“Right now, we’re planning on about three to four missions per year to close our business case,” Laidley said. “A couple of those could come from the Air Force and a couple of those could come from either our internal needs or the commercial community. We can close our business case with a fairly low launch rate, and that’s primarily due to the diversity of our business base, and the fact that right now we’ve got a number of other large programs in our launch vehicle division, along with the propulsion systems division and aerospace structures.”
An interesting bit in the article was the low number of NSS flights needed to close the business case:Quote“Right now, we’re planning on about three to four missions per year to close our business case,” Laidley said. “A couple of those could come from the Air Force and a couple of those could come from either our internal needs or the commercial community. We can close our business case with a fairly low launch rate, and that’s primarily due to the diversity of our business base, and the fact that right now we’ve got a number of other large programs in our launch vehicle division, along with the propulsion systems division and aerospace structures.”The 40% share of the Phase 2 competition should be right in that range... they have zero chance of getting the winning (60%) share. Being viable with 2-3 USAF launches per year could be a significant selling point.
We took a hard look at what those missions have sold for historically, and we can be competitive in that marketplace.
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: 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.Let's make a wager, to see if you really believe this. How about every time a Block 5 booster is expended (on purpose or by accident), I'll send you $10. In return, every time one is recovered, you send me $10.I'm willing to bet $100 you won't take this bet. If you do, I'll get my money back soon enough.
Meanwhile, there's no guarantee that SpaceX prices will stay low, given the massive expenditures currently planned by the company. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spacex-funding/spacex-looks-to-raise-507-million-in-a-new-funding-round-filing-idUSKBN1HJ3D8
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.SpaceX prices are lower because the company developed a great engine and a highly efficient production line. There's no reason that Orbital ATK and others can't do the same. Meanwhile, there's no guarantee that SpaceX prices will stay low, given the massive expenditures currently planned by the company. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spacex-funding/spacex-looks-to-raise-507-million-in-a-new-funding-round-filing-idUSKBN1HJ3D8 - Ed Kyle
In the early 20s, we can expect both relatively low number of US gov. launches and 4 EELV class launchers (not counting BFR)
...Vulkan, New Glen...
Since IMO NGL is unlikely to be price competitive with Falcon 9, I doubt that even accounting for "managed competition" they will get more than 1 US gov. launch per year.
In the commercial market, NGL will compete with them as well and not only is price more important there, compared to gov. contracts, Falcon 9 should also have 100+ launches, while Vulkan, New Glen, and NGL will be starting with no launch history.
So, I don't think the market will be able to support 4 US LVs - and non-reusable ones will be most likely to fail.
...Northrup Grumman...
Quote from: AncientU on 04/14/2018 11:45 amAn interesting bit in the article was the low number of NSS flights needed to close the business case:Quote“Right now, we’re planning on about three to four missions per year to close our business case,” Laidley said. “A couple of those could come from the Air Force and a couple of those could come from either our internal needs or the commercial community. We can close our business case with a fairly low launch rate, and that’s primarily due to the diversity of our business base, and the fact that right now we’ve got a number of other large programs in our launch vehicle division, along with the propulsion systems division and aerospace structures.”The 40% share of the Phase 2 competition should be right in that range... they have zero chance of getting the winning (60%) share. Being viable with 2-3 USAF launches per year could be a significant selling point.I still don’t think the AF will bite. Can a fully disposable system in the US ever compete on price these days?
And New Glenn.
Quote from: AncientU on 04/15/2018 12:10 amAnd New Glenn.At the risk of derailing a bit. I thought they weren't involved in the USAF competition?
In the discussion of whether or not NGL will be competitive as a mostly-solid launch vehicle, one other factor to keep in mind is DoD's ongoing desire to keep the solid propellant industry from withering in the absence of large contracts like Shuttle SRM. 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.So, in the background, there is always an underlying Gov't interest in keeping the solids industry healthy. I expect that played a role in the solids component of SLS, but as it becomes clear SLS is a budget-busting dinosaur, other more cost-effective solids users like NGL will at least help keep the solids industry tooled up. That is of at least some motivation to the Air Force to see NGL succeed, regardless of cost comparisons to F9, FH, New Glenn, et al.
Quote from: Kabloona on 04/15/2018 03:23 amIn the discussion of whether or not NGL will be competitive as a mostly-solid launch vehicle, one other factor to keep in mind is DoD's ongoing desire to keep the solid propellant industry from withering in the absence of large contracts like Shuttle SRM. 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.So, in the background, there is always an underlying Gov't interest in keeping the solids industry healthy. I expect that played a role in the solids component of SLS, but as it becomes clear SLS is a budget-busting dinosaur, other more cost-effective solids users like NGL will at least help keep the solids industry tooled up. That is of at least some motivation to the Air Force to see NGL succeed, regardless of cost comparisons to F9, FH, New Glenn, et al.But if AF didn't write this desire into the RFP, wouldn't they open themselves to protest if they try to move the scale towards NGL?Also how much money is really needed to preserve the solid propellant industry? Last time I checked, the AP production company only needs $65M revenue per year to be profitable, that's pittance comparing the money AF can save by choosing the right EELV2, how about AF just use the saved money from EELV2 to buy solid propellant and dump it somewhere? That would be more economical than any favor towards NGL.
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.