Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2014 10:38 pm
United Launch Alliance (ULA) Statement in Response to SpaceX Lawsuit
April 28, 2014
“ULA is the only government certified launch provider that meets all of the unique EELV requirements that are critical to supporting our troops and keeping our country safe. That is the case today, when the acquisition process started in 2012 and at the time of the contract award in December 2013.
“The recent 5-year block buy contract was the result of a best practice acquisition process that enabled the government to negotiate a block of launches in advance that enabled significant operations efficiency and created the needed stability and predictability in the supplier and industrial base, while meeting national security space requirements.
“This disciplined approach saved the government and taxpayers approximately $4 billion while keeping our nation’s assured access to deliver critical national security assets safely to space.
“Space launch is one of the most risk-intolerant and technologically advanced components of our national security. That is why new entrants must meet rigorous certification criteria of vehicle design, reliability, process maturity and safety systems in order to compete, similar to the process that ULA’s Atlas and Delta products and processes have met.
“ULA now provides Atlas and Delta EELV rockets that have complimentary capabilities that assure our customers that their mission needs are met. ULA has purchased a first stage engine built in Russia for the past 20 years for the Atlas rocket and has always maintained contingency capabilities if the supply was interrupted to ensure our customers mission needs are met. ULA maintains a two-year inventory of engines in the U.S., and would be able to transition other mission commitments to our Delta rockets if an emergent need develops.
“Since its inception in 2006, ULA has consistently exceeded EELV cost reduction goals. At the same time, we have conducted 81 consecutive launches, achieving 100% mission success.
“EELV continues to be the most successful DOD acquisition program of the past few decades. Launches have been delivered on schedule, meeting or exceeding all performance requirements, and exceeding cost reduction goals.”
Background
On April 17, 2014, the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) 2014 Selective Acquisition Report (SAR) on the Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) stated that the Block Buy provided more than $4 billion in savings from the President’s FY15 Budget.
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/SAR_SUMMARY_TABLES_FINAL.pdf
The “Block Buy” contract is a commitment of 35 launch vehicle cores to achieve the economy of scale savings. The contract procures the hardware for 35 new cores and the capability to launch those and previous cores procured in prior year contracts (as early as 2002). The missions ULA supports for the U.S. Government and commercial customers have a wide range of capabilities, some of which have three times the lift capability of any of the new entrants advertised performance capability. ULA provides unique ground and orbital insertion capabilities that are included in the contract that are unique to national security missions.
The DOD acquisition strategy enabled new entrants – if certified – to compete for up to 14 missions in the FY’15–17 period. The goal of this element of the acquisition strategy was to demonstrate New Entrants ability to compete, with expectation that full and level competition would be enabled by FY’18.
Defense Department officials have recently stated that cancelling the contract and terminating the block buy – which involves hundreds of suppliers and is enormously complex – would cost billions. Additionally, it could put critical mission schedules at risk that would have impact on operational capabilities and the satellite program costs. ULA is focused on delivering on all of its mission assurance and cost reduction commitments that support its customers.
Since its inception, ULA’s commercially-developed Atlas and Delta rockets have executed an unprecedented 81 consecutive successful launches for the Air Force, National Reconnaissance Office, NASA and commercial customers, a 100 percent mission success standard unmatched in the U.S. launch industry.
###
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/28/2014 10:49 pm
If ULA was confident that without the block buy they would still win all 35 cores, then the costs would be exactly the same. That $4 billion difference must mean ULA expects that without the block buy they'll lose a lot of those 35 cores.
So the question is how many cores would be lost for ULA to have to charge $4 billion more for the remaining cores, and how much would the government save by paying less to SpaceX for those missions.
When is someone going to ask ULA that?
Post by: Elvis in Space on 04/28/2014 10:57 pm
Post by: QuantumG on 04/28/2014 11:04 pm
“ULA is the only government certified launch provider that meets all of the unique EELV requirements that are critical to supporting our troops and keeping our country safe. That is the case today, when the acquisition process started in 2012 and at the time of the contract award in December 2013.
Apparently SpaceX didn't find out about the contract award until last month.
Quote from: Yang Yang? Television reporter
In announcing this suit, your question that you have just posed to the air force was, why not wait a few months before awarding ULA the contract? Well, the air force awarded ULA the contract a few months ago, back in December, so why are you waiting to file this suit now?
Quote from: Elon Musk
We only learnt about the big sole-source award in March. It may have been signed in December but it only came to light, interestingly, one day after the senate hearing on EELV launch costs, which seems remarkably coincidental to me. I don't think that's an accident. We've really just had about a month of awareness and we've been somewhat reeling from that news and trying to see, is this real? Is this actually what's going to be the case? When we basically made no progress with discussions with the air force, we thought we have basically no choice but to file the protest. - transcript (http://)
This reply from Musk is so strange than I actually went back and transcribed the question, something I typically don't do. I mean, we all heard about it back in January.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/28/2014 11:29 pm
I suppose ULA would counter that losing a single billion(s) of dollars payload would ruin any calculation of savings on Spacex part.
If ULA believed the U.S. government felt the risk of SpaceX wasn't worth the cost, then ULA would be confident they wouldn't lose any of the 35 cores to SpaceX even without the block buy, and they wouldn't have to charge $4 billion more without the block buy. The only way ULA could have to charge $4 billion more would be if ULA didn't think they would win all those cores without the block buy, and that means they believe the U.S. government would find the price/risk trade-off of SpaceX versus ULA was in favor of SpaceX for many of these missions.
Post by: QuantumG on 04/28/2014 11:33 pm
http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/39348us-air-force-claims-big-savings-on-eelv-block-buy
Post by: muomega0 on 04/28/2014 11:37 pm
On April 17, 2014, the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) 2014 Selective Acquisition Report (SAR) on the Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) stated that the Block Buy provided more than $4 billion in savings from the President’s FY15 Budget.
The “Block Buy” contract is a commitment of 35 launch vehicle cores to achieve the economy of scale savings. The contract procures the hardware for 35 new cores and the capability to launch those and previous cores procured in prior year contracts (as early as 2002).
Defense Department officials have recently stated that cancelling the contract and terminating the block buy – which involves hundreds of suppliers and is enormously complex – would cost billions.
ULA says it would cost $4 billion more if the block buy didn't happen. Ask yourself why that is.
If ULA was confident that without the block buy they would still win all 35 cores, then the costs would be exactly the same. That $4 billion difference must mean ULA expects that without the block buy they'll lose a lot of those 35 cores.
So the question is how many cores would be lost for ULA to have to charge $4 billion more for the remaining cores, and how much would the government save by paying less to SpaceX for those missions.
A savings (4B) from a block buy should be expected, but savings from less cores may only save a bit if its *less than 5 years* based on 35.7B on 60 flights (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34406.msg1186198#msg1186198). The two seem related: cores and five years. Cutting the number of years appears to be the big cost item.
Do the extra costs include a US production run of the RD-180?
Quote from: Lobo
A rebuilt engine is a new configuration.....it would not be certified to fly payloads per the new NASA/NRO/Air Force certification standard (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34573.msg1189798#msg1189798) however. Why lock into a 5 year deal with a LV that will not be certified? when the number of heavy flights has not been determined? deju vu?Quote from: Garrettand an interesting, related article from Doug:... Or would they pay ULA to fund Aerojet to built a US built RD-180 and still support both EELV's?
ULA Speeds Up Engine Deliveries as House Mulls Ban on Russian Motor Use
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/04/28/52226/
I wonder, as brought up by the article, how all this will play out for Orbital as well?
Not strange at all. SpaceX expected to compete for 14 launches. Back in 2011,the "point of contention is whether the Air Force will proceed with a proposed “block” purchase from ULA, or will it allow new entrants to bid on medium- and heavy-lift launches" (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1990/1), not a mix of both. Further, the 37.B over 5 years for 60 flights that would have been 41.5B was also surprising.Quote from: Elon MuskWe only learnt about the big sole-source award in March. It may have been signed in December but it only came to light, interestingly, one day after the senate hearing on EELV launch costs, which seems remarkably coincidental to me. I don't think that's an accident. We've really just had about a month of awareness and we've been somewhat reeling from that news and trying to see, is this real? Is this actually what's going to be the case? When we basically made no progress with discussions with the air force, we thought we have basically no choice but to file the protest. - transcript (http://)This reply from Musk is so strange than I actually went back and transcribed the question, something I typically don't do. I mean, we all heard about it back in January.
The key is five years and 36 cores....especially with a rebuilt RD-180 leads to a new configuration requiring new certification, and the competition term was 2015 to 2017, not 2014+ 5 years = 2019.
Post by: Jim on 04/29/2014 12:22 am
especially with a rebuilt RD-180 leads to a new configuration requiring new certification,
What rebuilt RD-180? And even so, re-certification is not necessarily required.
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/29/2014 12:42 am
If ULA believed the U.S. government felt the risk of SpaceX wasn't worth the cost...
Regardless their feelings about SpaceX, it would be prudent business practice to assume your competitor will win some part of a competed program.
Quote
...then ULA would be confident they wouldn't lose any of the 35 cores to SpaceX even without the block buy, and they wouldn't have to charge $4 billion more without the block buy.
We don't know what the real price breaks are for the block buy, and whether the Air Force could get the same pricing with, say, a ULA block buy of 20 as they would with 36. But in the realm of government contracting, where you don't take risks on future customer orders, ULA has no incentive to try to lower customer prices if there is a risk they have to absorb lower profits because of future customer order changes.
In contrast, SpaceX no doubt is buying in economic order quantities based on forecasted order demand, and not based on actual orders. There is risk for such a strategy, but if you are in a business where you feel assured of continued future demand, then it's not a high risk.
Post by: QuantumG on 04/29/2014 01:05 am
Not strange at all. SpaceX expected to compete for 14 launches. Back in 2011,the "point of contention is whether the Air Force will proceed with a proposed “block” purchase from ULA, or will it allow new entrants to bid on medium- and heavy-lift launches" (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1990/1), not a mix of both. Further, the 37.B over 5 years for 60 flights that would have been 41.5B was also surprising.
The key is five years and 36 cores....especially with a rebuilt RD-180 leads to a new configuration requiring new certification, and the competition term was 2015 to 2017, not 2014+ 5 years = 2019.
SpaceX isn't contesting the reduction of the 14 launches. They're contesting the 36 core block buy. That's why the journalist asked Elon why SpaceX had taken so long to respond.
Perhaps you're thinking that it was in March that the air force announced the reduction of the 14 competed launches to 7. That announcement didn't happen "one day after the senate hearing on EELV launch costs", it happened on March 4, the day before the senate hearing. Maybe Elon didn't hear about it until 2 days later, but that's just more evidence that SpaceX doesn't keep up with the news. In any case, it's not relevant to the 36 core block buy.
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/29/2014 01:05 am
Post by: baldusi on 04/29/2014 01:40 am
Now, as an economist, if they left just one mission in the block buy that might have been reasonably expected to be compete by SpaceX (say a mission in FY2017 or later). Then this block buy might perfectly be open to scrutiny. Since I don't have access to the details, I can't make further comments.
Post by: muomega0 on 04/29/2014 01:57 am
Exactly! Buy more engines now to ensure you have 5 years of engines for the new contract. Its cheaper to buy the engines up front, have extra cores for COTS, and not take a risk on "its not a new configuration" with a five year contract in hand. Cost reductions? always 20 years away.especially with a rebuilt RD-180 leads to a new configuration requiring new certification,
What rebuilt RD-180? And even so, re-certification is not necessarily required.
4B over 40B is a 10% discount to provide more cores than the demand requires, takes forecasted orders from the competition (14 down to 7), and keeps the business in place for 5 years.Quote...then ULA would be confident they wouldn't lose any of the 35 cores to SpaceX even without the block buy, and they wouldn't have to charge $4 billion more without the block buy.We don't know what the real price breaks are for the block buy, and whether the Air Force could get the same pricing with, say, a ULA block buy of 20 as they would with 36. But in the realm of government contracting, where you don't take risks on future customer orders, ULA has no incentive to try to lower customer prices if there is a risk they have to absorb lower profits because of future customer order changes.
In contrast, SpaceX no doubt is buying in economic order quantities based on forecasted order demand, and not based on actual orders. There is risk for such a strategy, but if you are in a business where you feel assured of continued future demand, then it's not a high risk.
Government agencies must send official notices.Not strange at all. SpaceX expected to compete for 14 launches. Back in 2011,the "point of contention is whether the Air Force will proceed with a proposed “block” purchase from ULA, or will it allow new entrants to bid on medium- and heavy-lift launches" (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1990/1), not a mix of both. Further, the 37.B over 5 years for 60 flights that would have been 41.5B was also surprising.
The key is five years and 36 cores....especially with a rebuilt RD-180 leads to a new configuration requiring new certification, and the competition term was 2015 to 2017, not 2014+ 5 years = 2019.
SpaceX isn't contesting the reduction of the 14 launches. They're contesting the 36 core block buy. That's why the journalist asked Elon why SpaceX had taken so long to respond.
Perhaps you're thinking that it was in March that the air force announced the reduction of the 14 competed launches to 7. That announcement didn't happen "one day after the senate hearing on EELV launch costs", it happened on March 4, the day before the senate hearing. Maybe Elon didn't hear about it until 2 days later, but that's just more evidence that SpaceX doesn't keep up with the news. In any case, it's not relevant to the 36 core block buy.
14 launches vs 7 for small company at 60M, call it $100M is 1.4B vs 700M, quite the difference from 36.7B.
If the AF signed a core order back in Dec and knew of a reduced demand, did not inform until March, then that's a crime, plain and simple.
The block buy is relevant. One company has all of their overhead covered by the government for the next 5 years, while the second based their pricing on winning a fraction of 14 not 7, at a cost 75% less. At 100M, the 1.4B is one third of the "savings".
The block buy is especially relevant if the core numbers include the RD-180, if a replacement is a new configuration, or if the RD180 is banned--> at least 9 cores are required for certification.
There is a simple solution however: Award 14 or so launches to the remaining partners with part of the $4B savings and start building a zero boiloff LEO depot.
Will the US ever step up and start shifting the work force to more satellites, payload, missions rather than rebuilding 1960s hardware? There is quite a bit of exciting new work out there...
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2014 02:00 am
One thing I don't quite understand is when to when are the nominal launch dates. Because a fast DoD launch campaign is 36 months, and 60months is par. Since Falcon 9 can't compete until It gets certified (July?). And assuming that mythical 60% of missions, they could compete, at best, on 6 or seven of those missions. And that's assuming that the 14 that were left out to compete we're not those that they could do in 42months since Dec-2013. Thus, the block buy might be the correct decision.
Now, as an economist, if they left just one mission in the block buy that might have been reasonably expected to be compete by SpaceX (say a mission in FY2017 or later). Then this block buy might perfectly be open to scrutiny. Since I don't have access to the details, I can't make further comments.
In September 2013 ULA won a contract to launch the Mexican Morelos-3 mission, which is scheduled to launch as early as 2015 on an Atlas V. So ULA only needs a bit more than 2 years notice, at most, not 5 years, to build an Atlas V.
So a block buy covering the next 2 years is defensible by your logic. A block buy extending beyond 2 years is not.
Post by: QuantumG on 04/29/2014 02:03 am
Perhaps you're thinking that it was in March that the air force announced the reduction of the 14 competed launches to 7. That announcement didn't happen "one day after the senate hearing on EELV launch costs", it happened on March 4, the day before the senate hearing. Maybe Elon didn't hear about it until 2 days later, but that's just more evidence that SpaceX doesn't keep up with the news. In any case, it's not relevant to the 36 core block buy.
Government agencies must send official notices.
and? Elon's trying to imply that the announcement was a retaliation for the senate hearing. The facts don't fit his version of events.
Post by: rcoppola on 04/29/2014 02:04 am
The RD-180 has served the Atlas V and this nation very well. Not that it wouldn't be prudent to plan for a potential domestic replacement. But let's dial some of this back a bit.
These things have a way of snowballing to the point where cooler heads no longer prevail and we cut off our nose to spite our face.
I hope the people who work in the trenches over at ULA don't get thrown into a lot of political BS. They don't deserve it. I want the rhetoric to be dialed down a bit.
I'm just feeling for the guys doing all the heavy lifting who are going to get caught in the middle of all this crap through no fault of their own.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2014 02:14 am
I'm just feeling for the guys doing all the heavy lifting who are going to get caught in the middle of all this crap through no fault of their own.
It wasn't the fault of the buggy-whip makers either when their business dried up when the automobile came along. That doesn't mean automobiles were a bad thing.
There are legitimate reasons to question whether we should be dependent on Russia for rocket engines. Nobody should be dialing back saying what they believe because it is going to be bad for someone's career. Every dollar that isn't spent on Atlas V will be spent somewhere else, and someone else's career will benefit.
Post by: catdlr on 04/29/2014 02:24 am
Quote from: Elon Musk
We only learnt about the big sole-source award in March. It may have been signed in December but it only came to light, interestingly, one day after the senate hearing on EELV launch costs, which seems remarkably coincidental to me. I don't think that's an accident. We've really just had about a month of awareness and we've been somewhat reeling from that news and trying to see, is this real? Is this actually what's going to be the case? When we basically made no progress with discussions with the air force, we thought we have basically no choice but to file the protest. - transcript (http://)
Quote from: QuantumG
This reply from Musk is so strange than I actually went back and transcribed the question, something I typically don't do. I mean, we all heard about it back in January.
Maybe Mr. Musk needs to become a member of NSF?
Post by: Antares on 04/29/2014 03:23 am
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2014 04:27 am
Now here's a crazy scenario that one should think about: what if ULA doesn't bid on the launches that F9 can lift? Basically, they say to USAF and SpaceX, put up or shut up.
I don't think ULA is stupid enough to do that. It just gives SpaceX a chance to prove themselves.
ULA has been doing the opposite. The block buy is the prime example -- they seem eager that SpaceX get as little chance as possible to prove themselves, and that whatever chances SpaceX gets be delayed as long as possible.
Post by: manboy on 04/29/2014 04:39 am
ULA Release. No direct reference to SpaceX. Follows a very similar line to what Mr. Gass said at the hearing ( http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/03/spacex-and-ula-eelv-contracts/ )ULA (or at least their PR department) has one very distorted view on reality.
United Launce Alliance (ULA) Statement in Response to SpaceX Lawsuit
April 28, 2014
“ULA is the only government certified launch provider that meets all of the unique EELV requirements that are critical to supporting our troops and keeping our country safe. That is the case today, when the acquisition process started in 2012 and at the time of the contract award in December 2013.
“The recent 5-year block buy contract was the result of a best practice acquisition process that enabled the government to negotiate a block of launches in advance that enabled significant operations efficiency and created the needed stability and predictability in the supplier and industrial base, while meeting national security space requirements.
“This disciplined approach saved the government and taxpayers approximately $4 billion while keeping our nation’s assured access to deliver critical national security assets safely to space.
“Space launch is one of the most risk-intolerant and technologically advanced components of our national security. That is why new entrants must meet rigorous certification criteria of vehicle design, reliability, process maturity and safety systems in order to compete, similar to the process that ULA’s Atlas and Delta products and processes have met.
“ULA now provides Atlas and Delta EELV rockets that have complimentary capabilities that assure our customers that their mission needs are met. ULA has purchased a first stage engine built in Russia for the past 20 years for the Atlas rocket and has always maintained contingency capabilities if the supply was interrupted to ensure our customers mission needs are met. ULA maintains a two-year inventory of engines in the U.S., and would be able to transition other mission commitments to our Delta rockets if an emergent need develops.
“Since its inception in 2006, ULA has consistently exceeded EELV cost reduction goals. At the same time, we have conducted 81 consecutive launches, achieving 100% mission success.
“EELV continues to be the most successful DOD acquisition program of the past few decades. Launches have been delivered on schedule, meeting or exceeding all performance requirements, and exceeding cost reduction goals.”
Background
On April 17, 2014, the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) 2014 Selective Acquisition Report (SAR) on the Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) stated that the Block Buy provided more than $4 billion in savings from the President’s FY15 Budget.
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/SAR_SUMMARY_TABLES_FINAL.pdf
The “Block Buy” contract is a commitment of 35 launch vehicle cores to achieve the economy of scale savings. The contract procures the hardware for 35 new cores and the capability to launch those and previous cores procured in prior year contracts (as early as 2002). The missions ULA supports for the U.S. Government and commercial customers have a wide range of capabilities, some of which have three times the lift capability of any of the new entrants advertised performance capability. ULA provides unique ground and orbital insertion capabilities that are included in the contract that are unique to national security missions.
The DOD acquisition strategy enabled new entrants – if certified – to compete for up to 14 missions in the FY’15–17 period. The goal of this element of the acquisition strategy was to demonstrate New Entrants ability to compete, with expectation that full and level competition would be enabled by FY’18.
Defense Department officials have recently stated that cancelling the contract and terminating the block buy – which involves hundreds of suppliers and is enormously complex – would cost billions. Additionally, it could put critical mission schedules at risk that would have impact on operational capabilities and the satellite program costs. ULA is focused on delivering on all of its mission assurance and cost reduction commitments that support its customers.
Since its inception, ULA’s commercially-developed Atlas and Delta rockets have executed an unprecedented 81 consecutive successful launches for the Air Force, National Reconnaissance Office, NASA and commercial customers, a 100 percent mission success standard unmatched in the U.S. launch industry.
###
Post by: meekGee on 04/29/2014 04:39 am
How much cheaper would ULA prices been if they had to bid for each of bulk buy launches, knowing that SpaceX could also bid.Bingo.
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 04/29/2014 05:11 am
and? Elon's trying to imply that the announcement was a retaliation for the senate hearing. The facts don't fit his version of events.The impression I got was that the disclosure was timed to avoid having to talk about it at the senate hearing, not that it was retaliation.
Post by: Kabloona on 04/29/2014 05:17 am
and? Elon's trying to imply that the announcement was a retaliation for the senate hearing. The facts don't fit his version of events.The impression I got was that the disclosure was timed to avoid having to talk about it at the senate hearing, not that it was retaliation.
Agreed. He felt he was kept in the dark so he couldn't make a stink about it at the hearing.
He wound up looking like Wile E. Coyote, still running without realizing he was already off the cliff. Now he's back with a box of dynamite.
Post by: Hauerg on 04/29/2014 05:27 am
especially with a rebuilt RD-180 leads to a new configuration requiring new certification,
What rebuilt RD-180? And even so, re-certification is not necessarily required.
Regarding the US built RD-180:
Yesterday I heard in the news that US is revoking (if this is the correct word) licenses granted to Russia.
Imagine the Russians hit back and revoke the RD-180 license. Then what? Build a pirate version while US companies are suing everybody and their grandmother for illegal downloading of music?
Post by: baldusi on 04/29/2014 05:33 am
It's not my logic. Is economic analysis. Commercial launches are usually done in 24 months. DoD, as stated previously, are 36 to 60. And you need to know the launch vehicle. For analysis, launch environment, certification, etc. DoD also wants to look at the certificate or the rocket production.One thing I don't quite understand is when to when are the nominal launch dates. Because a fast DoD launch campaign is 36 months, and 60months is par. Since Falcon 9 can't compete until It gets certified (July?). And assuming that mythical 60% of missions, they could compete, at best, on 6 or seven of those missions. And that's assuming that the 14 that were left out to compete we're not those that they could do in 42months since Dec-2013. Thus, the block buy might be the correct decision.
Now, as an economist, if they left just one mission in the block buy that might have been reasonably expected to be compete by SpaceX (say a mission in FY2017 or later). Then this block buy might perfectly be open to scrutiny. Since I don't have access to the details, I can't make further comments.
In September 2013 ULA won a contract to launch the Mexican Morelos-3 mission, which is scheduled to launch as early as 2015 on an Atlas V. So ULA only needs a bit more than 2 years notice, at most, not 5 years, to build an Atlas V.
So a block buy covering the next 2 years is defensible by your logic. A block buy extending beyond 2 years is not.
But the fact is that they did put aside 14 launches for competition. As stated previously, if FY2017 was the soonest possible launch, and only for Falcon 9 v1.1 capable payloads, it could very well mean that those 14 are the ones after FY2017 that Falcon 9 can actually loft. Thus, it might be that the contract is correct.
In particular, anything requiring a Falcon Heavy will be so expensive that it will require at least 5 years of campaign, and FH won't get three launches until 2016, at the earliest. Thus, I don't believe they could actually bid for anything launching before 2020 that's beyond F9 capabilities.
And returning to the block buy, if we assume a Delta Heavy per year, those were just 26 mission, and other 14 were going to be competed, which is almost 30% of the missions in that 5 year period (missions total). Since no competitor was available for half of the block buy. It would seem to fit very well with the 60% of missions that SpaceX stated they could cover.
BTW, Morelos is on an inclined orbit and thus couldn't have been launched by an Ariane 5, nor Falcon 9. HIIA was too expensive and Proton-M and Sea Launch too unreliable.
Post by: QuantumG on 04/29/2014 06:44 am
and? Elon's trying to imply that the announcement was a retaliation for the senate hearing. The facts don't fit his version of events.The impression I got was that the disclosure was timed to avoid having to talk about it at the senate hearing, not that it was retaliation.
Ahh, okay. It occurs to me, now, that I may be suffering the international-date-line time lag here. I didn't watch the video live, so I probably read the news before watching the video.
Post by: Jim on 04/29/2014 08:21 am
The block buy is especially relevant if the core numbers include the RD-180, if a replacement is a new configuration, or if the RD180 is banned--> at least 9 cores are required for certification.
What recert? There isn't one required.
Post by: muomega0 on 04/29/2014 01:54 pm
Do you have a link that specifically states 36 cores, not 14 for Dec?and? Elon's trying to imply that the announcement was a retaliation for the senate hearing. The facts don't fit his version of events.Perhaps you're thinking that it was in March that the air force announced the reduction of the 14 competed launches to 7. That announcement didn't happen "one day after the senate hearing on EELV launch costs", it happened on March 4, the day before the senate hearing. Maybe Elon didn't hear about it until 2 days later, but that's just more evidence that SpaceX doesn't keep up with the news. In any case, it's not relevant to the 36 core block buy.Not strange at all. SpaceX expected to compete for 14 launches. Back in 2011,the "point of contention is whether the Air Force will proceed with a proposed “block” purchase from ULA, or will it allow new entrants to bid on medium- and heavy-lift launches" (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1990/1), not a mix of both. Further, the 37.B over 5 years for 60 flights that would have been 41.5B was also surprising.
The key is five years and 36 cores....especially with a rebuilt RD-180 leads to a new configuration requiring new certification, and the competition term was 2015 to 2017, not 2014+ 5 years = 2019.
Government agencies must send official notices.
14 launches vs 7 for small company at 60M, call it $100M is 1.4B vs 700M, quite the difference from 36.7B.
If the AF signed a core order back in Dec and knew of a reduced demand, did not inform until March, then that's a crime, plain and simple.
In Jan, per Avweek, by QuantumG's link to the Jan Announcement (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34552.msg1188725#msg1188725):
Quote from: AvweekJan2014
Air Force announcement in Dec that contracts cover 14 of the 36 EELV cores anticipated in the multiyear block buy
AF is expected to begin awards for the competitively bid launches in 2015 for missions launching in 2017.
An additional 14 missions will be awarded competitively, giving upstarts like Space Exploration Technologies Corp. of Hawthorne, Calif., a crack at the market.
So by your very link, 14 of 36 were part of the block buy, not 36 of 36, and 14 cores will be completed.
But now its "understood" that the deal was for 36 of 36 :o How?
If the AF signed a core order back in Dec, announced 14 but its really 36, held back knowledge of competing only 7 of 14 cores, limited disclosure to only a few participants, then that's a crime, plain and simple.
Events:
2011 "point of contention is whether the Air Force will proceed with a proposed “block” purchase from ULA, or will it allow new entrants to bid on medium- and heavy-lift launches" (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1990/1)
Jan 2014 U.S. Air Force Claims Big Savings on EELV Block Buy....meaning that together the contracts cover 14 of the 36 EELV rocket cores anticipated in the multiyear block buy. (http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/39348us-air-force-claims-big-savings-on-eelv-block-buy)
Quote from: avweekJan2014
- The Air Force plan entails buying the 36 rocket cores from ULA on a sole-source basis.
- An additional 14 missions will be awarded competitively, giving upstarts like Space Exploration Technologies, a crack at the market.
- ULA in 2010 quoted prices for an Atlas 5 launch to NASA that ranged from $104 to $334 million
“SpaceX expects the billion dollar plus fixed payment subsidy (aka the ELC) to ULA to be phased out over time, as that is obviously contrary to fair and open competition,” Elon Musk, the company’s chief executive, said in an email.
The Air Force is expected to begin awards for the competitively bid launches in 2015 for missions launching in 2017.
March: The Air Force said it had halved the number of missions open to tender, deferring several payloads beyond the current contract ending in fiscal 2017 and potentially further reducing the number of satellite launches for which SpaceX can compete. (http://aviationweek.com/blog/draft-house-language-seeks-halt-air-force-atlas-5-launches-year)
April Hearing Disclosure of block buy of 36 cores, not 14
April 17, 2014 "Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) 2014 Selective Acquisition Report (SAR) on the Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) stated that the Block Buy provided more than $4 billion in savings from the President’s FY15 Budget." (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34577.msg1190023#msg1190023)
May 2014 RD-180 Availability Risk Mitigation Study due with focus on issues, risks, costs, and options (http://aviationweek.com/blog/draft-house-language-seeks-halt-air-force-atlas-5-launches-year)
Post by: Lobo on 04/29/2014 05:33 pm
How much cheaper would ULA prices been if they had to bid for each of bulk buy launches, knowing that SpaceX could also bid.Bingo.
Well, as I understand ULA's formation and function from reading post on the forums, they are less of a private company like SpaceX, and more like a government agency. They are legally structured such that they can bid on private launch contracts where an actual US government agency cannot. But they are essentially structured as a government agency, for the primary purpose of ensuring space access to the USAF and DoD. I think it's closer to Roscosmos than to SpaceX. Although "technically" a private company. So when talking about ULA bidding against SpaceX for USAF and DoD launches, that is a little like talking about Roscosmos bidding against some new, private Russian space launch company, for Russian government payloads.
It's a bit apples to oranges.
With ULA, if more government launches are opened up to bid and they start loosing launches to SpaceX, they will need to get more money from the government for the launches they do get in order to maintain their capabilities. Their costs would need to go up more per launch because their overhead will still be the same. I think that's what this block buy was partly about, ensuring ULA gets enough launches over the next number of years to maintain itself, and thus USAF's own quasi-government agency for launching their payloads. It was the way they had to allocate a piece of the defense budget to ULA, since it's not allocated directly to them.
And it's probably a way for the USAF/DoD and ULA to buy some time to figure out how to move forward with this new dynamic. If SpaceX can offer the same launch capability and services for cheaper than ULA, then there'd really be no way ULA could get any future contracts if there's a actual open competition for each launch. So, does USAF allow ULA to reorganize to become an actual independent company like SpaceX? (if they can) Or do they just opt to continue to find ways to fence off SpaceX from bidding more than a handful of contracts so to guarantee ULA the amount of money and launches needed for ULA to maintain it's current capabilities? There will be some tough decisions to make that will cause people on one side or the other a lot of heart burn.
Post by: baldusi on 04/29/2014 06:04 pm
Post by: clongton on 04/29/2014 06:08 pm
With ULA, if more government launches are opened up to bid and they start loosing launches to SpaceX, they will need to get more money from the government for the launches they do get in order to maintain their capabilities.
They already get $1B a year just to maintain the capability without doing a single thing.
Post by: Jim on 04/29/2014 06:10 pm
ULA is a private company, with the same obligation as any other company: to maximize value for the share holders. They happen to have a cost-plus contract with government.
They are all fixed price.
Post by: Lars_J on 04/29/2014 06:24 pm
With ULA, if more government launches are opened up to bid and they start loosing launches to SpaceX, they will need to get more money from the government for the launches they do get in order to maintain their capabilities.
If you include LM and Boeing profit margin from ULA as a "capability", then yes.
Welcome to capitalism and the open market. If SpaceX cannot provide the same technical capability as ULA, they will still get the business, and they can charge as much as they want. But if they can... USAF will likely still require that two providers are a part of the process. ULA might be forced to down-select their internal assured access from two LV's.
Post by: Lobo on 04/29/2014 07:56 pm
With ULA, if more government launches are opened up to bid and they start loosing launches to SpaceX, they will need to get more money from the government for the launches they do get in order to maintain their capabilities.
If you include LM and Boeing profit margin from ULA as a "capability", then yes.
By "capability" I mean all of the processes and regulations that ULA was formed to conform with for USAF and DoD launches. Nulcear ratings, vertical integration, etc (Jim could list them all I'm sure). As well as redundant LV's, each with pads on both coasts. If they want ULA to retain all of that, they'll need to fund them to do so without about as much money as they are now. Not just the ammount of mass they can heft to orbit.
Welcome to capitalism and the open market. If SpaceX cannot provide the same technical capability as ULA, they will still get the business, and they can charge as much as they want. But if they can... USAF will likely still require that two providers are a part of the process. ULA might be forced to down-select their internal assured access from two LV's.
I'm not defending it. Just saying that's how I understand that it currently works. That's it's not quite as simple as just letting two private companies duke it out. One is a private company, the other is sort of an extension of the government, that was set up specifically to accomodate USAF/DoD's space access, with LV's and processes all set up to meet their needs. That's why SpaceX seems to be meeting so much resistance as they try to tweak their off-the-shelf LV to meet EELV requirements. Just has a private Russian launch provider would likely have a difficult time competing with Roscosmos for Russian government payloads.
Maybe it's a little like if Cessna Aircraft developed a new fighter jet that had the same capabilities as the F-22, and they were selling them to other [freindly] governments. Once existing USAF contracts are filled with LockMart, technically LockMart and Cessna should have a free competition to supply future supply contracts of fighters. But the the F-22 was developed specifically for the USAF needs. I'm guessing Cessna would find it very difficult to actually get a crack and USAF aircraft supply. (this is a rough analogy)
It's easy to say just let them compete and buy the lowest price plane that meets the requirements. But it's just not quite that simple as things are now. USAF is tied to LockMart on the F-22 like they are tied to ULA on the EELV's. USAF would need to let ULA restructure themselves into a fully independant and private company, and streamline (as you said) in order for things to be apples-to-apples. And that may happen. But "open competion" between ULA and SpaceX as ULA is currently structured is more apples-to-oranges. As Jim has said, ULA currently cannot downselect to one LV, and they cannot develop a new LV. They can only operate Atlas V and Delta IV and their derivatives. ULA couldn't buy some low cost gas generator kerolxo engine and put them on a 5m kerolox core and make a new, lower cost LV. They can only "compete" with Atlas V and Delta IV, or variants of them. Which means they have all of the overhead of those systems and their infrastructure. They'd need the feedom to really be their own company, and be able to do whatever is needed to compete against SpaceX, ArianeSpace, etc. My understanding is they cannot do that right now. They can only do, what they are already doing.
Again, that's my understanding from reading posts by Jim and others here. If it's incorrect, then please let me know. :-)
Post by: Lars_J on 04/29/2014 08:47 pm
1. ULA is not a government organization, it is just a commercial entity with deep ties to the government. Not the same thing.
2. They certainly could eliminate AV or DIV if they wanted to - or more correctly, if their owners (Boeing and LM) wanted to. SpaceX entering the EELV market removes any remaining legal hurdle, if there ever was one.
Post by: Lobo on 04/29/2014 11:17 pm
TWo points, lobo:
1. ULA is not a government organization, it is just a commercial entity with deep ties to the government. Not the same thing.
I know that and said it repeatedly. But they were established is the main purpose of supplying launch servies to the USAF and DoD, (rather than the USAF itself doing the launches) rather than being established to supply launch services on the open market first. And that's a big difference. They are a government contractor as opposed to a private sector supplier (primarily). If you've ever worked with the government and government contracts, you'll know that the more they sell to the government, the more they look like the government, even if being officially private. Because they have to do so much to comform to government red tape and beuracracy, that they have to add so much overhead to deal with ti all, often they eventually can longer compete on the open market. At least with that particular product or division of the company. LockMart and Boeing are private companies, but their departments that do government military contracting are basically quasi-government agencies themselves. In function if not in legality.
Hence my term, "quasi-government agency". ULA is -not- a government agency, but they were formed specifically to service the government, unlike SpaceX. And thus have a lot of baggage that is very similar to a government agency.
2. They certainly could eliminate AV or DIV if they wanted to - or more correctly, if their owners (Boeing and LM) wanted to. SpaceX entering the EELV market removes any remaining legal hurdle, if there ever was one.
I thought Jim said they couldn't, because the government has needs for both currently and is subsidizing them to keep both? Perhaps I've misunderstood that.
Post by: Targeteer on 04/30/2014 10:46 am
"Launching rockets into space—rockets with satellite payloads to keep our troops and our country safe, help us forecast the weather and communicate with each other—is a highly complex task allowing no room for error. No other American company does it better than ULA. In fact, since 2006 we’ve had over 80 consecutive launches without a single launch failure. Not one. With so much at stake, it’s easy to understand why nearly every mission-critical payload is launched and delivered by the most experienced and reliable company of its kind in this country: ULA.:"
That "without a single failure" might be in question to some if you consider payloads that barely did or did not reach the pre-planned orbit :)
Post by: ugordan on 04/30/2014 12:25 pm
Also, is it me or does ULA prefer to show off Atlas instead of Delta in their PR stuff? Slightly ironic considering where the booster engine comes from, the "American company" part and the fact that the two propulsion hiccups so far in the entire EELV program were due to the American upper stage engine.
Post by: Proponent on 05/01/2014 09:41 am
I wonder about the "over 80 consecutive launches" part, though. Is there any other way to do launches other than consecutively? ;)
Good point. I, in turn, wonder whether that phrase is intended to make the reader think "80 consecutive successful launches" with out actually stating such.
Post by: Prober on 05/01/2014 01:36 pm
Quote from: Elon MuskWe only learnt about the big sole-source award in March. It may have been signed in December but it only came to light, interestingly, one day after the senate hearing on EELV launch costs, which seems remarkably coincidental to me. I don't think that's an accident. We've really just had about a month of awareness and we've been somewhat reeling from that news and trying to see, is this real? Is this actually what's going to be the case? When we basically made no progress with discussions with the air force, we thought we have basically no choice but to file the protest. - transcript (http://)Quote from: QuantumGThis reply from Musk is so strange than I actually went back and transcribed the question, something I typically don't do. I mean, we all heard about it back in January.
Maybe Mr. Musk needs to become a member of NSF?
Maybe he is?
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/01/2014 01:43 pm
Post by: MP99 on 05/01/2014 01:51 pm
Quote from: Elon MuskWe only learnt about the big sole-source award in March. It may have been signed in December but it only came to light, interestingly, one day after the senate hearing on EELV launch costs, which seems remarkably coincidental to me. I don't think that's an accident. We've really just had about a month of awareness and we've been somewhat reeling from that news and trying to see, is this real? Is this actually what's going to be the case? When we basically made no progress with discussions with the air force, we thought we have basically no choice but to file the protest. - transcript (http://)Quote from: QuantumGThis reply from Musk is so strange than I actually went back and transcribed the question, something I typically don't do. I mean, we all heard about it back in January.
Maybe Mr. Musk needs to become a member of NSF?
Maybe he is?
Ahem:-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;u=4917 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;u=4917)
(Looks like it's never been used.)
cheers, Martin
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/01/2014 02:10 pm
ULA statement from Kevin G. MacCary, United Launch Alliance General Counsel, in response to Preliminary Injunction Related to National Security
“ULA is deeply concerned with this ruling and we will work closely with the Department of Justice to resolve the injunction expeditiously. In the meantime, ULA will continue to demonstrate our commitment to our National Security on the launch pad by assuring the safe delivery of the missions we are honored to support.
SpaceX’s attempt to disrupt a national security launch contract so long after the award ignores the potential implications to our National Security and our nation's ability to put Americans on board the International Space Station. Just like ULA, NASA and numerous other companies lawfully conduct business with the same Russian company, other Russia state-owned industries, and Russian Federation agencies. This opportunistic action by SpaceX appears to be an attempt to circumvent the requirements imposed on those who seek to meet the challenging launch needs of the nation and to avoid having to follow the rules, regulations and standards expected of a company entrusted to support our nation's most sensitive missions.”
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/01/2014 02:18 pm
Post by: Kabloona on 05/01/2014 02:32 pm
As I understand it, the injunction that has prohibited fresh purchase of RD-180s from Russia is associated with an Executive Order rather than the SpaceX lawsuit. If that's correct then it's going to be a lot harder to shift than any consequence of the lawsuit, irrespective of who wins.
That is correct. The temporary injunction now requires opinions from State, Commerce, and Treasury Departments as to whether the payments to Energomash contravene the executive order.
It's hard to see how State Department would give ULA and Rogozin a pass on this issue given the Administration's bluster over the Russian Crimea action. I expect State Department to give an opinion that the engine buy does contravene the executive order, thus temporarily blocking payments to Energomash.
The executive order is not permanent and will be rescinded down the road, at which time ULA will again be able to pay Energomash. Meanwhile, the Administration will look tough on Russia without having done any real damage, since ULA has a large stockpile of RD-180's.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/01/2014 02:58 pm
ULA has a large stockpile of RD-180's.
As I understand it, ULA's stockpile of RD-180s is about enough for two years of normal operations (about 20 or so units).
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/01/2014 03:02 pm
Post by: Lars_J on 05/01/2014 03:40 pm
Oh... wait...
Post by: Jim on 05/01/2014 05:15 pm
As I understand it, the injunction that has prohibited fresh purchase of RD-180s from Russia is associated with an Executive Order rather than the SpaceX lawsuit. If that's correct then it's going to be a lot harder to shift than any consequence of the lawsuit, irrespective of who wins.
That is correct. The temporary injunction now requires opinions from State, Commerce, and Treasury Departments as to whether the payments to Energomash contravene the executive order.
It's hard to see how State Department would give ULA and Rogozin a pass on this issue given the Administration's bluster over the Russian Crimea action. I expect State Department to give an opinion that the engine buy does contravene the executive order, thus temporarily blocking payments to Energomash.
The executive order is not permanent and will be rescinded down the road, at which time ULA will again be able to pay Energomash. Meanwhile, the Administration will look tough on Russia without having done any real damage, since ULA has a large stockpile of RD-180's.
And NASA can still pay RSA, who then pays Energomash also ok?
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/01/2014 05:33 pm
Ed Kyle
Post by: Antares on 05/01/2014 05:34 pm
It's good to know that ULA's yearly $1B stipend for assured access actually was spent on assured access, and that RD-180 domestic production was nearing reality.
That is an unfair and inaccurate portrayal of the ELC. It's a bogus subsidy, but you misportray the purpose of ELC.
Post by: Lars_J on 05/01/2014 05:42 pm
It's good to know that ULA's yearly $1B stipend for assured access actually was spent on assured access, and that RD-180 domestic production was nearing reality.
That is an unfair and inaccurate portrayal of the ELC. It's a bogus subsidy, but you misportray the purpose of ELC.
Yes, I did overgeneralize it - But some of it should have been spent on being ready for an interruption in delivery of RD-180 engines. If someone can illuminate where exactly the $1 billion per year IS spent, I would love to see it.
Post by: Kabloona on 05/01/2014 06:15 pm
And NASA can still pay RSA, who then pays Energomash also ok?
Yes, it's inconsistent. But politics are often inconsistent. What's new?
Post by: sdsds on 05/01/2014 07:37 pm
ULA calling SpaceX a traitor, essentially. Ugly.
Not quite. Taking the second bit first:
This opportunistic action by SpaceX appears to be an attempt to circumvent the requirements imposed on those who seek to meet the challenging launch needs of the nation and to avoid having to follow the rules, regulations and standards expected of a company entrusted to support our nation's most sensitive missions.
ULA is essentially saying,
"SpaceX [does not] meet the [...] standards expected of a company entrusted [with national security] missions."
The first bit is stronger, describing this as: SpaceX's attempt to disrupt a national security launch contract.
Disrupting a national security launch would be treasonous. But ULA doesn't quite accuse SpaceX of that. Even so, for a conservative "Old Space" company this is about as strong a statement as they could possibly make!
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 05/01/2014 07:57 pm
Only in Government contracts does it cost billions of dollars to kill a program, so there are no incentives to kill it.
Post by: sdsds on 05/01/2014 08:06 pm
Post by: butters on 05/01/2014 08:18 pm
Post by: Kabloona on 05/01/2014 08:41 pm
ULA calling SpaceX a traitor, essentially. Ugly.
Not quite. Taking the second bit first:
This opportunistic action by SpaceX appears to be an attempt to circumvent the requirements imposed on those who seek to meet the challenging launch needs of the nation and to avoid having to follow the rules, regulations and standards expected of a company entrusted to support our nation's most sensitive missions.
ULA is essentially saying,
"SpaceX [does not] meet the [...] standards expected of a company entrusted [with national security] missions."
The first bit is stronger, describing this as: SpaceX's attempt to disrupt a national security launch contract.
Disrupting a national security launch would be treasonous. But ULA doesn't quite accuse SpaceX of that. Even so, for a conservative "Old Space" company this is about as strong a statement as they could possibly make!
Of course ULA is taking this opportunity to bash SpaceX in public, just as they feel they have been bashed. But it's strictly theatrical, of course.
The people who will actually be making the judgment call on the RD-180 are the State, Treasury, and Commerce Departments. Oh, and the President himself, who can cancel the executive order sanctioning Rogozin any time he chooses.
So the implication that this RD-180 flap is all SpaceX's fault and is threatening national security is fairly absurd and will be taken at face value only by those people who know nothing about what is actually going on. The Administration that wrote the executive order holds all the cards and can play them however they choose.
Post by: Lar on 05/01/2014 08:42 pm
ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
They may need to get a bigger flag to wrap themselves in.
Post by: sdsds on 05/01/2014 09:42 pm
ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
They may need to get a bigger flag to wrap themselves in.
Ha, ha. Yes.
To the point butters is making: a down-select to DIV would eliminate the "assured" aspect of EELV's "assured access to space" capability. If DIV were to then experience an anomaly, there would not (yet) be any available launch system for national security needs. That would be a threat to national security, though as you say, it would not be a "crisis."
Post by: Kabloona on 05/01/2014 10:02 pm
ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
This is mostly bluster and not a lot of logic from ULA.
Their customer, the US Government, is the entity that (a) concerns itself with national security and (b) will make the final determination on the RD-180. Said Government is not going to put itself in a box re national security launches. They can allow resumption of RD-180 buys any time they deem necessary...assuming the temporary injunction is upheld, which it may not even be.
Post by: starsilk on 05/01/2014 11:30 pm
ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
This is mostly bluster and not a lot of logic from ULA.
Their customer, the US Government, is the entity that (a) concerns itself with national security and (b) will make the final determination on the RD-180. Said Government is not going to put itself in a box re national security launches. They can allow resumption of RD-180 buys any time they deem necessary...assuming the temporary injunction is upheld, which it may not even be.
and assuming Russia doesn't refuse to sell them, just to make a point. it must be abundantly clear how much ULA wants them, now, which makes them prime candidates for retaliatory sanctions.
Post by: Kabloona on 05/01/2014 11:59 pm
and assuming Russia doesn't refuse to sell them, just to make a point. it must be abundantly clear how much ULA wants them, now, which makes them prime candidates for retaliatory sanctions.
And that is, ironically, the more dangerous possibility for ULA. Who will they blame then? President Obama?
(Rhetorical question, of course)
Post by: Prober on 05/02/2014 12:50 am
and assuming Russia doesn't refuse to sell them, just to make a point. it must be abundantly clear how much ULA wants them, now, which makes them prime candidates for retaliatory sanctions.
And that is, ironically, the more dangerous possibility for ULA. Who will they blame then? President Obama?
(Rhetorical question, of course)
enough blame for this mess to go around.....sum it up well.
Post by: Avron on 05/02/2014 12:57 am
and assuming Russia doesn't refuse to sell them, just to make a point. it must be abundantly clear how much ULA wants them, now, which makes them prime candidates for retaliatory sanctions.
And that is, ironically, the more dangerous possibility for ULA. Who will they blame then? President Obama?
(Rhetorical question, of course)
enough blame for this mess to go around.....sum it up well.
so much for providing assured access to space.. I can smell it up in Canada, it stinks so much.
Post by: Prober on 05/02/2014 12:57 am
ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
They may need to get a bigger flag to wrap themselves in.
The good senator Shelby wears the flag pin. He clearly was not pleased about this and did ask Mr. Bolden for NASA's view about the RD-180.
Post by: JMSC on 05/02/2014 02:16 am
ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
This is mostly bluster and not a lot of logic from ULA.
Their customer, the US Government, is the entity that (a) concerns itself with national security and (b) will make the final determination on the RD-180. Said Government is not going to put itself in a box re national security launches. They can allow resumption of RD-180 buys any time they deem necessary...assuming the temporary injunction is upheld, which it may not even be.
and assuming Russia doesn't refuse to sell them, just to make a point. it must be abundantly clear how much ULA wants them, now, which makes them prime candidates for retaliatory sanctions.
Why would Russia refuse to sell RD-180s to ULA? The only vehicle that uses the RD-180 is the Atlas V. Refusing to sell the RD-180 to ULA is the same as shutting down the production line. With the demise of the RUS-M there is no other customer for the RD-180. The RD-170 is in much the same boat, shut down Sea Launch, which is based in the US and there's not much of a customer base for the Ukrainian built Zenit Rocket and the RD-170. NPO Energomash is far more reliant on the US government than the other way around. The US government would be fine relying the D4 and Falcon 9 for their payloads. Energomash just has the Angara for its family RD-191 engines without US government support.
Post by: Antares on 05/02/2014 03:19 am
ULA acts like D4 is a POS. Might cost more
Downselecting to Delta IV would make the ULA cost/price picture even worse. That's why Elon went after Atlas in his testimony: he knows if he can take out Atlas on Russian engine fears he can easily take out Delta IV on cost.
If someone can illuminate where exactly the $1 billion per year IS spent, I would love to see it.
DCMA is probably hiring. ELC is FAR 15, with full cost accountability.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/02/2014 04:42 am
ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
This is mostly bluster and not a lot of logic from ULA.
Their customer, the US Government, is the entity that (a) concerns itself with national security and (b) will make the final determination on the RD-180. Said Government is not going to put itself in a box re national security launches. They can allow resumption of RD-180 buys any time they deem necessary...assuming the temporary injunction is upheld, which it may not even be.
and assuming Russia doesn't refuse to sell them, just to make a point. it must be abundantly clear how much ULA wants them, now, which makes them prime candidates for retaliatory sanctions.
Why would Russia refuse to sell RD-180s to ULA? The only vehicle that uses the RD-180 is the Atlas V. Refusing to sell the RD-180 to ULA is the same as shutting down the production line. With the demise of the RUS-M there is no other customer for the RD-180. The RD-170 is in much the same boat, shut down Sea Launch, which is based in the US and there's not much of a customer base for the Ukrainian built Zenit Rocket and the RD-170. NPO Energomash is far more reliant on the US government than the other way around. The US government would be fine relying the D4 and Falcon 9 for their payloads. Energomash just has the Angara for its family RD-191 engines without US government support.
If Russia refuses to sell RD-180, they lose one factory. The U.S. loses the launch vehicle that is currently used to launch most national security payloads. If ULA can even ramp up Delta IV in time, the additional cost to the U.S. government for Delta IV over Atlas V will be far more than the revenue from engines Russia will be forgoing. And production limitations may mean Delta IV can't even ramp up in time, leaving some heavy payloads having to be delayed unless the Falcon Heavy can be brought up in time and the government decides it can accept the risk.
The effect seems to me to be much greater on the U.S. than on Russia. If the U.S. extends sanctions and Russia hits back, I would think this one be one of the first things Russia would do.
On the other hand, in the long run this might actually help the U.S. by bringing forward the switch to Falcon Heavy, but I doubt Russia will see it that way.
Post by: woods170 on 05/02/2014 06:12 am
Why would Russia refuse to sell RD-180s to ULA?Have you ever dealt with Russians? Well, I have. I can tell you that Russians in general do not always act wholly rational and logical. And here is another bit of news: neither do Americans sometimes. Or Europeans for that matter. Or anyone on the planet. When national pride is involved, particularly with the Russians, irrational acts happen all the time and irrational decisions are taken all the time. If Russia would retaliate this injunction by refusing to sell RD-180's I would not be surprised at all. I fully agree with you that such an action would make no sense at all from a logical point of view, but as I explained above, logic does not always prevail in extraordinary situations.
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 05/02/2014 08:30 am
If Russia refuses to sell RD-180, they lose one factory. The U.S. loses the launch vehicle that is currently used to launch most national security payloads. If ULA can even ramp up Delta IV in time, the additional cost to the U.S. government for Delta IV over Atlas V will be far more than the revenue from engines Russia will be forgoing. And production limitations may mean Delta IV can't even ramp up in time, leaving some heavy payloads having to be delayed unless the Falcon Heavy can be brought up in time and the government decides it can accept the risk.
The effect seems to me to be much greater on the U.S. than on Russia. If the U.S. extends sanctions and Russia hits back, I would think this one be one of the first things Russia would do.
On the other hand, in the long run this might actually help the U.S. by bringing forward the switch to Falcon Heavy, but I doubt Russia will see it that way.
Totally agree. Its a lose-lose situation but one engine production line <<< critical national security launch vehicle.
However, they do have three years of engines worth I thought. Should be more then enough time to ramp up Delta IV / Get Falcon Heavy running.
In the unlikely event that the Russians do decide to stop delivering the RD-180 and Delta IV / Falcon Heavy can't make up for the slack. What are the chances that some of the payloads would be contracted to Arianespace?
Would the DoD rather face significant delays than relying on an ally?
Post by: woods170 on 05/02/2014 10:31 am
In the unlikely event that the Russians do decide to stop delivering the RD-180 and Delta IV / Falcon Heavy can't make up for the slack. What are the chances that some of the payloads would be contracted to Arianespace?
Would the DoD rather face significant delays than relying on an ally?
The chance of US DoD relying on an ally to fly any security payload for them (other than perhaps a hosted payload on a commsat) is essentially zero. Sorry to have to put it this way but US DoD thrusts
Post by: MP99 on 05/02/2014 10:36 am
Do they get to charge a higher price, or is the price for a particular payload fixed, and ULA have to swallow the cost difference?
Cheers, Martin
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/02/2014 12:21 pm
And let's not forget who is ultimately responsible for the decision to out source a critical national defense industrial capacity to Russia costing Americans their jobs, their country its security and making "assured access"™ a hollow marketing term. Rest assured that the corporate suit types will sell their country out if it increases their quarterly bonus at least a little bit.
Post by: AncientU on 05/02/2014 01:14 pm
Just-in-time inventory management which is used in most modern businesses, avoids the cost of carrying inventory in a warehouse for two years (to pick a number). If ULA is using FIFO, and the next engine in the door is slated to gather dust until 2017, why the urgency? On the other hand, if using LIFO, these serial numbers could be assigned to 2015 vehicles... A check of the serial numbers/ship dates of the just-flown pair of RD-180s would illuminate this question.
So, the question boils down to, when is the next engine in the door 'needed' to avoid disrupting the production flow? Recall that Toyota had to shut down production almost immediately when the earthquake/tsunami disrupted their supply chain. Also, is the warehouse full of previous versions (remember ULA is making continuous improvements to their product) or are they all interchangeable/identical parts and they just draw a serial number out of a hat to decide which one to fly next as implied by Mr. Gass. Does the Atlas airframe/avionics need to be regressed (slightly or significantly) to a previous version to use any of the inventory? Is the preparation work on a newly-delivered engine such that ULA needs two years to prepare each one for launch?
It seems to me that the source of ULA's urgency to get the next batch of engines shipped from Russia would be an interesting topic of conversation next time Mr. Gass runs into Senator McCain on the hill.
This just found in the WSJ:
Quote
United Launch Alliance has said it has enough rocket engines to last 2 1/2 years, but the injunction would bar it securing spare parts that could delay planned satellite launches.http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303948104579534842426028478
If true, this is an interesting tidbit someone failed to mention last time on the hill (under oath).
Post by: Jim on 05/02/2014 01:39 pm
And let's not forget who is ultimately responsible for the decision to out source a critical national defense industrial capacity to Russia costing Americans their jobs, their country its security and making "assured access"™ a hollow marketing term. Rest assured that the corporate suit types will sell their country out if it increases their quarterly bonus at least a little bit.
The military OKed it
Post by: AncientU on 05/02/2014 02:02 pm
and the buck is passed...
And let's not forget who is ultimately responsible for the decision to out source a critical national defense industrial capacity to Russia costing Americans their jobs, their country its security and making "assured access"™ a hollow marketing term. Rest assured that the corporate suit types will sell their country out if it increases their quarterly bonus at least a little bit.
The military OKed it
Post by: Kabloona on 05/02/2014 02:56 pm
An intriguing development from the ULA side is their urgency to get the next batch of Russian engines shipped to the US. When is that batch slated to fly? If in 2017, why the urgency...
Just-in-time inventory management which is used in most modern businesses, avoids the cost of carrying inventory in a warehouse for two years (to pick a number). If ULA is using FIFO, and the next engine in the door is slated to gather dust until 2017, why the urgency? On the other hand, if using LIFO, these serial numbers could be assigned to 2015 vehicles... A check of the serial numbers/ship dates of the just-flown pair of RD-180s would illuminate this question.
Irrelevant. The engines are interchangeable. The urgency is that ULA sees the handwriting on the wall re Russian sourcing of the RD-180 and is trying to stockpile as many as they can before the door closes or the supply chain gets interrupted for some other reason beyond their control.
Post by: abaddon on 05/02/2014 03:27 pm
Is there a thread discussing this: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1405/01engine/#.U2O5B1c0rOA? I checked and couldn't find one. It seems about as relevant to this thread as to any other thread, barring a new one.
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 05/02/2014 03:34 pm
First-time post, please be gentle...
Is there a thread discussing this: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1405/01engine/#.U2O5B1c0rOA? I checked and couldn't find one. It seems about as relevant to this thread as to any other thread, barring a new one.
Still trying to figure out why the government would spend $200m+ to develop a new rocket motor for a company that has "claimed' they could manufacture an RD-180 Locally in the time allotted. And why the government would think the US Taxpayers should pay for that, instead of competitively re-bidding those contracts(with ULA forced to come up with a domestic engine out of the money in that contract)
Post by: deltaV on 05/02/2014 03:34 pm
First-time post, please be gentle...
Is there a thread discussing this: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1405/01engine/#.U2O5B1c0rOA? I checked and couldn't find one. It seems about as relevant to this thread as to any other thread, barring a new one.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34595.0
Post by: abaddon on 05/02/2014 03:36 pm
Post by: AncientU on 05/02/2014 03:37 pm
An intriguing development from the ULA side is their urgency to get the next batch of Russian engines shipped to the US. When is that batch slated to fly? If in 2017, why the urgency...
Just-in-time inventory management which is used in most modern businesses, avoids the cost of carrying inventory in a warehouse for two years (to pick a number). If ULA is using FIFO, and the next engine in the door is slated to gather dust until 2017, why the urgency? On the other hand, if using LIFO, these serial numbers could be assigned to 2015 vehicles... A check of the serial numbers/ship dates of the just-flown pair of RD-180s would illuminate this question.
Irrelevant. The engines are interchangeable. The urgency is that ULA sees the handwriting on the wall re Russian sourcing of the RD-180 and is trying to stockpile as many as they can before the door closes or the supply chain gets interrupted for some other reason beyond their control.
How does this fit into your picture?
Quote
United Launch Alliance has said it has enough rocket engines to last 2 1/2 years, but the injunction would bar it securing spare parts that could delay planned satellite launches.Two and a half years worth of interchangeable engines should have lots of 'spare parts.'
Obviously ULA needs something from Russia that they don't have... any ideas?
Post by: baldusi on 05/02/2014 03:38 pm
If Russia refuses to sell RD-180, they lose one factory.They lose none. With the Angara build up, it was decided to modernize and increase NPO Energomash engine factory. They were supposed to manufacture RD-171M, RD-180 and RD-191 for all Zenit, Atlas V and Angara. Thus, they would lose some work, but with Angara making it up for them. Their factory would be a bit oversized, though. And all those engines probably share their tooling, so it's not like they will have un used tooling. And if they decide to re engineer the Soyuz-2.1v with an RD-193, that might offset some of the work.
Post by: Kabloona on 05/02/2014 04:34 pm
QuoteUnited Launch Alliance has said it has enough rocket engines to last 2 1/2 years, but the injunction would bar it securing spare parts that could delay planned satellite launches.Two and a half years worth of interchangeable engines should have lots of 'spare parts.'
Obviously ULA needs something from Russia that they don't have... any ideas?
Yes, in theory it "could" delay a launch if they need a spare part and have to pull it out of a fully assembled engine, as opposed to pulling a spare part off the shelf. What's the likelihood of that necessity, or that it seriosuly delays a launch? Probably very low.
What they need most at this point are more engines.
Post by: Prober on 05/02/2014 04:54 pm
ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
This is mostly bluster and not a lot of logic from ULA.
Their customer, the US Government, is the entity that (a) concerns itself with national security and (b) will make the final determination on the RD-180. Said Government is not going to put itself in a box re national security launches. They can allow resumption of RD-180 buys any time they deem necessary...assuming the temporary injunction is upheld, which it may not even be.
and assuming Russia doesn't refuse to sell them, just to make a point. it must be abundantly clear how much ULA wants them, now, which makes them prime candidates for retaliatory sanctions.
Why would Russia refuse to sell RD-180s to ULA? The only vehicle that uses the RD-180 is the Atlas V. Refusing to sell the RD-180 to ULA is the same as shutting down the production line.
Look up some of the old posts......Russia doesn't care for NRO and USAF launches using the RD-180.
Post by: MP99 on 05/02/2014 05:17 pm
An intriguing development from the ULA side is their urgency to get the next batch of Russian engines shipped to the US. When is that batch slated to fly? If in 2017, why the urgency...
To build up stocks before the deadline date.
Just-in-time inventory management which is used in most modern businesses, avoids the cost of carrying inventory in a warehouse for two years (to pick a number).
And if ULA were carrying only three months of stock (to pluck a number), launches would stop in three months time, not 2+ years as could potentially happen now.
cheers, Martin
Post by: Avron on 05/02/2014 05:21 pm
An intriguing development from the ULA side is their urgency to get the next batch of Russian engines shipped to the US. When is that batch slated to fly? If in 2017, why the urgency...
To build up stocks before the deadline date.Just-in-time inventory management which is used in most modern businesses, avoids the cost of carrying inventory in a warehouse for two years (to pick a number).
And if ULA were carrying only three months of stock (to pluck a number), launches would stop in three months time, not 2+ years as could potentially happen now.
cheers, Martin
no need to panic.. any purchase orders placed already are excluded
"The scope of this preliminary injunction does not extend to any purchase orders
that have been placed or moneys paid to NPO Energomash prior to the date of this
Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Susan G. Braden
SUSAN G. BRADEN
Judge
"
Post by: AncientU on 05/02/2014 05:26 pm
Just-in-time inventory management which is used in most modern businesses, avoids the cost of carrying inventory in a warehouse for two years (to pick a number).
And if ULA were carrying only three months of stock (to pluck a number), launches would stop in three months time, not 2+ years as could potentially happen now.
cheers, Martin
Agree that the long-term inventory is the right approach if your supply is unpredictable. But the potential to 'delay some planned satellite launches' sounds more like a near-term issue.
Post by: Targeteer on 05/02/2014 07:55 pm
http://boeing.rollcall.com/topic-a/sponsored-post/national-security-space-launch-mission-demands-precision/
"In recent weeks, a new entrant to the rocket manufacturing business has launched a campaign that distorts the truth about EELV and ULA and attempts to cite budget increases as cost overruns..." Won't even mention SpaceX by name.
Post by: AncientU on 05/02/2014 08:30 pm
The PR battle continues--this is listed as a sponsored post
http://boeing.rollcall.com/topic-a/sponsored-post/national-security-space-launch-mission-demands-precision/
"In recent weeks, a new entrant to the rocket manufacturing business has launched a campaign that distorts the truth about EELV and ULA and attempts to cite budget increases as cost overruns..." Won't even mention SpaceX by name.
Quote
full transparency into EELV’s accounting and business systemsNot what the GAO found.
Quote
While the previous two-contract structure of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program met Department of Defense (DOD) needs for unprecedented mission success and an at-the-ready launch capability, the scope of its capability contract limited DOD’s ability to identify the cost of an individual launch, as direct launch costs were not separated from other costs. Minimal insight into contractor cost or pricing data meant DOD may have lacked sufficient knowledge to negotiate fair and reasonable launch prices.http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-377R
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 06/11/2014 06:44 am
(shown at the Boeing CST-100 event 2 days ago at the Cape; photo by Eric Berger/Houston Chronicle (https://twitter.com/chronsciguy/status/476029738914701312))
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/11/2014 06:54 am
Instead, they use a misleading title for the graphic that shows their experience (mislabeling it as a comparison of capabilities rather than experience) and a table where all but one line is grossly misleading.
Post by: NovaSilisko on 06/11/2014 08:00 am
Know the "Facts", understand the "Truth" - maxi-FUD!
The proud boast of having over twelve hundred individual suppliers seems amusing to me. Also, weren't the two GTO launches listed here actually supersynchronous orbits? I suppose that still counts as a type of GTO.
Post by: MP99 on 06/11/2014 08:24 am
Having trouble even finding words in response to that. Comparing the full roster of ULA's launches since its formation, vs F9v1.1 which only first launched in September of last year. ???
Know the "Facts", understand the "Truth" - maxi-FUD!
The proud boast of having over twelve hundred individual suppliers seems amusing to me. Also, weren't the two GTO launches listed here actually supersynchronous orbits? I suppose that still counts as a type of GTO.
Gwynne claimed recently that they have 3000 suppliers, of which 1100 are active enough that they accept a delivery from them weekly.
Cheers, Martin
Post by: NovaSilisko on 06/11/2014 08:29 am
Gwynne claimed recently that they have 3000 suppliers, of which 1100 are active enough that they accept a delivery from them weekly.
Cheers, Martin
Wow - I guess my thought on what the average number of suppliers might be was way off. So in that case, is ULA trying to brag about how many they have (given the ?? for spacex) or how few?
Post by: J-V on 06/11/2014 08:44 am
Gwynne claimed recently that they have 3000 suppliers, of which 1100 are active enough that they accept a delivery from them weekly.
Cheers, Martin
Could this be because SpaceX is buying more components and materials, and ULA is buying more larger subsystems?
Post by: woods170 on 06/11/2014 09:24 am
First they ignore SpaceX - Check (2003 to 2009)
Then they laugh at SpaceX - Check (2009 to 2013)
Then they fight SpaceX - Check (2013 to present)
You can all guess the rest. ;)
Post by: Jakusb on 06/11/2014 11:08 am
Quote
@chronsciguy @ulalaunch @SpaceX @elonmusk I imagine the Nokia board had a similar chart when the iPhone was launched.One of the funnier responses. :)
Post by: clongton on 06/11/2014 11:23 am
Did they really believe that all those people in that room were that stupid?
Post by: Oli on 06/11/2014 12:30 pm
Know the facts, understand the truth.
LoL
Quote@chronsciguy @ulalaunch @SpaceX @elonmusk I imagine the Nokia board had a similar chart when the iPhone was launched.One of the funnier responses. :)
I wish people would stop making such idiotic comparisons.
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/11/2014 03:53 pm
Yes, this is all unseemly, these contractors harping at one another, airing their dirty laundry in public.
But, seriously, when was the last time the space business was this much fun?
- Ed Kyle
Post by: savuporo on 06/11/2014 03:54 pm
| NASA contracts 2007- now | 2.6B | 2.5B |
| NASA Launches 2007 - now | 11 | 3 |
| NASA Contracted $/Launch | $240M | $840M |
| NASA Mass Delivered to Orbit | 72,622lbs | 6671lbs |
| NASA Cost/lb | $36k | $378k |
| BLEO Launches | 6 | 0 |
The numbers do look pretty bad.
How does the picture change if we move the beginning of the window to first Falcon 1.1 launch ? With the best cherry picking, how good can this picture become ? What if we extrapolate to next two years of booked manifests, too ?
Post by: RedLineTrain on 06/11/2014 04:25 pm
And then, the cost of each Dragon is included in launch costs.
Obviously dishonest. Makes you wonder how ULA came up with the $225 million cost for its own Air Force Atlas V flights.
Post by: savuporo on 06/11/2014 05:04 pm
Post by: rcoppola on 06/11/2014 05:22 pm
Note that noone has taken a honest stab at posting a corrected table. Feel free to cherry pick the timeframes
I would think perhaps showing it as launch contract to launch contract:
SpaceX
Contract - $1.6B
Launches - 12
Per launch - $133M
Mass-to-orbit 44,000lbs (forgot if down mass was included in this or not)
$36k per lb
*Doesn't include Dragons' mass (Not sure if it should) which technically is mass-to-orbit unless you say it's the equivalent of a complex fairing used to just protect / hold/ deliver it's internal cargo)
Post by: rcoppola on 06/11/2014 05:35 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/11/2014 05:59 pm
The ridiculous posts have been removed, as have some probably OK posts, because some people we foolish enough to QUOTE the stupid posts. And I'm not spending all day cutting quotes out of posts. DO NOT quote stupid posts, or your post will be removed as a result of the trim.
DO NOT quote stupid posts, allowing yourself a stupid post, because you know it'll go. That's a fast way to get sanctioned.
One single stupid post from this point onwards and you'll get sanctioned.
Post by: baldusi on 06/11/2014 07:38 pm
You have to give it to them, the 109% price increase Vs. 5% cost reduction is a nice touch.I would like the GAO opinion on that. Apparently the 2012 price hike was an illusion. I'll repeat it. Having so many good things and positive comparisons where they basically show their quality and capability difference, they really didn't had to fall so low.
I didn't liked the graph because they failed to pot the v1.0 on SpaceX side. But then they could have talked about then putting Delta I/II/III and Atlas (and may be even Titan). So you have to give it to them that.
They could have talked about launch scrubs. LV caused launch delays. Marginal cost of launches. They could have used a Bayesian reliability per family. They could have talked about certifications. About actual NASA missions. About DoD mission requirement compliance. Or about % of missions that they can cover. So many advantages that's incredible to go for this.
Post by: savuporo on 06/11/2014 07:41 pm
http://pic.twitter.com/pfVrqPd8or
Post by: baldusi on 06/11/2014 08:20 pm
Post by: arachnitect on 06/11/2014 08:27 pm
And here we go, a more "fair and balanced" scorecard, someone bothered
http://pic.twitter.com/pfVrqPd8or
It's not "demonstrated capabilities" anymore is it? Changing the start date to 1.1.2013 throws out a huge amount of ULA launch history. Note the one flight in "sun/moon/planets," a category dominated by ULA both past and future.
If we're going to move the start date up, they might as well make it just the past year. Or make it launch history since F9.1.1 introduction (get rid of CRS-2). OR go back to 2010 (add 4 Falcons, 20+ ULA launches).
Not that there's much point arguing about the past. There's no getting around the fact that ULA has flown more missions to more places. SpaceX would argue (not unreasonably) that it's future capability that matters.
Post by: Go4TLI on 06/11/2014 08:35 pm
SpaceX would argue (not unreasonably) that it's future capability that matters.
And that is where all the arguments falter relative to SpaceX and this topic. It amounts to "trust me, watch what we will do" when there is no guarantee on performance, cost, tempo, reliability or anything until the system flies multiple times.
Right now, the manifest for SpaceX moves to the right far more often than it is actually being executed. It's not to say they have not done some impressive things but at the end of the day their operations need to match their rhetoric.
Post by: clongton on 06/11/2014 09:09 pm
... a category dominated by ULA both past and future.
May I borrow your crystal ball? There's some stock I've been looking at.
Post by: Jakusb on 06/11/2014 09:10 pm
And thus easy to tweak the numbers any way you want.
How many trips to the sun?
How many soft landings of first stage?
None of them will win the argument.
Both sides try to look good against the other. Neither should really bother to compare and simply go do what they are both good at: build and launch rockets. Both in their own special way.
Both with fanatic amazing peoples that will not accept any good word on the other party.
Let's just hope that the Nokia analogy does not apply to ULA and SpaceX does not fail its quest. There should be room for them both and likely several other space endeavoring companies.
To the stars, and beyond!
Post by: savuporo on 06/11/2014 09:22 pm
... a category dominated by ULA both past and future.
May I borrow your crystal ball? There's some stock I've been looking at.
Depending on the extent of the future you are interested in, you somewhat extrapolate without the crystal ball.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Launch_Manifest_Quarterly_Performance/2014/MANIFEST_web_033114.pdf
http://www.spacex.com/missions#future-missions-header
EDIT:
This performance report is quite cool too
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Launch_Manifest_Quarterly_Performance/2014/033114LaunchManifestQuarterlyPerformanceReport-PublicFinal.pdf
Post by: rcoppola on 06/11/2014 09:24 pm
Yes, there were many ways for them to have devised their materials without the elaborate numerical manipulations. I wish they would have. Many wonderful enabling launches for the scientific community alone. You play to your strengths.You have to give it to them, the 109% price increase Vs. 5% cost reduction is a nice touch.I would like the GAO opinion on that. Apparently the 2012 price hike was an illusion. I'll repeat it. Having so many good things and positive comparisons where they basically show their quality and capability difference, they really didn't had to fall so low.
I didn't liked the graph because they failed to pot the v1.0 on SpaceX side. But then they could have talked about then putting Delta I/II/III and Atlas (and may be even Titan). So you have to give it to them that.
They could have talked about launch scrubs. LV caused launch delays. Marginal cost of launches. They could have used a Bayesian reliability per family. They could have talked about certifications. About actual NASA missions. About DoD mission requirement compliance. Or about % of missions that they can cover. So many advantages that's incredible to go for this.
Alas, which is why their capabilities and successes are displayed proudly and clearly. While their cost comparisons are distorted into a pretzel type illogic.
There are 2 fundamental questions:
1. Can ULA maintain current capabilities while becoming more cost competitive.
Challenges:
-Atlas V Re-engine
-Cost reductions (Infrastructure and workforce overhead)
2. Can SpaceX increase capabilities while keeping costs extremely competitive?
Challenges:
-Manufacturing & Launch cadence
-FH
The next 24 months will begin to tell the tale. There's room for both, so here's to some good old fashion in-the-trenches competition.
Post by: arachnitect on 06/11/2014 09:34 pm
... a category dominated by ULA both past and future.
May I borrow your crystal ball? There's some stock I've been looking at.
The future is a big place; I was referring to the next few years.
ULA has missions in this category on contract, and additional contracts likely before FH flies.
Post by: clongton on 06/12/2014 12:20 am
... a category dominated by ULA both past and future.
May I borrow your crystal ball? There's some stock I've been looking at.
The future is a big place; I was referring to the next few years.
ULA has missions in this category on contract, and additional contracts likely before FH flies.
And the Air Force and ULA have locked SpaceX out of several potential contracts for many years to come.
That's what started this whole thing.
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/12/2014 01:41 am
I didn't liked the graph because they failed to pot the v1.0 on SpaceX side. But then they could have talked about then putting Delta I/II/III and Atlas (and may be even Titan).United Launch Alliance was formed in December 2006, so it has only launched Atlas 5, Delta 4, and Delta 2. All of the other vehicles were retired by the time it was formed.
The chart is unfortunate, especially the crude attempt at a cost comparison, but the general point it was trying to make is correct - that ULA has performed many more launches than SpaceX. SpaceX is really still just getting started.
The good news is that both are flying with success.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Will on 06/12/2014 02:04 am
... a category dominated by ULA both past and future.
May I borrow your crystal ball? There's some stock I've been looking at.
The future is a big place; I was referring to the next few years.
ULA has missions in this category on contract, and additional contracts likely before FH flies.
And the Air Force and ULA have locked SpaceX out of several potential contracts for many years to come.
That's what started this whole thing.
According to SpaceX, who is not disinterested. As i read it, SpaceX will probably be certified to bid on the next round of launches in 2015, which is, by my math, less than several years away. Also, they claim that they have no idea how many of the single core launches in the previous block buy they could have launched if they had been certified, which they have not. It follows that the number may actually be zero, but this is, they claim, sufficient reason to negate all of them. This sounds like frivolous litigation to me.
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/12/2014 03:54 am
According to SpaceX, who is not disinterested. As i read it, SpaceX will probably be certified to bid on the next round of launches in 2015, which is, by my math, less than several years away. Also, they claim that they have no idea how many of the single core launches in the previous block buy they could have launched if they had been certified, which they have not. It follows that the number may actually be zero, but this is, they claim, sufficient reason to negate all of them. This sounds like frivolous litigation to me. {emphasis added}Foremost it must be remembered that the protest filed with the Court is against USAF/USG, not ULA.
SpaceX is qualified to bid now having submitted data required for certification.
Initially I kind of had the same reaction Will, as on the surface it appeared that SpaceX was not a qualified bidder.
However as I read the J&A, Court documents and regarded the commentary in other threads by those versed in federal procurement rules and laws and read the timeline it became increasingly clear that I was mistaken in some of my assumptions. If the protest were frivolous it probably would have been dismissed by now.
The first response to the SpaceX Lawsuit was rather good (see first post in this topic).
ULA's subsequent public responses to the SpaceX lawsuit is possibly doing more harm than good for ULA. The best approach- a quiet calm assertive position of confidence based upon past performance...perhaps even offering helpful advice to the newcomer, as an elder brother would. The best response to the injunction...none at all, except perhaps we have the means to provide Atlas V and all EELV launches as required. Instead of full page patriotic appeals and "SpaceX is irresponsible for requesting injunctions"...now, worst of all is the "funny arithmetic." The SpaceX information as presented above calls into question the integrity of ULA, for all of the reasons stated by others above. Fiddling with numbers was a massive blunder.
The better course if anything were to be said at all is to say: "SpaceX is involved in a lot of experimental technology that may prove to be of benefit over time. ULA has found a conservative approach is the most reliable when launching billion dollar payloads and reliability is why the USAF awarded ULA the EELV contract for critical national security launches. We wish SpaceX luck with their experimental technology, perhaps someday risk taking will pay off and their new technology will prove to be as reliable as what ULA offers today."
Instead ULA demonstrates it knows how to cook the books which is not wise when questions of price gouging have been raised.
Post by: Jakusb on 06/12/2014 07:00 am
According to SpaceX, who is not disinterested. As i read it, SpaceX will probably be certified to bid on the next round of launches in 2015, which is, by my math, less than several years away. Also, they claim that they have no idea how many of the single core launches in the previous block buy they could have launched if they had been certified, which they have not. It follows that the number may actually be zero, but this is, they claim, sufficient reason to negate all of them. This sounds like frivolous litigation to me. {emphasis added}Foremost it must be remembered that the protest filed with the Court is against USAF/USG, not ULA.
SpaceX is qualified to bid now having submitted data required for certification.
Initially I kind of had the same reaction Will, as on the surface it appeared that SpaceX was not a qualified bidder.
However as I read the J&A, Court documents and regarded the commentary in other threads by those versed in federal procurement rules and laws and read the timeline it became increasingly clear that I was mistaken in some of my assumptions. If the protest were frivolous it probably would have been dismissed by now.
The first response to the SpaceX Lawsuit was rather good (see first post in this topic).
ULA's subsequent public responses to the SpaceX lawsuit is possibly doing more harm than good for ULA. The best approach- a quiet calm assertive position of confidence based upon past performance...perhaps even offering helpful advice to the newcomer, as an elder brother would. The best response to the injunction...none at all, except perhaps we have the means to provide Atlas V and all EELV launches as required. Instead of full page patriotic appeals and "SpaceX is irresponsible for requesting injunctions"...now, worst of all is the "funny arithmetic." The SpaceX information as presented above calls into question the integrity of ULA, for all of the reasons stated by others above. Fiddling with numbers was a massive blunder.
The better course if anything were to be said at all is to say: "SpaceX is involved in a lot of experimental technology that may prove to be of benefit over time. ULA has found a conservative approach is the most reliable when launching billion dollar payloads and reliability is why the USAF awarded ULA the EELV contract for critical national security launches. We wish SpaceX luck with their experimental technology, perhaps someday risk taking will pay off and their new technology will prove to be as reliable as what ULA offers today."
Instead ULA demonstrates it knows how to cook the books which is not wise when questions of price gouging have been raised.
One of the best posts on this topic till now!
Kudos!
Post by: arachnitect on 06/12/2014 03:23 pm
... a category dominated by ULA both past and future.
May I borrow your crystal ball? There's some stock I've been looking at.
The future is a big place; I was referring to the next few years.
ULA has missions in this category on contract, and additional contracts likely before FH flies.
And the Air Force and ULA have locked SpaceX out of several potential contracts for many years to come.
That's what started this whole thing.
I was talking about NASA contracts.
Post by: TrueGrit on 06/12/2014 05:33 pm
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/12/2014 06:39 pm
{trimmed quotes}NASA contracts brings up another factor that may be very bad for public perception of ULA;
I was talking about NASA contracts.
Senator Shelby.
Shelby is fighting for Jobs in his state, and the House members from Alabama are fighting just as hard.
Frankly, that's a good thing. That's what you want your Senator and Congressmen to do if your job may be on the line as long as they're representing the highest ideals of personal integrity.
Whether deserved or not, the actions of Shelby gives the impression that ULA owns the politicians involved in hampering the most successful NASA SAA launch contracts to date.
If I were ULA management I would take immediate steps to distance myself from the language proposed by Shelby.
If I were a ULA employee and management remained silent I would find the actions of Shelby demoralizing because I would feel that my management lacked confidence and integrity to take the competition head on in a fair fight. I would hope that my ULA management would take the high road and denounce the anti competitive NASA commercial program language proposed by Sen. Shelby. Very few want to see the fruit of their labor and a bullet point on their resume having any appearance of benefiting corrupt individuals engaging in back alley politics and bid rigging that the lawsuit may imply.
In my personal work as a subcontractor at SMC, and with other DOD contracts/subcontracts the civil service individuals involved have always been of the highest personal integrity and caliber. It is my hope that the claims in the lawsuit are unjustified.
If I were ULA I would assure the safety of my sterling reputation was preserved untarnished.
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/19/2014 04:20 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ula-chief-accuses-elon-musks-spacex-of-trying-to-cut-corners/2014/06/18/a7ca0850-f70d-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html?tid=hpModule_a2e19bf4-86a3-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394
Hopefully this ends soon. I'm not sure that this "publicity" approach is working for ULA. Read the last three or so paragraphs for an example.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/19/2014 10:24 pm
Another round of tit for tat press conferences recently.Thanks for sharing Ed, interesting read.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ula-chief-accuses-elon-musks-spacex-of-trying-to-cut-corners/2014/06/18/a7ca0850-f70d-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html?tid=hpModule_a2e19bf4-86a3-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394
Hopefully this ends soon. I'm not sure that this "publicity" approach is working for ULA. Read the last three or so paragraphs for an example.
- Ed Kyle
I hope it ends soon too. It's painful to watch ULA management caught so off balance:
Quote from: (from the article) CEO Michael Gass
“We also want to make clear that there is a big distinction between a company that has a 100-year combined heritage in successfully delivering satellites into orbit and a company that is not yet even certified to conduct one launch.”"100-year combined history" doesn't convey a "state of the art, forward leaning, best practices" message to taxpayers or shareholders of parent companies. Worse yet, average readers may perceive the "combined history" statement as a blatant distortion.
Post by: Prober on 06/19/2014 11:12 pm
Another round of tit for tat press conferences recently.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ula-chief-accuses-elon-musks-spacex-of-trying-to-cut-corners/2014/06/18/a7ca0850-f70d-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html?tid=hpModule_a2e19bf4-86a3-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394
Hopefully this ends soon. I'm not sure that this "publicity" approach is working for ULA. Read the last three or so paragraphs for an example.
- Ed Kyle
no one listens, this is NOT the way. They need to read the Howard Hughes book, the clues are in there.
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 06/20/2014 12:45 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVzSKGA_epc
Post by: rcoppola on 06/20/2014 01:41 am
I understand the concept: Make an emotional connection between our products and services, the payloads you launch, to the impact they have on our daily lives in a very real and meaningful way. Got it. Good concept, poor execution.
1. How many "...and we have lift off of the..." calls do you need in one video?
2. How many similar rocket launches do you need to show?
3. Do you suppose throwing in some GPS-in-a-car stock footage pays off your concept? Or most of the other stock footage thrown in for good measure?
4. Don't do horizontal drifting type with imagery that has vertical motion like a rocket launch. You're eyes go crazy trying to read drifting type coming from the left and the right while the imagery is going from bottom to top of the screen. (Also, consistent font and type treatment)
5. What's the optimum length of a video for something like this? Hint...it's not 3+ minutes.
6. etc., etc.
You need a narrative. Showing GPS-in-a-car gets you nowhere. Who's in the car, where are they going? What are you solving for them? Maybe it's a husband and wife with little kids, lost in bad weather, but they make it safe and sound because...etc, you get the idea. So yes, it's about how what you launch, effects real people in real situations. If that's a direction you want to go, and I agree you should, then cut out the repetitive rocket launches, make four 30 second short stories, focus on real people in real situations. End with a ULA logo, Rocket launching in background and nice, friendly, meaningful tagline. I could go on, but...rather OT I admit.
Just trying to be helpful...
Post by: Jim on 06/20/2014 01:46 am
"100-year combined history" doesn't convey a "state of the art, forward leaning, best practices" message to taxpayers
What says any company is doing "best practices"? Obviously many gov't customers don't (see lack of Spacex gov't contracts)
Post by: okan170 on 06/20/2014 02:18 am
If there is anyone from ULA's Media / PR Dept. on this site, please PM me. You're great at launching payloads, videos...not so much.
I understand the concept: Make an emotional connection between our products and services, the payloads you launch, to the impact they have on our daily lives in a very real and meaningful way. Got it. Good concept, poor execution.
You need a narrative....
Just trying to be helpful...
You could even just be fairly whimsical, and keep all the rocket launches, just find a way to show examples of things visually appearing that those missions enabled. So many ways to make this sort of thing look interesting, I mean it's launching rockets! It doesn't take much in the way of fancy camerawork to look awesome, but it still needs to be brought together in the end.
Post by: Lar on 06/20/2014 02:45 am
What says any company is doing "best practices"? Obviously many gov't customers don't (see lack of Spacex gov't contracts)
I don't think that it logically follows that SpaceX lack of contracts is due to SpaceX unsuitability. After all, there is a legal action pending right now that makes far different allegations.
ULA is flailing. That WashPo interview won't score any points. They need better PR.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/20/2014 03:55 am
They've never been good at PR. They prefer to be quiet. Very proud and with good reason.What says any company is doing "best practices"? Obviously many gov't customers don't (see lack of Spacex gov't contracts)
I don't think that it logically follows that SpaceX lack of contracts is due to SpaceX unsuitability. After all, there is a legal action pending right now that makes far different allegations.
ULA is flailing. That WashPo interview won't score any points. They need better PR.
Agree about the tin ear in communicating their own virtues. And it bites. I think to the point of over speaking.
Don't dismiss Jim. SpaceX doesn't yet address many necessary needs. And not by accident.
But Jim's wary of SpaceX's attractions with good reason. Among other things it complicates life.
Its an example of how one develops a tin ear. Because to counter a position you must accept first its appeal, in order to be able to confront the position, deny its conclusion, and displace with your position. If you don't listen and bother to accept its appeal, you can't effectively respond. Dialling the noise machine to 11 these days as an alternative doesn't cut it.
ULA would do better to confront SpaceX's position rather than evade/antagonize/flag wave/etc.
If they don't soon this will be a very one sided issue. Sure way to lose ground fast.
Post by: Lar on 06/20/2014 04:18 am
And I'm not "dismissing Jim", just saying it's fallacious and circular to argue that SpaceX doesn't have contracts (because they haven't been allowed to have contracts) as proof of why they shouldn't. Which I'm sure Jim will argue wasn't what he said. It wasn't, not in so many words. But it's just as foolish for ULA to say "we're better because we are older" without further elaboration. And attacking SpaceX competence won't fly with everyone. We can see they are competent and gaining ground fast.
But I am not the PR market for ULA, they don't care about fan boys. This patriotic stuff might work with congressmen, which is their real constituency...
Post by: savuporo on 06/20/2014 05:16 am
2. How many similar rocket launches do you need to show?
I've never felt this quote more fitting than now : "Quantity has a quality all its own"
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/20/2014 06:01 am
"What says any company is doing "best practices"?"
"100-year combined history" doesn't convey a "state of the art, forward leaning, best practices" message to taxpayers
What says any company is doing "best practices"? Obviously many gov't customers don't (see lack of Spacex gov't contracts)
I could go on and on about QA, QC, SPC, ERP, MRP, CM, RA, PM... but "results" should be sufficient.
Results in terms of cost, quality, and development time. With best practices you optimize for all three.
Without best practices you are forced to choose any two at the expense of the third without knowing the outcome before hand. The beauty of science lies not in discovery, but in the prediction of results.
"Obviously many gov't customers don't (see lack of Spacex gov't contracts)"
What Lar and Space Ghost 1962 said.
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/20/2014 06:12 am
Love that because "Quality has a real quantity all its own."2. How many similar rocket launches do you need to show?I've never felt this quote more fitting than now : "Quantity has a quality all its own"
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/20/2014 06:44 am
{trimmed}I think a lot of us want to be helpful. For the most part we're like space "Sports Fans."
Just trying to be helpful...
We want our guy to win, but we don't want the other guy taken out by self inflicted injury.
Mixing sports metaphors...
Controversy surrounding a team can damage a sport. I want to see the space industry thrive and grow like the IT industry did in 2000.
Post by: Jim on 06/20/2014 10:59 am
I don't think that it logically follows that SpaceX lack of contracts is due to SpaceX unsuitability. After all, there is a legal action pending right now that makes far different allegations.
not for NASA contracts.
Post by: Jim on 06/20/2014 11:03 am
"What says any company is doing "best practices"?"
I could go on and on about QA, QC, SPC, ERP, MRP, CM, RA, PM... but "results" should be sufficient.
Results in terms of cost, quality, and development time. With best practices you optimize for all three.
Without best practices you are forced to choose any two at the expense of the third without knowing the outcome before hand. The beauty of science lies not in discovery, but in the prediction of results.
"Obviously many gov't customers don't (see lack of Spacex gov't contracts)"
What Lar and Space Ghost 1962 said.
You still haven't answered it. What results? See the lack of contracts.
Post by: AncientU on 06/20/2014 11:34 am
What says any company is doing "best practices"? Obviously many gov't customers don't (see lack of Spacex gov't contracts)
I don't think that it logically follows that SpaceX lack of contracts is due to SpaceX unsuitability. After all, there is a legal action pending right now that makes far different allegations.
ULA is flailing. That WashPo interview won't score any points. They need better PR.
What they need is to say, "We are confident enough in the value of our product that we are ready, willing, and able compete for every launch, starting with those in the block buy."
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/20/2014 12:50 pm
I'm not sure how your questions apply to the context of my original post1 and subsequent post?
"What says any company is doing "best practices"?"
I could go on and on about QA, QC, SPC, ERP, MRP, CM, RA, PM... but "results" should be sufficient.
Results in terms of cost, quality, and development time. With best practices you optimize for all three.
Without best practices you are forced to choose any two at the expense of the third without knowing the outcome before hand. The beauty of science lies not in discovery, but in the prediction of results.
"Obviously many gov't customers don't (see lack of Spacex gov't contracts)"
What Lar and Space Ghost 1962 said.
You still haven't answered it. What results? See the lack of contracts.
I'm having to guess at the meaning of your questions (please use more words Jim).
"You still haven't answered it. What results? See the lack of contracts."
What is "it" Jim?
I assume you mean USG contracts, as the "retail" side of the SpaceX launch manifest is pretty full.
As I recall SpaceX has two contracts with the USAF...
Are you talking lack of contracts as a function of USG consumer confidence?
NASA is trusting the lives of the ISS crew and 100b station to safe operations of the SpaceX Dragon.
I'd hypothesize Dragon deliveries require a measurable degree of mission confidence based upon a risk assessment which would provide some hard numbers.
---
1
Another round of tit for tat press conferences recently.Thanks for sharing Ed, interesting read.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ula-chief-accuses-elon-musks-spacex-of-trying-to-cut-corners/2014/06/18/a7ca0850-f70d-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html?tid=hpModule_a2e19bf4-86a3-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394
Hopefully this ends soon. I'm not sure that this "publicity" approach is working for ULA. Read the last three or so paragraphs for an example.
- Ed Kyle
I hope it ends soon too. It's painful to watch ULA management caught so off balance:Quote from: (from the article) CEO Michael Gass“We also want to make clear that there is a big distinction between a company that has a 100-year combined heritage in successfully delivering satellites into orbit and a company that is not yet even certified to conduct one launch.”"100-year combined history" doesn't convey a "state of the art, forward leaning, best practices" message to taxpayers or shareholders of parent companies. Worse yet, average readers may perceive the "combined history" statement as a blatant distortion.
Post by: Jim on 06/20/2014 01:13 pm
Are you talking lack of contracts as a function of USG consumer confidence?
NASA is trusting the lives of the ISS crew and 100b station to safe operations of the SpaceX Dragon.
I'd hypothesize Dragon deliveries require a measurable degree of mission confidence based upon a risk assessment which would provide some hard numbers.
Not the same people that deal with launch of spacecraft. Also, Dragon is carrying anything not really of worth on individual launches.
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/20/2014 08:53 pm
:)