NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => ULA - Delta, Atlas, Vulcan => Topic started by: GWH on 11/05/2015 12:46 AM

Title: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: GWH on 11/05/2015 12:46 AM
So this could be interesting, ULA is posting a series of infographics on twitter for the CIS lunar 1000 roadmap that they are talking about as a self sustaining CISlunar economy.
First one from today:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CS-rQ-fWcAAxMUM.jpg:large)

The "1000" in the title is the goal to have 1000 people living and working in space.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/05/2015 01:09 AM
One small issue with info graphic, todays crew should be on a Soyuz. The LV in graph looks a lot like CST100 on Atlas.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: RonM on 11/05/2015 02:55 AM
Obviously, ULA is promoting their equipment for their plan.

If they were using what we really have today that should a Soyuz and population six.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/05/2015 03:26 AM
I like it.

It's a good reminder that the current space economy is ALREADY huge. Much bigger than the platinum-group-metals market, which is only like $5-20 billion/year in mined PGMs, even dwarfing the gold mining market which has less than $100 billion of gold mined every year.

Space is already a really big deal.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: RonM on 11/05/2015 04:58 AM
Good point. $330 billion is an impressive amount.

ULA has succeed in making me want to see what is the next part of their plan.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: deltaV on 11/05/2015 04:59 AM
$330B/year sounds like an inflated marketing number. Wikipedia says (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_in_spaceflight) there were 92 orbital launches worldwide in 2014. At say an average of say $600 million per launch for launch vehicle and payload combined that's a total of on the order of $55B per year spent on space. I'm guessing the $330B/year figure counts anything that touches space at all, e.g. counting the whole $100/month someone spends on satellite TV as space revenue even though a substantial fraction of that goes to the networks to produce the programming and doesn't really have anything to do with space.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: jongoff on 11/05/2015 06:06 AM
$330B/year sounds like an inflated marketing number. Wikipedia says (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_in_spaceflight) there were 92 orbital launches worldwide in 2014. At say an average of say $600 million per launch for launch vehicle and payload combined that's a total of on the order of $55B per year spent on space. I'm guessing the $330B/year figure counts anything that touches space at all, e.g. counting the whole $100/month someone spends on satellite TV as space revenue even though a substantial fraction of that goes to the networks to produce the programming and doesn't really have anything to do with space.

Most of the money made from space is from the companies using satellites to provide telecommunications, earth imaging, etc. Applications make the most money, followed by spacecraft manufacturers, with launch being actually one of the smallest (but most important chunks). Kind of like how on Earth the infrastructure companies that make it possible for there to be an internet make far less money than the Googles and Amazons that use the internet to deliver services to end-users. It's one of the big challenges in commercial space--in order to enable exciting new capabilities, you need infrastructure (better launchers, depots, space facilities, etc), but the real money currently is in the apps, so that's where most of the investment money is going (other than that big SpaceX investment, but even that might be focused on the app side--their LEO constellation). Not saying that infrastructure plays can't raise money, it's just harder to raise big money on infrastructure, because it doesn't scale the same way software/telecom does.

~Jon
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: arachnitect on 11/05/2015 07:01 AM
$330B/year sounds like an inflated marketing number. Wikipedia says (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_in_spaceflight) there were 92 orbital launches worldwide in 2014. At say an average of say $600 million per launch for launch vehicle and payload combined that's a total of on the order of $55B per year spent on space. I'm guessing the $330B/year figure counts anything that touches space at all, e.g. counting the whole $100/month someone spends on satellite TV as space revenue even though a substantial fraction of that goes to the networks to produce the programming and doesn't really have anything to do with space.

Number probably comes from here
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/07/10/global-space-economy-grew-9-percent-330-billion-year/

Citing a report that costs $400 to download.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 11/05/2015 07:02 AM
Interesting that ULA have missed off their biggest customer! No mil-space in that info-graphic (e.g. GPS in MEO orbits).
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: MP99 on 11/05/2015 07:23 AM


$330B/year sounds like an inflated marketing number. Wikipedia says (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_in_spaceflight) there were 92 orbital launches worldwide in 2014. At say an average of say $600 million per launch for launch vehicle and payload combined that's a total of on the order of $55B per year spent on space. I'm guessing the $330B/year figure counts anything that touches space at all, e.g. counting the whole $100/month someone spends on satellite TV as space revenue even though a substantial fraction of that goes to the networks to produce the programming and doesn't really have anything to do with space.

Was that PGM number comparable? Annual value of all PGM products and services sold to consumers?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: GWH on 11/05/2015 04:34 PM
Part 2:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTEFMhBWsAAZFB_.jpg:large)

Some accompanying twitter quotes from George Sowers:
"Part 2 of our roadmap to #cislunar1000.  Assumes 7% annual growth rate for space economy"
"Note that the #cislunar1000 panels are additive.  Activities in part 2 add to those in part 1."


And there was this interesting quote from him responding to Blair Bigelow asking "possibly a B330 in the mix?!": "Wait for next installment. Bigelow is the linchpin!"
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Oli on 11/05/2015 05:19 PM
Looks like ULA learned from SpaceX' marketing departement. ::)
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: ethan829 on 11/05/2015 06:21 PM
Interesting that the "next 5 years" graphic includes ACES, when we've previously heard that it wouldn't fly until 2023.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/05/2015 06:45 PM
Interesting that the "next 5 years" graphic includes ACES, when we've previously heard that it wouldn't fly until 2023.
The ACES may not fly till 2023 but it's critical IVF technology may fly sooner in Centuar.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/05/2015 07:17 PM
George Sowers dream for future is manufacturing of Solar Power Satellites SPS (beaming power to earth) at a EML1 or DRO spacestation. Bulk of materials would come from moon or asteroids. This is not a far fetched idea, just have to start small and target high value structures first.

One of NASAs proposals for their DSH is to use it for manufacturing and assembly a large telescope 16-20m. Both Tethers Unlimited and Made In Space are working on 3D printing tressules which could be used for the bulky support structures for this telescope.

If this works then maybe large MW SEP tugs could be next, along with MW SPS for powering lunar bases/assets.
 
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: savuporo on 11/05/2015 11:48 PM
I'm looking at the second panel and thinking non-sequitur, or an underpants gnomes plan. There is no logical connection how the current space products and services suddenly get complemented by all of these things on the second panel. Is it given to mean that somehow Vulcan and ACES magically make these activities viable or economical or what ?
Meanwhile, keep stealing underpants.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: MP99 on 11/05/2015 11:55 PM
Looks like ULA learned from SpaceX' marketing departement. ::)
Reminds me of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation - just from the look and feel.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: FishInferno on 11/06/2015 12:44 AM
I have the sneaking suspicion ULA is doing this in an attempt to get the same attention SpaceX gets for their Mars program.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Dante80 on 11/06/2015 06:32 AM
I have the sneaking suspicion ULA is doing this in an attempt to get the same attention SpaceX gets for their Mars program.

Which is extremely cool, and also shows the direction and impulse that Mr Bruno wishes to give to the company.

edited for removing OT discussion.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: savuporo on 11/06/2015 06:46 AM
I think that RL-10 is going to get replaced with XCOR due to cost.
Huh ? That statement doesn't make a lot of sense.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Dante80 on 11/06/2015 06:55 AM
I think that RL-10 is going to get replaced with XCOR due to cost.
Huh ? That statement doesn't make a lot of sense.

This is my fault (for getting off topic here). PM sent.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/06/2015 07:53 AM
I have the sneaking suspicion ULA is doing this in an attempt to get the same attention SpaceX gets for their Mars program.

Which is extremely cool, and also shows the direction and impulse that Mr Bruno wishes to give to the company.

edited for removing OT discussion.

Or, it's just marketing spin that ULA leadership doesn't actually believe.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: FishInferno on 11/06/2015 11:51 AM
I have the sneaking suspicion ULA is doing this in an attempt to get the same attention SpaceX gets for their Mars program.

Which is extremely cool, and also shows the direction and impulse that Mr Bruno wishes to give to the company.

edited for removing OT discussion.

Or, it's just marketing spin that ULA leadership doesn't actually believe.

I agree, it doesn't really seem like much time was spend on this, it would be great if it happened but ULA has expressed no interest for doing their own missions like SpaceX has.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/06/2015 12:37 PM
Or, it's just marketing spin that ULA leadership doesn't actually believe.
I agree, it doesn't really seem like much time was spend on this, it would be great if it happened but ULA has expressed no interest for doing their own missions like SpaceX has.
Both companies are doing the thing that companies in this business have done since before Sputnik.  They are offering ideas, concepts, to show the government what they think is possible.  It is a shopping list.  None of it happens unless it is funded.  That includes SpaceX.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: su27k on 11/06/2015 03:51 PM
Or, it's just marketing spin that ULA leadership doesn't actually believe.
I agree, it doesn't really seem like much time was spend on this, it would be great if it happened but ULA has expressed no interest for doing their own missions like SpaceX has.
Both companies are doing the thing that companies in this business have done since before Sputnik.  They are offering ideas, concepts, to show the government what they think is possible.  It is a shopping list.  None of it happens unless it is funded.  That includes SpaceX.

 - Ed Kyle

FH and Raptor are happening without gov funding, so is BE-4.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/06/2015 06:29 PM
FH and Raptor are happening without gov funding, so is BE-4.
You do realize where the money comes from, right?  Vulcan is being developed to launch government payloads, primarily.  So is Falcon Heavy, which is SpaceX's design to compete for EELV Medium-Plus and Heavy payloads.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: deltaV on 11/06/2015 08:46 PM
FH and Raptor are happening without gov funding, so is BE-4.
You do realize where the money comes from, right?  Vulcan is being developed to launch government payloads, primarily.  So is Falcon Heavy, which is SpaceX's design to compete for EELV Medium-Plus and Heavy payloads.

SpaceX, Blue and ULA are investing in Falcon Heavy, BE-4 and Vulcan with hopes of winning government business in the future, but they have no signed contracts and hence no guarantee of future business. This is a nice improvement over the usual industry habits of Rocketdyne and ULA, where investments are only made after a government contract is signed.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/06/2015 09:06 PM
FH and Raptor are happening without gov funding, so is BE-4.
You do realize where the money comes from, right?  Vulcan is being developed to launch government payloads, primarily.  So is Falcon Heavy, which is SpaceX's design to compete for EELV Medium-Plus and Heavy payloads.

No, Falcon Heavy is designed for a variety of markets, which includes the government but also the larger GEO comsats that are too big for Falcon 9, and also as a part of SpaceX's Mars plans.  Falcon Heavy also gives the margin to make a reusable upper stage in the future.  And Raptor is being developed solely for SpaceX Mars plans.

For ULA, rockets are a way to earn money.  For SpaceX, earning money is a way to build its own rockets.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: GWH on 11/07/2015 12:31 AM
No updates so far today.

There hasn't been a lot of detail in these infographics, and as people have pointed out I agree that the effort put into this seems to be purely for marketing.
That being said I think this is great to see from ULA, the more we see promotional material from private companies getting out there the better IMO.  There is still this perception in the public that NASA should be designing and building their own rockets.  I like to think that marketing like this helps shift peoples views to view look to the private market to take on this capability and free up NASA to do the actual exploration missions.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: MarcAlain on 11/07/2015 01:42 AM
I have the sneaking suspicion ULA is doing this in an attempt to get the same attention SpaceX gets for their Mars program.

Well, they should make images that are hi-res enough for devices and computers made after 2005.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/08/2015 05:14 AM
ULA have been developing their IVF system and in orbit refuel for a few years now. They were hoping NASA would pay for flight testing and maybe fuel depots. The good news ULA seem to be willing to pay for it
themselves, still need a willing customer's mission to flight test these new technologies.

If ULA can prove in orbit refueling a storage they will automatically become leaders in this technology.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 11/08/2015 06:15 PM
ULA have been developing their IVF system and in orbit refuel for a few years now. They were hoping NASA would pay for flight testing and maybe fuel depots. The good news ULA seem to be willing to pay for it
themselves, still need a willing customer's mission to flight test these new technologies.

If ULA can prove in orbit refueling a storage they will automatically become leaders in this technology.

One of their main competitors appears to be working on the same. It's wonderful to see ULA actively working towards innovations such as this one.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: savuporo on 11/08/2015 07:16 PM
If ULA can prove in orbit refueling a storage they will automatically become leaders in this technology.
Sort of like Russians have been refueling spacecraft on orbit since Salyut 6 for more than three decades now ?
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/08/2015 07:17 PM
If ULA can prove in orbit refueling a storage they will automatically become leaders in this technology.
Sort of like Russians have been refueling spacecraft on orbit since Salyut 6 for more than three decades now ?
But not LOX and LH.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: GWH on 11/09/2015 11:33 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTaMxmVVAAAoyQ4.jpg:large

Edit/Lar: please attach large images, do not embed them as it breaks viewing for others. Feel free to correct this by attaching and removing this edit notice.. Thanks!

Interesting for me to see prop storage, I had asked the following question to Tory Bruno in one of his Reddit AMA's: "Has there been any ongoing efforts by ULA to develop propellant depots since the 2008 study? Would ULA consider taking on the cost and risk of developing this tech in order to foster growth of the commercial market or opening up mission options for government agencies? (If you build it they will come?)"

Quote
We continue to study the feasibility and utility. If a demand presents, we'll look at it
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: deltaV on 11/10/2015 12:13 AM
What entities is ULA fantasizing will spend $600B more each year in 15 years than they do now? That's 30 times NASA's budget! It's also close to $2000 for every man, woman and child in the US.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: savuporo on 11/10/2015 12:25 AM
What entities is ULA fantasizing will spend $600B more each year in 15 years than they do now? That's 30 times NASA's budget!
It's not so much a question of 'who will spend' but 'who will pay for what products and services'. The current global space economy has very clear revenue sources and is growing at a rate of around 5% a year on average, in recent decade. Only small segments are growing faster than that.

Nothing in this particular ULA fantasy points to any new services or products which would budge this growth rate suddenly.

http://www.sia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Mktg15-SSIR-2015-FINAL-Compressed.pdf

Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: deltaV on 11/10/2015 12:51 AM
Most of that diagram is about better ways to deliver services for NASA-like organizations, and NASA won't get anything close to a $600B budget unless a large asteroid is discovered on a collision course with Earth. The only part of that diagram with potential for significant new money is LEO tourism. It seems beyond implausible that LEO tourism would in 15 years be bigger than the GDP of Sweden and almost as big as the GDP of the state of Florida.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: savuporo on 11/10/2015 01:17 AM
Most of that diagram is about better ways to deliver services for NASA-like organizations, and NASA won't get anything close to a $600B budget unless a large asteroid is discovered on a collision course with Earth. The only part of that diagram with potential for significant new money is LEO tourism. It seems beyond implausible that LEO tourism would in 15 years be bigger than the GDP of Sweden and almost as big as the GDP of the state of Florida.
4 years ago, Tauri Group's most optimistic space tourism scenarios projected $1.6 billion revenues for space tourism, with constrained scenario netting a $300M  - both numbers spread over 10 years. Go back a couple years and you'll find other market studies predicting even larger numbers.
The numbers as they stand are pretty much big fat zero, with no signs of change.

Meanwhile, both SIA State of Satellite Industry report and The Space Report by Space Foundation show reliable steady growth numbers, a couple percent year on year. If anything, global space industry growth - which is the $300B number ULA started with, is tapering off.

Note that lions share of the existing ~$300B number is of course in satellite services and supporting ground equipment, which is mostly broadcast TV plus fixed satellite services. Nobody in this segment predicts rapid growth.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: MP99 on 11/10/2015 05:08 AM

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTaMxmVVAAAoyQ4.jpg:large

Edit/Lar: De embed

What would be the use for the GEO to EML1 path?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/10/2015 05:56 AM

What would be the use for the GEO to EML1 path?

Cheers, Martin

Edit/Lar: De Embed.
GEO Satellite servicing from EML1 station. I'm guessing Phase 4 will be building solar powered satellites at EML1 using lunar/asteroid materials and then delivered to GEO
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Lar on 11/10/2015 12:08 PM
Please consider editing posts to attach rather than embed images, it breaks viewing. I did some delinking but it was quick and dirty. For better results, attach. Thanks!
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: muomega0 on 11/10/2015 12:47 PM

What would be the use for the GEO to EML1 path?

Cheers, Martin

Edit/Lar: De Embed.
GEO Satellite servicing from EML1 station. I'm guessing Phase 4 will be building solar powered satellites at EML1 using lunar/asteroid materials and then delivered to GEO
75% of satellite profits come from military contracts...Is someone being charged too much or still GEO based?
So is the military going to spend about a trillion on satellites now?
'commercial' has permission (https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/von-braun-symposium-speech-oct-29-2015/) to stage at L1--good luck! 

NASA, OTOH, will stage at L2 for several major reasons.
1) L2 Safe haven (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35839.msg1271161#msg1271161) and long term data gathering in the proper environment (ug and GCR)
2) L2 saves 700 m/s of dV vs L1 per trip
3) Depots staged at LEO, L2, and near Mars is near optimal for short duration crew transport and lowest budget
4) L1 staging eliminates all LVs other than 'heavies' - increases costs
5) L2 to near Mars cyclers, 3 or more provide contingency, and the most costly one is the first
6) LEO sats provide highest global coverage at lowest total cost
7) "a large asteroid can deliver more water to the lunar surface than the cumulative fall of comets over a billion year period" (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38660.msg1438374#msg1438374)
8 ) Most of the asteroids are between Mars and Jupiter for 'insitu' resource utilization
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: savuporo on 11/10/2015 02:28 PM
75% of satellite profits come from military contracts...Is someone being charged too much or still GEO based?
Can you provide a citation ? Because this is contradicting what the industry analysts are saying about the size of the military sat revenues. Or, are you saying that even though mil sat revenues are 38% of the industry total, they are insanely more profitable than anything else ?



Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Steam Chaser on 11/11/2015 01:37 AM
Most of that diagram is about better ways to deliver services for NASA-like organizations, and NASA won't get anything close to a $600B budget unless a large asteroid is discovered on a collision course with Earth. The only part of that diagram with potential for significant new money is LEO tourism. It seems beyond implausible that LEO tourism would in 15 years be bigger than the GDP of Sweden and almost as big as the GDP of the state of Florida.

It looks like they are first proposing that existing markets like comsats and imaging sats will have modest growth year after year, which after 15 years could account for a nice chunk of that $600B growth. 

Then by 5 years they're proposing that some new categories will be added with their own year after year growth like LEO tourism (along the lines of Bigelow, etc, and enabled by commercial crew/cargo vehicles like the ones NASA and Bezos are funding), lunar and asteroid prospecting (along the lines of Planetary Resources, Moon Express, Astrobotic, etc), and space manufacturing.  They are proposing 20 people in space by this time, or a pretty significant amount of growth.  So, that could count for another chunk of the $600B. 

By 15 years, they're proposing 300 people in space, with propellant depots, multiple LEO stations, EML1 station or ability to move stations between EML1 and LEO/GEO, and lunar propellant mining with ability to fill up assets at EML1.  From the diagram it looks like the depots/mining/EML station are to support satellite servicing for GEO and LEO satellites, not NASA-like organizations (although I'm sure those customers would be welcome).  This additional activity would account for another chunk of that $600B.  Presumably the ability to have propellant depots, lunar mining, multiple habitats, reusable lunar landers like a Masten/ULA Xeus collaboration, and satellite servicing capabilities helped by all all of this would add up to new types or scales of LEO/GEO satellites, too.

Anyway, that's how I interpret the slides.  The growth would use ULA Vulcan capabilities like ACES, distributed lift, etc.  Personally I don't see things happening quite as fast or on the scale that they propose, although the general direction seems reasonable.  ULA (and its parents) needs to have a response to SpaceX in case many of the SpaceX plans like FH, reuse, crewed Dragon, and the SpaceX satellite constellation come to fruition.  A reusable SpaceX rocket with a built-in market of 4000 satellites could be tough competition.  ULA needs its own mass-launch answer to the SpaceX satellite constellation or it could be overshadowed in 15 years (which could also hurt its parents in areas like CST-100, Jupiter-Exoliner, SLS/Orion, and maybe even satellite-related business if SpaceX tries to expand satellite business beyond the 4000-sat constellation to Boeing/LM turf).  This seems to be ULA's answer to that threat. 

I'm not sure if the intended audience of the slides is the same as it is for SpaceX.  It could be the ULA parents.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/11/2015 02:47 AM
FH and Raptor are happening without gov funding, so is BE-4.
You do realize where the money comes from, right?  Vulcan is being developed to launch government payloads, primarily.  So is Falcon Heavy, which is SpaceX's design to compete for EELV Medium-Plus and Heavy payloads.

 - Ed Kyle
False. Of the 5 Falcon Heavy payloads which list a customer, only 1 is US govt. 4 are commercial satellites. The 1 launch which doesn't list a customer is "Falcon Heavy Demo," probably SpaceX internally funded.

SpaceX is not ULA.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/11/2015 04:33 AM
FH and Raptor are happening without gov funding, so is BE-4.
You do realize where the money comes from, right?  Vulcan is being developed to launch government payloads, primarily.  So is Falcon Heavy, which is SpaceX's design to compete for EELV Medium-Plus and Heavy payloads.

 - Ed Kyle
False. Of the 5 Falcon Heavy payloads which list a customer, only 1 is US govt. 4 are commercial satellites. The 1 launch which doesn't list a customer is "Falcon Heavy Demo," probably SpaceX internally funded.
That's because SpaceX hasn't yet won any EELV Heavy class missions.  Check back in five to ten years.

Meanwhile look at Falcon 9.  Of its 19 launch attempts only 7 were for "commercial" customers.  Four of those were performed for satellite operators that are either partially or wholly owned by governments or that do a sizable percentage of their business for governments.

- Ed Kyle
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/11/2015 03:12 PM
In the context of this discussion, the difference between a foreign government and a fully private entity is clearly irrelevant, since a foreign government isn't going to be paying for ULA or SpaceX's developments.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/11/2015 03:13 PM
In 5 years, I expect most SpaceX launches to be commercial (in this context meaning non-US-govt), as it nearly is now (out of the last 10 launches, 5 are for commercial customers). I hope ULA starts doing more, as well. We've definitely seen evidence of ULA moving in that direction, though I sincerly doubt they'll be doing most of their launches for commercial.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: jongoff on 11/11/2015 03:20 PM
In 5 years, I expect most SpaceX launches to be commercial (in this context meaning non-US-govt), as it nearly is now (out of the last 10 launches, 5 are for commercial customers). I hope ULA starts doing more, as well. We've definitely seen evidence of ULA moving in that direction, though I sincerly doubt they'll be doing most of their launches for commercial.

Thanks for bringing things back to ULA. I thought I had wondered into one of the quarter-bajillion SpaceX threads for a second there. :-)

~Jon
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/12/2015 08:19 AM
Here are all four parts.

Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 11/12/2015 01:48 PM
Population of space increases 60x in the first 15 years, then only 3x in the next 15 years?
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: sdsds on 11/13/2015 07:35 AM
Population of space increases 60x in the first 15 years, then only 3x in the next 15 years?

Don't you think they're going to show some sort of logarithmic growth curve? It's a Malthusian thing: there's only a finite amount of space, and all that....

;)
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: MP99 on 11/13/2015 08:21 PM
Population of space increases 60x in the first 15 years, then only 3x in the next 15 years?

Don't you think they're going to show some sort of logarithmic growth curve? It's a Malthusian thing: there's only a finite amount of space, and all that....

;)
That's an interesting variant on the "final frontier".

"Sorry, we're full".

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: M_Puckett on 12/15/2015 04:04 PM
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/why-were-going-back-to-the-moon-with-or-without-nasa/
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: GWH on 03/09/2016 09:41 PM
Tory Bruno guest appearance on Pixel Perfect - Kerbal Space Program.
Being a show based around Kerbal the interview is of course pretty light on technical depth, but is pretty amusing to hear the CEO of a major launch provider have a discussion with a young video gamer:

https://www.twitch.tv/dasvaldez/v/53283711

Some interesting notes:
- Discussion of using ACES stages to take payloads from LEO to destination orbit, in an effort to minimize the launcher requirements.  (I assume this is utilizing lunar derived propellant)
- Mention of lunar mined resources and additive manufacturing for in space architecture
- Plans for ACES and anticipated early missions for space clean up.  Modifications to Centaur to allow for debris mitigation, details to be announced soon (33:00 mark)
- Lots of talk about opening up ease of co-manifesting cubesats (45:00ish)
- Mention of existing parts on Atlas/Delta being built of composites rather than metallic materials soon (51:00), increased use of additive manufacturing
- Payload fairing logos are actually hand painted by an artist (not relevant to ULA future infrastructure but a very interesting tidbit I didn't know!)
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: GWH on 03/15/2016 03:13 PM
Over on Reddit Tory Bruno has been quite active posting on ACES capabilities and utilization of excess capacity (of which a ACES upper stage Vulcan will have a LOT of for the majority of lifts).  Over in the reuse business case thread this has been a recurring point, that excess capabilities can allow for reuse - here ULA is looking to use excess capabilities to store propellant in orbit for more demanding missions.


https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4a3ubs/i_have_a_final_draft_for_my_reusable_spacecraft/d0zclz7
Quote
I envision 3 distinct phases.
First, fuel will be brought up from earth as primary and secondary payloads which will be transferred directly to an ACES.
Second, fuel will be brought up in the same way, but collected in depots for later transfer to ACES vehicles.
Finally, Fuel will be produced on the moon and on NEOs (asteroids) and stored in depots at EML1. ACES vehicles will travel there and tank-up."

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/491633/rspacex_ask_anything_thread_for_march_2016_ask/d0xqaxv?context=3
Quote
Because ACES will have orders of magnitude longer operation time, even without refueling, distributed lift becomes possible. By taking a payload only as far as LEO, then following with a fully fueled ACES, you can take a payload to a final destination that is around 3X heavier than anything possible today with even the Delta Heavy and other heavies to come. (although not be confused with SLS which will be in a class of its own).
That same ultra-long duration allows the lifting of huge structures and spacecraft in pieces to be assembled in space.
This alone, without refueling, will shatter the one spacecraft - one lift paradigm that has set a limit of what is possible for humanity to accomplish beyond our planet.
Refueling:
Many rockets go to space with excess capability. Which is to say, the specific spacecraft on a given mission is often less than the maximum capability of that rocket's configuration. That is what allows one to recover a booster. Otherwise, you would not be able to add the extra weight of hardware and unused propellant to fly back with.
Initially, we will use that excess capability to bring up propellant in order to refuel previously used ACES. Later, we will produce LOX/LH2 from water mined on the moon and asteroids. At that point, we'll not even need to use our excess capability to lift fuel.
Over time, a fleet os ACES "space trucks" will accumulate in orbit, operating indefinitely. This will change what we can do in CisLunar space and how we get to space from earth.
We will no longer fly from the surface of the earth to destination orbits. EELVs will only go as far as LEO. ACES will swoop down, pick up the payload, and ferry it to its final destination. For some missions, fully reusable SSTOs will become practical for that first leg to space.
There will also be a fleet of ACES able to journey within hours to any other orbit to support activities like satellite servicing.
This will allow the construction of enormous structures in space, establishing the infrastructure needed to enable a self-sustaining CisLunar economy and a permanent presence of thousands of men and women living and working off of our planet
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: savuporo on 04/24/2016 08:50 PM
Meanwhile, thanks to Parabolic Arc (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/04/24/satellite-forecast-released/), forecast on the currently existing cislunar economy

http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/3675115/satellites-to-be-built-and-launched-by-2024.pdf

Quote
60% more satellites to be launched by 2024 vs. past decade
Mass to orbit due to increase by 34% between the two decades
Industry revenues to grow by 21% in the decade
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/14/2016 10:16 AM
Bernard Kutter from ULA talking at NEAF talks about ULA CISLunar plan. Lots of interesting stuff on Vulcan, ACES and cislunar transport.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XCNa9pAxyM

Plan to fly gas hydrogen oxygen thrusts on Centuar next year. These will replace Hydrazine thrusts in IVF system.

26:30. Distributed launch using 2 launches can deliver 3 times payload to lunar surface compared to single launch.

30:00 Describes a lunar mission. 1) Launch tanker to LEO. 2) <3 weeks later launch Xeus with its payload and refuel it. NB I think Xeus is the US ie no ACES.  No mention of payload mass but my guess is about 10t-15t.
As a tanker Xeus can transport 70t from Lunar surface to EML1 and return, using 70t of fuel.

 
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/29/2016 08:32 AM
ULA mention paying $500kg for fuel on lunar surface. There are a few issues with delivering fuel instead of water to EML1.
1) Energy and equipment requirements to convert water to LH/LOx are huge. About 6.4MW/hr per ton, plus equipment weight.
2) Water is lot more compact per ton compared to LH/LOx and no insulation required meaning smaller lighter lander.

Based on ULA estimate the Xeus lander can deliver 70t EML1 and return to surface using 70t fuel. If lander uses EML1 fuel for return trip, there no fuel saves, compared to carry fuel from moon. The savings are in cost of converting water to fuel at EML1 than on moon. EML1 as it has access to 24/7 sunlight, plus cost of delivering refinery equipment to EML1 would <1/3 compared to moon.

Using aerobraking about 80% EML fuel could be delivered to LEO using 20% fuel. Fuel delivered to LEO would contain higher LOX to LH ratio but this can be supplement by earth LH.

Every 1000Kg of lunar water would give approx 400kg to LEO. Approx 450kg would be convert to fuel on moon with remaining 550kg at EML1.

Havn't done calculations but transfer water and return fuel in LLO should reduce moon fuel needed.

Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: yg1968 on 12/28/2016 10:28 PM
A discussion on ACES and other ULA projects:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=161EysXfXQs
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: sdsds on 12/28/2016 11:21 PM
So is Michael Holguin a new spokesperson for ULA? Or has he made presentations like this one previously?
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: yg1968 on 12/28/2016 11:28 PM
So is Michael Holguin a new spokesperson for ULA? Or has he made presentations like this one previously?

He was replacing someone else that couldn't make it.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: sdsds on 12/28/2016 11:41 PM
He was replacing someone else that couldn't make it.

Yes I did listen to his talk where he mentions this. (Thanks for posting the link, BTW.)

I did also hear him describe Wayne Hale as his mentor. Lucky guy!
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/29/2016 04:32 AM
Vulcan IOC end of 2019.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/30/2016 12:24 AM
Autonomous engine recovery and reuse:

Looks like they have two side boosters (which look like squat little first stage) on a core stage which doesn't look like it has engines itself. So, feeding propellant to the side boosters which then stage off and probably do some sort of boost-back and landing.

...which sort of seems like they're bending over backwards to not validate VTVL first stage reuse.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: jongoff on 12/30/2016 12:28 AM
Autonomous engine recovery and reuse:

Looks like they have two side boosters (which look like squat little first stage) on a core stage which doesn't look like it has engines itself. So, feeding propellant to the side boosters which then stage off and probably do some sort of boost-back and landing.

...which sort of seems like they're bending over backwards to not validate VTVL first stage reuse.

Hopefully they'll come around. As I've mentioned before, Ursa Major (located about 90min north of ULA HQ in Berthoud, CO) is working on 25klbf LOX/Methane staged combustion engines which should have ridiculously good T/W ratio. Would be perfect for landing engines if the BE-4s can't throttle deep enough. Masten is also working on a 25klbf LOX/Methane dual-expander engine which would be designed for VTVL applications from the start. They've got plenty of options for full-stage VTVL if I can ever talk them into it...

Me personally I'd love to see a Vulcan stage come in DTAL style... Muwahaha.

~Jon
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/30/2016 01:15 AM
I like fly back engine pod (adeline concept) idea. Integration should just be case of bolting the recovered pods to new fuel tank. Not a lot different from shuttle, except engine pods shouldn't need a major overhaul between flights.

Compared to booster recovery they are trading an expendable fuel tank for more performance and no need for downrange recovery barge. Downrange recovery is also weather dependent. Good chance of making it work first time, while VTVL is likely to result in few failed attempts, all of which add to development costs. Option to add SRBs to fuel tank, I'm not sure if this is possible with reusable booster due to higher DV at staging.

Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/30/2016 02:27 PM
But new tanks aren't cheap at all, and the extra integration is like having another stage.

I'm not a big fan. It's an inefficient half-measure.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: rockets4life97 on 12/30/2016 04:05 PM
What I find surprising about Holguin's presentation is that ACES isn't planned to fly until 2023 and the reusability plans only come in after that. 7 years is a long-time for a NET date. The market and the competition could have changed significantly by then.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/30/2016 05:31 PM
What I find surprising about Holguin's presentation is that ACES isn't planned to fly until 2023 and the reusability plans only come in after that. 7 years is a long-time for a NET date. The market and the competition could have changed significantly by then.
ULA only have limited financial resources, new booster is most critical thing at this stage. The ACES is also waiting on US engine developments, I think XCOR is ULA preferred choice.

There was talk of fitting IVF to Centuar and flying it around 2018, just need willing customer.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: brickmack on 12/30/2016 11:52 PM
Autonomous engine recovery and reuse:

Looks like they have two side boosters (which look like squat little first stage) on a core stage which doesn't look like it has engines itself. So, feeding propellant to the side boosters which then stage off and probably do some sort of boost-back and landing.

...which sort of seems like they're bending over backwards to not validate VTVL first stage reuse.

Even if they didn't believe in full reuse of the first stage, I don't see how this design is optimal. SMART should take less mass and cost less to build and refurbish. Or if they were really going to insist on a winged return vehicle (building up to full on flyback boosters?), why not just have a single in-line one? Compared to an in-line winged design, this probably just about doubles the mass and production cost, doubles the complexity of recovery, doubles the complexity of plumbing and structures for the tank, increases aerodynamic losses on ascent, and reduces scalability via strapon boosters. Whats the gain?
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: jongoff on 12/31/2016 03:58 AM
What I find surprising about Holguin's presentation is that ACES isn't planned to fly until 2023 and the reusability plans only come in after that. 7 years is a long-time for a NET date. The market and the competition could have changed significantly by then.
ULA only have limited financial resources, new booster is most critical thing at this stage.

I think most at ULA would've preferred to do ACES first, as that would've allowed them to get rid of the whole Delta line, including DIVH right away, and then work on a follow-on first stage. But international events in Crimea, and congress's reaction to such forced them to focus initially on Vulcan.

~Jon
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/31/2016 05:02 AM
Vulcan IOC end of 2019.

I've always liked the ACES lunar lander that is depicted in slide #10.  In fact all the ACES derivatives appeal to my sense of efficiency and utility.

I just wish there was a funding stream/mission to support building and flying them...
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: jongoff on 12/31/2016 06:59 AM
Vulcan IOC end of 2019.

I've always liked the ACES lunar lander that is depicted in slide #10.  In fact all the ACES derivatives appeal to my sense of efficiency and utility.

I just wish there was a funding stream/mission to support building and flying them...

AFAIK, Xeus is mostly being funded on a shoe-string at Masten at the moment, but IVF and ACES are being actively funded by ULA, as evinced by publicly released information such as a certain Thruster Gimbal hotfire test video George Sowers linked-to earlier this month.

I agree with you in hoping Masten/ULA can find a pot of money for Xeus development at some point though--It's a really clever approach that I wish had more resources behind it.

~Jon
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: rockets4life97 on 12/31/2016 11:33 AM
Is it just me or does it seem like ULA has less money for R&D than SpaceX? Maybe that is because Commercial Crew and Cargo are development oriented. On the other hand, maybe SpaceX is plowing its profit into R&D while ULA's parent companies are taking a good chunk of the profit.

Seems to me that somebody at ULA should figure out how to get the money to do ACES and Vulcan development simultaneously.
Title: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Star One on 12/31/2016 12:16 PM
Vulcan IOC end of 2019.

I've always liked the ACES lunar lander that is depicted in slide #10.  In fact all the ACES derivatives appeal to my sense of efficiency and utility.

I just wish there was a funding stream/mission to support building and flying them...

Well it might interest President Trump if he wants to go back to the Moon but take the private enterprise route. Though SLS & Orion would no doubt pay the cost of this kind of choice.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: rayleighscatter on 12/31/2016 12:51 PM
Is it just me or does it seem like ULA has less money for R&D than SpaceX? Maybe that is because Commercial Crew and Cargo are development oriented. On the other hand, maybe SpaceX is plowing its profit into R&D while ULA's parent companies are taking a good chunk of the profit.

Seems to me that somebody at ULA should figure out how to get the money to do ACES and Vulcan development simultaneously.

It seems ULA's R&D money largely comes from existing funds while SpaceX's largely comes from future funds.

It's a calculated trade-off for both parties. One risks losing business to a lack of innovation and the other risks getting behind the curve on debt financing.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/31/2016 01:15 PM
There are companies that only do R&D. They get money from investors because they're building up technological capability.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/31/2016 03:20 PM
Is it just me or does it seem like ULA has less money for R&D than SpaceX? Maybe that is because Commercial Crew and Cargo are development oriented. On the other hand, maybe SpaceX is plowing its profit into R&D while ULA's parent companies are taking a good chunk of the profit.

Seems to me that somebody at ULA should figure out how to get the money to do ACES and Vulcan development simultaneously.
ULA makes enough profit to fund large R&D projects, the problem is convincing Boeing & LM to keep all that profit for R&D. To be fair to Boeing and LM, they have to account to their share holders who want dividend payouts.


As for XEUS, there is no urgency on this project. It still needs flight proven ACES and more importantly a market.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: jongoff on 12/31/2016 04:10 PM
Is it just me or does it seem like ULA has less money for R&D than SpaceX? Maybe that is because Commercial Crew and Cargo are development oriented. On the other hand, maybe SpaceX is plowing its profit into R&D while ULA's parent companies are taking a good chunk of the profit.

Seems to me that somebody at ULA should figure out how to get the money to do ACES and Vulcan development simultaneously.

Not being a joint venture of two publicly-traded parent companies is definitely an advantage for SpaceX, though I think ULA's parent companies are letting them roll a lot more of their profits over into Vulcan and ACES development these days than they had in the past.

~Jon
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: jongoff on 12/31/2016 04:14 PM
As for XEUS, there is no urgency on this project. It still needs flight proven ACES and more importantly a market.

Xeus can actually work just fine with Centaur, so you don't need a flight-proven ACES. But the lack of a government customer or commercial market part is what's keeping it on the slow burner. AIUI, Masten is still spending real resources on their part of their Lunar Catalyst work with NASA (who is also doing support via a non-reimbursable SAA), there's only so much that can be done without money changing hands.

~Jon
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/31/2016 05:52 PM
Jon do you know if they plan to fly IVF Centuar or wait for ACES.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: jongoff on 12/31/2016 08:06 PM
Jon do you know if they plan to fly IVF Centuar or wait for ACES.

I'm honestly not sure which approach they'll take for getting IVF flown.

And if I was sure, and it wasn't public info, I probably couldn't say anyway. :-)

~Jon
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/01/2017 06:37 PM
Well it might interest President Trump if he wants to go back to the Moon but take the private enterprise route. Though SLS & Orion would no doubt pay the cost of this kind of choice.

To a certain extent it doesn't matter what technology is available for a government return to the Moon, since we proved we could go to the Moon with 60's era technology.  It only matters that there is political consensus to fund such an effort, and in order for that to happen there has to be a "national imperative" of some sort - big or small.

Which we don't have today, and since any mission to the Moon will require Congressional buy-in, it's unlikely that a Trump interest in the Moon alone will change the current situation.

In the meantime though, moving these systems further along will help them become possible solutions for when someone, sometime, wants to go beyond LEO.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/09/2017 07:13 PM
Well it might interest President Trump if he wants to go back to the Moon but take the private enterprise route. Though SLS & Orion would no doubt pay the cost of this kind of choice.

To a certain extent it doesn't matter what technology is available for a government return to the Moon, since we proved we could go to the Moon with 60's era technology.  It only matters that there is political consensus to fund such an effort, and in order for that to happen there has to be a "national imperative" of some sort - big or small.

Which we don't have today, and since any mission to the Moon will require Congressional buy-in, it's unlikely that a Trump interest in the Moon alone will change the current situation.

In the meantime though, moving these systems further along will help them become possible solutions for when someone, sometime, wants to go beyond LEO.
There is a second prong to this and that is that while commercial continues to make progress on systems on their own, that in and of itself lowers the bar where Congress may "buy-in" because the costs continue to lower. Eventually a commercial entity may decide to fully fund a Lunar Return if Congress never does a "buy-in". This leaves Congress to then purchase services from an established provide to stay up with other nations that buy services and conduct their own Lunar exploration.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/19/2017 05:42 AM
ULA overview slides from last week's CISLunar1000 workshop:

Quote
The charts from our Cislunar Marketplace workshop are now available! #cislunar1000   ulalaunch http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Commercial_Space/CisLunar_Marketplace_Master_Final.pdf

https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/832235512110813184 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/832235512110813184)
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: AncientU on 02/20/2017 11:50 AM
ULA overview slides from last week's CISLunar1000 workshop:

Quote
The charts from our Cislunar Marketplace workshop are now available! #cislunar1000   ulalaunch http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Commercial_Space/CisLunar_Marketplace_Master_Final.pdf

https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/832235512110813184 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/832235512110813184)

Quite an 'interesting' take on becoming entrepreneurial in the space marketplace.

Imagine Silicon Valley holding workshops on, Internet, The Next Thirty Years in 1980, or Telecommunications, The Next Thirty Years in 1990, or AI, The Next Thirty Years... of course, they'd generate Roadmaps and Cross-Correlation Matricies.

Quote
The CisLunar Marketplace roadmaps we created identified potential business opportunities near term and a 30-year time span
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 02/20/2017 02:12 PM
ULA overview slides from last week's CISLunar1000 workshop:

Quote
The charts from our Cislunar Marketplace workshop are now available! #cislunar1000   ulalaunch http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Commercial_Space/CisLunar_Marketplace_Master_Final.pdf

https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/832235512110813184 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/832235512110813184)

Quite an 'interesting' take on becoming entrepreneurial in the space marketplace.

Imagine Silicon Valley holding workshops on, Internet, The Next Thirty Years in 1980, or Telecommunications, The Next Thirty Years in 1990, or AI, The Next Thirty Years... of course, they'd generate Roadmaps and Cross-Correlation Matricies.

Quote
The CisLunar Marketplace roadmaps we created identified potential business opportunities near term and a 30-year time span

There are a lot of people out there trying to read the tea-leaves for the first half of this century (you and I and practically everyone on this website)... reason being, it is moving so fast, that entrepreneurs are having a hard time keeping up with developments and opportunities... indeed back in the 80's - 90's people in college (and elsewhere :) )were getting a taste of the things to come in telecommunications, and what was possible... business started and merged and folded, like rock bands in the 60's... it was wild...

these workshops (and there are many, not just ULA, but Peter Diamandis and others) are beating the bushes to bring people who are thinking of start ups in new fields, that 10 years ago were sci-fi, together to brainstorm the future... thus accelerating the process...  The future that ULA, Bigelow, Bezos and Musk are pushing, along with other billionaires, is just around the corner, and few of us lay people are prepared for the avalanche... Robotics and AI are equivalent to what Electricity was, back 100 years ago... look at the wild ride that took society in the last century...
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Lars-J on 02/20/2017 05:41 PM
What I find surprising about Holguin's presentation is that ACES isn't planned to fly until 2023 and the reusability plans only come in after that. 7 years is a long-time for a NET date. The market and the competition could have changed significantly by then.

I've never been convinced that ULA is serious about ACES and reuse - because it it always many years in the future, it never seems to get any closer. A certain other company gets a lot of flack for development delays, but this perpetual ACES shift into the future seems to glide under the radar.

I want to see ACES. I want to see ULA push forward instead of being caretakers of what they inherited when the company was formed.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: jongoff on 02/20/2017 06:32 PM
What I find surprising about Holguin's presentation is that ACES isn't planned to fly until 2023 and the reusability plans only come in after that. 7 years is a long-time for a NET date. The market and the competition could have changed significantly by then.

I've never been convinced that ULA is serious about ACES and reuse - because it it always many years in the future, it never seems to get any closer. A certain other company gets a lot of flack for development delays, but this perpetual ACES shift into the future seems to glide under the radar.

I want to see ACES. I want to see ULA push forward instead of being caretakers of what they inherited when the company was formed.

I have to be careful what I say here, but seeing as how ULA ACES/IVF work was big chunk of our revenue last year, I'm pretty confident I can say ULA is serious about ACES development. They're spending significant amounts of their own money and are pushing a real flight hardware development schedule. I agree that beforehand the dates they were giving were probably more notional, of the "if we can find a paying customer, we could have this ready to fly by date X." Now though, it seems like their parent companies are letting them reinvest a lot of their own money into actual flight hardware development to meet the proposed schedule.

Don't get me wrong though, I agree that they really should be trying to accelerate ACES development relative to that 2023 date. I hope they can find a way to pull that schedule to the left by a few years. But I'm convinced they're serious about ACES development this time around.

~Jon
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Lars-J on 02/20/2017 06:48 PM
Ok, that's good to know! Thanks, Jon.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Lar on 02/20/2017 07:01 PM
ULA overview slides from last week's CISLunar1000 workshop:

Quote
The charts from our Cislunar Marketplace workshop are now available! #cislunar1000   ulalaunch http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Commercial_Space/CisLunar_Marketplace_Master_Final.pdf

https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/832235512110813184 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/832235512110813184)

That looked like a LOT of fun to be in on... Wish I had been invited. 

And Jon, good news on ACES/IVF. I think these techs, more than Vulcan and SMART Reuse, are the key to ULA competitive advantage (SMART reuse is "me too", but ACES? Something the other guys don't have)
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: AncientU on 02/21/2017 07:41 AM
ACES is a great idea...
ULA should continue moving to build it and see if they come.

Not sure SMART reuse can compete.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: jongoff on 02/21/2017 08:54 PM
ACES is a great idea...
ULA should continue moving to build it and see if they come.

Not sure SMART reuse can compete.

SMART reuse would've been much more compelling had they been able to start developing it 8-9yrs ago when they first started talking about it. As much as I love what ULA is doing with ACES and Vulcan, I still hope we can eventually talk them into powered landing, Xeus-style for Vulcan first stage. It's their call, but I struggle to see how they're going to stay competitive with SpaceX with SMART reuse. It might allow them to better compete with a non-reusable vehicle like Proton or Ariane 6, but seems like an incomplete response to what SpaceX is doing.

Admittedly, it would be a lot easier to sell them on full first stage recovery if a) distributed lift was already flying or about to fly, and b) there was at least one small RLV startup delivering low-cost propellant that they could leverage for distributed lift. I say that because most of their payloads are GTO/GEO bound (or modest-sized LEO vehicles), where they should have enough performance with a Vulcan/ACES w/o solids to get the payload to LEO and still have enough prop left on the first stage for at least a barge landing. If they had a cheap way to top the ACES stage back up enough for GTO, they could theoretically then justify a fully-reusable first stage. Though admittedly, until distributed lift refueling maneuvers have been demonstrated successfully many times, some customers may prefer to pay the premium for simpler mission operations.

Anyhow, just speaking off the cuff there. But I agree with you that I find ACES far more exciting than SMART.

~Jon
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 02/21/2017 09:20 PM
ACES is a great idea...
ULA should continue moving to build it and see if they come.

Not sure SMART reuse can compete.

SMART reuse would've been much more compelling had they been able to start developing it 8-9yrs ago when they first started talking about it. As much as I love what ULA is doing with ACES and Vulcan, I still hope we can eventually talk them into powered landing, Xeus-style for Vulcan first stage. It's their call, but I struggle to see how they're going to stay competitive with SpaceX with SMART reuse. It might allow them to better compete with a non-reusable vehicle like Proton or Ariane 6, but seems like an incomplete response to what SpaceX is doing.

Admittedly, it would be a lot easier to sell them on full first stage recovery if a) distributed lift was already flying or about to fly, and b) there was at least one small RLV startup delivering low-cost propellant that they could leverage for distributed lift. I say that because most of their payloads are GTO/GEO bound (or modest-sized LEO vehicles), where they should have enough performance with a Vulcan/ACES w/o solids to get the payload to LEO and still have enough prop left on the first stage for at least a barge landing. If they had a cheap way to top the ACES stage back up enough for GTO, they could theoretically then justify a fully-reusable first stage. Though admittedly, until distributed lift refueling maneuvers have been demonstrated successfully many times, some customers may prefer to pay the premium for simpler mission operations.

Anyhow, just speaking off the cuff there. But I agree with you that I find ACES far more exciting than SMART.

~Jon

Jon,

The problem that I see for ULA is by the time that they do smart use in 2023 the majority of the commerical market might be all SpaceX and BO.  Remember New Glenn is meant to fly by 2020 and it will have first stage re-use.  By 2021, you could have SpaceX and BO doing first stage recovery as the normal part of their business.  Smart reuse could end up being the Microsoft phone of 2020 --too little too late.  The market has moved on.  What is even worse for ULA, if in 2020 SpaceX is launching 20 -30+ times per year, vs a company who is only flying  7- 10 times/years, who will have the lower costs?  If I was an investor and looking at 5 year time table - who would you put your money in?  ULA is safe only for a few more years.  ULA needs to out innovate not just SpaceX but BO. 
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: jabe on 02/21/2017 09:43 PM
Jon,

The problem that I see for ULA is by the time that they do smart use in 2023 the majority of the commerical market might be all SpaceX and BO.  Remember New Glenn is meant to fly by 2020 and it will have first stage re-use.  By 2021, you could have SpaceX and BO doing first stage recovery as the normal part of their business.  Smart reuse could end up being the Microsoft phone of 2020 --too little too late.  The market has moved on.  What is even worse for ULA, if in 2020 SpaceX is launching 20 -30+ times per year, vs a company who is only flying  7- 10 times/years, who will have the lower costs?  If I was an investor and looking at 5 year time table - who would you put your money in?  ULA is safe only for a few more years.  ULA needs to out innovate not just SpaceX but BO. 
My crystal ball has ULA doing the cislunar in space and ceding launches to Spacex and BO.  ACES looks like it can do some cool things that the other companies don't look like they have started thinking about/doing.  Time to shift your business case..
now to be fair I have a bout of the flu so not thinking straight.. but anything is possible..
jb
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Kansan52 on 02/21/2017 10:31 PM
My crystal ball is made of a different crystal. ULA has been working on lowering costs since before the block buy. The are winning commercial launches now with value add. The future brings on Vulcan with an streamlined operation and the possibility that Smart Reuse will save more money.

They are building on a strong foundation and will cede nothing.

At least that is in my crystal ball.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Lars-J on 02/21/2017 11:17 PM
They are building on a strong foundation and will cede nothing.

They are gambling on the competition failing and the status quo remaining, I wouldn't call that a very strong foundation. Especially with the block buys going away. They might cede things despite not wanting to.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: AncientU on 02/21/2017 11:57 PM
They are building on a strong foundation and will cede nothing.

They are gambling on the competition failing and the status quo remaining, I wouldn't call that a very strong foundation. Especially with the block buys going away. They might cede things despite not wanting to.

The competition for 2019 has at least 40% of the DoD market going away from ULA, possibly 60%.
Heavies will be a separate allocation, but they are dropping DIVH.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/22/2017 06:17 AM
ULA's backup plan might be to buy several New Glenn first stages and fly their ACES stage on top.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/22/2017 09:06 AM
ULA's backup plan might be to buy several New Glenn first stages and fly their ACES stage on top.
Blue and ULA are already partnering on BE4 why not for distributed launch. Use New Glenn for fuel tanker with Vulcan carrying payload. Allows launches to be days apart.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Brovane on 02/22/2017 08:17 PM
They are building on a strong foundation and will cede nothing.

They are gambling on the competition failing and the status quo remaining, I wouldn't call that a very strong foundation. Especially with the block buys going away. They might cede things despite not wanting to.

Why do you think they are gambling on the competition failing?   
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Lars-J on 02/22/2017 08:28 PM
They are building on a strong foundation and will cede nothing.

They are gambling on the competition failing and the status quo remaining, I wouldn't call that a very strong foundation. Especially with the block buys going away. They might cede things despite not wanting to.

Why do you think they are gambling on the competition failing?

Why? Because they are not investing in any kind of reuse. (powerpoints don't count) ACES is also years away. Now they are streamlining and slimming down - true - but without significant investment in new technology, they are betting that what they have is sufficient.

That doesn't mean they are doomed to fail. Their gamble may actually pay off. But it is still a gamble.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: jabe on 02/22/2017 08:29 PM
They are gambling on the competition failing and the status quo remaining, I wouldn't call that a very strong foundation. Especially with the block buys going away. They might cede things despite not wanting to.
Why do you think they are gambling on the competition failing?   
my take...~Jon made a point earlier in thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38769.msg1645468#msg1645468) that, not putting words in his  mouth, I take it (and think is true) as they aren't being aggressive enough with the changes they need to make.  The goalposts will have moved a lot by the time SMART and/or Vulcan is ready and by then these changes may not be enough to have them survive competitively.  Only chance for them to survive is if the other groups fail.  Only time will tell..
jb
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Brovane on 02/22/2017 09:28 PM

Why do you think they are gambling on the competition failing?

Why? Because they are not investing in any kind of reuse. (powerpoints don't count) ACES is also years away. Now they are streamlining and slimming down - true - but without significant investment in new technology, they are betting that what they have is sufficient.

That doesn't mean they are doomed to fail. Their gamble may actually pay off. But it is still a gamble.

When a powerplant is 50%+ of a 1st stage cost, why doesn't the re-use of a power plant count? 

Bruno is making as many changes as he can considering his funding is controlled by two public companies (Boeing and LM). 

Let's also be fair, ULA's main competitor is controlled by someone; who moves goal posts so rapidly that even his own employees have a hard time keeping up, constantly puts out goal deadlines that can only be called impossible and are frequently missed, and wasn't founded to maximize profit. 

So any company compared to ULA's main competitor is going to be considered conservative.  ULA's is moving forward prudently and deliberately.  ULA's announcing Rapid Launch was a wise move considering a competitor constant flight delays.  ULA's push to move away from the D-IV was a wise move.  ULA's push to pay BO to develop the BE-4 engine, another wise move.  The Development of the Vulcan and ACES another wise move. 

So is ULA gambling on their competitor not being as successful as their founder thinks they are going to be? I would say yes.  I would not say that ULA is planning on their competitor failing and going out of business.  They know that competition is here and it is not going anywhere.  ULA is not planning on large fully re-usable SHLV lifting off from Brownsville going to Mars in either 2022 or 2024.  So if this is the criteria you use for "ULA gambling on their competition failing" then yes ULA is gambling on their competition failing.  However let's be fair, it is a long shot that their competitor will have a full re-usable SHLV flying before 2025. 
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: envy887 on 02/22/2017 09:41 PM
PowerPoints don't account for 50% of the cost of anything.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/22/2017 09:59 PM
SpaceX is not their only competitor, they also compete with Ariane for commercial sats. With current pricing on Atlas they are not competitive but Vulcan should change that.

Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: rayleighscatter on 02/23/2017 01:04 AM
Considering the increasing number of competitive launch providers around the globe, the stagnant launch forecasts, and the increasing lifespan of satellites, a company that plans for fewer launches rather than more is probably on a more solid long term footing.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/23/2017 01:18 AM
ULA's backup plan might be to buy several New Glenn first stages and fly their ACES stage on top.
Blue and ULA are already partnering on BE4 why not for distributed launch. Use New Glenn for fuel tanker with Vulcan carrying payload. Allows launches to be days apart.

If both the New Glenn and the Vulcan enters service at about the same time with basically the same components. Then Bezos will just buyout ULA or halt BE-4 shipments to have the secondary launch business all for himself. Especially since Bezos have a ever growing piggy bank with the various Amazon ventures. Somehow Blue putting up a LV assembly facility in Florida is not a sign that Blue will share the secondary launch business with ULA in the long run.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/23/2017 02:14 AM
Bruno is making as many changes as he can considering his funding is controlled by two public companies (Boeing and LM).

Boeing and Lockheed Martin own ULA, and they are running the way they want, not the way Bruno wants.  Let's not forget that.  And they can change that anytime they want, but so far they haven't wanted to.  ULA is not a victim here.

Quote
Let's also be fair, ULA's main competitor is controlled by someone; who moves goal posts so rapidly that even his own employees have a hard time keeping up, constantly puts out goal deadlines that can only be called impossible and are frequently missed, and wasn't founded to maximize profit.

I'm assuming you mean SpaceX and Elon Musk.  It would be wrong to think that Musk is moving goal posts without his employees knowing anything about what he's saying, since while it's true that they miss schedule dates, they have met the capabilities that Musk advertises.  And you can't do that without validating what you're promising BEFORE you promise it.

As to profits, SpaceX has been profitable (for the most part) for years, and Musk has not been supporting SpaceX with funding the way Bezos has.  SpaceX is in the business of making a profit, as that is the only way they can afford to pursue their Mars goals.

Quote
So any company compared to ULA's main competitor is going to be considered conservative.

I don't want to start a debate about "NewSpace" vs "OldSpace", but my definition of "NewSpace" has been that they are willing to risk their own money to create new products and services, while "OldSpace" is not.

As to ULA, I'm not sure we're seeing a willingness by ULA's parents to truly pursue technologies and business models that will compete with SpaceX and other significant competitors so that they can be in the top rung of competitors when Vulcan becomes operational.

Quote
ULA's is moving forward prudently and deliberately.

To me that sounds like you're trying to justify why they don't seem to be responding to the competitive threat reusability means to them, since it's not just SpaceX but Blue Origin also that are committed to reusability.

Quote
So if this is the criteria you use for "ULA gambling on their competition failing" then yes ULA is gambling on their competition failing.  However let's be fair, it is a long shot that their competitor will have a full re-usable SHLV flying before 2025.

There is no business case for SHLV's at this point, so I would not blame ULA for not pursuing that market.  But then again both Musk and Bezos are positioning themselves for the markets that come AFTER where we are today.  And maybe those markets won't appear, but if they do then ULA won't be positioned to take advantage of them.  Food for thought.

But ULA is working on some good technologies, like ACES and IVF, that could be very useful for expanding humanity out into space.  However I'm not sure if they are positioned to survive that long as a launch provider and still have the money to pursue that next market using ACES and IVF.  And that would not be good, because I want them to continue to be a competitor - competition is good, because it keeps everyone on their toes.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Brovane on 02/23/2017 04:03 AM
Bruno is making as many changes as he can considering his funding is controlled by two public companies (Boeing and LM).

Boeing and Lockheed Martin own ULA, and they are running the way they want, not the way Bruno wants.  Let's not forget that.  And they can change that anytime they want, but so far they haven't wanted to.  ULA is not a victim here.

Boeing and LM have certain expectations of financial returns from ULA back to them.  Which means that Bruno has to answer to his parent companies about what he is spending money on and expectations of those returns.  Which means ULA doesn't have the same freedom to spend money on R&D that SpaceX or BO have.  I have yet to see a long-term commitment on investment from Boeing or LM in ULA.  This lack of long term commitment from the parent companies imposes restrictions on what Bruno can do.  He doesn’t have the same freedom to decide company strategy that Musk or Bezos have. 

Let's also be fair, ULA's main competitor is controlled by someone; who moves goal posts so rapidly that even his own employees have a hard time keeping up, constantly puts out goal deadlines that can only be called impossible and are frequently missed, and wasn't founded to maximize profit.

I'm assuming you mean SpaceX and Elon Musk.  It would be wrong to think that Musk is moving goal posts without his employees knowing anything about what he's saying, since while it's true that they miss schedule dates, they have met the capabilities that Musk advertises.  And you can't do that without validating what you're promising BEFORE you promise it.

Have you read the book "Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a fantastic Future by Ashlee Vance"?
The point I am making is that any company is slow moving compared to any of Musk run companies. 

As to profits, SpaceX has been profitable (for the most part) for years, and Musk has not been supporting SpaceX with funding the way Bezos has.  SpaceX is in the business of making a profit, as that is the only way they can afford to pursue their Mars goals.
I don’t disagree.  However Musk doesn’t have to provide financial return back to parent companies that want to maximizing financial return and return on investment. 
 
So any company compared to ULA's main competitor is going to be considered conservative.

I don't want to start a debate about "NewSpace" vs "OldSpace", but my definition of "NewSpace" has been that they are willing to risk their own money to create new products and services, while "OldSpace" is not.
As to ULA, I'm not sure we're seeing a willingness by ULA's parents to truly pursue technologies and business models that will compete with SpaceX and other significant competitors so that they can be in the top rung of competitors when Vulcan becomes operational.

ULA’s parents are not going to purse technologies that don’t provide a reasonable rate of return on that investment.  Boeing and LM are public companies with stockholders that don’t really care about how cool it would be to land a spacecraft on Mars unless somebody pays for it.  We cannot fault the parent companies for not having altruistic behavior that Musk and Bezos have shown with their space enterprises.       

ULA's is moving forward prudently and deliberately.

To me that sounds like you're trying to justify why they don't seem to be responding to the competitive threat reusability means to them, since it's not just SpaceX but Blue Origin also that are committed to reusability.



ULA is responding the competitive threat that reusability means to them.  They are responding with smart engine re-use. 



So if this is the criteria you use for "ULA gambling on their competition failing" then yes ULA is gambling on their competition failing.  However let's be fair, it is a long shot that their competitor will have a full re-usable SHLV flying before 2025.

There is no business case for SHLV's at this point, so I would not blame ULA for not pursuing that market.  But then again both Musk and Bezos are positioning themselves for the markets that come AFTER where we are today.  And maybe those markets won't appear, but if they do then ULA won't be positioned to take advantage of them.  Food for thought.

But ULA is working on some good technologies, like ACES and IVF, that could be very useful for expanding humanity out into space.  However I'm not sure if they are positioned to survive that long as a launch provider and still have the money to pursue that next market using ACES and IVF.  And that would not be good, because I want them to continue to be a competitor - competition is good, because it keeps everyone on their toes.

Potentially a fully reusable LV lowers the price of launch to the point that any potential competitors without this technology would not be able to reasonably compete.  There is such extremely high risk on the path of development for a fully reusable LV that I cannot blame Boeing or LM for not wanting ULA to pursue this path.  I think they would be perfectly happy if Musk and Bezos are successful on this path to just fold up ULA and walk away from the launch market.  For Boeing and LM the financial risk isn't worth the potential reward.   
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Lars-J on 02/23/2017 05:06 AM
ULA's is moving forward prudently and deliberately.

To me that sounds like you're trying to justify why they don't seem to be responding to the competitive threat reusability means to them, since it's not just SpaceX but Blue Origin also that are committed to reusability.



ULA is responding the competitive threat that reusability means to them.  They are responding with smart engine re-use.

Except they aren't. "Smart engine re-use" does not appear to be part of the initial Vulcan design. (Unless I am mistaken)
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Chasm on 02/23/2017 11:07 AM
Except they aren't. "Smart engine re-use" does not appear to be part of the initial Vulcan design. (Unless I am mistaken)

Engine reuse is supposed to be introduced at a later point.
Question is how much (is any) preparatory work gets included into the first Vulcan generation. ULA must have an idea how SMART is going to work.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: jabe on 02/23/2017 12:10 PM
ULA must have an idea how SMART is going to work.
As mentioned earlier I think ULA can't do what it really wants to do since it parent companies have control of their funding..can't dive into "distributed launch" type system with SLS being made by ULA purse holders.
Theory of how SMART will work and practice are different For ULA's sake not too different)..they probably have a good idea how it will work.  Problem is Spacex and BO will have evolved their systems many times over before smart comes into play  They need SMART flying ASAP to have the evolution to happen.  I think SMART flying now make not be enough for the current market..so with it flying in 6(?) years time will be a tough road..
jb
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/23/2017 02:24 PM
A write-up of the workshop by Paul D. Spudis:

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/cislunar-space-next-30-years-180962249/ (http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/cislunar-space-next-30-years-180962249/)
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/23/2017 05:04 PM
A write-up of the workshop by Paul D. Spudis:

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/cislunar-space-next-30-years-180962249/ (http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/cislunar-space-next-30-years-180962249/)

Dr. Spudis has been a very consistent advocate for doing things in cis-lunar space.  That said, the main challenge is that people and institutions are advocating solutions for problems and markets that don't yet exist, so the accuracy of their proposed solutions are likely to be off by quite a bit.

Only by listening to customers can you truly understand what the problems are, and what the potential solutions are - unfortunately there is a distinct lack of customers, so I think everyone needs to first understand why that is?

- Is it because "space" costs too much, and if so what parts are the cost drivers?

- Is it because for space mining we don't yet know what we can mine, and what the value of that would be?

- Is it because we don't yet know how long we can keep employees in space, and what they can do when they are there?

Everyone has their own biases and interests, and certainly ULA has an interest in selling their services.  But doing things in space will be a new market, so you can't use current market techniques to anticipate what will be needed.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think this conference was too premature to really be useful.  What someone really needs to do is go out and talk with prospective customers to find out what will cause them to start spending money on space.  THAT will provide the real indications of what the challenges are, and only then can solutions start to be proposed.

My $0.02
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Brovane on 02/24/2017 04:25 PM
ULA's is moving forward prudently and deliberately.

To me that sounds like you're trying to justify why they don't seem to be responding to the competitive threat reusability means to them, since it's not just SpaceX but Blue Origin also that are committed to reusability.



ULA is responding the competitive threat that reusability means to them.  They are responding with smart engine re-use.

Except they aren't. "Smart engine re-use" does not appear to be part of the initial Vulcan design. (Unless I am mistaken)

They are, just at a more deliberate pace. 

ULA's is in a potentially difficult spot, depending on how well SpaceX can ramp up a consistent launch rate.

ULA's #1 priority is a transition off the RD-180 to the BE-4 and the Vulcan.  They don't want the AR1 because BE-4 gives them a better cost point for launches.  So far they have fended off attempts by Congress to cut off the RD-180 supply but the writing is clearly on the wall.

After this then Smart-Engine Re-use and ACES come into play. 

The other possibility that I thought about with ULA is that Boeing and LM might eventually fold up ULA and sell the assets and IP to Bezos.  Bezos might be very interested in the ACES technology, particularly the IVF part of ACES.  He is just waiting for ULA to start losing business to SpaceX and loose value.  He waits until things look bleak for ULA and then floats a proposal out to Boeing and LM.  He could have his pick of any ULA assets he wants for a considerable discount off current value. 
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/01/2017 01:16 PM
Quote
Tory Bruno‏ @torybruno 18m18 minutes ago

Some cool concept art from one of our #CisLunar1000 Marketplace partners
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/836937305201885186 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/836937305201885186)

Quote
Robert Bigelow‏ @RobertTBigelow 13m13 minutes ago

What if the B330 was launched to LEO, then redeployed by two @ulalaunch ACES busses to a low lunar orbit to serve as a lunar depot?
https://twitter.com/RobertTBigelow/status/836938597181726720 (https://twitter.com/RobertTBigelow/status/836938597181726720)
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/01/2017 04:28 PM
Quote
What if the @SpaceX V2 and/or the @LockheedMartin Orion were engaged as the transportation vehicles to and from the lunar depot?

https://twitter.com/roberttbigelow/status/836969249235062785 (https://twitter.com/roberttbigelow/status/836969249235062785)

Quote
If initiated soon, a lunar depot could be in operation by the end of 2020.

https://twitter.com/roberttbigelow/status/836990639560519683 (https://twitter.com/roberttbigelow/status/836990639560519683)

So it's not just SpaceX with aggressive schedules! Although SpaceX has the advantage of customers for their 'moon shot'.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/02/2017 02:11 AM
As for XEUS, there is no urgency on this project. It still needs flight proven ACES and more importantly a market.

Xeus can actually work just fine with Centaur, so you don't need a flight-proven ACES. But the lack of a government customer or commercial market part is what's keeping it on the slow burner. AIUI, Masten is still spending real resources on their part of their Lunar Catalyst work with NASA (who is also doing support via a non-reimbursable SAA), there's only so much that can be done without money changing hands.

~Jon

This video shows Masten testing their new hypergolic bipropellant MXP-351 in October of last year.
pic.twitter.com/D8bfccxkZX (http://pic.twitter.com/D8bfccxkZX)

The LunarCATALYST Space Act Agreement ends in August so NASA and Trump could sign new agreements that pay for results.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Jcc on 03/03/2017 11:32 AM
Quote
What if the @SpaceX V2 and/or the @LockheedMartin Orion were engaged as the transportation vehicles to and from the lunar depot?

https://twitter.com/roberttbigelow/status/836969249235062785 (https://twitter.com/roberttbigelow/status/836969249235062785)

Quote
If initiated soon, a lunar depot could be in operation by the end of 2020.

https://twitter.com/roberttbigelow/status/836990639560519683 (https://twitter.com/roberttbigelow/status/836990639560519683)

So it's not just SpaceX with aggressive schedules! Although SpaceX has the advantage of customers for their 'moon shot'.

The key word is "if" initiated soon. Of course BA330 and ACES are both far along in development, but without a paying customer the plan won't be initiated.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/05/2017 05:27 AM
Cross-posting as during Tory's interview he gives a good explanation of CISLunar1000:

Here's the show if you missed it, Tory's interview starts about 16:30 in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCAUyDNMoyc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCAUyDNMoyc)
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Semmel on 04/03/2017 01:45 PM
A question that spooks in my mind for quite some time is.. "How is ULA generating targets in CISLunar space?"

They want to sell their launch service to get to CISLunar space, and they advertise how many people are working there and how great their architecture is for that. But.. I dont get who is going to build and fund the CISLunar targets.

Is it congress? - No evidence so far.
Is it ULA them self? - Hard to believe.
Is it richindividuals? - Hear nothing of the sort so far.
Deep Space Missions, i.e. NASA? - So essentially congress.. (see above)


I am out of ideas..
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/04/2017 02:55 PM
ULA are webcasting today's CisLunar panel:

Quote
ULA‏Verified account @ulalaunch 4m4 minutes ago

Hello from #33SS! Join us at 10:30amMT in the Rocky Mtn Ballroom A/B or http://www.ulalaunch.com/webcast.aspx  to talk re: a self-sustaining space economy!

https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/849272863739834368 (https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/849272863739834368)

Edit to add: also available via youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnlw42B5i0s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnlw42B5i0s)
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Chasm on 04/04/2017 04:32 PM
The live stream has started.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/04/2017 06:14 PM
New ULA video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt8bs8E6XOY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt8bs8E6XOY)
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/04/2017 08:43 PM
Quote
I'm excited to announce that @ulalaunch has funded me + @UCF & @coschoolofmines colleagues to develop lunar water extraction!
https://twitter.com/drphiltill/status/849023097789460480 (https://twitter.com/drphiltill/status/849023097789460480)

Quote
Sweet! Any high level details you can share on which approach(es) you'll be investigating?
https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/849031028698107904 (https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/849031028698107904)

Quote
Extraction methods that don't involve rovers hauling ore. There's a large trade space we'll be analyzing. CSM will work on hardware design.
https://twitter.com/drphiltill/status/849064510392545283 (https://twitter.com/drphiltill/status/849064510392545283)
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: GWH on 04/07/2017 12:32 AM
There was a CISLunar 1000 Q&A session on facebook live today, replay can be found on ULA's facebook page:
http://Facebook.com/ulalaunch

Unfortunately it was pretty short and when I tuned in viewership was listed at around 40 people  :(
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/04/2018 03:59 PM
Quote
Completed Lunar ice mining concept study for @ulalaunch yesterday. Bottom line: business case can close at ULA’s price!!

https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/948961636059983872 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/948961636059983872)

Edit to add:

Quote
Opens the door to profitable commercial development of the Moon. I repeat: profitable 😀👍🌔💵💵

https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/948963126791172097 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/948963126791172097)
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/04/2018 05:38 PM
I think ULA price was purchasing water on lunar surface at $500 a kg. ULA still need to create 1kg of LH and LOX on surface to deliver a kg to EML1. Splitting water and creating liquid gases takes lot of energy about 7kwhr a kg of fuel.

The water to fuel production plant could all be contained in Xeus lander, just needs external power. 

Whether kg delivered to EML1 is water or fuel is yet to be decided. I'm of the option EML1 production plant is better. Cheaper to place, access to 24/7 sunlight and can be used for processing Asteriod water.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Lars-J on 01/04/2018 06:27 PM
Quote
Completed Lunar ice mining concept study for @ulalaunch yesterday. Bottom line: business case can close at ULA’s price!!

https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/948961636059983872 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/948961636059983872)

Edit to add:

Quote
Opens the door to profitable commercial development of the Moon. I repeat: profitable

https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/948963126791172097 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/948963126791172097)

But will it be as conclusive as the infamous "Reuse business case"?  :-X https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37390.0
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Sknowball on 01/04/2018 06:37 PM
Quote
Completed Lunar ice mining concept study for @ulalaunch yesterday. Bottom line: business case can close at ULA’s price!!

https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/948961636059983872 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/948961636059983872)

Edit to add:

Quote
Opens the door to profitable commercial development of the Moon. I repeat: profitable 😀👍🌔💵💵

https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/948963126791172097 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/948963126791172097)

He had posted some additional details about this study earlier in the week:

Quote
All three mining concepts we looked at close the business case. Of course, low TRL and many assumptions.

https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/947877496929902592 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/947877496929902592)
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/04/2018 10:54 PM
Without actual robotic exploration mission to determine how ice is contained in craters, this is all educated guess work.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/04/2018 11:24 PM
Without actual robotic exploration mission to determine how ice is contained in craters, this is all educated guess work.
Even more than that.

You need to assay the resources to determine the amounts and where, you need to sample the resources longitudinally to assess the nature of production, resultant, impurities, processing, tailings, topography for equipment, support logistics for equipment, operating environment of equipment, pilot facilities and actual overhead/support of limited production. And more.

Haven't even got to the plant planning, tankage, and orbital transfer vehicles/landing/facilities/fueling/mission profiles yet.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/21/2018 05:39 AM
The latest performance values for Vulcan/ACES shows how well this vehicle meets the CISLunar1000 goals. In using Distributive Launch landers, capsules, etc all can be launched into Lunar orbits and support Lunar HSF surface operations at definitely under $1B a mission cost and possibly even close to $500M counting 4 Vulcan/ACES launches plus lander and Starliner capsule per mission.

SLS minimum cost at 2 per year $1B each and you don't even get to the surface.

If SLS falters, Vulcan/ACES is the backup.

As Vulcan/ACES flight rates increase so would the lunar surface mission costs decrease because the 4/5 of the cost is the 4 Vulcan launches. A 10% cost reduction is a $40M per mission cost reduction. It would be possible for the surface mission to become <$500M each.

So for Lunar operations this is the price for manned surface mission to beat. BO is much farther away from an integrated solution for HSF Lunar surface operations and SpaceX if they can successfully develop the BFR would be likely second place for earliest date of operational capability. But If SpaceX does succeed with BFR it will change the game again but not just for access to LEO/GTO but to the Lunar surface. Initially mission costs of BFR would be possibly as much as $500M but eventually could drop to far less. But the biggest problem for Vulcan/ACES and ULA's CISLunar1000 goals is the disruption caused by the massive payload amounts that can be delivered for that same or less price.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/31/2018 07:08 PM
ULA have awarded a contract to UCF:

Quote
UCF Seeks New Way to Mine Moon for Water

UCF’s Phil Metzger and Juliet Brisset from the Florida Space Institute recently landed a contract to develop a model to mine the moon for water.

Data suggests the moon has water locked away in its icy soil, especially at the moon’s poles. The challenge is finding an effective and inexpensive way to get it.

Water is important because its chemical composition could be split into hydrogen and oxygen, which could then be made into rocket fuel. The ability to generate rocket fuel in space could open up more launch possibilities and reduce costs for transportation throughout lunar space and beyond.

Metzger and Brisset aim to come up with a viable method to extract the water. The idea would be to drill holes deep into the moon and pump heat through the holes to warm the regolith underground, which has water locked in frigid ice chunks. As the regolith warms up, the water would be released as vapor and collected through pipes in the hole.

Others have proposed having big equipment dig for the water and drag ice chunks to processing plants on the moon. But the proposed process may require equipment that has less mass and be more reliable than the wheeled digging equipment needed dig up piles of regolith and haul it to processing plants that would extract the water. By extracting the water in-place in the ground, there would be no need to move tons of soil around, Metzger said.

“When you talk about getting things into space, weight matters,” he said. “So we are looking at a technique that would require less stuff you have to transport which still gets the job done.”

Mining the moon is a focus of many researchers around the nation. But most are investigating techniques that collect and process the regolith of the moon rather than the ice. The regolith is the unconsolidated residual material that overlies the solid rock.

The United Launch Alliance (ULA) has contracted the UCF duo to find out if their proposed method is realistic and cost effective.

“Procuring propellant derived from the Moon may be substantially less expensive than hauling the propellant out of Earth’s deep gravity well,” said Bernard Kutter, ULA’s chief scientist.  “This in turn could reduce the cost of space transportation by as much as a factor of five.”

Those who can figure out a way to tap into water in space may be in a position to mine it and sell it for a variety of uses from life support systems and rocket fuel to radiation shielding and drinking water for space explorers.

Metzger, a planetary physicist who worked at Kennedy Space Center where he co-founded KSC Swampworks before joining UCF, is leading the project. Brisset, a research associate at the institute who has multiple degrees in mechanical and space engineering as well as physics, will work on the algorithms to run the computer simulations they hope will lead to a viable model. They also plan to hire a student to help with the testing.

The biggest challenge is a matter of geometry, Brisset said.

The team already has data that indicates heating the moon’s underground is possible. But converting the lunar ice into vapor requires high temperatures and unfortunately most of the heat will travel away through the lunar soil and be wasted.

“We have to figure out the right geometric configuration of the holes to increase the area that is heated,” Brisset said. “If we do it right, we should be able to increase the area and the time it stays warm. We will be doing a lot of modeling.”

https://today.ucf.edu/ucf-seeks-new-way-mine-moon-water/

Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/31/2018 08:33 PM
I knew ULA were keen on buying lunar water but looks like they want to get into actual mining. Could go it alone but a partnership with likes of mining or oil company would help share financial setup costs plus bring extensive robotic mining experience to partnership.
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/27/2018 07:38 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXHQn82TLKQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXHQn82TLKQ)
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/02/2018 01:13 PM
Quote
Welcoming by @torybruno to the lunar mining camp design workshop today at @ulalaunch. The big sheet on the table is a master plan for moving civilization beyond Earth! (That's the ultimate goal, IMO.) 😀 Excited to be here.

https://twitter.com/DrPhiltill/status/991321547829927936
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: jongoff on 05/02/2018 11:22 PM
Quote
Welcoming by @torybruno to the lunar mining camp design workshop today at @ulalaunch. The big sheet on the table is a master plan for moving civilization beyond Earth! (That's the ultimate goal, IMO.) 😀 Excited to be here.

https://twitter.com/DrPhiltill/status/991321547829927936

That's me at the far table straight ahead of the camera... It was a fun meeting. Some good ideas there, though a lot of work between here and there. It was fun getting some of my crazy ideas out there.

~Jon
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/04/2018 03:24 AM
Report is out:

https://twitter.com/drphiltill/status/1058831926247809025

https://www.philipmetzger.com/mining-for-rocket-fuel-on-the-moon/
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/04/2018 03:28 AM
https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/1058833789797916672

https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/1058840829014433792

https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/1058841030487814144

https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/1058843762313486337
Title: Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/04/2018 09:49 AM
{snip}
https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/1058843762313486337

The SLS may get you and your cargo to lunar orbit but you still need a lander. The mighty Saturn V could only deliver a light weight lander, the LEM, which had a payload capacity similar to that of a family car. The heavy modules needed to make habitats. manned rovers and industrial machinery will require much bigger landers.

Reducing the price of a SLS delivery of lander fuel from a billion dollars to half a billion just means that the ISRU propellant has to cost less than half a billion to make. I suspect the break even point is around the point at which the propellant made weighs more than the mass of the machinery needed to mine and refine the propellant.