bid as expected.Eventually Vulcan will be qualified for NSS missions. Eventually Vulcan will regain DIVH capability/capacity. These are your potential "slow roll" items. I think once Vulcan is a real LV Bruno will move heaven and earth to certify it for NSS launches and retire Atlas V, otherwise (depending on how you look at it) ULA will be supporting 4 LV's ( I think DIV H is sufficiently different to viewed as a separate LV, but I may be wrong).
I know ULA have done a lot of work to consolidate mfg lines and make as many parts as possible common across all 3 (with potential economies of scale) but that's only going to go so far. At bottom they are just very different vehicles. If Boeing is making a lot on specialist launch services that DIVH provides I can see they will be less keen to phase it out.
But that raises a question I'd not considered before. AIUI ULA profits have been split by the LV. Boeing gets DIV launches, LM gets Atlas V.But Vulcan has no direct heritage from either, and Centaur is used by both of them. So will they do a straight 50/50 split on the profits, or something more complex based on performance ranges? If it's in the Atlas V range of payload and final velocity, it goes to LM, if higher it goes to Boeing? IIRC there is also an overlap range where it could go either way. Again, what happens then? for Boeing a straight 50/50 split would be a case of "Heads we get half the Vulcan revenue, tails we get all the DIV and DIV H revenue," which sounds like a pretty sweet deal for them, but it should make them a bit more willing to phase out DIV H when the time comes. The "performance ranges" split seems a bit more equitable to begin with, but suggests Boeing would be very reluctant to retire DIV and DIV H down the road and Green light any upgrades needed for Vulcan to deliver the full DIV H spec. Obviously this is pretty much irrelevant to the engineering of Vulcan but I can see it causing all sorts of roadblocks to Bruno in getting Vulcan to first launch. For the parents the bottom line is the bottom line.
AIUI ULA profits have been split by the LV. Boeing gets DIV launches, LM gets Atlas V.
Wrong. They are 50/50
Peter B. de Selding @pbdes 1m1 minute agoTory Bruno, CEO @ulalaunch: CDR for Vulcan rocket by end this yr; we'll determine engine choice - @AerojetRdyne v @blueorigin before then.
Interesting, this could be quite some time ahead of successful engine testing?QuotePeter B. de Selding @pbdes 1m1 minute agoTory Bruno, CEO @ulalaunch: CDR for Vulcan rocket by end this yr; we'll determine engine choice - @AerojetRdyne v @blueorigin before then.https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/907629989377576962
Perhaps BE4 has a deadline.
Could Vulcan be designed to use Merlins from SpaceX? Or is this out of the question? I figure they could use 5 or 7 with the solids. They might even be able to stay with the Atlas V diameter. Air Force or NASA may not want this in order to have more competition.
It is out of the question. I believe both Elon and Shotwell have answered this before saying Merlins and Raptors were not for sale and use outside of SpaceX.