Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/14/2018 02:36 pmQuote from: Star One on 04/14/2018 12:57 pmI still don’t think the AF will bite. Can a fully disposable system in the US ever compete on price these days?Apparently. Six of the last seven Falcon 9's were fully expended. There is still no evidence that stage recovery reduces cost, given the fact that SpaceX charges the same price for both new and used rockets.Right. Just like there's no evidence reusing a 737 reduces costs over throwing it away, given that Southwest airlines charges the same price for a flight on a new 737 that it charges on a used 737 and even on a 737 it's about to retire. No evidence at all.
Quote from: Star One on 04/14/2018 12:57 pmI still don’t think the AF will bite. Can a fully disposable system in the US ever compete on price these days?Apparently. Six of the last seven Falcon 9's were fully expended. There is still no evidence that stage recovery reduces cost, given the fact that SpaceX charges the same price for both new and used rockets.
I still don’t think the AF will bite. Can a fully disposable system in the US ever compete on price these days?
Quote from: Kabloona on 04/15/2018 04:06 amDollars flowing to the solids industry keep incremental improvements happening in areas like composite case winding, case insulation, ablative nozzle design and manufacturing, propellant formulation and processing, etc, and these incremental imrovements then become available for programs the Air Force really cares about, like next gen ICBM's. And virtually none of the EELV $$ spent on liquids advances these technologies.I think this is moving the goal post though. AF is already funding these non-recurring engineering for solids in their smaller missile programs. The talking point for NGL (and SLS) is that those smaller missile programs do not consume enough propellant, thus the need for big solids. But I question the economics of this, I think it would be much cheaper to solve this issue by giving a direct subsidy to solid propellant industry.
Dollars flowing to the solids industry keep incremental improvements happening in areas like composite case winding, case insulation, ablative nozzle design and manufacturing, propellant formulation and processing, etc, and these incremental imrovements then become available for programs the Air Force really cares about, like next gen ICBM's. And virtually none of the EELV $$ spent on liquids advances these technologies.
Like other Evolvable Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELVs), NGL will operate from both east and west coast launch facilities. NGL will share common propulsion, structures and avionics systems with current and future programs. In addition, NGL will leverage current in-production programs that already are staffed with a skilled and highly experienced workforce, and will use existing facilities, supplier relationships and available subsystems for the new launch system’s development and production. Because NGL shares so many common elements with other programs, the system is affordable for the Air Force while also providing savings of approximately $600 million to other government agencies over 10 years.
Quote from: Star One on 04/14/2018 12:57 pmI still don’t think the AF will bite. Can a fully disposable system in the US ever compete on price these days?Sure they could. USAF has been getting flak for funding components when they were instructed to fund complete systems. Indications are they will select two proposals for further funding and it sounds as if there's only two complete systems competing (Vulcan and NGL).
The solids industry tends to be cyclical between big procurements for new ICBM's and SLBM's, and in between it makes DoD nervous if capabilities and institutional knowledge are lost.
This heavy-class rocket will have a payload capacity of up to 10,100 kg to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) and up to 7,800 kg to Geostationary Equatorial Orbit (GEO) #OmegaRocket