Author Topic: March 5, 2014 Hearing on National Security Space Launch Programs (Musk and Gass)  (Read 143414 times)

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Port Angeles
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 1194
Fantastic thread, coverage and comments.  Thanks all!  I hope to find time this evening to review the links.
As for phasing out AtlasV:  I think it more likely AtlasV would be phased out than the RD-180 being fabricated in the U.S. due to development cost (and thus cost increase of the booster).  Remember, even if/when the Ukraine deal resolves (peacefully we hope), the question of the AtlasV core propulsion will still be valid.  CST100 and DC better consider a different option (Delta IV M4+2?, Falcon?).
I think ultimately this (attention on U.S. spaceflight) is good for us.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2014 04:25 pm by PahTo »

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
Gass:

"I’ve also experienced  some of the launch  industry’s  darkest  days, such as in the late
1990s  when  the  U.S. suffered  a  series of  six  major  launch failures  over a  10-month
period. "

Pop quiz. Name all six....

Delta II 1997 01-17
Delta II 1998 08-27
Titan IV 1998 08-12
Titan IV 1999 4-9
Titan IV 1999 4-30

I am missing one.

04/27/99  Athena-2  Good Job Ed.  I never remember Athena

I will take a second place to Ed in this one and frame it on my wall :)
« Last Edit: 03/05/2014 04:44 pm by SpacexULA »
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline Chris Bergin

Gass:

"I’ve also experienced  some of the launch  industry’s  darkest  days, such as in the late
1990s  when  the  U.S. suffered  a  series of  six  major  launch failures  over a  10-month
period. "

Pop quiz. Name all six....
Three Titan IV missions (two were upper stage phases), two Delta III flights, and one amazing Delta II explosion right above the launch pad - although the timeline of the Delta II failure might not be right.  There was an Athena failure in 1999 that might be a better fit for the 10 month interval.

UPDATE:  It was the Athena.  Here's a list.


08/12/98  Titan 401A       A20/TC?   Vortex 2 (NRO)      CC 41     (FTO)(a)
08/27/98  Delta 8930       D259      Galaxy 10           CC 17B    (FTO)(b)
04/09/99  Titan 402B       B27/IUS21 DSP 19              CC 41     (GTO)(1)
04/27/99  Athena-2         LM005     Ikonos 1            VA 6      (FTO)(2)
04/30/99  Titan 401B       B32/TC14  Milstar 2 F1        CC 40     (EEO)(3)
05/05/99  Delta 8930-13.1C D269      Orion 3             CC 17B    (EEO)(4)

(a) Exploded at T+41.3s after power glitch caused loss of guidance and pitchover
(b) First Delta 3; exploded at T+75s; guidance failure (algorithm)
(1) IUS SRM-2 apogee failed due SRM-1 bad sep
(2) Fairing no sep (electrical) 
(3) Bad Centaur attitude control software, improper final orbit
(4) RL10B-2 chamber rupture at transfer burn start


 - Ed Kyle

HA! I knew you'd be all over that question! :)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Fantastic thread, coverage and comments.  Thanks all!  I hope to find time this evening to review the links.
As for phasing out AtlasV:  I think it more likely AtlasV would be phased out than the RD-180 being fabricated in the U.S. due to development cost (and thus cost increase of the booster).  Remember, even if/when the Ukraine deal resolves (peacefully we hope), the question of the AtlasV core propulsion will still be valid.  CST100 and DC better consider a different option (Delta IV M4+2?, Falcon?).
I think ultimately this (attention on U.S. spaceflight) is good for us.
I disagree about phasing out Atlas 5, because the Atlas 5 propulsion problem is also for all practical purposes the Antares propulsion problem.  This problem needs to be resolved, either by guaranteed access to RD-180, or by replacing the engine entirely.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
final thought from that meeting. At one poing Gass went on about buying RD-180 because the Russians were doing things that "our textbooks said were impossible" and then deriding domestic engine development. Also does not favor fix price competitive contracts that might further improve future editions of whatever textbook he's been reading.


The head of ULA complaining about a lack of US rocket engine development is like the CEO of Kentucky Fried Chicken complaining abuot American fried chicken technology. How can you be that educated and make these statements with a straight face?
« Last Edit: 03/05/2014 05:00 pm by bad_astra »
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
I was aggravated by the repetitive "100 percent success" claims made by all participants.  They should know better.  Each rocket (Delta 4, Atlas 5, and Falcon 9) has failed once, and Delta 4 almost suffered a second failure.

Otherwise it was maybe my favorite Congressional committee hearing ever!

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/05/2014 05:49 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
ULA contracts are fixed price

Offline tigerade

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Low Earth Orbit
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 36
Elon Musk's written statement pulls no punches:

Quote
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this Committee’s timely review of the EELV Program. We commend the
Air Force and NRO efforts to reintroduce competition into the EELV Program as a means to counter the
rising costs of national security space launch and the stagnant innovation in this critical sector. In order
for true, meaningful competition to occur, we respectfully suggest the EELV Program be further reformed
to adopt contracting practices and other acquisition reforms consistent with a competitive procurement
environment, as follows:
1) Most importantly, every single mission capable of being launched by qualified new entrants
should be competed this year and every year moving forward. There should be no reason that a
mission is sole-sourced to ULA, whether as part of the recent 36-core deal or any other
arrangement. And if competition opportunities are being delayed, we should understand why that
is so, and we should fix it immediately;

2) Introduce a FAR Part 12 commercial contract structure that creates rational incentives for both
the contractors and the government to achieve reliable, cost effective on-time launches;
3) Leverage commercial practices wherever possible – a philosophy and acquisition approach that
NASA has successfully employed in its launch programs. Fundamentally, the Air Force should
establish clear requirements for launch services and associated activities, but it should not dictate
how those requirements are implemented. Rather, contractors should be empowered to meet
requirements in a manner best suited to their organization’s strengths; and
4) Eliminate payments—more properly called subsidies—under the EELV Launch Capability (ELC)
contract line item that are exclusively in support of the incumbent provider
. And when
conducting competitions for launches, properly account for the subsidies that the incumbent
enjoys so that an even playing field is created. The long-term elimination of the ELC is
paramount if an efficient acquisition approach is to be created. As was noted in DOD’s
recertification of the EELV program after its 2012 “critical” Nunn-McCurdy breach, cost-plus

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Port Angeles
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 1194
I disagree about phasing out Atlas 5, because the Atlas 5 propulsion problem is also for all practical purposes the Antares propulsion problem.  This problem needs to be resolved, either by guaranteed access to RD-180, or by replacing the engine entirely.

 - Ed Kyle

But that's the rub.  There is no such thing as guaranteed access to the RD-180 outside of fabricating it here in the U.S.  And replacing the RD-180 means development of a SC (likely oxy rich) kerolox engine.  Either way, huge development time and cost (seems that the domestic RD-180 might be the better option, but I don't know enough about true domestic progress on other kerolox options, including AJ26).  Either way, per comments from Mr. Gass, it seems unlikely ULA will go down that road.  And even if they did, the affordability of the AtlasV (the big selling point) goes away with said development and fabrication costs.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2014 05:46 pm by PahTo »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
ULA contracts are fixed price

Musk was talking about the ELC contract. The more than $1B per year that ULA gets whether it launches or not.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2014 06:08 pm by yg1968 »

Offline billh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Houston
  • Liked: 1098
  • Likes Given: 792
Thanks to all for capturing this on the NSF thread. I was most struck by the comment about two years of engine inventory and a five year contract. That sounds pretty scary to me, if things with Russia keep deteriorating. I'm sure they could build the RD-180 here if they had to. But the issue is not just the cost, it's the time it would take to get them into production. Any educated guesses on that? And do we even have the proper alloys available domestically?

Offline Chris Bergin

Elon Musk's written statement pulls no punches:

You know what. Mr. Gass pretty much read from his statement. Elon went way past his statement! I'm 900 words into the article and I'm pretty much quoting from the video now.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2014 06:11 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

Some help if anyone's willing:

Half the "airframe" of the Atlas V is from overseas?

They keep talking about an uncompeted 36 core EELV block buy....as if that's already a done deal? Is that what SpaceX want a piece of the pie over?
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline rst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 0
I disagree about phasing out Atlas 5, because the Atlas 5 propulsion problem is also for all practical purposes the Antares propulsion problem.  This problem needs to be resolved, either by guaranteed access to RD-180, or by replacing the engine entirely.

Well, there are enough NK-33s already in Aerojet's American inventory for Orbital to fulfill their commitments to NASA.  Musk at least seemed to be claiming (in the summaries here, at least) that this is not the case for the RD-180.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
ULA contracts are fixed price

Musk was talking about the ELC contract. The more than $1B per year that ULA gets whether it launches or not.

It still is a fixed price.

Offline USFdon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 6
But that's the rub.  There is no such thing as guaranteed access to the RD-180 outside of fabricating it here in the U.S.  And replacing the RD-180 means development of a SC (likely oxy rich) kerolox engine.  Either way, huge development time and cost (seems that the domestic RD-180 might be the better option, but I don't know enough about true domestic progress on other kerolox options, including AJ26).

Maybe restart work on the RS-84? I'm pretty sure that the engine had reached PDR and that Boeing/Rocketdyne had begun component (albeit sub-scale) testing at Marshall before the program was zeroed out 10 years ago.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
I disagree about phasing out Atlas 5, because the Atlas 5 propulsion problem is also for all practical purposes the Antares propulsion problem.  This problem needs to be resolved, either by guaranteed access to RD-180, or by replacing the engine entirely.

 - Ed Kyle

But that's the rub.  There is no such thing as guaranteed access to the RD-180 outside of fabricating it here in the U.S.  And replacing the RD-180 means development of a SC (likely oxy rich) kerolox engine.  Either way, huge development time and cost (seems that the domestic RD-180 might be the better option, but I don't know enough about true domestic progress on other kerolox options, including AJ26).  Either way, per comments from Mr. Gass, it seems unlikely ULA will go down that road.  And even if they did, the affordability of the AtlasV (the big selling point) goes away with said development and fabrication costs.

This isn't the late 1990's, we understand SC and we understand both these engines.   The real question is "HOW" we could manufacture these engines?   The same complex system in place now, or a SpaceX type system?

The 2nd real question is how are you going to fix the real problem ..."launch rates".   The hearing brought out the facts.  We have 2 years worth of RD-180's. why would you start production?

Did a research project on how to make a RL-10 clone with modern manufacturing cheap.  Looked at it again ...why bother?   Warehouses are full of a supply that will take years to use up.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2014 06:40 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Chris Bergin

Yeah, what is that other product past the RD-180, which Mr. Gass spoke of over the Russian supply question?
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

The partial Atlas V failure was AEHF-1, right?
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Online Galactic Penguin SST

The partial Atlas V failure was AEHF-1, right?

Nope, it's the NROL-30 launch in June 2007.
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery. Current Priority: Chasing the Chinese Spaceflight Wonder Egg & A Certain Chinese Mars Rover

Tags:
 

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