NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => ULA - Delta, Atlas, Vulcan => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 03/17/2015 11:11 pm
-
America’s #1 Space Launch Provider – United Launch Alliance – Talks Innovations Including New Launch Vehicle at Lower Cost, Higher Capability and Unmatched Reliability
CEO Says Efforts to Prematurely Halt the RD180 Engine “Uncompetitive” and a
Threat to Assured Access to Space
Washington, D.C., (March 17, 2015) – United Launch Alliance (ULA) President and CEO Tory Bruno testified today to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, regarding the future of space launch and how his company is innovating and transforming to provide more affordable space launch services.
Bruno noted that space systems are an integral part of today’s technology-driven world and are critical to not only our national security, but to the country’s economic prosperity and scientific advancement. ULA’s launch record of reliable, on time, and on or under budget – all with 100 percent mission success -- position ULA to remain the undisputed leader of this industry. In addition, Bruno also noted that a GAO report released last week confirmed that ULA’s collaboration with the Air Force on improved acquisition through a five-year block buy resulted in $4.4 billion in savings for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, accounting for one quarter of the total savings.
During his testimony, Bruno reiterated that only ULA has the capability to launch all of the nation’s assets which means that it is critical for ULA to maintain its supply of the RD-180 engine that is the workhorse of the Atlas launch vehicle until their new launch system is in place. The new launch system, which includes an American made engine, is expected to produce its first flight in 2019 with full certification in 2022-2023.
“If the RD-180 is prematurely cut off before a new engine and vehicle is certified, there will be no other launch provider who can perform the full range of launch capabilities currently required under the law,” Bruno said referring to Assured Access to Space which requires that the nation maintain two launch vehicles at all times to support the nation’s launch requirements. “The current narrow interpretation of the Defense Authorization bill could preclude ULA from receiving previously ordered engines, which means the Air Force would only have one provider. Not only is that anti-competitive, it puts the Air Force national security mission requirements at risk.”
“The space launch industry is entering a new era and we couldn’t be more excited about our role in transforming the nation’s launch capabilities,” said Bruno, a 30-year veteran of the rocket industry. “ULA knows what it takes to provide assured access to space, and we’re very proud to be the nation’s provider. We are building on that success by creating a next generation launch vehicle that will maintain all the reliability and heritage of the Atlas and Delta, but will be more affordable with higher capability to meet the country’s future needs.”
Since its inception in 2006, ULA has consistently delivered 100 percent mission success for 94 consecutive launches and is currently at a tempo of greater than one launch per month. ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV rockets are the most powerful and most reliable in the world, and are the only rockets that fully meet the needs of the national security community.
With more than a century of combined heritage, United Launch Alliance is the nation’s most experienced and reliable launch service provider. ULA has successfully delivered more than 90 satellites to orbit that provide critical capabilities for troops in the field, aid meteorologists in tracking severe weather, enable personal device-based GPS navigation and unlock the mysteries of our solar system.
For more information on ULA, visit the ULA website at www.ulalaunch.com, or call the ULA Launch Hotline at 1-877-ULA-4321 (852-4321). Join the conversation at www.facebook.com/ulalaunch, twitter.com/ulalaunch and instagram.com/ulalaunch.
-
This is Tory Bruno's witness statement from today's House Hearing:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS29/20150317/103135/HHRG-114-AS29-Wstate-BrunoS-20150317.pdf (http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS29/20150317/103135/HHRG-114-AS29-Wstate-BrunoS-20150317.pdf)
(copy also attached)
-
Now I think I understand why Bruno announced that he was shutting down Delta 4 so soon. It was so he could make this speech today. Otherwise he couldn't say that RD-180 was required to meet the EELV requirements. Some will note that as he calls for continued "assured access" via. RD-180, he is purposefully shutting down ULA's own U.S. powered "assured access".
- Ed Kyle
-
"...which means the Air Force would only have one provider. Not only is that anti-competitive, it puts the Air Force national security mission requirements at risk.”
I just had to highlight that quote, since you wouldn't have found ULA stating that their monopoly was "anti-competitive" just a few short years (months?) ago, or that being a monopoly was a national security risk.
It's amazing what happens when competition enters the marketplace...
-
"...which means the Air Force would only have one provider. Not only is that anti-competitive, it puts the Air Force national security mission requirements at risk.”
I just had to highlight that quote, since you wouldn't have found ULA stating that their monopoly was "anti-competitive" just a few short years (months?) ago, or that being a monopoly was a national security risk.
It's amazing what happens when competition enters the marketplace...
Absolutely. When I read the ULA presser I almost choked over the part you highlighted. Here you have the current sole-source provider warning for something that they basically are themselves right now. My appreciation for Mr. Bruno just dropped twenty points (on a on-hundred point scale).
-
Now I think I understand why Bruno announced that he was shutting down Delta 4 so soon. It was so he could make this speech today. Otherwise he couldn't say that RD-180 was required to meet the EELV requirements. Some will note that as he calls for continued "assured access" via. RD-180, he is purposefully shutting down ULA's own U.S. powered "assured access".
- Ed Kyle
IF (not the fat "if") that was not just the side-effect of an economic decision, but actually THE reason for shutting down Delta IV, then Bruno is actually worse than Grass.
But quite frankly I don't believe that Bruno would be silly enough to shut down Delta IV just to make sure that RD-180 will continue to power Atlas V for many years to come. It would completely offset ULA's intentions for a replacement vehicle.
-
Now I think I understand why Bruno announced that he was shutting down Delta 4 so soon. It was so he could make this speech today. Otherwise he couldn't say that RD-180 was required to meet the EELV requirements. Some will note that as he calls for continued "assured access" via. RD-180, he is purposefully shutting down ULA's own U.S. powered "assured access".
- Ed Kyle
IF (not the fat "if") that was not just the side-effect of an economic decision, but actually THE reason for shutting down Delta IV, then Bruno is actually worse than Grass.
But quite frankly I don't believe that Bruno would be silly enough to shut down Delta IV just to make sure that RD-180 will continue to power Atlas V for many years to come. It would completely offset ULA's intentions for a replacement vehicle.
He did make the argument during the hearing, that if he had to compete with SpaceX only with the Delta IV, he would lose every single category where he competes. Thus, forcing him to use Delta IV is has exactly the same effect than not allowing to procure extra RD-180 while he transitions to a new engine.
Shotwell said that she didn't knew the Delta IV costs, but that it was ULA's work to actually make competitive LV.
Bruno then said that he had two LV in his fleet for assured access, but with competition it wasn't required.
Not exact words, but that was my general grasp. I was surprised from both Mr. Bruno and Mrs. Shotwell that they weren't more eloquent.
-
"...which means the Air Force would only have one provider. Not only is that anti-competitive, it puts the Air Force national security mission requirements at risk.”
I just had to highlight that quote, since you wouldn't have found ULA stating that their monopoly was "anti-competitive" just a few short years (months?) ago, or that being a monopoly was a national security risk.
It's amazing what happens when competition enters the marketplace...
No, there were two providers, Delta and Atlas
-
He did make the argument during the hearing, that if he had to compete with SpaceX only with the Delta IV, he would lose every single category where he competes. Thus, forcing him to use Delta IV is has exactly the same effect than not allowing to procure extra RD-180 while he transitions to a new engine.
Shotwell said that she didn't knew the Delta IV costs, but that it was ULA's work to actually make competitive LV.
Bruno then said that he had two LV in his fleet for assured access, but with competition it wasn't required.
Not exact words, but that was my general grasp. I was surprised from both Mr. Bruno and Mrs. Shotwell that they weren't more eloquent.
Getting rid of Delta IV is a decision driven by economics, pure and simple. IMO, Ed's suggestion that it may have a more political motive is pure speculation.
And no-one is forcing ULA to use only Delta-IV. The ban on RD-180 does not come into effect for another four years, and only involves national security launches. If ULA and it's propulsion partners Blue and Aerojet-Rocketdyne are incapable of coming up with a replacement engine in that timeframe, then I feel sorry for the US propulsion industry: how low have they dropped in capabilities.
-
The hearing was interesting in that it Shotwell got questions about Delta IV in an attempt to point out that if Delta IV goes away and Atlas can't fly due to lack of engines SpaceX would have a monopoly and that would be a bad thing. It was a strange line of questions, and it seems like they are taking a very narrow reading the 1608 language to make it appear engines on contract already can't be used for national security launches past the current block buy except for 5 engines, so they need to lift the language so ULA can stay competitive or ULA would be forced to launch everything on the Delta IV Heavy at a great expense.
I can't quite understand how ULA retiring the Delta IV medium, and because of a strange reading of the regs can't use engines already bought leads them to having to launch everything on the Delta heavy at a price close to a $1 billion, according to Bruno. I mean the Air Force is not telling them to retire the vehicle, and if they would still be able to build and launch the heavy, why would they not be able to still build a medium if that's all they had?
-
No, there were two providers, Delta and Atlas
One provider (ULA), two vehicles (Delta and Atlas). Mr. Bruno stated during the hearing that ULA cannot complete with Delta alone. Without the RD-180's, Atlas would be off the table (at least for a time), thus leaving...
Reminds me of the scene from Blazing Saddles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Z_JOGmXpe5I) when Bart holds his own gun to his head and takes himself hostage.
-
Yup.
No surprises how this is turning out. From EELV program inception you could see how things would play out.
DIV was intended as the sole winner riding the Shuttle economics chain. Almost made it to, and in comparison to Shuttle, with enough flights it would have. Since they went all out with the "new" to do this, a lot of things left for "improvement" after winning followed. Unlike AV where much was "evolved" with past increments of development, more of a repackaging of what was there, and not dependent on Shuttle economics chain, given the rather cynical view of it paying off from LM.
But both "won", and ULA was created. "Frequent flyer" AV because "less to be done" and lower cost because "best in category" Russian engine, a "devil's bargain" in that the way out of it always carried a billion dollar penalty, like a loan with unpredictable interest rate.
These competing "ill's" went their course as expected. Its easier to reinvest in the AV and get better returns, so frequency increases, reliability & cost decreases, your "too good deal" gets harder to walk away from. And your DIV "new stuff" leveraged off of Shuttle doesn't fly frequently, so costs don't drop, improvements don't happen, and "newness" fades. And because it fulfills a unique role that you can't afford to transfer to AV, you watch as the costs mount up over time. Shuttle EOL means this escalates too.
Newbie arrives on the scene to undercut with a low cost launch architecture, and a newly belligerent Russia has to score points stupidly on the theory of use and "trampolines". Newbie points to your fly hanging open and the Russian engine in obvious sight. Oops - who coulda seen that coming, Clevis? I shore didn't thunk it.
But with all that good old American know-how, we can make anything cheap-n-good, right? Excepting that annoying newbie of course he's not really an American one of use you see. Hmm, suddenly paying down all those accumulated DIV/H costs don't look so good, and "renewing" the "new" is even worse, after all it was the late nineties costing that we competed it with. God, if we got stuck with this sucker, we'd really be screwed Clevis!
So Congress, ignore that LH rocket over there, we've got no rocket to compete with, you'll just have to suck it in and stomach Russian engines indefinitely while we figure something out that works for our business.
Otherwise you're only bet is that wacko SX, and your general's aren't gonna like that. So I'm sorry, now one could have predicted this, we're doing the best we can, and if you force us to we can do DIV/H but you won't want to pay for it (and we have no future if you do!), so since you need to cut us a "mulligan" here. Then you'll get what we've given you all along.
Honest, its only one time!
-
Pick one of the following:
1. There are two providers, and missions are competed on cost (keep using RD-180)
2. There are two providers, and no Russian engines (Pay ULA big money to keep DIV M flying)
3. There is one provider for M class launches (costs for the missions they can't cover death spiral, no assured access)
What should ULA and USAF do? Answers that presuppose the availability of time travel are not allowed.
-
And I love the twist on "capitalism" here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/03/18/how-elon-musks-spacex-could-conquer-the-market-for-military-satellite-launches/
ULA's other alternative for doing the launches, the Delta IV, is pretty pricey — about 30 percent more costly than the Atlas V, Bruno said.
OK, so one business, a monopoly, has a more expensive launch service. In a capitalist view, the monopoly concept is that for a purpose its allowed to be more expensive, and that's why we have a monopoly.
Like with Ariane V. Which is a single, LH fueled vehicle. Or H2. So what's the problem.
... SpaceX's rocket, the Falcon 9, is about to be cleared by the Air Force for military launches...
... If SpaceX's rockets effectively replace ULA's Delta IVs, the Pentagon will have traded one monopoly for another.
Anyone hear of "duopoly" brainiac? Like with weapons vendors? ATK vs AJ solids?
That's ironic, considering how much of SpaceX's upstart rhetoric revolves around the idea of making the space launch industry more competitive.
Gee, "two" instead of "one". Sounds like competition of a sort. Isn't that ... "capitalism"? As opposed to "cronyism"?
Irrespective of the purpose or skill of said companies, just on the basis of what's covered in the article alone.
If [ULA] stops the Delta IV rocket launches," said Rogers, "is there anybody else that can compete with you for those missions?"
Shotwell struggled to answer, referring vaguely to there being international launch providers. She then went back and conceded that the Pentagon probably wouldn't trust those international services with sensitive military payloads.
Like Ariane or H2? Which are in many ways the same cost structure as DIV/H?
So let me get this straight. Because ULA doesn't want the same cost structure it has had all along with DIV/H that is found with two other national launchers as well, it would forgo a national security need, leaving SX a defacto "monopoly", one that it hasn't gotten a dollar out of as an "official" monopolist, and that's ... bad?
Wouldn't part of being "paid" to run an "official monopoly" for a decade, be that you were "overpaid" in advance for just that reason of keeping a DIV/H going while you brought online the new vehicle?
And that being allowed to "relinquish" the throne, at a time when either a) another proven "king" would ascend, or b) that 2-N vendors would supplant with a "market" the need for a throne, like what preceded the need for it?
This isn't capitalism.
Pick one of the following:
1. There are two providers, and missions are competed on cost (keep using RD-180)
If they were/are competed on cost only, a cost is access to RD-180. One was lying all along by not budgetting in "replacement" cost, which would have shown the true cost all along. As was mentioned at the beginning.
2. There are two providers, and no Russian engines (Pay ULA big money to keep DIV M flying)
Had the "win" reflected the true cost instead of neglecting it, the cost of DIV M would have been far less, and paid for all along. Actually, its still "do able" as a large, one time cost - they just are embarrassed to do it, since they bet on the wrong horse.
3. There is one provider for M class launches (costs for the missions they can't cover death spiral, no assured access)
Yes they can. They don't want to. Access is assured as long as you have two qualified options. And technically they have five if you wish to push it to the wall.
What should ULA and USAF do? Answers that presuppose the availability of time travel are not allowed.
What gamblers get when they bet on the wrong horse. Oh, my bad! Given me more.
I guess in your book, gamblers are just unlucky time travelers ;)
Bottom line - it's a business screw up, not a national security crisis. We've faced this before. Promoting it to a bigger crisis is just a way out of the box.
-
This has all gotten a bit ridiculous imo.
-Remove the RD-180 language. Use them as long as we can for any launches ensuring AtlasV can fly out their current manifest and get them close to when NGLV will be ready.
-Stand down DIV as it becomes apparent FH will be certified in the 2018-2020 timeframe.
-Let current Atlas V and F9 compete beginning this summer for appropriate payloads.
-Let NGLV compete against F9 & FH beginning in the 2022-23 timeframe.
If Russia shuts off RD-180 before the transition is complete, we'll still have F9 enhanced and may need to augment with one or two expensive Deltas, not the end of the world in the grand scheme and/or FH will be able to close the capabilities gap until NGLV with heavy capabilities comes on-line.
BE-4 and NGLV will take what it takes regardless of what Russia does or doesn't do. This RD-180 has become a self imposed error of judgment.
The points have been made. Competition and domestic engine. They are being implemented. Now just give everyone another few years to get through this transition. Stop playing games with RD-180. I don't see anyone blocking Exxon from their their billion dollar contracts for Natural gas exploration with Russia. Keep buying them as long as we can or need to. And remove any arbitrary language about how many or what they can or can't launch.
Again, all the pieces are in place. Bruno is doing what needs to be done. Elon is doing what needs to be done. We WILL have competition. We WILL have a domestic engine. Just back the hell off, give ULA some certainty on being able to fly out their manifest and get ready with the NGLV as SpaceX gets fully up to speed.
Edit: (If we hit a snag with RD-180 deliveries down the road, the USAF may very well need to move a few Block-Buy launches over to F9 allowing AV to handle only those payloads absolutely beyond F9 capabilities)
-
McCain could be an obstacle to ULA's and the Air Force's preference to change the RD-180 language.
Mike Gruss @Gruss_SN 1h1 hour ago
Sen. McCain weighs in on the RD-180 debate:
-
McCain could be an obstacle to ULA's and the Air Force's preference to change the RD-180 language.
Mike Gruss @Gruss_SN 1h1 hour ago
Sen. McCain weighs in on the RD-180 debate:
Well, should I assume we'll be seeing both of yesterdays panels being invited before the good Senator's committee soon?
-
There is this contract today for DIV:
Delta IV-H - Solar Probe Plus (SPP) - SLC-37 - July 31, 2018
-
This isn't capitalism.
Demand goes away so supply goes away too. It's Capitalism 101.
-
McCain could be an obstacle to ULA's and the Air Force's preference to change the RD-180 language.
Mike Gruss @Gruss_SN 1h1 hour ago
Sen. McCain weighs in on the RD-180 debate:
Not for nothing, but McCain is a former (highly decorated) Navy man who has always struck me as someone who is quite critical of the USAF. (I also have gotten the feeling over the years that he feels the same about Boeing). You just have to look at his comments on the tanker mess (occurred at about the same time as the Boeing Delta IV mess that led to the formation of ULA).
-
This isn't capitalism.
Of course it's capitalism. What you mean is that it isn't free market capitalism. To which I'd respond that it never was, is not anywhere in the world, never will be, and cannot be. Launch vehicles are a government-dominated market, everywhere, heavily regulated and subsidized.
-
This has all gotten a bit ridiculous imo.
-Remove the RD-180 language. Use them as long as we can for any launches ensuring AtlasV can fly out their current manifest and get them close to when NGLV will be ready.
<snip>
One major (as in MAJOR) flaw in your reasoning. The minute you remove the RD-180 legal language you remove any incentive for USAF and ULA to develop a domestic alternative. USAF and ULA are not going to be spending hundreds of millions of US dollars on a replacement engine if they don't have to. That has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt in the past two decades, since no effort was put into a domestic engine until Putin started acting silly in the Ukraine and US Congress got all jittery about that.
And there are tell-tale signs that even WITH the RD-180 legal language in place there is less-than-zero enthusiasm at USAF to do a replacement engine development program. Step one in the USAF SOP for such a situation is crying foul over the deadline. We saw that happen yesterday at the house hearing. My prediction is that next they will yell "it can't be done for the money appropriated". Etc, etc.
-
Not for nothing, but McCain is a former (highly decorated) Navy man who has always struck me as someone who is quite critical of the USAF. (I also have gotten the feeling over the years that he feels the same about Boeing). You just have to look at his comments on the tanker mess (occurred at about the same time as the Boeing Delta IV mess that led to the formation of ULA).
His antipathy toward the Air Force may stem from his Navy background or may not. But he was vindicated by the tanker fiasco, but Boeing still won in the end, so he may feel both self-righteous and aggrieved at the same time.
-
Not for nothing, but McCain is a former (highly decorated) Navy man who has always struck me as someone who is quite critical of the USAF. (I also have gotten the feeling over the years that he feels the same about Boeing). You just have to look at his comments on the tanker mess (occurred at about the same time as the Boeing Delta IV mess that led to the formation of ULA).
His antipathy toward the Air Force may stem from his Navy background or may not. But he was vindicated by the tanker fiasco, but Boeing still won in the end, so he may feel both self-righteous and aggrieved at the same time.
Possibly, but since we can't look into the senators personal thoughts, your comment will remain an assumption at best.
-
This has all gotten a bit ridiculous imo.
-Remove the RD-180 language. Use them as long as we can for any launches ensuring AtlasV can fly out their current manifest and get them close to when NGLV will be ready.
<snip>
One major (as in MAJOR) flaw in your reasoning. The minute you remove the RD-180 legal language you remove any incentive for USAF and ULA to develop a domestic alternative. USAF and ULA are not going to be spending hundreds of millions of US dollars on a replacement engine if they don't have to. That has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt in the past two decades, since no effort was put into a domestic engine until Putin started acting silly in the Ukraine and US Congress got all jittery about that.
And there are tell-tale signs that even WITH the RD-180 legal language in place there is less-than-zero enthusiasm at USAF to do a replacement engine development program. Step one in the USAF SOP for such a situation is crying foul over the deadline. We saw that happen yesterday at the house hearing. My prediction is that next they will yell "it can't be done for the money appropriated". Etc, etc.
That's a good point. And I would completely agree if it wasn't for one other very important variable. SpaceX.
Regardless of the RD-180, ULA had/has to re-invent itself to be viable into the 2020s.
Having said that, I guess all I'm looking for is a little balance then. I'm ok with a deadline, but not so arbitrary where it puts what could be an orderly transition into potential chaos.
-
The minute you remove the RD-180 legal language you remove any incentive for USAF and ULA to develop a domestic alternative.
That's not entirely true. They still have SpaceX coming up as competition as well as any foreign launch service provider for non-national security launches. Even if the engine language were dropped ULA will have a nearly 20 year old design at that point which will become harder and harder to compete.
-
Not for nothing, but McCain is a former (highly decorated) Navy man who has always struck me as someone who is quite critical of the USAF. (I also have gotten the feeling over the years that he feels the same about Boeing). You just have to look at his comments on the tanker mess (occurred at about the same time as the Boeing Delta IV mess that led to the formation of ULA).
His antipathy toward the Air Force may stem from his Navy background or may not. But he was vindicated by the tanker fiasco, but Boeing still won in the end, so he may feel both self-righteous and aggrieved at the same time.
Possibly, but since we can't look into the senators personal thoughts, your comment will remain an assumption at best.
All one has to do is to read this man's biography, and those of his father and grandfather. All three are or were national heroes, each multiple times over. John McCain has more than earned the right to stand for what he believes is the right thing for his country, whether or not it turns out to be the right thing.
- Ed Kyle
-
Regardless of the RD-180, ULA had/has to re-invent itself to be viable into the 2020s.
Question is: Who is going to pay for ULA to reinvent itself? Which is closely coupled to the RD-180 or its replacement. Specifically: (a) who pays for an RD-180 replacement; and (b) who benefits from it?
ULA has asserted that it is willing to reinvent itself at no additional cost to the government (no comment)... if only given enough time to certify an Atlas V replacement.
Could the Atlas V replacement/certification be accelerated with additional US government funds? I don't know. However, would not surprise me if that was the flip side of this play (more than just trying to extend RD-180); ULA, BO and maybe AJ could benefit.
SpaceX would not appear to benefit. It is unlikely they would receieve funds to develop an RD-180 replacement.
-
The minute you remove the RD-180 legal language you remove any incentive for USAF and ULA to develop a domestic alternative.
That's not entirely true. They still have SpaceX coming up as competition as well as any foreign launch service provider for non-national security launches. Even if the engine language were dropped ULA will have a nearly 20 year old design at that point which will become harder and harder to compete.
SpaceX is coming up as competition to ULA for both national security and other launches. National security payloads will never be launched by foreign launch service providers. Another major customer of ULA (NASA) also holds a firm tradition of launching most of it's payloads on US-provided rockets. IMO, both policies will not change in the forseeable future.
So, under that scenario ULA will face stiff competition from SpaceX for national security and NASA launches, and ULA will indeed have to transform to be able to compete. However, it's not a given that transformation means "all new rocket with all new US engine".
Currently, Orbital-ATK is competing with SpaceX on an unrelated NASA contract and Orb-ATK is using a Russian engine for that. It is not inconceivable that RD-180 would actually be the propulsion starting-point for ULA's attempt to all-out compete with SpaceX. RD-180 has a number of things going FOR it:
- Relatively dirt-cheap
- Reliable as hell
- Powerfull yet compact
- No US domestic alternatives available
The threat, posed by SpaceX, to ULA's monopoly on US national security launches and to ULA's (near) monopoly of NASA launches, has been in-work for nearly five years. Yet it was not until a year ago that US Congress started ordering the replacement of RD-180. The reason for ULA now developing (with Blue) a US domestic engine, to go with NGLS, is not SpaceX, but Russia.
Had the whole Russia-Crimea-Ukraine situation not developed the way it did, there still would have been a NGLS. Simply because current Delta-IV and Atlas-V cannot compete with SpaceX launch vehicles. So, yes, a different ULA vehicle was inevitable. But IMO, in absence of any legal language barring the RD-180, there would have been no reason for ULA to NOT use RD-180, or an RD-180 derivative. More specifically: there would not have been a compelling argument for ULA to initiate development of a US alternative engine.
-
He's been extremely critical of the Navy's LCS program and the F-35 (joint Navy/USMC/AF), so I think he's pretty equal across the services.
-
My goodness, where to begin. There are lots of self-serving inaccuracies in this statement. Among them:
If the RD-180 is prematurely cut off before a new engine and vehicle is certified, there will be no other launch provider who can perform the full range of launch capabilities currently required under the law, Bruno said …
That is categorically untrue. The ban on RD-180’s doesn’t go into effect for another 4 years. Long before that the Falcon 9, in both medium and heavy versions will be certified.
Here’s another:
The current narrow interpretation of the Defense Authorization bill could preclude ULA from receiving previously ordered engines, which means the Air Force would only have one provider. Not only is that anti-competitive, it puts the Air Force national security mission requirements at risk.
Not true. Previously ordered engines are specifically allowed to be delivered and used. They just can’t be used for national security launches after 2019.
And "... which means the Air Force would only have one provider"? That would be four years from now, when the ban goes into effect. What is SpaceX; chopped meat? Unless he means SpaceX would be the sole provider because ULA was out of business. ::)
There is another bit of information that bears on this that wasn’t mentioned in the statement. Less than an hour ago I was reading in the January 2015 issue of Defense Magazine a statement from the Air Force Undersecretary of Space Acquisitions about the dropping number of satellites the USAF has or will have available for launch. Since the T-Sat program was cancelled for being over budget and years late, there has been NO new satellite program kicked off. It takes years to design and build a satellite and currently there aren’t any brand new ones underway – at all. There are a few satellite busses being populated that were started long ago that would be available in that timeframe. According to ULA their new LV will be tested in 2019 (the year the ban takes affect) and be certified by 2022-2023, just about the same timeframe it would take to get a satellite ready for launch if a new program were started TODAY. But there just are not going to be that many USAF satellite launches before the new ULA LV is ready to lift them and ULA has the Block Buy in place that puts most of the existing satellite builds solidly on the Atlas or Delta. The Air Force national security mission requirements will be at risk not because of the ban on the RD-180 but because the Air Force can't get its act together and accomplish the mission. They have been dragging their feet on satellite design and construction - LONG before the RD-180 ban was created.
There are other self-serving inaccuracies, but I want to leave some meat on the bones for the rest of you.
-
DIV was intended as the sole winner riding the Shuttle economics chain. Almost made it to, and in comparison to Shuttle, with enough flights it would have. Since they went all out with the "new" to do this, a lot of things left for "improvement" after winning followed. Unlike AV where much was "evolved" with past increments of development, more of a repackaging of what was there, and not dependent on Shuttle economics chain, given the rather cynical view of it paying off from LM.
Yea, I always sort of wondered if a D4 with two RS-25's might have been able to work out a little better in the long run. More directly part of the shuttle economics chain. Despite the cost savings RS-68 was to impliment, if many of those part reduction imporvements had went into RS-25 instead (like channel walls, etc), along with a more automated manufacturing system (as there'd hopefully be enough production to justify the investment), I wonder if the price of those engines could have been brought down sufficiently? And perhaps turn the engines over faster (fewer STS flights per engine) and then allocate those retiring engines to D4 launches to give them a final flight.
I wonder if that could have made for a more economical Delta in the long run? It should have made a better performing Delta with better ISP and more thrust.
-
Often when government is faced with not getting what they want, they will announce the most draconian cuts imaginable to try to scare their voters into giving them a tax increase, or bond approval, to spend whatever the government wants.
For example: "If the voters don't approve the sales tax increase, we will fire 20% of the teachers and 20% of the police department." The government doesn't even propose more reasonable cuts elsewhere. They go straight for the most crazy off the wall cuts possible to get the taxes increased. They hold a figurative gun to the head of the city in order to extort the funds from the taxpayers.
We have a version of that disgusting game currently happening with ULA.
ULA recognizes that their world is in turmoil. They recognize that the $1 billion annual subsidy is at risk. They recognize that even with cuts, they will have difficulty making competitive bids for launches versus SpaceX. So ULA is now creating the "fear" that SpaceX will be a monopoly if they don't get more RD-180 engines. I think part of this is also to get the $1 billion annual subsidy extended for as long as they can.
I found the comment from the committee chair, Rep. Mike Rogers very interesting. He is from Alabama and I would have expected to be more of a ULA supporter. But he seems to be supporting Falcon Heavy as a replacement for Delta Heavy.
“We are going to keep the cost down, it’s in our nation’s interest, so please hurry and get that Falcon 9 Heavy working and certified!”
-
And there are tell-tale signs that even WITH the RD-180 legal language in place there is less-than-zero enthusiasm at USAF to do a replacement engine development program. Step one in the USAF SOP for such a situation is crying foul over the deadline. We saw that happen yesterday at the house hearing. My prediction is that next they will yell "it can't be done for the money appropriated". Etc, etc.
Why is the USAF involved at all with a replacement engine development program?
Let ULA and Jeff Bezos fund their own engine development program. The other provider did it with Paypal money. Let Amazon money pay for the next one.
-
Why is the USAF involved at all with a replacement engine development program?
Let ULA and Jeff Bezos fund their own engine development program. The other provider did it with Paypal money. Let Amazon money pay for the next one.
They have a vested interest. It's their billion dollar spacecraft that is flying on top of the rocket using that engine. Maybe the rocket engine experience of Bezos makes them nervous.
ULA was created with the main purpose of launching payloads for the DoD. ULA's money IS the governments money. If you're referring to the profit that goes back to LMT and BA when you say "use their money", the parents have to make that decision as to how much ULA can spend on development. Right now, they are investing in NGLS. If they think it's a bad investment (losing most launches to SpaceX), they'll pull the plug.
-
This has all gotten a bit ridiculous imo.
-Remove the RD-180 language. Use them as long as we can for any launches ensuring AtlasV can fly out their current manifest and get them close to when NGLV will be ready.
<snip>
One major (as in MAJOR) flaw in your reasoning. The minute you remove the RD-180 legal language you remove any incentive for USAF and ULA to develop a domestic alternative. USAF and ULA are not going to be spending hundreds of millions of US dollars on a replacement engine if they don't have to. That has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt in the past two decades, since no effort was put into a domestic engine until Putin started acting silly in the Ukraine and US Congress got all jittery about that.
And there are tell-tale signs that even WITH the RD-180 legal language in place there is less-than-zero enthusiasm at USAF to do a replacement engine development program. Step one in the USAF SOP for such a situation is crying foul over the deadline. We saw that happen yesterday at the house hearing. My prediction is that next they will yell "it can't be done for the money appropriated". Etc, etc.
So if the RD-180 engine language is removed you think that ULA will walk away from it's partnership with Blue Origins and the development of the BE-4?
-
If I was to gamble, I would put money on No! At the end of the day, they want to be able to compete with SpaceX and the other providers.
-
If I was to gamble, I would put money on No! At the end of the day, they want to be able to compete with SpaceX and the other providers.
I think everybody realizes the RD-180's days are over. It's only a matter of:
1. How many more engines will/should be allowed to cover the gap (gap is still unclear) to vehicle B.
2. Is vehicle B the NGLS or Atlas with AR-1. I believe some type of initial decision will be announced in 3 weeks at NSS. Then we'll just have to see how this BE-4 thing unfolds.
-
Stop playing games with RD-180. I don't see anyone blocking Exxon from their their billion dollar contracts for Natural gas exploration with Russia. Keep buying them as long as we can or need to. And remove any arbitrary language about how many or what they can or can't launch.
Agreed, what's all the fuss about?
-
I had not thought about this, but this means they will not be meeting the needs of the Delta II class payloads. So either you buy a larger rocket (NGLS) or someone else fills the nitch (Orbital ATK, SpaceX, ect.).
-
I had not thought about this, but this means they will not be meeting the needs of the Delta II class payloads. So either you buy a larger rocket (NGLS) or someone else fills the nitch (Orbital ATK, SpaceX, ect.).
The NGLS version with no solids and 4-m PLF will not have that much more (I don't know the number) performance that the current AV 401 or 411. So whatever flew on a 401, would fly cheaper. If much smaller, then lots of wasted performance, unless a secondary of two can ride along.
-
I had not thought about this, but this means they will not be meeting the needs of the Delta II class payloads. So either you buy a larger rocket (NGLS) or someone else fills the nitch (Orbital ATK, SpaceX, ect.).
Delta II was going away anyways, and the use of AV 401 to launch payloads in that class was never going to last more than a few years. ULA proposed addressing the medium class launch market with dual manifest launches on Atlas. The problem is these payloads have been infrequent and are often going to completely incompatible orbits. Also, ULA parent Lockheed keeps making noises about bringing Athena back and upgrading it towards medium class territory.
F9 has won the medium class launch services race for now. Delta II also used to fly a fair number of European payloads, which will mostly go to Soyuz or Vega now.
Some US government launches will go on OrbATK Minotaur rockets with GFE peacekeeper motors, especially if OrbATK can sell them on the proposed "Minotaur VI."
-
So ULA has ceded the market, and is hoping no one introduces an affordable alternative.
Btw. With all the upgrades to Falcon I think it is being pushed out of being a true Delta II replacement.
-
So ULA has ceded the market, and is hoping no one introduces an affordable alternative.
Btw. With all the upgrades to Falcon I think it is being pushed out of being a true Delta II replacement.
Not when it is being used in recovery mode - F9R will "only" be a Delta II/Soyuz class launcher.
I'm not sure if ULA is even trying to pitch the Atlas V for that market right now, so NGLS may not address it either.
-
So if the RD-180 engine language is removed you think that ULA will walk away from it's partnership with Blue Origins and the development of the BE-4?
IMO, yes they will. IF the RD-180 legal language disappears, there will no longer be any compelling reason for ULA to invest large amounts of money in a replacement engine. Simply because the replacement engine will no longer be needed.
-
Agreed, what's all the fuss about?
Geopolitics and minimising the possibility of national diplomatic interests.Trying to avoid even the slightest, most minuscule possibility of a 21st century European war and the NRO being held hostage to an external supply chain, comes one over the best options for space launch in the short term. Neither of those events are likely to happen, but that's not the point. It's about rendering them impossible. The 180 controversy is just a minute element of the economic skirmishing going on right now in all industries, as both Russia and Nato attempt to reduce logistical dependencies on each other.
In the long term, it's a wonderful incentive for the american launch industry to do some propulsion innovation.
-
IF the RD-180 legal language disappears, there will no longer be any compelling reason for ULA to invest large amounts of money in a replacement engine.
The compelling reason is ULA's biggest customer saying you're not using RD-180 anymore on our missions. Fix this problem! It's already a done deal for NSS missions.
Even if the bill goes away, RD-180 will not be flying any NSS missions after some date between 4-6 years form now. Now if ULA wants to use a few more for commercial missions, they'll be available, but once a new vehicle is flying, there's no reason to keep 2 different LVs in the fleet.
-
It would still be nice to know if a 3 core version would get 50 tons to LEO to compete with Falcon H if LEO payloads get this big. Not saying it is in the works or anything, just wondering if it would match Falcon without solids.
-
So ULA has ceded the market, and is hoping no one introduces an affordable alternative.
Btw. With all the upgrades to Falcon I think it is being pushed out of being a true Delta II replacement.
Anything that is capable enough and is cost effective can be a Delta II replacement. Even Delta IV Heavy could be considered a Delta II replacement, if the cost was competitive. It is the price that matters - not the capability.
-
IF the RD-180 legal language disappears, there will no longer be any compelling reason for ULA to invest large amounts of money in a replacement engine.
The compelling reason is ULA's biggest customer saying you're not using RD-180 anymore on our missions. Fix this problem! It's already a done deal for NSS missions.
Even if the bill goes away, RD-180 will not be flying any NSS missions after some date between 4-6 years form now. Now if ULA wants to use a few more for commercial missions, they'll be available, but once a new vehicle is flying, there's no reason to keep 2 different LVs in the fleet.
Neither USAF, nor the national security community, are the driving force behind the effort to get rid of RD-180. The ban on RD-180 is a purely political one. To the US national security community Russia has always remained an adversary, even after the cold-war came to an end and president Bush called Putin his friend. But despite Russia continuing to be viewed as an adversary, this never resulted in the national security community demanding that RD-180 be gone from use on Atlas V.
National security folks are pragmatic by nature. Should I mention where they got the titanium to construct a mach 3+ aircraft designed to do clandestine overflights of Russia?
-
Neither USAF, nor the national security community, are the driving force behind the effort to get rid of RD-180. The ban on RD-180 is a purely political one.
Yes, it's all politics. But the point of my post is, if the language to ban RD-180 goes away, ULA is still getting off of the RD-180. Their primary customer does not want to go through this fiasco again. They have made that quite clear. Trust me.
I was commenting on ULA's incentive to not going back to business as usual.
-
Here's a new video report with many interesting views inside Decatur.
http://finance.yahoo.com/video/inside-rocket-wars-150100073.html
- Ed Kyle
-
I'll start by stating I'm a supporter of the idea to allow some limited extension of RD-180 use with that extension directly linked to progress of ULA's alternative so they can't just kick the can down the road.
However, I did have a somewhat zany idea in the shower on this topic:
My understanding is that the restriction is linked to the engines already ordered vs new orders, not a specific date and ULA's argument is that they will use up the engines too soon, creating a gap.
So, enter zany idea: Assuming the 36 rocket block buy winds up as about 24-28 Atlas launches, this is the primary driver for running out of engines too soon. Almost all of those Atlas launches could be contested by a F9 once certified.
Therefore an alternative solution to this current gap would be for USAF and ULA to agree to reduce the block buy by say 10-14 launches and open those up to "competition". But really allocate them to SpaceX (or in theory Delta IV...). Then their existing supply of engines last longer and the current gap is solved.
Obviously no business would choose to give back won contracts (nor should they). But if this potential gap in engine availability would cripple ULA and US launch assurance, then it seems like something to consider.
-
ULA makes space look easy, but it’s not
http://www.decaturdaily.com/opinion/editorials/ula-makes-space-look-easy-but-it-s-not/article_cc149c5c-aac5-5445-abe9-4e269d246d24.html