Author Topic: ULA - How America’s two greatest rocket companies battled from the beginning  (Read 13222 times)

Offline LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3381
  • Liked: 6109
  • Likes Given: 836
Performance does not define a "hard" mission.

Yeah, I wish people could see a copy of an ICD that had over 1,000 verifiable requirements in it (and also the "will" statements.  For those unfamiliar, those are requirements where a formal process is in place to specify the plan, the evidence, the review process, signoff, etc.).   Performance capability might be 1 or 2 of those requirements.
How does that compare to a commercial mission?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428

So Delta-4 medium should have been able to put the GPS satellite directly into its GPS orbit without needing any solids, with considerable performance left over.  How did you figure that you needed a bigger model?

Because that was the reason, basic Medium couldn't do the mission.  The planners' guide is using RS-68A.  Most missions were flown on the RS-68.

Try 4210 kg into GTO and 1030 kg to GEO or even less.
« Last Edit: 03/26/2018 07:35 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Performance does not define a "hard" mission.

Yeah, I wish people could see a copy of an ICD that had over 1,000 verifiable requirements in it (and also the "will" statements.  For those unfamiliar, those are requirements where a formal process is in place to specify the plan, the evidence, the review process, signoff, etc.).   Performance capability might be 1 or 2 of those requirements.
How does that compare to a commercial mission?

commercial missions don't care, they have insurance.  Performance and insertion accuracy is about all they care about.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428

  I've heard stories, for example, that many government missions order an extra SRB above what they think needed,

There is no such stories where solids are added "above what they think needed".  There are all legitimate reasons  such as GOES adds a solid to save spacecraft propellant.  There are none where solids are just added for performance margin.

« Last Edit: 03/26/2018 07:21 pm by Jim »

Offline LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3381
  • Liked: 6109
  • Likes Given: 836

So Delta-4 medium should have been able to put the GPS satellite directly into its GPS orbit without needing any solids, with considerable performance left over.  How did you figure that you needed a bigger model?

Because that was the reason. 

Try 4210 kg into GTO and 1030 kg to GEO
That's not what the Delta-4 User's guide, Table 2-9 says.  Now the PAF is included in the mass, but it's hard to imagine a PAF massing 240 kg for a 1630 kg spacecraft.   [Added: I get your point that the user guide has RS-68A numbers, and the GPS was a RS-68 mission]

But let's say the user manual back then had RD-68 numbers, not RS-68A numbers, and use your numbers above.   Reduce the GEO mass to 1030 kg as you stipulate, and subtract 240 kg from the GEO-1200 mass as well.  This reduces the performance at 1630 kg to 3739 m/s, still 100 m/s more than is needed. 

Can you present an analysis that shows that the Medium could not do the mission?
« Last Edit: 03/26/2018 07:53 pm by LouScheffer »

Offline Sam Ho

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 817
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 71

So Delta-4 medium should have been able to put the GPS satellite directly into its GPS orbit without needing any solids, with considerable performance left over.  How did you figure that you needed a bigger model?

Because that was the reason. 

Try 4210 kg into GTO and 1030 kg to GEO
That's not what the Delta-4 User's guide, Table 2-9 says.  Now the PAF is included in the mass, but it's hard to imagine a PAF massing 240 kg for a 1630 kg spacecraft.   [Added: I get your point that the user guide has RS-68A numbers, and the GPS was a RS-68 mission]

But let's say the user manual back then had RD-68 numbers, not RS-68A numbers, and use your numbers above.   Reduce the GEO mass to 1030 kg as you stipulate, and subtract 240 kg from the GEO-1200 mass as well.  This reduces the performance at 1630 kg to 3739 m/s, still 100 m/s more than is needed. 

Can you present an analysis that shows that the Medium could not do the mission?
The question of whether a Delta IV Medium (4,0) can launch a GPS IIF was the subject of a lengthy contract dispute.  Boeing (later ULA) has stated, since 2003, that it cannot.  USAF claimed that it could, with a waiver to allow overflying Europe.

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals issued a decision in December 2016 sustaining ULA's appeal.

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11159
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7392
  • Likes Given: 72406

So Delta-4 medium should have been able to put the GPS satellite directly into its GPS orbit without needing any solids, with considerable performance left over.  How did you figure that you needed a bigger model?

Because that was the reason. 

Try 4210 kg into GTO and 1030 kg to GEO
That's not what the Delta-4 User's guide, Table 2-9 says.  Now the PAF is included in the mass, but it's hard to imagine a PAF massing 240 kg for a 1630 kg spacecraft.   [Added: I get your point that the user guide has RS-68A numbers, and the GPS was a RS-68 mission]

But let's say the user manual back then had RD-68 numbers, not RS-68A numbers, and use your numbers above.   Reduce the GEO mass to 1030 kg as you stipulate, and subtract 240 kg from the GEO-1200 mass as well.  This reduces the performance at 1630 kg to 3739 m/s, still 100 m/s more than is needed. 

Can you present an analysis that shows that the Medium could not do the mission?
The question of whether a Delta IV Medium (4,0) can launch a GPS IIF was the subject of a lengthy contract dispute.  Boeing (later ULA) has stated, since 2003, that it cannot.  USAF claimed that it could, with a waiver to allow overflying Europe.

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals issued a decision in December 2016 sustaining ULA's appeal.

How much overhead did this dispute (legal services, etc.) add to the price of a Delta IV?
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3381
  • Liked: 6109
  • Likes Given: 836

The question of whether a Delta IV Medium (4,0) can launch a GPS IIF was the subject of a lengthy contract dispute.  Boeing (later ULA) has stated, since 2003, that it cannot.  USAF claimed that it could, with a waiver to allow overflying Europe.

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals issued a decision in December 2016 sustaining ULA's appeal.

This report makes fascinating reading - politics at its finest.

GPS-2F was designed to launch on a Delta-4 medium (no solids).   But it grew in mass.

ULA said, OK, now we'll need to launch it on a more expensive rocket.  But the Air Force, and Aerospace Corp, both found it could still launch fine on the no-solids Delta, for no increase in cost.

Then ULA said, in order to do that, we need to launch on the northern azimuth.  But that means it crosses Europe, and we'd need a waiver.  And we might not get the waiver, since our rockets cannot be considered reliable, since this is only the 3rd launch in this configuration.  And if we don't get the waiver, the schedule will be shot.

However, they did not actually *apply* for the waiver, even though the waiver-granting folks said, of course we'll grant the waiver.  They just used it as a hypothetical that could hurt the schedule if not granted, and went ahead with preparations for a (4,2) launch, and launched it gambling that they could win the additional revenue in arbitration.   This was a winning gamble since the arbitration board upheld their award, saying that yes, the third launch of a configuration cannot be considered reliable, so it was justified.

I suspect this is not an argument they will make about the third launch of Vulcan.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
For GPS missions, Delta IV Medium can't do the mission, Delta IV M+ (4,2) has excess performance. There was no ordering above what was needed.

Since when is excess performance a show-stopper for getting any mission? (F9 flies with excess performance most missions) At that point it was all about cost.

Either ULA didn't bid the Delta IV M+ because they thought it was uncompetitive (I don't think the Gov't would appreciate another incident where ULA avoids a bid because of a tempter tantrum as in the past), or they lost fair and square. It happens.

Offline TrevorMonty

Excess performance can be selling point, there is direct cost saving to GEO satellite owner if LV can deliver it beyond GTO. In case of electric satellite the shorter travel time to GEO results in few more weeks of extra revenue.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428

However, they did not actually *apply* for the waiver, even though the waiver-granting folks said, of course we'll grant the waiver.  .

It didn't say that.  Quite the opposite.  Range people never agreed to it and the former commander stated you never start planning a mission with the intend of doing a waiver
« Last Edit: 03/27/2018 05:19 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
For GPS missions, Delta IV Medium can't do the mission, Delta IV M+ (4,2) has excess performance. There was no ordering above what was needed.

Since when is excess performance a show-stopper for getting any mission?

Never said that.  Just saying there was no middle ground

Online Prettz

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • O'Neillian
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 30
an ICD that had over 1,000 verifiable requirements in it
Why? Why would this be considered reasonable for an orbital launch? How did things get to that point?

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
All were successful though, so you could say (statistically) that 7/8 of ULA missions are "easy", as in not requiring the full performance of the rocket.

If you really want to equate "hard" or "easy" with performance, then the number is probably closer to 1/8 are "easy".
For Atlas, if 1 to 5 solids are required then the mission is already "hard", otherwise 1 less solid would be used. Almost all missions use the excess performance to either place the spacecraft in a higher orbit (GTO), meet disposal requirements, and if some is left over, extend the launch window with "GHA steering".
The only ULA "easy" missions were probably DMSPs, GPS (although at one time a very long launch window was considered with Atlas missions), and a couple others.   And even some of those became less "easy" by adding ESPA rings, Cubesats, de-orbit and escape burns, other tests, etc.  Standard commercial customer GTO's are the cookie cutter missions.

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
an ICD that had over 1,000 verifiable requirements in it
Why? Why would this be considered reasonable for an orbital launch? How did things get to that point?

It's not reasonable.  It's an extremely risk-averse customer.  I will say that number has come way down over the past few years.


Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
How America’s two greatest rocket companies battled from the beginning

Mike Gass and Elon Musk. "How charming".
Great photograph.
I don't know if it's the perspective or if Glass actually is taller than Musk IRL but this picture suggests all kinds of captions.   :)
However as none of them will move the debate forward so I'll just mention a quote from the article.
Quote
Musk reiterated that a lack of competition was driving up taxpayer costs for military launches.
There's that word again. Imagine what COTS would have been like if they'd down selected to 1 supplier?

Actual competition (not the rather cozy oligopoly that seems to exist in some industries) is the thing that drives down prices and increases innovation in a market.
« Last Edit: 03/27/2018 07:15 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
an ICD that had over 1,000 verifiable requirements in it
Why? Why would this be considered reasonable for an orbital launch? How did things get to that point?
Start with NASA and HSF and add one requirement at a time.

Repeat for about 5 decades.  :(

And then there's the "Launch Commit Criteria" which IIRC from Shuttle was about 10  000 pages.
« Last Edit: 03/27/2018 06:41 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
an ICD that had over 1,000 verifiable requirements in it
Why? Why would this be considered reasonable for an orbital launch? How did things get to that point?
Start with NASA and HSF and add one requirement at a time.


It has nothing to do with NASA and HSF

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0