Competitiveness of Vulcan vs F9 / FH / SS / NG etc

[joek]

What really matters, I suppose, are the NSSL mission category requirements, which the two companies have competed against one another for already.  Of the nine or so categories, which only go up to direct GEO insertions, I figure Falcon 9/Heavy can handle about four or five in recoverable mode.  The rest require expendable flights.  That's a higher rate of throwing away stages than is typical for Falcon 9/Heavy.  Vulcan can be dialed up or down via. SRM additions to meet all categories.

ULA has slimmed down to compete with SpaceX, cutting its launch stable and ground infrastructure by nearly one-third.  I am still convinced that SpaceX's cost advantages were mostly provided by the company's vertical integration and by the great design of Merlin and Falcon, but while ULA was slimming down to compete, SpaceX was bloating up by pouring many billions into its  giant dream rocket.

True, so put aside SpaceX's "dream rocket" and the $ invested for the moment. Continued sniping at that does not increase the credibiility of arguments for Vulcan. With all due respecti, give it a rest; it's SpaceX's dream and their $. And who cares if "SpaceX's cost advantages were mostly provided by the company's vertical integration...". If those advantages are real, it matters.

Strip it down to concrete near-term Falcon vs. Vulcan price and performance? What does that horse race look like?

[Robotbeat]

...  According the NASA launch performance calculator, FH fully recovered exceeds Vulcan 552 (2 sides) for C3 up to 25, where VH2 pulls slightly ahead. 

What really matters, I suppose, are the NSSL mission category requirements, which the two companies have competed against one another for already.  Of the nine or so categories, which only go up to direct GEO insertions, I figure Falcon 9/Heavy can handle about four or five in recoverable mode.  The rest require expendable flights.  That's a higher rate of throwing away stages than is typical for Falcon 9/Heavy.  Vulcan can be dialed up or down via. SRM additions to meet all categories.  ...

...So ALSO expendable, therefore no advantage over SpaceX (who can at least recover the fairing, still...).

[JayWee]

...
SS will be cheaper and there's no need for thousands of flights.  It'll take 1-2 years to finish development but that's it.

SpaceX has taken $Bs from external investors for SS development, they want a return on their money.

Think of it this way:
Starlink V2 mass: 36,000t. Cost of launch on F9 (assuming floated-around marginal $15M/launch): $32B.
If development and launches on SS are less than that => ROI.
(At Elon's wished-goal of $5M/SS launch, the launch cost would be only ~ $1.5B-$3B.)

[LouScheffer]

...  According the NASA launch performance calculator, FH fully recovered exceeds Vulcan 552 (2 sides) for C3 up to 25, where VH2 pulls slightly ahead. 

What really matters, I suppose, are the NSSL mission category requirements, which the two companies have competed against one another for already.  Of the nine or so categories, which only go up to direct GEO insertions, I figure Falcon 9/Heavy can handle about four or five in recoverable mode.  The rest require expendable flights.  That's a higher rate of throwing away stages than is typical for Falcon 9/Heavy.  Vulcan can be dialed up or down via. SRM additions to meet all categories.  ...

...So ALSO expendable, therefore no advantage over SpaceX (who can at least recover the fairing, still...).

It's more than the fairings.  SpaceX can perform all NSSL missions while at least recovering the side FH boosters.  Admittedly, to match the Vulcan 556 for a large payload direct to GEO, this might involve catching the two side boosters on ASDSs, a mission profile that has not yet been tried.  Of course, the competing Vulcan 556 has never been tried, either.

[Jim]

And if SpaceX has to split F9 ops to a different entity ("pull an ULA") to qualify as a second provider, then why not?

Because it is  not.   It would have to be split off of SpaceX into separate company. Every would have to duplicated.

[meekGee]

And if SpaceX has to split F9 ops to a different entity ("pull an ULA") to qualify as a second provider, then why not?

Because it is  not.   It would have to be split off of SpaceX into separate company. Every would have to duplicated.

Yup. 

If they can become the #1 non-starship launch company that's plenty of incentive.
 Just the DoD launches...

Maybe even outright sell it.

[Jim]

And if SpaceX has to split F9 ops to a different entity ("pull an ULA") to qualify as a second provider, then why not?

Because it is  not.   It would have to be split off of SpaceX into separate company. Every would have to duplicated.

Yup. 

If they can become the #1 non-starship launch company that's plenty of incentive.
 Just the DoD launches...

Maybe even outright sell it.

Nope, it can’t

[meekGee]

And if SpaceX has to split F9 ops to a different entity ("pull an ULA") to qualify as a second provider, then why not?

Because it is  not.   It would have to be split off of SpaceX into separate company. Every would have to duplicated.

...
Maybe even outright sell it.

Nope, it can’t

Maybe it won't, but it definitely can.

Separate entity, or wholly owned subsidiary.  Basically a new company.

It's simple.  Once SS hits tempo, SpaceX has exactly three mutually-exclusive choices:
1. Continue to operate two lines of rockets
2. Retire F9/FH
3. Split them off.

Now if there's a case for an EELV or partial reusable rocket in a post SS world (which is ULA's line wrt Vulcan) then there's a business reason to avoid #2, but keeping them under the same roof (#1) may hurt its business case since the biggest customers (e.g. DoD, Amazon) may not like that.

So #3 has merit.

Now if NG comes of age and renders EELVs and Partials entirely obsolete, then that's a different story. But that's a big if.

Point is - ULA should not be betting Vulcan's future on NG being late or a dud.
Vulcan may be facing stiff competition from F9

Those 70 launches are from a world where F9 is the only competition and the world wants a second choice.
This will change soon.

[Jim]

Maybe it won't, but it definitely can.

No, it can't.  SpaceX,as being vertically integrated applies across the board. There is no separate Falcon 9 team or factory to split off.   The Hawthrone facility produces Dragons, Falcons and subsystems for Starship.  Also, engineering and mission control for all programs exists here.

[meekGee]

Maybe it won't, but it definitely can.

No, it can't.  SpaceX,as being vertically integrated applies across the board. There is no separate Falcon 9 team or factory to split off.   The Hawthrone facility produces Dragons, Falcons and subsystems for Starship.  Also, engineering and mission control for all programs exists here.

There's relatively little commonality between F9 and Starship, especially when F9 is in non-development mode.

Different materials, propellants, engines, heat shielding etc.

And if there's some common avionics, that's easy to get around.

It's just a matter of whether such a separation is deemed necessary to compete with Vulcan, and whether they want to bother.

It kinda depends on NG IMO. If NG happens, then it'll probably beat F9/H for the #2 slot.  Or at least make it difficult enough to compete against so as to make the exercise not worth the effort.

[TrevorMonty]

Maybe it won't, but it definitely can.

No, it can't.  SpaceX,as being vertically integrated applies across the board. There is no separate Falcon 9 team or factory to split off.   The Hawthrone facility produces Dragons, Falcons and subsystems for Starship.  Also, engineering and mission control for all programs exists here.

There's relatively little commonality between F9 and Starship, especially when F9 is in non-development mode.

Different materials, propellants, engines, heat shielding etc.

And if there's some common avionics, that's easy to get around.

It's just a matter of whether such a separation is deemed necessary to compete with Vulcan, and whether they want to bother.

It kinda depends on NG IMO. If NG happens, then it'll probably beat F9/H for the #2 slot.  Or at least make it difficult enough to compete against so as to make the exercise not worth the effort.

This series of posts belong in SpaceX thread. They have nothing to do with ULA.

[Jim]

There's relatively little commonality between F9 and Starship, especially when F9 is in non-development mode.

Wasn't talking about the flight hardware.  It is the people and Hawthorne.  It is all common.  There is no way to strip out people and Hawthorne.

[meekGee]

Maybe it won't, but it definitely can.

No, it can't.  SpaceX,as being vertically integrated applies across the board. There is no separate Falcon 9 team or factory to split off.   The Hawthrone facility produces Dragons, Falcons and subsystems for Starship.  Also, engineering and mission control for all programs exists here.

There's relatively little commonality between F9 and Starship, especially when F9 is in non-development mode.

Different materials, propellants, engines, heat shielding etc.

And if there's some common avionics, that's easy to get around.

It's just a matter of whether such a separation is deemed necessary to compete with Vulcan, and whether they want to bother.

It kinda depends on NG IMO. If NG happens, then it'll probably beat F9/H for the #2 slot.  Or at least make it difficult enough to compete against so as to make the exercise not worth the effort.

This series of posts belong in SpaceX thread. They have nothing to do with ULA.

It has to do with whether Vulcan can find safety in being a necessary #2.

From SpaceX's perspective, it matters a lot less.

[meekGee]

There's relatively little commonality between F9 and Starship, especially when F9 is in non-development mode.

Wasn't talking about the flight hardware.  It is the people and Hawthorne.  It is all common.  There is no way to strip out people and Hawthorne.

Sure but that's true of almost any spinoff.  Some of the functions performed by the mothership have to be replicated.

What's so hard about that?

[Jim]

Sure but that's true of almost any spinoff.  Some of the functions performed by the mothership have to be replicated.

not some, but all.  ULA was able to be formed because the companies has separate independent launch vehicle divisions.  They were lifted right out of the parent companies.  There was nothing to be left.   The only things needed to be created was the administration of the company.

[meekGee]

Sure but that's true of almost any spinoff.  Some of the functions performed by the mothership have to be replicated.

not some, but all.  ULA was able to be formed because the companies has separate independent launch vehicle divisions.  They were lifted right out of the parent companies.  There was nothing to be left.   The only things needed to be created was the administration of the company.

ULA was a merger/split-off salad.

Any regular spinoff typically takes one business center and makes it into a company, and suddenly it needs to replicate a ton of functionality that was part of the rest of the parent company.

It happens all the time, it's in the corporate playbook, and that's not what's going to stop SpaceX from doing it if that's what they want to do with F9.

They may also try to convince the government that two dissimilar rockets under one corporate roof is good enough.  But it's obviously an easier sell if fully split.

Yes there's irony here wrt ULA.

We'll see.  It's at least a year away if not two.

[edkyle99]

Strip it down to concrete near-term Falcon vs. Vulcan price and performance? What does that horse race look like?

I think the NSSL contract awards answered that question.  60% ULA.  40% SpaceX.

 - Ed Kyle

[Nomadd]

Strip it down to concrete near-term Falcon vs. Vulcan price and performance? What does that horse race look like?

I think the NSSL contract awards answered that question.  60% ULA.  40% SpaceX.

 - Ed Kyle

Nonsense.

[SoftwareDude]

Strip it down to concrete near-term Falcon vs. Vulcan price and performance? What does that horse race look like?

I think the NSSL contract awards answered that question.  60% ULA.  40% SpaceX.

 - Ed Kyle

Nonsense.

The DOD is going to be building battleships in space once SS is reliable. The 60% share that ULA has now will be less than one percent. Oh, and I don't mean battleships literally, but, oh you know what I mean.

[TrevorMonty]

Strip it down to concrete near-term Falcon vs. Vulcan price and performance? What does that horse race look like?

I think the NSSL contract awards answered that question.  60% ULA.  40% SpaceX.

 - Ed Kyle

Nonsense.

The DOD is going to be building battleships in space once SS is reliable. The 60% share that ULA has now will be less than one percent. Oh, and I don't mean battleships literally, but, oh you know what I mean.

No