Author Topic: March 5, 2014 Hearing on National Security Space Launch Programs (Musk and Gass)  (Read 148740 times)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9271
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4493
  • Likes Given: 1131
Does anyone have an opinion (hopefully somewhat informed) on the effect on the Boeing-Lockheed consent decree, or more generally, the restrictions under which ULA currently works, should SpaceX be successful in gaining the right to compete for Air Force / NRO launches?

I wonder if overall this could be a good thing for ULA. (Which is not necessarily the same as being a good thing for Boeing/Lockheed).
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38006
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22350
  • Likes Given: 432
ULA only exists to operate Delta IV and Atlas V related vehicles.  They don't get to work on projects outside of these product lines.  For example, they would not have been able to work on the USAF Reusable Booster System (RBS) project and that is why LM was working on it.  That is why they also can't work on any cargo type vehicle for station logistics.  When there is no longer a market for Delta IV and Atlas V related vehicles, ULA will cease to exist much like its sister company, USA with the shuttle (actually, a portion of USA still exists at JSC to operate the ISS).

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9271
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4493
  • Likes Given: 1131
Are they required to cease to exist?

But I'm more interested in whether those restrictions could be relaxed if they were no longer seen as a monopoly.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38006
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22350
  • Likes Given: 432
Are they required to cease to exist?

But I'm more interested in whether those restrictions could be relaxed if they were no longer seen as a monopoly.


It isn't up to the US gov't, it is up to Boeing and LM.  They are the ones that aren't going to allow ULA to compete outside of the EELV family.  Boeing and LM want to compete outside of ULA so they don't have split the money.  The shuttle processing part of USA was told that it was not to look for more work and it was not to bid on the KSC Test and Operations Support Contract (TOSC) which replaced the Boeing CAPPS and USA SFOC contracts.  Boeing and LM bid individually for the TOSC.  ULA isn't Boeing or LM at the worker level but "Board of Directors" are all executives from Boeing and LM.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6846
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 4083
  • Likes Given: 1802
Are they required to cease to exist?

But I'm more interested in whether those restrictions could be relaxed if they were no longer seen as a monopoly.


It isn't up to the US gov't, it is up to Boeing and LM.  They are the ones that aren't going to allow ULA to compete outside of the EELV family.  Boeing and LM want to compete outside of ULA so they don't have split the money.  The shuttle processing part of USA was told that it was not to look for more work and it was not to bid on the KSC Test and Operations Support Contract (TOSC) which replaced the Boeing CAPPS and USA SFOC contracts.  Boeing and LM bid individually for the TOSC.  ULA isn't Boeing or LM at the worker level but "Board of Directors" are all executives from Boeing and LM.

I wish there was a way of changing that. I think ULA could adapt and compete with SpaceX if its parent companies would let it. Barring someone coming in with enough money to make Boeing and LM an offer they don't want to refuse, I just don't see the situation changing any time soon. It's sad, because there's a lot of talent at ULA that's being wasted by them having their hands tied like this.

~Jon

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39443
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25546
  • Likes Given: 12224
Are they required to cease to exist?

But I'm more interested in whether those restrictions could be relaxed if they were no longer seen as a monopoly.


It isn't up to the US gov't, it is up to Boeing and LM.  They are the ones that aren't going to allow ULA to compete outside of the EELV family.  Boeing and LM want to compete outside of ULA so they don't have split the money.  The shuttle processing part of USA was told that it was not to look for more work and it was not to bid on the KSC Test and Operations Support Contract (TOSC) which replaced the Boeing CAPPS and USA SFOC contracts.  Boeing and LM bid individually for the TOSC.  ULA isn't Boeing or LM at the worker level but "Board of Directors" are all executives from Boeing and LM.
Then SpaceX has already won, long-term.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12307
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18993
  • Likes Given: 13166
Are they required to cease to exist?

But I'm more interested in whether those restrictions could be relaxed if they were no longer seen as a monopoly.


It isn't up to the US gov't, it is up to Boeing and LM.  They are the ones that aren't going to allow ULA to compete outside of the EELV family.  Boeing and LM want to compete outside of ULA so they don't have split the money.  The shuttle processing part of USA was told that it was not to look for more work and it was not to bid on the KSC Test and Operations Support Contract (TOSC) which replaced the Boeing CAPPS and USA SFOC contracts.  Boeing and LM bid individually for the TOSC.  ULA isn't Boeing or LM at the worker level but "Board of Directors" are all executives from Boeing and LM.
Then SpaceX has already won, long-term.
I think that is a bit too strong a conclusion.

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 172
Whether he likes it or not, ULA will now have to *earn* its launch contracts, and it will never again get them all. He's just going to have to suck it up, sharpen his pencils and do his job - or get replaced.

I'm not terribly interested in jumping into the perennial ULA/SpaceX fight, but I'd just note two things:

1-I'm sure that he thinks that they have been earning their launch contracts by producing highly reliable rockets that launch on time. The fact that nobody has competed with them is probably besides the point to them.

I think it's reasonable to point out cost vs value. IE that DOD expects to get more value from these payloads than the price they pay.

In critical situations (I'd think the current crisis in Ukraine is a good example), I can imagine DOD relying heavily on the payloads they launch. When F9 V1.1 has only launched three times so far (eight if you include v1.0), it's easy to understand them being risk-averse. Allowing SpaceX to compete for the payloads outside the bulk buy seems a reasonable way for them to on-ramp.

Will be interesting to see how things change *if* SpaceX manages to fulfil all the launches they currently manifest for 2014 before the end of 2014, and all the launches they currently manifest for 2015 before the end of 2015. (I'll give them a pass on FH into 2015.)

cheers, Martin

Er part of the qualifying criteria are 3 successful consecutive launches.  Note that's 3 not 6 or 4 or 12 or 56 but 3 and only 3.  Why does some people think that this is insufficient?  If it was seen as insufficent, then I imagine that it would have been higher but well geez, it ain't.
Sorry but I get sick of some people continuing on about lots of launches to prove reliability.  And they may be right but not in this context.
Anyway, by the time they get to fly one of these contested payloads, they will no doubt have more than 3 under their belt.
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline MP99

Er part of the qualifying criteria are 3 successful consecutive launches.  Note that's 3 not 6 or 4 or 12 or 56 but 3 and only 3.  Why does some people think that this is insufficient?  If it was seen as insufficent, then I imagine that it would have been higher but well geez, it ain't.
Sorry but I get sick of some people continuing on about lots of launches to prove reliability.  And they may be right but not in this context.
Anyway, by the time they get to fly one of these contested payloads, they will no doubt have more than 3 under their belt.

Just to be clear, are you sure these three flights (plus additional insight) get them certified as a Category 3 launch vehicle, able to launch Class A payloads? (BTW, it looks like only two of the launches need to be consecutive, according to below.)

In order for them to gain Category 3 certification, have they undertaken the Full Vehicle Fishbone integrated analysis? I know they have offered a lot of insight into their vehicle.

I must admit, I'd assumed their three flights would only bring them to Category 2 level using the Alternative 2 process, and the 14 contestable payloads were only those which were in the B, C or D payload classes? Apologies if I've misunderstood that.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-317R
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=27077.0;attach=332836

Note that's 3 not 6 or 4...

Did you mean 14 here? If so, then you clearly are saying they will be certified to Category 3.

cheers, Martin

Edit: quotes clipped to reduce size of post.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2014 09:39 am by MP99 »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11013
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1282
  • Likes Given: 739
Er part of the qualifying criteria are 3 successful consecutive launches.  Note that's 3 not 6 or 4 or 12 or 56 but 3 and only 3.  Why does some people think that this is insufficient?  ...

Just to be clear, are you sure these three flights (plus additional insight) get them certified as a Category 3 launch vehicle ...

No, BeanCounter just said that three flights are necessary, as "part" of the "qualifying criteria".  He didn't get into all them thar categories.

Gass and company have a great track record, which is obviously why he toots that horn with every bit of lungpower he has.

People think around here that three launches is insignificant, but they hold that thought because they have a favorite LV, which has launched more than three times.  In the case of SLS, those proponents hold that zero launches is already a sufficient track record.  How weird is that?

Watch somebody now post about "legacy" launch systems, as if to prove something about SLS.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10450
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2496
  • Likes Given: 13785
No, BeanCounter just said that three flights are necessary, as "part" of the "qualifying criteria".  He didn't get into all them thar categories.

Gass and company have a great track record, which is obviously why he toots that horn with every bit of lungpower he has.
True.
Quote
People think around here that three launches is insignificant, but they hold that thought because they have a favorite LV, which has launched more than three times.  In the case of SLS, those proponents hold that zero launches is already a sufficient track record.  How weird is that?
Good point.

There is an issue with the small number of launches that the confidence of the next one being OK is limited. I think Robotbeat pointed out you need something like 53-54 launches to have 95% confidence the next launch is going to be OK.

However every successful launch improves that likelyhood. The question of course is how many Spacex launches will take place this year.  :(
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 2027?. 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 MP99

Er part of the qualifying criteria are 3 successful consecutive launches.  Note that's 3 not 6 or 4 or 12 or 56 but 3 and only 3.  Why does some people think that this is insufficient?  ...

Just to be clear, are you sure these three flights (plus additional insight) get them certified as a Category 3 launch vehicle ...

No, BeanCounter just said that three flights are necessary, as "part" of the "qualifying criteria".  He didn't get into all them thar categories.

Gass and company have a great track record, which is obviously why he toots that horn with every bit of lungpower he has.

People think around here that three launches is insignificant, but they hold that thought because they have a favorite LV, which has launched more than three times.  In the case of SLS, those proponents hold that zero launches is already a sufficient track record.  How weird is that?

Watch somebody now post about "legacy" launch systems, as if to prove something about SLS.

BTW, just because F9 becomes certified, it doesn't mean that it then has to be chosen for every payload after that point. Is it not reasonable to expect some sort of value judgement in terms of criticality of payload vs history of the LV?

Cheers, Martin

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39443
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25546
  • Likes Given: 12224
No, BeanCounter just said that three flights are necessary, as "part" of the "qualifying criteria".  He didn't get into all them thar categories.

Gass and company have a great track record, which is obviously why he toots that horn with every bit of lungpower he has.
True.
Quote
People think around here that three launches is insignificant, but they hold that thought because they have a favorite LV, which has launched more than three times.  In the case of SLS, those proponents hold that zero launches is already a sufficient track record.  How weird is that?
Good point.

There is an issue with the small number of launches that the confidence of the next one being OK is limited. I think Robotbeat pointed out you need something like 53-54 launches to have 95% confidence the next launch is going to be OK.

However every successful launch improves that likelyhood. The question of course is how many Spacex launches will take place this year.  :(
That confidence is with the pessimistic assumption (but perhaps warranted! given how easy it is to tilt the rest of the analysis) that you can only gain insight into the likelihood of a launch failure by the past history. There are processes and technologies that can be employed to improve the odds and give better confidence than you would get just by looking at historically similar launch vehicles.

Also, you can examine near-misses to examine how likely a failure will be, however you need to take into account robustness of the launch vehicle... for instance, a "brittle" architecture will have far fewer "near misses" for the same actual launch failure rate as a more resilient architecture (like engine-out capability or larger delta-v margins), so by looking at near-misses alone, you might exaggerate the reliability of brittle architectures.

But in general, if push comes to shove, I would put more weight on flight history than "process" or design features (like engine-out capability) when deciding on which vehicle is the most reliable. But as you get past 10 or 20 launches, you're essentially pretty close to 30 or 40 launches (understood logarithmically), and so things like process, near-misses, vehicle complexity, and engine-out capability would become more important (assuming that both systems have a nearly perfect launch history). Thus ULA is definitely ahead at this point (and has very good "process"), though I could certainly see SpaceX becoming essentially even with them in the next 3 or 4 years. And poor SLS will always suffer from a low launch history, having to rely entirely on process (without any advantage in complexity), thus likely to keep costs high (especially while launching crew) while definitely having inferior reliability confidence. Well, that's my take.

..as far as how many launches SpaceX will have this year... I voted 6, but nearly voted 5. SpaceX is doing well, but ramping up to ULA launch rates takes a significant amount of time.

It really is too bad that ULA doesn't have more flexibility. While I'm sure they'll be successful in reducing the EELV price if they stick at it, a small reduction in cost won't be enough to compete with SpaceX (especially once they have flight history) and the foreign launch providers who will and are fielding much less expensive launch vehicles. It's a real shame, because ULA has great people, and they could give SpaceX and Airbus Defense (fka Ariane) a run for the money if they weren't hampered by just being operator of the EELVs. Speaking long-term (i.e. a decade out), of course.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2014 01:26 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Remes

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 553
  • Germany
  • Liked: 385
  • Likes Given: 163
That's odd. You should be able to sample the coating and run it through mass spectrum analyzer to figure out what it is. Then its a process of applying some chemical engineering to it to reverse engineer it. U.S. chemical engineering is rather good.

Just knowing which molecules are in the coating might not be enough. Chemicals might be involved, which are supporting the process, but are not part of the coating (acids e.g., are washed away). The process to create the coating might take hours and involve different heat treating cycles, different chemicals at different times, atmosphere with different gases. Metal itself has different inner states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martensite e.g.), everything in combination with cryogenics and oxidation processes and so on... just the molecule description from a mass spectrometer will not bring the answer.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10450
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2496
  • Likes Given: 13785
That confidence is with the pessimistic assumption (but perhaps warranted! given how easy it is to tilt the rest of the analysis) that you can only gain insight into the likelihood of a launch failure by the past history. There are processes and technologies that can be employed to improve the odds and give better confidence than you would get just by looking at historically similar launch vehicles.

Also, you can examine near-misses to examine how likely a failure will be, however you need to take into account robustness of the launch vehicle... for instance, a "brittle" architecture will have far fewer "near misses" for the same actual launch failure rate as a more resilient architecture (like engine-out capability or larger delta-v margins), so by looking at near-misses alone, you might exaggerate the reliability of brittle architectures.

But in general, if push comes to shove, I would put more weight on flight history than "process" or design features (like engine-out capability) when deciding on which vehicle is the most reliable. But as you get past 10 or 20 launches, you're essentially pretty close to 30 or 40 launches (understood logarithmically), and so things like process, near-misses, vehicle complexity, and engine-out capability would become more important (assuming that both systems have a nearly perfect launch history). Thus ULA is definitely ahead at this point (and has very good "process"), though I could certainly see SpaceX becoming essentially even with them in the next 3 or 4 years. And poor SLS will always suffer from a low launch history, having to rely entirely on process (without any advantage in complexity), thus likely to keep costs high (especially while launching crew) while definitely having inferior reliability confidence. Well, that's my take.
Yes that's my thinking. For the time being until FH is certified for DOD payloads there will be payloads that Spacex simply cannot launch and will not be able to for (I'd guess) 2-3 years.

It has to be admitted that a longlaunch history pretty much beats "process" hands down, and SLS's projected launch rate is a long way from building that. Of course it might pick up a bit.  :( .
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 2027?. 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: 38006
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22350
  • Likes Given: 432

Yes that's my thinking. For the time being until FH is certified for DOD payloads there will be payloads that Spacex simply cannot launch and will not be able to for (I'd guess) 2-3 years.

more like 4-6 years.  The launch have to be competed and then the integration cycle.

Edit.   It will be longer.  Spacex has to set up vertical integration at the pad first.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2014 09:49 pm by Jim »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39443
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25546
  • Likes Given: 12224
It takes longer than 3-6 years to build vertical integration capability?

Also, do ALL DoD payloads need vertical integration? Considering many payloads (like defense comm sats) share platforms with commercial satellites, surely there must be some that can use horizontal integration, right?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38006
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22350
  • Likes Given: 432
It takes longer than 3-6 years to build vertical integration capability?


Vertical capability would have to be available or maybe demonstrated at the time of contract competition.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2014 10:12 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38006
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22350
  • Likes Given: 432

Also, do ALL DoD payloads need vertical integration? Considering many payloads (like defense comm sats) share platforms with commercial satellites, surely there must be some that can use horizontal integration, right?

Still doesn't account for access to the fairing while vertical

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39443
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25546
  • Likes Given: 12224
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags:
 

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