NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => ULA - Delta, Atlas, Vulcan => Topic started by: Jim on 04/25/2014 06:50 pm
-
Using the manifest here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1183418#new
and this thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33911.0
36 total cores minus 12 cores for the 4 heavies. Those 4 missions F9 can not compete for since their heavy is not ready. So 24 cores remain.
The first 4 USAF vehicles (non heavy) are:
1 Atlas-V(501) Possible X-37, performance wise it is F9 compatible. Integration wise, unknown
1 Atlas-V(511) USAF doesn't have a LEO mission for 5m, so possible GTO, Atlas V 11.5klb vs F9 10.7klb.
1 Delta-IVM+(4,2) GPS? GSSAP? GTO, Delta IV 13.6klb vs F9 10.7klb.
1 Delta-IVM+(5,4) USAF doesn't have a LEO mission for 5m, so possible GTO, Delta IV 15.2klb vs F9 10.7klb.
will get back to this later
Have not cross referenced any of these with the NSF launch manifest or Gunter's
-
I'm a bit skeptical as to whether a relative newcomer like SpaceX would be entrusted with something as precious as an X-37B (or a large spy satellite for that matter), at least not until they have many more successful flights behind them.
-
I'm a bit skeptical as to whether a relative newcomer like SpaceX would be entrusted with something as precious as an X-37B (or a large spy satellite for that matter), at least not until they have many more successful flights behind them.
Pieces of a launch vehicle operated by an experienced space company that carried a precious spy satellite still litter a Vandenberg hillside as of yesterday. This same space company went on to lose at least three more tier 1 national security payloads on similar vehicles and still kept US government business. Number of successful past flights is not an all encompassing metric nor a predictor of future success.
-
The GPS program is the low-hanging fruit for SpaceX. It may take more time for them to gain the trust they need for X-37B or NRO.
-
Pieces of a launch vehicle operated by an experienced space company that carried a precious spy satellite still litter a Vandenberg hillside as of yesterday. This same space company went on to lose at least three more tier 1 national security payloads on similar vehicles and still kept US government business. Number of successful past flights is not an all encompassing metric nor a predictor of future success.
No, it was not the all same company. CSD was responsible for Titan pieces in your photos. Martin was only the integration and airframe contractor. CSD was an associate contractor and the USAF held the contract. It was Boeing for the IUS problem on the DSP loss. So Lockheed Martin was only responsible for the bad wiring on the NRO mission and bad data entry for Milstar.
-
possibly naive question: why is the notion of capability important?
If a satellite weighs 10klb (4.5 metric tonnes) and an F9 and say, an Atlas V 511 can both lift that amount to GTO, then why would the extra capability of the Atlas V 511 (0.8 klb) be important?
I would have presumed that price, reliability, integration constraints, etc, would play a bigger role.
-
also, I'm pretty sure that Shotwell said that the F9 figures (10.7 klb to GTO for example) include the fuel reserve for 1st stage boost back. Couple that with Musk's comments that the Merlin 1D can be pushed harder (> 10% I think), then it's probably not a conclusive exercise if only the published website figures are used.
-
possibly naive question: why is the notion of capability important?
If a satellite weighs 10klb (4.5 metric tonnes) and an F9 and say, an Atlas V 511 can both lift that amount to GTO, then why would the extra capability of the Atlas V 511 (0.8 klb) be important?
I would have presumed that price, reliability, integration constraints, etc, would play a bigger role.
Because they wouldn't upgrade to something more powerful for no reason - either it weighs too much or the customer wants the extra performance margin. Those solids do cost money, after all. So likely the 511 is required because it really does weigh that extra 800 lbs.
-
In his presser today, Musk mentioned that the split for national security payloads would be two-thirds Falcon 9 versus one-third Falcon Heavy -- meaning to me that two-thirds of national security payloads are within Falcon 9's capabilities.
If there ultimately is a difference between Jim's analysis and this statement, I would like to know why.
-
In his presser today, Musk mentioned that the split for national security payloads would be two-thirds Falcon 9 versus one-third Falcon Heavy -- meaning to me that two-thirds of national security payloads are within Falcon 9's capabilities.
Or it could imply be that the number of payloads they have current or near term capability for would be split that way.
-
In his presser today, Musk mentioned that the split for national security payloads would be two-thirds Falcon 9 versus one-third Falcon Heavy -- meaning to me that two-thirds of national security payloads are within Falcon 9's capabilities.
If there ultimately is a difference between Jim's analysis and this statement, I would like to know why.
Nope you don't need to know why..
If you are a US citizen that question should be directed at your senator/rep.. or just stay on the fence and let Elon
do the fighting
(please don't take that as directed at one but at the masses ( US citizens))
-
I'm a bit skeptical as to whether a relative newcomer like SpaceX would be entrusted with something as precious as an X-37B (or a large spy satellite for that matter), at least not until they have many more successful flights behind them.
Pieces of a launch vehicle operated by an experienced space company that carried a precious spy satellite still litter a Vandenberg hillside as of yesterday. This same space company went on to lose at least three more tier 1 national security payloads on similar vehicles and still kept US government business. Number of successful past flights is not an all encompassing metric nor a predictor of future success.
Thanks ... its not about flights or successes but money.. so future success is all about moving tax dollars from the US citizen in the boyz back pockets ..
-
The primary driver for such a large core buy was cost savings. So, I'm curious what the revised launch costs would be for the Atlas V if they lose, say, 40% of the contested block buy?
-
The primary driver for such a large core buy was cost savings. So, I'm curious what the revised launch costs would be for the Atlas V if they lose, say, 40% of the contested block buy?
27 Billion was the award in total or some thing to that value.. do you really believe that its about "cost savings" as a primary driver.. ?
-
The primary driver for such a large core buy was cost savings. So, I'm curious what the revised launch costs would be for the Atlas V if they lose, say, 40% of the contested block buy?
27 Billion was the award in total or some thing to that value.. do you really believe that its about "cost savings" as a primary driver.. ?
Primary? No. But that is how it has been justified. And so, playing along, if one knows what savings you are passing along to the customer when they buy in bulk, if that bulk is decreased, it is reasonable to expect that you should now know to what extent those prices need to be raised again. I'm being a bit facetious here...
-
The primary driver for such a large core buy was cost savings. So, I'm curious what the revised launch costs would be for the Atlas V if they lose, say, 40% of the contested block buy?
ULA stated that the Air Force would be saving ~$4B by doing the block buy, but from a bulk procurement standpoint the cost curve for saving money could be on a far smaller number than 36 cores. For instance, for buying the aluminum for the rocket bodies and tanks the aluminum supplier may just have a price that says "if you buy over X amount, it's this price regardless of how much you buy".
So the price the Air Force would pay/core for 18 cores might not be any different than for the 36 core buy, or within a few percentage points. That alone would make opening the contract for competition worthwhile.
-
1 Atlas-V(511) USAF doesn't have a LEO mission for 5m, so possible GTO, Atlas V 11.5klb vs F9 10.7klb.
Where do you get those performance numbers? Using http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/elvMap/elvMap.ui.PerfGraph0?ReqType=Graph&OrbitType=GTO2&Selection=28&Contract=2&Vehicles=4 it seems Falcon 9 v1.1 outperforms Atlas 511 to any 28.5 degree GTO, including subsynchronous and supersynchronous ones.
-
Using the manifest here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1183418#new
and this thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33911.0
....
1 Atlas-V(511) USAF doesn't have a LEO mission for 5m, so possible GTO, Atlas V 11.5klb vs F9 10.7klb.
....
The next step down from Atlas-V(511) at 5,250 kg to GTO is Atlas-V(401) at 4,750 kg to GTO. That means that presumeably this satellite weighs between 4750 kg and 5250 kg. Falcon 9s published GTO figure which apparantly has margin for engine out/first stage recovery is 4850 kg. All masses having equal probability, there is a 100/500 or 20% chance that Falcon 9 can deliver this satellite with the published numbers. Anyways, Gwynne Shotwell indicated on the Space Show that Falcon 9 v1.1 performance is 30% greater than the web published value as to provide margin for recovery testing(probably engine out as well). With that taken into account, this launch I think is doable on Falcon 9 without booster recovery.
Historical launches are also worth looking at. On average about 2 Atlas launches a year are heavier configurations than 401/501(which are within the realm of Falcon 9 published numbers). This means that Delta + Falcon 9(non-heavy) can likely do the block buy if Delta picks up two payloads(launching ~5 times vs ~3 times). Of course, Atlas + Delta was only considered and not Falcon + Delta or Falcon + Atlas.
-
also, I'm pretty sure that Shotwell said that the F9 figures (10.7 klb to GTO for example) include the fuel reserve for 1st stage boost back. Couple that with Musk's comments that the Merlin 1D can be pushed harder (> 10% I think), then it's probably not a conclusive exercise if only the published website figures are used.
Elon said today that certification required three flights of that distinct configuration.
Therefore, they'd need to fly three with those upgrades before they could propose those for any payload. FH might be available before then.
Depending when those upgrades become available, it even seems conceivable they might upgrade FH after the first couple of flights, then need to fly three more to get certified. Would seem to make sense for the initial FH flights to use the upgraded configs.
Cheers, Martin
-
Ya know, by any sufficiently strict definition, they haven't done that and couldn't without giving up continuous improvement.
-
also, I'm pretty sure that Shotwell said that the F9 figures (10.7 klb to GTO for example) include the fuel reserve for 1st stage boost back. Couple that with Musk's comments that the Merlin 1D can be pushed harder (> 10% I think), then it's probably not a conclusive exercise if only the published website figures are used.
Elon said today that certification required three flights of that distinct configuration.
Therefore, they'd need to fly three with those upgrades before they could propose those for any payload. FH might be available before then.
Depending when those upgrades become available, it even seems conceivable they might upgrade FH after the first couple of flights, then need to fly three more to get certified. Would seem to make sense for the initial FH flights to use the upgraded configs.
Cheers, Martin
This is specifically the kind of stuff that Musk is likely peeved about. ULA never had to qualify a rocket configuration on 3 flights before being able to use it for government launches.
"A Delta 4-Heavy, powered for the first time by higher-thrust RS-68A engines, successfully boosted the NROL-15 payload into orbit from Cape Canaveral on June 29, 2012."
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/slr2012q2.html
There are Atlas configurations that have flown less than 3 times. 431 has flown twice, 521 twice and 541 twice. The first 541 launched a $2.5 billion NASA mission. Delta IV-M+(5,2) has only flown once with an NRO satellite as well.
Besides, pushing the Merlin-1D harder by 10%, if it was a hardware change, would likely warrant being termed a different variant(Merlin-1E). Likely, the engine is being restrained artificially for margin reasons(like some high performance cars are restrained for legal/safety reasons) and the higher thrust can be achieved through software once tested at that level on a test stand. Does SpaceX have to test any flight software patches orbitally 3 times before they can fly government missions again because technically the storage devices on the LV have microscopic switches in them that are in a different physical state?
-
Ya know, by any sufficiently strict definition, they haven't done that and couldn't without giving up continuous improvement.
Yup.
But any vehicle is going to evolve over its first three launches, while Musk seems to think their certification is in the bag. Implies they're not being unfair about it.
And v1.1 was a huge upgrade over 1.0, so fair to certificate that version.
Cheers, Martin
-
Besides, pushing the Merlin-1D harder by 10%, if it was a hardware change, would likely warrant being termed a different variant(Merlin-1E). Likely, the engine is being restrained artificially for margin reasons(like some high performance cars are restrained for legal/safety reasons) and the higher thrust can be achieved through software once tested at that level on a test stand. Does SpaceX have to test any flight software patches orbitally 3 times before they can fly government missions again because technically the storage devices on the LV have microscopic switches in them that are in a different physical state?
It's my suspicion that the 112% M1D will only fly with propellant densification, and this is sufficiently novel (no one has ever flown it?) that it might be considered a new unique config.
If nothing else, it could have the potential for more countdown aborts until they get the wrinkles ironed out.
Cheers, Martin
-
Depending when those upgrades become available, ...
I don't think any upgrades are necessary to increase the Merlin 1D performace the extra amount Musk mentioned. Extra qualification testing and internal analysis are probably all that is required, but I'm shooting from the hip here.
Verifying that extra performance capability sooner rather than later would probably be justifiable if they were competing for some of those flights in the block buy.
-
Besides, pushing the Merlin-1D harder by 10%, if it was a hardware change, would likely warrant being termed a different variant(Merlin-1E). Likely, the engine is being restrained artificially for margin reasons(like some high performance cars are restrained for legal/safety reasons) and the higher thrust can be achieved through software once tested at that level on a test stand. Does SpaceX have to test any flight software patches orbitally 3 times before they can fly government missions again because technically the storage devices on the LV have microscopic switches in them that are in a different physical state?
It's my suspicion that the 112% M1D will only fly with propellant densification, and this is sufficiently novel (no one has ever flown it?) that it might be considered a new unique config.
If nothing else, it could have the potential for more countdown aborts until they get the wrinkles ironed out.
Cheers, Martin
Engines are "flown" and "wrinkles ironed out" on the test stand.
-
Depending when those upgrades become available, ...
I don't think any upgrades are necessary to increase the Merlin 1D performace the extra amount Musk mentioned. Extra qualification testing and internal analysis are probably all that is required, but I'm shooting from the hip here.
Verifying that extra performance capability sooner rather than later would probably be justifiable if they were competing for some of those flights in the block buy.
Increasing thrust while not increasing vehicle mass will increase stresses at maxQ, while only delivering a relatively small payload increase.
Those increased stresses might be a concern. Agree it would be helpful to demonstrate early to avoid any doubt.
Cheers, Martin
-
This is specifically the kind of stuff that Musk is likely peeved about. ULA never had to qualify a rocket configuration on 3 flights before being able to use it for government launches.
Because the USAF was intimately involved with Atlas and Delta development. They know what processes went into the design and testing of the vehicles. And the USAF would design and testing standards as part of the procurement process. The USAF has never bought a COTS launch vehicle before. In the 90's, when NASA started buying launch services and start putting out procurement solicitations, they realized that anybody (like Joe's Rockets "R" Us) could respond. So that is where the concept of certification came about. That is where the 14, 3 and 1 flights come from with the different amounts of insight penetration.
-
I'm a bit skeptical as to whether a relative newcomer like SpaceX would be entrusted with something as precious as an X-37B (or a large spy satellite for that matter), at least not until they have many more successful flights behind them.
Pieces of a launch vehicle operated by an experienced space company that carried a precious spy satellite still litter a Vandenberg hillside as of yesterday. This same space company went on to lose at least three more tier 1 national security payloads on similar vehicles and still kept US government business. Number of successful past flights is not an all encompassing metric nor a predictor of future success.
Sure, but poor decisions made in the past do not justify continuing this practice. Now that there are options, a company that loses a few Tier-1 payloads should expect to lose their contract, and the reliability of new (and old) entrants should be taken into consideration.
Of course estimating the reliability of new entrants is controversial. I'd prefer some very simple and public rule, such as "we add to the cost of the rocket (1/N)*(cost of the payload), where N is the number of successful launches (if no failures) and (M/N)*(cost of payload) if there are M failures in N launches. Like the electoral college, this is not perfect statistically but at least everyone would know the rules in advance.
-
Can't find any Atlas 511 on the current manifest and only a 501 for the NRO
-
also, I'm pretty sure that Shotwell said that the F9 figures (10.7 klb to GTO for example) include the fuel reserve for 1st stage boost back. Couple that with Musk's comments that the Merlin 1D can be pushed harder (> 10% I think), then it's probably not a conclusive exercise if only the published website figures are used.
Okay, so testing....
These upgrades are not going to need all up flights to get certified. Only new vehicle changes, such as entirely new engines or a major change in total stage impulse, require new certifications. Increasing the engine thrust by 12% would necessitate a new engine qualification program at the engine level. That'd be 20-30 tests and 2000-3000 seconds of run time, testing throttle, mixture ratio and inlet condition extremes. Densified propellant would need a full or delta engine qual program. Increased vehicle loads would just be tested during standard structural testing.
Software almost never needs to be flight tested. It can be run by setting up integration labs using flight-representative hardware. Even if it's just a bench test, cables need to be flight length. Errors and out of spec flight conditions can be injected to see how the system reacts. And it can be done 100s or 1000s of times.
Separation tests are probably the hardest to execute on the ground.
It would be reasonable to require one flight, but the changes discussed here should not reset the clock.
Anyway, NASA and USAF have a definition of "common launch vehicle configuration" that generally guides when a change requires a new certification, though it's big enough for bureaucrats to drive a truck-sized interpretation through.
-
Of course estimating the reliability of new entrants is controversial. I'd prefer some very simple and public rule,
Here are the public rules
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPD&c=8610&s=7D
-
1 Atlas-V(501) Possible X-37, performance wise it is F9 compatible. Integration wise, unknown
Can speak on this one
In "Open bidding" Orbitals Antares would be a bit fit for this launch, and integration.
Jim, a general Security question regarding USAF payloads. What level of "security" do workers have to maintain with classified programs?
What's the security level on the X-37 Program?
-
k on this one
In "Open bidding" Orbitals Antares would be a bit fit for this launch, and integration.
No, it doesn't have a 5m fairing or a Cape launch pad.
-
Jim, a general Security question regarding USAF payloads. What level of "security" do workers have to maintain?
What's the security level on the X-37 Program?
X-37 is unknown. Most workers don't need a clearance since they don't have access to the payload. Also, most USAF payloads are visually unclassified and people without clearance can be escorted around them
-
the Delta IV (5,4) is likely a WGS, which would be outside the capability of the F9.
-
k on this one
In "Open bidding" Orbitals Antares would be a bit fit for this launch, and integration.
No, it doesn't have a 5m fairing or a Cape launch pad.
Agreed the location of the program @ the cape is a problem ....however with all the SpaceX launches set for the cape maybe the program will wish to move to wallops, never know.
The fairing is a standard one, its up to Orbital if they wish to adapt the launcher.
-
This is specifically the kind of stuff that Musk is likely peeved about. ULA never had to qualify a rocket configuration on 3 flights before being able to use it for government launches.
Because the USAF was intimately involved with Atlas and Delta development. They know what processes went into the design and testing of the vehicles. And the USAF would design and testing standards as part of the procurement process. The USAF has never bought a COTS launch vehicle before. In the 90's, when NASA started buying launch services and start putting out procurement solicitations, they realized that anybody (like Joe's Rockets "R" Us) could respond. So that is where the concept of certification came about. That is where the 14, 3 and 1 flights come from with the different amounts of insight penetration.
One of your best posts ever Jim. ;)
-
ULA stated that the Air Force would be saving ~$4B by doing the block buy, but from a bulk procurement standpoint the cost curve for saving money could be on a far smaller number than 36 cores. For instance, for buying the aluminum for the rocket bodies and tanks the aluminum supplier may just have a price that says "if you buy over X amount, it's this price regardless of how much you buy".
It's wider than that. The ULA factory has a a certain "standard" level of production where all costs are at a minimum. That's the number of cores/year where no one is idle, there are no left over alloy plates to store etc.
In theory if the USAF did block buys at that level ULA's costs would be minimum and what they charged the USAF would (presumably) also be minimum. Staff would be fully used (without any over time) etc.
So the price the Air Force would pay/core for 18 cores might not be any different than for the 36 core buy, or within a few percentage points. That alone would make opening the contract for competition worthwhile.
True.
IRL neither policy is fair. I believe there is a block buy size where ULA makes out and the USAF gets a lower unit price. But 36 cores is way too high unless the factory was designed for a huge production volume (I mean 2 a month or more). :(
-
this thread takes things in another direction.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34558.0
-
this thread takes things in another direction.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34558.0
No bearing on this thread, U.S. gov't payloads launch on U.S. rockets only.
-
[..] (like Joe's Rockets "R" Us) could respond. [..]
Did you call? :D
-
Increasing thrust while not increasing vehicle mass will increase stresses at maxQ, while only delivering a relatively small payload increase.
Those increased stresses might be a concern. Agree it would be helpful to demonstrate early to avoid any doubt.
The stress at maxQ depends on the trajectory of the first stage and the amount of throttling done.
Also higher pressure gives better isp, so:
1) Having more thrust on liftoff helps a lot even if it's later throttled down
2) When not throttled down, the engines get couple of seconds better isp, which also helps
3) If the first stage is launched into higher trajectory (for example to make first stage recovery easier) it gets faster to higher, less dense atmosphere and the max-Q stresses are less. The optimal trajectory of course depends on whether the first stage is going to be recovered or not.
-
It's wider than that. The ULA factory has a a certain "standard" level of production where all costs are at a minimum. That's the number of cores/year where no one is idle, there are no left over alloy plates to store etc.
This block buy is not a change in the number of launches the Air Force wants to do, so the factory production rate doesn't change. All we're talking about here is how they buy their material.
For instance, ULA has a pretty good idea what their customers future needs are, and they can forecast what launchers will be needed. However, for many reasons, ULA only buys the amount of material needed to cover just the orders that the government places, which until now has been either single launches or maybe small lots. So when they go to buy the material for that order (let's say it's one Delta IV), then they are buying one RS-68 from Aerojet Rocketdyne and only getting the 1ea price for it. From a risk standpoint this makes sense, since they are fully covered in termination coverage in case the government were to stop buying ULA launches.
Until now the risk has been pretty low for ULA to buy large lots of material on their own, but in the world of government procurement that is not necessarily the best business practice, so they had no real incentive to do that. I was in this world, so I know how it works.
IRL neither policy is fair. I believe there is a block buy size where ULA makes out and the USAF gets a lower unit price. But 36 cores is way too high unless the factory was designed for a huge production volume (I mean 2 a month or more). :(
And again, the block buy was not in response to an increase in production, but an attempt to implement common sense procurement strategies that result in a lower overall cost to the customer (i.e. the U.S. Government).
-
It's wider than that. The ULA factory has a a certain "standard" level of production where all costs are at a minimum. That's the number of cores/year where no one is idle, there are no left over alloy plates to store etc.
This block buy is not a change in the number of launches the Air Force wants to do, so the factory production rate doesn't change. All we're talking about here is how they buy their material.
For instance, ULA has a pretty good idea what their customers future needs are, and they can forecast what launchers will be needed. However, for many reasons, ULA only buys the amount of material needed to cover just the orders that the government places, which until now has been either single launches or maybe small lots. So when they go to buy the material for that order (let's say it's one Delta IV), then they are buying one RS-68 from Aerojet Rocketdyne and only getting the 1ea price for it. From a risk standpoint this makes sense, since they are fully covered in termination coverage in case the government were to stop buying ULA launches.
Until now the risk has been pretty low for ULA to buy large lots of material on their own, but in the world of government procurement that is not necessarily the best business practice, so they had no real incentive to do that. I was in this world, so I know how it works.
IRL neither policy is fair. I believe there is a block buy size where ULA makes out and the USAF gets a lower unit price. But 36 cores is way too high unless the factory was designed for a huge production volume (I mean 2 a month or more). :(
And again, the block buy was not in response to an increase in production, but an attempt to implement common sense procurement strategies that result in a lower overall cost to the customer (i.e. the U.S. Government).
I don't doubt that ULA has a pretty good idea of what the DoD would like to launch, as well as what is probably going to get approval to be launched. My point was that the policy of one-launch-at-a-time was not fair on ULA for an efficiency PoV. As you said the one off price of an RD180 is $Xm but buy them in Y sized lots and the price goes down. A block buy would safely allow ULA to buy those quantities knowing they would be used, but I cannot believe it needs a 36 core buy to deliver those savings.
I think we are in violent agreement. :)
-
I don't doubt that ULA has a pretty good idea of what the DoD would like to launch...
And the reason for that is that ULA's parents (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) build quite a few of the payloads, and they also have "friends in high places" that can provide them with additional information. And the Air Force too would be telling them what their forecasted needs are - no reason not to.
My point was that the policy of one-launch-at-a-time was not fair on ULA for an efficiency PoV.
Sure it's more overhead, but ULA is being paid to do that, so I'm not sure how anything is "not fair" to ULA.
As you said the one off price of an RD180 is $Xm but buy them in Y sized lots and the price goes down. A block buy would safely allow ULA to buy those quantities knowing they would be used, but I cannot believe it needs a 36 core buy to deliver those savings.
I too don't think 36 is a magical number of cost savings, and I think that number was pushed as high as possible in order to lock out competitors for as long as they could.
This topic is really about how government contractors do business and take risks versus commercial companies in competitive markets.
Typically government contractors buy to the contract, and may even get paid progress payments for accumulating material in advance (accumulated labor can be billed too). But regardless if they get progress payments, in order to mitigate their termination liability companies will not normally buy excess inventory. When dealing with the government, which is beholden to unpredictable actions from Congress, it's just good business sense not to risk too much. Plus, if you show you can get lower prices, then when the government does a price audit they will want you to lock in the lower prices you are getting, even though those prices were only because you were risking larger purchase sizes.
Out in the commercial market place it's usually different. Companies put a lot of effort into forecasting demand, and then try to maximize their procurement efforts to lower costs based on that. Changes in customer demand can affect that, and usually there are cancellation policies in place to mitigate those kinds of things, but the ultimate customers don't know or care about those risks because they are usually buying off of a standard price list. How well the company manages their inventory is part of how well they profit.
So what we have here is two different operational modes with ULA and SpaceX. ULA negotiates every launch, and SpaceX essentially has a catalog of services that you choose from to determine your price. One is opaque, the other transparent. And ULA has worked very hard to keep their pricing opaque.
I think we are in violent agreement. :)
Or agreeing for different reasons.
-
. But 36 cores is way too high unless the factory was designed for a huge production volume (I mean 2 a month or more). :(
It was designed for 40 per year
-
2) When not throttled down, the engines get couple of seconds better isp, which also helps
Merlin is a gas generator, the main chamber isp increases but you need to increase the Gas Generator mass flow, that's and actual isp loss. So it's not clear if isp would go up. And, without a redesign, while the expansion ratio would be higher, the pressure would be higher and thus it would overexpand on vacuum, so it would change the isp profile
-
. But 36 cores is way too high unless the factory was designed for a huge production volume (I mean 2 a month or more). :(
It was designed for 40 per year
Would that be the single shift 5 days a week with no over time figure or the 24/7 with any absences covered by staff agencies?
-
Would that be the single shift 5 days a week with no over time figure or the 24/7 with any absences covered by staff agencies?
The facility was designed for it
-
this thread takes things in another direction.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34558.0
No bearing on this thread, U.S. gov't payloads launch on U.S. rockets only.
agreed, I set the new thread up to talk "commercial payloads". This is for government payloads.
-
The facility was designed for it
Perhaps but that is unhelpful. A data point without context proves very little.
It's also very unlikely that a mfg facility would only be economical at the maximum level of production. and in fact on that basis the block buy was too small.
That alone makes 36 rather an odd number.
-
this thread takes things in another direction.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34558.0
No bearing on this thread, U.S. gov't payloads launch on U.S. rockets only.
agreed, I set the new thread up to talk "commercial payloads". This is for government payloads.
Tell that to the JWST, US government payload but being launched on a European launcher.
-
This is specifically the kind of stuff that Musk is likely peeved about. ULA never had to qualify a rocket configuration on 3 flights before being able to use it for government launches.
Because the USAF was intimately involved with Atlas and Delta development. They know what processes went into the design and testing of the vehicles. And the USAF would design and testing standards as part of the procurement process. The USAF has never bought a COTS launch vehicle before. In the 90's, when NASA started buying launch services and start putting out procurement solicitations, they realized that anybody (like Joe's Rockets "R" Us) could respond. So that is where the concept of certification came about. That is where the 14, 3 and 1 flights come from with the different amounts of insight penetration.
The "intimate involvement" of USAF with Atlas and Delta development certainly explains AF acceptance of those LV's without three qualifying flights.
Today, the times have changed, and the certification protocol includes three flights. I'd say that SpaceX needs to get cracking on the certification flights. They're at least two out of three, right? The benefit that they enjoy would seem to be a lack of "intimate involvement" in their design and development of F9 and the heavy. I'm guessing that intimate oversight adds to costs.
It's the principle of competition which ULA actively seeks to discourage for the simple reason that they like the billion dollar a year subsidy and they like the sole sourced contract. Facts on the ground have changed with the whole Ukranian thing going on, and the not too clear future supply of RD-180's. It is no longer an improbability that our relationship with Russia could deteriorate even further, and deteriorate quickly.
That block buy needs to be modified to include qualified competition.
-
My issue from the beginning has been the whole concept of a "Core buy". It's such a ridiculous way to communicate what the product/service is. They're not buying 12 "Cores", they are buying 4 DHs to get their payloads to their intended destinations. It's not 24 cores, it's 24 AVs. (And yes, all the accompanying mission assurance costs, integration costs, etc...)
You don't buy cores, unless you plan on decorating your Hangar with nice metallic tubes on the walls instead of curtains. You buy a product / service to deliver your payload to it's intended destination. But no, that's too simple, it has to be complicated and technical sounding. I call BS once and for all.
I want to see an A/B column. Keep it real simple (All associated costs integrated into one transparent price):
Payload To Orbit = (A) F9 Cost - (B) AV Cost.
I'll even throw in some variables for the block buy fans. (X) For a single launch - (Y) For 5 launches - (Z) For 10 launches
-
I'd say that SpaceX needs to get cracking on the certification flights.
John, the certification requires 3 flights of the exact configuration that DoD would use. SpaceX has actually flown that configuration 4 times now, 3 times before the block buy signed contract was announced. That was the hard part. Everything is done, I believe, but the mountain of paperwork. Without the paperwork, which is the easy part, the certification is not completed. That is "part" of what has Elon upset.
-
I'd say that SpaceX needs to get cracking on the certification flights.
John, the certification requires 3 flights of the exact configuration that DoD would use. SpaceX has actually flown that configuration 4 times now, 3 times before the block buy signed contract was announced. That was the hard part. Everything is done, I believe, but the mountain of paperwork. Without the paperwork, which is the easy part, the certification is not completed. That is "part" of what has Elon upset.
Yes, and further, IIRC, they weren't supposed to need final certification to "Bid" on the launches, only to actually fly them. That added insult to injury.
-
Going forward, what is the engine plan for this block buy... Will the stockplile of RD180'suffice? Will they be allowed to buy more? Where is "this exact engine"they claim to have demonstrated they can build?
-
And, without a redesign, while the expansion ratio would be higher...
Doesn't "no redesign" mean "same expansion ratio"?
cheers, Martin
-
Going forward, what is the engine plan for this block buy... Will the stockplile of RD180'suffice? Will they be allowed to buy more? Where is "this exact engine"they claim to have demonstrated they can build?
What are the penalties on ULA if they can't deliver because of no RD-180s?
cheers, Martin
-
My issue from the beginning has been the whole concept of a "Core buy". It's such a ridiculous way to communicate what the product/service is. They're not buying 12 "Cores", they are buying 4 DHs to get their payloads to their intended destinations. It's not 24 cores, it's 24 AVs. (And yes, all the accompanying mission assurance costs, integration costs, etc...)
You don't buy cores, unless you plan on decorating your Hangar with nice metallic tubes on the walls instead of curtains. You buy a product / service to deliver your payload to it's intended destination. But no, that's too simple, it has to be complicated and technical sounding. I call BS once and for all.
Nothing but nonsense.
Granted, it is admittedly a bit Tongue-in-Cheek. But what about the part you cut off? Is that kind of pricing / cost transparency request nonsense as well?
-
My issue from the beginning has been the whole concept of a "Core buy". It's such a ridiculous way to communicate what the product/service is. They're not buying 12 "Cores", they are buying 4 DHs to get their payloads to their intended destinations. It's not 24 cores, it's 24 AVs. (And yes, all the accompanying mission assurance costs, integration costs, etc...)
You don't buy cores, unless you plan on decorating your Hangar with nice metallic tubes on the walls instead of curtains. You buy a product / service to deliver your payload to it's intended destination.
Although I don't support ULA on this subject, it is quite common for a client to do such kind of agreements with suppliers. It is just a different approach to a contract. In this case it ensures the supplier that a minimum production of a sub component will be done, for example to dilute setup costs.
I had a client who asked my company for something similar: he asked us to produce "x" units of our products without incorporating the most expensive component. Why? It diluted our setup costs for production and reduced further orders lead time from 16 weeks to 4 weeks.
So right now we have "x" incomplete units stored, waiting for the next production run.
Not all contracts are as simple as providing a complete product/service. Not saying that this block buy is a good thing, but not all contracts are as linear as you make them.
-
And, without a redesign, while the expansion ratio would be higher...
Doesn't "no redesign" mean "same expansion ratio"?
cheers, Martin
Whops! You're right. I meant same expansion higher output pressure. Writing on phones is mistake prone.
-
Granted, it is admittedly a bit Tongue-in-Cheek. But what about the part you cut off? Is that kind of pricing / cost transparency request nonsense as well?
Yes, just as much. Try asking Boeing for 777 prices
-
With Boeing, take list price divide by 2 then add a few million depending on how much of a PITA the CEO of the airline is. The larger PITA the airline CEO, the closer to 1/2 they get ;)
No two customers pay the same price for the same airframe, and no two airlines will admit to the other how much Boeing raked them over the coals.
btw. Like launch services, 777 prices do not include the engines. That is a separate contract with the engine manufacturer.
-
. But 36 cores is way too high unless the factory was designed for a huge production volume (I mean 2 a month or more). :(
It was designed for 40 per year
Yes ULA has lots of unused and potential capacity, but that has nothing to do with this core block buy. The block buy is an attempt to lower the procurement costs for launcher components within the current forecasted demand, not to address an increase in demand.
-
. But 36 cores is way too high unless the factory was designed for a huge production volume (I mean 2 a month or more). :(
It was designed for 40 per year
Yes ULA has lots of unused and potential capacity, but that has nothing to do with this core block buy. The block buy is an attempt to lower the procurement costs for launcher components within the current forecasted demand, not to address an increase in demand.
Lowering costs is how they sold it to government but it is more about ULA securing their business for next few years in face of serious competition.
-
Every DoD COMSAT planned through 2018 is well outside of F9's max GTO throw weight. That includes at least 6 satellites already in the pipeline and more after. Ironically, they'd likely be amenable to horizontal integration the way NRO birds aren't. Too bad F9 is a bit small.
-
Every DoD COMSAT planned through 2018 is well outside of F9's max GTO throw weight. That includes at least 6 satellites already in the pipeline and more after. Ironically, they'd likely be amenable to horizontal integration the way NRO birds aren't. Too bad F9 is a bit small.
But FH won't be. And it could be qualified (3 flights) by 2017.
-
Every DoD COMSAT planned through 2018 is well outside of F9's max GTO throw weight. That includes at least 6 satellites already in the pipeline and more after. Ironically, they'd likely be amenable to horizontal integration the way NRO birds aren't. Too bad F9 is a bit small.
But FH won't be. And it could be qualified (3 flights) by 2017.
Which is likely the reason for the very fast timeline to be launching FH from 39A, per Shotwell's comments. Get those FH launches going ASAP to get qualified. Then specifically try to go after the payloads that are compatible with horizontal integration while they are working on a method of vertical integration at 39A. If FH can launch from 39A early next year, and can get a SLC-4E launch sometime later next year as well, they could possibly get a 3rd FH launch by the end of next year and be looking at qualification fairly rapidly.
If they are ready to land boosters back at the landing sight by next year, they could actually launch F9-expendable payloads on FH with reusable outboard boosters, for essentially the same price as an F9E. They could get the FH qualification flights using F9E payloads on the manifest, and not have to wait for FH class paylaods.
To help expedite FH's qualification. They need it flying ASAP to start bidding on those DoD payloads, because, as has been mentioned. F9 just isn't quite powerful enough on it's own.
-
They don't really need DoD. First they have to actually cover their NASA and Commercial needs. Once they do, DoD would be a logical client. But currently they have about as much as they can handle.
-
The last payload specifications for FH stated 7T to GTO with all 3 cores recoverable. So using FH for expendable F9E payload may work out slightly cheaper. Comes down to cost of a core vs extra costs of launching FH plus recovering 3 cores.
-
The last payload specifications for FH stated 7T to GTO with all 3 cores recoverable. So using FH for expendable F9E payload may work out slightly cheaper. Comes down to cost of a core vs extra costs of launching FH plus recovering 3 cores.
And that would beat F9E performance, come close to matching the largest D4M+ variant, and cover the Atlas range up to the 3 SRB Atlas variants.
As to cost of expending the core vs. recovering it, that probably depends of if "all 3 cores recoverable" means all three RTLS, or if the central core needs to be recovered down range. If all 3 are able to come back to the landing site, then that should be much cheaper than an F9R. Less so, or maybe a push if they have to recover down range, depending on how they'd do it.
-
They don't really need DoD. First they have to actually cover their NASA and Commercial needs. Once they do, DoD would be a logical client. But currently they have about as much as they can handle.
Agreed, but no one every said Musk wasn't ambitious. Although he always has the danger of over extending too quickly.
I think it's more a target of opportunity to take a swing for while they are growing as they would anyway. FH is needed really for DoD/USAF payloads, and they were planning on developing it anyway. They may just add a few things like vertical integration capability that they might no have have otherwise.
And Musk sees opportunity there in ULA's situation.
Atlas V is capable and relatively low cost. It's the more difficult competition for them. But...it's made in Russia, and there's hay to be made there, as we are seeing now. And it was probably just a matter of time before the US and Russian interests crossed and caused a situation where government payloads being dependant on an LV with a Russian supplied engine was being questioned. Musk isn't missing an opportunity to stir that pot some.
That leaves Delta IV. All US-made, but from what I understand, it's much more expensive than Atlas V, and more difficult to compete if cost can be raised as a significant issue....as Musk is trying to do. First he cast doubt on Atlas V's engine, and then if something happens there pushing payloads to Delta IV, then he just starts quoting the cost descrepency of F9/FH vs. D4/D4H, to leverage that.
So, he doesn't need DoD, but I don't think he has to reach far to get a foot in the door either.
-
Using the manifest here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1183418#new
and this thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33911.0
36 total cores minus 12 cores for the 4 heavies. Those 4 missions F9 can not compete for since their heavy is not ready. So 24 cores remain.
The first 4 USAF vehicles (non heavy) are:
1 Atlas-V(501) Possible X-37, performance wise it is F9 compatible. Integration wise, unknown
1 Atlas-V(511) USAF doesn't have a LEO mission for 5m, so possible GTO, Atlas V 11.5klb vs F9 10.7klb.
1 Delta-IVM+(4,2) GPS? GSSAP? GTO, Delta IV 13.6klb vs F9 10.7klb.
1 Delta-IVM+(5,4) USAF doesn't have a LEO mission for 5m, so possible GTO, Delta IV 15.2klb vs F9 10.7klb.
will get back to this later
Have not cross referenced any of these with the NSF launch manifest or Gunter's
According to this article:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/40567first-competitive-eelv-round-looks-like-a-two-horse-race (http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/40567first-competitive-eelv-round-looks-like-a-two-horse-race)
15 cores of the block buy have been ordered.
It seems these are considered part of the block buy as well.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32284.0;all (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32284.0;all)
These are supposed to largely launch in fiscal 2015 (October 2014 till September 1015).
That would suggest the recent batch is for fiscal 2016 (October 2015 till September 1016).