ULA claim gap reducing solution via EELV exploration master plan

[Namechange User]

Well then, if this is true, which I honestly do not know if it is or is not, then ULA is not commercial.  They are a government contractor supported by the DOD and it is incorrect for people (i.e. the "space community") to refer to them as commercial. 

Being commercial and being a government contractor aren't mutually exclusive. Blackwater and Halliburton are commercial. They have shareholders who want a return on their investment. They're in it for the money, not because they have a passion for spaceflight, security or civil infrastructure. Some of their employees may have such passion, but it's not what drives company policy.

Obviously government contractors are private entities.  And I really do not need to be told by you about this. 

However, being a contractor to one agency usually ties one's hands a bit so your missing the larger point of what was being discussed. 

[Namechange User]

Of course they do, every customer does.  People go on and on about fixed costs and sometimes incorrectly try to reason that ULA doesn't have them.  Of course they do, every company, organization or agency does have them. 

No, that's not what I was talking about. I was wondering if NASA, being part of the USG, would still have to pay a prorated part, given that DoD already pays for the fixed costs. It wouldn't make a difference for total costs to the USG, but it would make a difference for NASA and the DoD.

The DOD does not pay for all the fixed costs, it pays for a minimum launch capability.  Other users pay for the capability above this flight rate in the prices that ULA charges for each launch service.

Interesting "line" here.  At what level above this minimum capability does ULA operate?  In other words how many more people, etc does ULA employ that the government is not directly subsidizing?

[pathfinder_01]

Of course they do, every customer does.  People go on and on about fixed costs and sometimes incorrectly try to reason that ULA doesn't have them.  Of course they do, every company, organization or agency does have them. 

No, that's not what I was talking about. I was wondering if NASA, being part of the USG, would still have to pay a prorated part, given that DoD already pays for the fixed costs. It wouldn't make a difference for total costs to the USG, but it would make a difference for NASA and the DoD.

The DOD does not pay for all the fixed costs, it pays for a minimum launch capability.  Other users pay for the capability above this flight rate in the prices that ULA charges for each launch service.

Interesting "line" here.  At what level above this minimum capability does ULA operate?  In other words how many more people, etc does ULA employ that the government is not directly subsidizing?

If NASA or commercal HSF were to increase flight rate I would expect ULA to hire a bit more. However one of the problems the shuttle has is excessive workforce (i.e. No one can or could absorb all that workforce even if we go to SDHLV).

For the U.S. Government this could be a good thing. Instead of paying NASA to launch its rockets and paying ULA to launch DOD. It only pays one workforce to launch.

For BEO spaceflight could be tricky. Hence the need of propellant depots and SEP ect. The other trickiness is if the you go HLV. If an EELV derived heavy lift gets too far from being EELV derived then it's costs could be as bad as shuttle derived.

For LEO spaceflight cheaper because the needs of LEO fit within current capacity. I.E. Nither the ISS nor an LEO capsule need more than 20tons to LEO and multiple rockets would be available to launch crew/cargo.

[Namechange User]

Of course they do, every customer does.  People go on and on about fixed costs and sometimes incorrectly try to reason that ULA doesn't have them.  Of course they do, every company, organization or agency does have them. 

No, that's not what I was talking about. I was wondering if NASA, being part of the USG, would still have to pay a prorated part, given that DoD already pays for the fixed costs. It wouldn't make a difference for total costs to the USG, but it would make a difference for NASA and the DoD.

The DOD does not pay for all the fixed costs, it pays for a minimum launch capability.  Other users pay for the capability above this flight rate in the prices that ULA charges for each launch service.

Interesting "line" here.  At what level above this minimum capability does ULA operate?  In other words how many more people, etc does ULA employ that the government is not directly subsidizing?

If NASA or commercal HSF were to increase flight rate I would expect ULA to hire a bit more. However one of the problems the shuttle has is excessive workforce (i.e. No one can or could absorb all that workforce even if we go to SDHLV).

For the U.S. Government this could be a good thing. Instead of paying NASA to launch its rockets and paying ULA to launch DOD. It only pays one workforce to launch.

For BEO spaceflight could be tricky. Hence the need of propellant depots and SEP ect. The other trickiness is if the you go HLV. If an EELV derived heavy lift gets too far from being EELV derived then it's costs could be as bad as shuttle derived.

For LEO spaceflight cheaper because the needs of LEO fit within current capacity. I.E. Nither the ISS nor an LEO capsule need more than 20tons to LEO and multiple rockets would be available to launch crew/cargo.

Interesting response, thank you for that.  So, by reading this, I honestly must say I interpret this as at least one member of the "SDLV is evil, commercial is great" crowd moving the goal posts ever so slightly to justify ULA as a government contractor, and not "commercial", in order to stay consistent with the internet-darling "commercial" mantra. 

As for EELV-derived, show me where those costs are.  We have seen the technical possibilities on evolving the EELV, a perfectly valid technical briefing to get to SDLV-class lift.  However, there have been no official numbers, that I have seen, on development or how what this means for operational costs. 

Strange also that the arguement against SDLV is again being used in a LEO/ISS case.  Where have I, or others who are credible, said this will be absolutely used for this application?  It is a back-up in the event commercial is not successful or does not meet expectations.  If you and others are so sure of this success, why do you keep bringing up this arguement when it does not compete with commercial?

[clongton]

The trouble with any concept of an EELV-Derived HLV is that they will not be built. The EELV's were fundamentally designed around DoD requirements and commercial satellite launch services, neither of which requires an HLV of any kind, with the single exception of a DoD/DARPA payload series that can only fly on an HLV. But that is not a continuing need so while the DoD will make use of an HLV when it becomes available, no HLV will be built just to support that. Thus there is no market support for a commercial HLV. NASA is the only HLV customer, and that is for BEO exploration, which is certainly not a money-making venture.

There is no commercial need, thus my contention that there will be no EELV-derived HLV of any kind - it's not a money-maker, which is what drives ULA/Boeing/LM. As was articulated above, while there may well be some within those companies that are in it for the spaceflight, the companies themselves are driven by a very different goal - profit. They are in it for the money and nothing else. Their current capability gives them sufficient profit to justify remaining in business, but BEO exploration would not.

NASA's goals do not require profit, they only require Congressional funding. Therefore the LV that will serve NASA will be designed around NASA's goals, without consideration of profit, ROI or cost (except for funding availability). The EELV's were designed to make a profit and therefore ULA is happy to fund the effort. But NASA's goals will not at any time in the foreseeable future make a profit so ULA is unlikely to alter its 2 money-making EELV's in any way to accommodate NASA. Going to Phase 1 and 2 and then possibly 3 will forever alter the landscape and require them to maintain that infrastructure at a cost that NASA won't sufficiently offset, leaving them with less annual profit overall than before. BEO exploration (NASA's goal) would need to be far more robust than it is actually likely to be for the foreseeable future before ULA would make enough ROI for the shareholders to be satisfied with the enormous expenditures that would be required.

That's why I believe that if NASA truly wants an HLV that it will never be EELV-based. It will be custom designed around what they want. Boeing/LM/ULA may well build it, but it would be a government owned infrastructure, completely apart from the EELV family. Any new HLV will either be a clean sheet design (unlikely) or a SDHLV (far more likely). Barring getting either of those there will be no HLV for NASA - at all.

YMMV

[chrisking0997]

If NASA or commercal HSF were to increase flight rate I would expect ULA to hire a bit more. However one of the problems the shuttle has is excessive workforce (i.e. No one can or could absorb all that workforce even if we go to SDHLV).

For the U.S. Government this could be a good thing. Instead of paying NASA to launch its rockets and paying ULA to launch DOD. It only pays one workforce to launch.

you make it sound like the "one workforce" would accept twice the work out of the kindness of their hearts.  Total workforce cost would increase one way or another if ULA took over HSF...probably not a 1-to-1 but ULA would sure as heck try to get as close as possible.

[alexw]

People go on and on about fixed costs and sometimes incorrectly try to reason that ULA doesn't have them.  Of course they do, every company, organization or agency does have them. 
...
This is the myopic problem that some also fail to see with respect to "commercial".  If there is no other market outside of NASA, NASA inherits all the fixed costs (embedded in the firm-fixed-price) and the result is NASA money going all to that.

    I hadn't heard anyone assert that ULA has no fixed costs, but I agree of course that would be a remarkably foolish statement.

  In the end, it puts us right where we are, all the money being tied up, and nothing to show for it with arguably less capability. 

     That would only be true if the total cost to NASA from buying rockets outside was higher than the total cost of running its own launcher in-house.

     And that does not appear to be the case -- $2.5-$3.5 billion/yr would buy a whole lot of EELVs, indeed far more lift than NASA is planning to use, and far more lift than they have payloads for. So they buy less lift, only as much as they need, and keep the change for payload development.

    Indeed, as you say, such rockets would be unarguably less capable. That's the performance price we pay. But note that HEFT apparently envisions no single payload requiring more capability than, say, Phase I (or even mildly upgraded DIVH), until 2030. Other mission architectures might be different, but the point is rather suggestive.

But hey, at least we have "commercial", until the "space community" turns on that too. 

    I'm not sure what you mean by this?

    -Alex

[Robotbeat]

...
This is the myopic problem that some also fail to see with respect to "commercial".  If there is no other market outside of NASA, NASA inherits all the fixed costs (embedded in the firm-fixed-price) and the result is NASA money going all to that. ...

Of course, the very point of using "commercial" launchers, as opposed to NASA launchers, is exactly because there are other customers. DoD, comm sats, Earth observations sats, etc.

Whether there are many other customers for manned spaceflight hasn't been completely proven (though I think that there may well be), but it's proven that there are lots of other non-NASA customers for launch vehicles.

[Namechange User]

  In the end, it puts us right where we are, all the money being tied up, and nothing to show for it with arguably less capability. 

     That would only be true if the total cost to NASA from buying rockets outside was higher than the total cost of running its own launcher in-house.

With all due respect, it seems everyone goes on and on about "rockets".  There is no point in buying commercial rockets if there is nothing to go on them. 

When I said what I said above, I am refering to the total integrated package:  commercial rockets, commercial crew vehicles and commercial cargo vehicles. 

If all of those cannot be used somewhere else and there is no other market to help offset those costs, then NASA pays for it one way or the other. 

[jongoff]

...
This is the myopic problem that some also fail to see with respect to "commercial".  If there is no other market outside of NASA, NASA inherits all the fixed costs (embedded in the firm-fixed-price) and the result is NASA money going all to that. ...

Of course, the very point of using "commercial" launchers, as opposed to NASA launchers, is exactly because there are other customers. DoD, comm sats, Earth observations sats, etc.

Whether there are many other customers for manned spaceflight hasn't been completely proven (though I think that there may well be), but it's proven that there are lots of other non-NASA customers for launch vehicles.

And before people chime in again with "there's no commercial demand for an HLV", it's probably worth remembering that a lot depends on what size of HLV you really need.  If it turns out you only *need* a ~50mTish "HLV" launch once per BEO mission, and the rest of stuff can fly on normal ELVs, approaches like Delta-IV or Atlas-V (or Falcon-9) evolutions are possible, where you have a multi-core vehicle that's big enough for the "HLV" flights, while the single-core variants are still competitive for non-HLV missions.

Right now for instance, there aren't any commercial customers for the Delta-IV Heavy, but since it's just a multi-core variant of the Delta-IV medium, it isn't too ridiculously expensive to keep that capability around for just one government customer. 

But we've been saying this for a long time, so I'm doubting saying it again is going to change any minds.

~Jon

[sdsds]

a lot depends on what size of HLV you really need.  If it turns out you only *need* a ~50mTish "HLV" launch once per BEO mission, and the rest of stuff can fly on normal ELVs, approaches like Delta-IV or Atlas-V (or Falcon-9) evolutions are possible, where you have a multi-core vehicle that's big enough for the "HLV" flights, while the single-core variants are still competitive for non-HLV missions.

Is it fair to suggest this approach requires (as the ULA solution would provide) rendezvous in LEO with at least some of the elements used for the LEO departure maneuver?  It could be an entire pre-positioned EDS, or it could be just the pre-positioned propellant.

It's sad that this, and the technologies that support it, have not yet been robustly demonstrated.

But we've been saying this for a long time, so I'm doubting saying it again is going to change any minds.

Still, it's worth hearing again!

[Namechange User]

...
This is the myopic problem that some also fail to see with respect to "commercial".  If there is no other market outside of NASA, NASA inherits all the fixed costs (embedded in the firm-fixed-price) and the result is NASA money going all to that. ...

Of course, the very point of using "commercial" launchers, as opposed to NASA launchers, is exactly because there are other customers. DoD, comm sats, Earth observations sats, etc.

Whether there are many other customers for manned spaceflight hasn't been completely proven (though I think that there may well be), but it's proven that there are lots of other non-NASA customers for launch vehicles.

And before people chime in again with "there's no commercial demand for an HLV", it's probably worth remembering that a lot depends on what size of HLV you really need.  If it turns out you only *need* a ~50mTish "HLV" launch once per BEO mission, and the rest of stuff can fly on normal ELVs, approaches like Delta-IV or Atlas-V (or Falcon-9) evolutions are possible, where you have a multi-core vehicle that's big enough for the "HLV" flights, while the single-core variants are still competitive for non-HLV missions.

Right now for instance, there aren't any commercial customers for the Delta-IV Heavy, but since it's just a multi-core variant of the Delta-IV medium, it isn't too ridiculously expensive to keep that capability around for just one government customer. 

But we've been saying this for a long time, so I'm doubting saying it again is going to change any minds.

~Jon

Ahh, Jon.  Always a pleasure. 

If 50 mT is all the we need, then according to this,

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361835main_08%20-%20ULA%20%201.0_Augustine_Public_6_17_09_final_R1.pdf

the only thing that gets us there is perhaps the phase 1 evolution of Delta 4.  Beyond that it looks like someone has to pay ULA to develop a new family of Atlas to get up around 70t.  Falcon Heavy seems to top out around 32mT.

Like I said, if someone wants to show the official numbers for development and operations for any of the various EELV options, because I have not seen them, then maybe it would be easier to talk with this. 

By the way, while you may not like me for a multitude of reasons as you have demonstrated, I wish you the best of luck with your future career. 

[Robotbeat]

a lot depends on what size of HLV you really need.  If it turns out you only *need* a ~50mTish "HLV" launch once per BEO mission, and the rest of stuff can fly on normal ELVs, approaches like Delta-IV or Atlas-V (or Falcon-9) evolutions are possible, where you have a multi-core vehicle that's big enough for the "HLV" flights, while the single-core variants are still competitive for non-HLV missions.

Is it fair to suggest this approach requires (as the ULA solution would provide) rendezvous in LEO with at least some of the elements used for the LEO departure maneuver?  It could be an entire pre-positioned EDS, or it could be just the pre-positioned propellant.

It's sad that this, and the technologies that support it, have not yet been robustly demonstrated....

It's worth mentioning, too, that the Apollo Command Module docked en route to the Moon with the Lunar Module. Also, ISS is made of over twenty docked or berthed pressurized elements, when you include visiting spacecraft like Soyuz, Progress, Shuttle, ATV, HTV, etc. To say we can't dock or berth multiple spacecraft elements in LEO is ludicrous (not that you're saying that). And remember, ISS consumes something around 7 tons of reboosting propellant annually. Whether from a Space Shuttle, Progress, or ATV (and whether or not it's actually transferred to the station's thrusters) that propellant docks to the station in LEO.

As far as hypergolic fuels are concerned, the technology is incredibly well demonstrated.

[pathfinder_01]

It's sad that this, and the technologies that support it, have not yet been robustly demonstrated.

 And they may never be if we keep wasting limited funds on rockets we can't afford.

[alexw]

  In the end, it puts us right where we are, all the money being tied up, and nothing to show for it with arguably less capability. 

     That would only be true if the total cost to NASA from buying rockets outside was higher than the total cost of running its own launcher in-house.

With all due respect, it seems everyone goes on and on about "rockets".  There is no point in buying commercial rockets if there is nothing to go on them. 
When I said what I said above, I am refering to the total integrated package:  commercial rockets, commercial crew vehicles and commercial cargo vehicles. 
If all of those cannot be used somewhere else and there is no other market to help offset those costs, then NASA pays for it one way or the other. 

     Sure, NASA pays for commercial cargo, and, eventually, commercial crew, and in the absence of other customers for those payloads, NASA pays all costs. But these numbers are not making hypothetical claims -- and I agree with you here -- that somehow we could rely on the existence of e.g. Bigelow space stations as an additional customer to lower everyone's total cost base. I agree absolutely with you.

     But do you now want to suggest that, say, both Cygnus and Dragon vehicles are destined to cost a lot more than cargo-Orion vehicle? 
    -Alex
     

[sdsds]

this approach requires (as the ULA solution would provide) rendezvous in LEO with at least some of the elements used for the LEO departure maneuver?

As far as hypergolic fuels are concerned, the technology is incredibly well demonstrated.

Yes, and there might be clever ways to leverage that technology for "traditional" storable propellants and apply it to missions beyond LEO.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21802.0

Lacking that, the low Isp of traditional storable propellants provides a strong motive for rendezvous in LEO with hydrolox propulsion.  Either that means finding ways to store hydrolox, or it means "prompt rendezvous".

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22139.0

It would be a huge enabler if a hydrolox propulsion system could be fired successfully four days after it was launched.  Four days is enough time for a separately launched payload to rendezvous in LEO, or in a different architecture, enough time to get somewhere else (i.e. close to the Moon) where a big propulsive maneuver would be really useful.

[jongoff]

a lot depends on what size of HLV you really need.  If it turns out you only *need* a ~50mTish "HLV" launch once per BEO mission, and the rest of stuff can fly on normal ELVs, approaches like Delta-IV or Atlas-V (or Falcon-9) evolutions are possible, where you have a multi-core vehicle that's big enough for the "HLV" flights, while the single-core variants are still competitive for non-HLV missions.

Is it fair to suggest this approach requires (as the ULA solution would provide) rendezvous in LEO with at least some of the elements used for the LEO departure maneuver?  It could be an entire pre-positioned EDS, or it could be just the pre-positioned propellant.

There are a lot of ways of doing this.  My personal favorite method is to use two transportation nodes--one in LEO and another at L1/L2.  For missions to the lunar surface, or beyond cislunar space, the actually departure point is L1/L2, not LEO.  The LEO point is just used to aggregate smaller pieces, tankers, etc and ferry them up to L1/L2.  This allows you to split the mission up into smaller chunks, and use much smaller transfer stages.  The three key enabling technologies for this are propellant transfer/storage, better rendezvous and docking technologies, and aerobraking.  You actually only *have* to have the first one, but the second two make the system close a lot better...

It's sad that this, and the technologies that support it, have not yet been robustly demonstrated.

It's due to the mission focus myopia that NASA tends to have.  They're so fixated on doing the quickest path to their specific mission du jour that they they end up avoiding doing the easy things that would enable future missions to be a lot easier.  There's nothing about cyro propellant storage, boom rendezvous, or reusable aeorbraking/capture that couldn't have been done at reasonable expense in the 1970s if they were interested.  People have had a lot of these ideas, and even good approaches for decades.  Sure, some of the technology has gotten better, and sure a system using today's technology makes even more sense.  But the main reason we only demonstrated storable propellant transfer 30 years after the Soviets demonstrated it is that NASA tends to view all technology development in such a mission-centric focus.

But we've been saying this for a long time, so I'm doubting saying it again is going to change any minds.

Still, it's worth hearing again!

Thanks.

~Jon

[Namechange User]

  In the end, it puts us right where we are, all the money being tied up, and nothing to show for it with arguably less capability. 

     That would only be true if the total cost to NASA from buying rockets outside was higher than the total cost of running its own launcher in-house.

With all due respect, it seems everyone goes on and on about "rockets".  There is no point in buying commercial rockets if there is nothing to go on them. 
When I said what I said above, I am refering to the total integrated package:  commercial rockets, commercial crew vehicles and commercial cargo vehicles. 
If all of those cannot be used somewhere else and there is no other market to help offset those costs, then NASA pays for it one way or the other. 

     Sure, NASA pays for commercial cargo, and, eventually, commercial crew, and in the absence of other customers for those payloads, NASA pays all costs. But these numbers are not making hypothetical claims -- and I agree with you here -- that somehow we could rely on the existence of e.g. Bigelow space stations as an additional customer to lower everyone's total cost base. I agree absolutely with you.

     But do you now want to suggest that, say, both Cygnus and Dragon vehicles are destined to cost a lot more than cargo-Orion vehicle? 
    -Alex
     

See, that's the funny thing.  I never suggested anything like that with your two examples.  Yet, because I inject certain realities and do not jump on certain bandwagons with the same degree of "gee whiz" that some do, some try to force words down my throat or make certain implications. 

So lets cut to the facts.  There will be FFP contracts for those cargo services.  Are those enough to maintain the business case for those companies so they are operating at a profit?  Will those companies have to slowly try to charge more for delivery if those FFP contracts do not cover their costs and make some sort of profit (after all that is business and the bottom line)?  I don't know.  You don't know either.

My point above is that if I add everything together, that means rocket and spacecraft, no one really knows what the total FFP price will be.  Don't forget that just because you have a FFP contract does not mean you are still not paying for the fixed costs behind the service that is being purchased. 

It is *hoped* that it will be lower, that is where the nebulous "market" beyond NASA comes into play.  After all that is part of the point of all this.  Yet as I have tried to point out in the past there are still many unanswered questions and hope does not always translate to an absolute. 

[jongoff]

Ahh, Jon.  Always a pleasure.

Thank you. 

If 50 mT is all the we need, then according to this,

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361835main_08%20-%20ULA%20%201.0_Augustine_Public_6_17_09_final_R1.pdf

the only thing that gets us there is perhaps the phase 1 evolution of Delta 4.  Beyond that it looks like someone has to pay ULA to develop a new family of Atlas to get up around 70t.  Falcon Heavy seems to top out around 32mT.

Yes, a new family of Atlas using the same tooling as the Delta-IVs (for larger tanks), and the same rocket engines they're already using.  Designed by the same team that has developed several new successful launch vehicles for less money then it took Ares-I to get to PDR and fly a stunt rocket.  And the single-core versions of those vehicles would be commercially useful (enabling them to ditch the use of solid strapons for most mission).  But you're right, we would be better if we could keep things down to 40mT, where you only need the new upper stage.

As for Falcon, a F9H with a LOX/LH2 upper stage would be able to do 50mT (at least according to my conversation with Elon on the topic a while ago).  So yeah, there are several commercial solutions that have non-HLV versions with existing market demand, and HLV versions that don't require their own unique support structure.

I'm not sure I'm getting your point.  :-)

Like I said, if someone wants to show the official numbers for development and operations for any of the various EELV options, because I have not seen them, then maybe it would be easier to talk with this.

The CBO numbers from a few years ago (which Proponent recently dug up) showed the EELV Phase 2 options to be lower life cycle cost than any of the shuttle derived options, IIRC.  Though those costs seem rather bloated compared to the EELV development costs to-date.  I think they assumed that NASA would be involved with the human rating, and also included the costs of decomissioning and environmental cleanup of the shuttle pads.  I'm sure someone can dig up the reference again.

By the way, while you may not like me for a multitude of reasons as you have demonstrated, I wish you the best of luck with your future career.

We have and probably will continue to have differences of opinion, but I don't actively dislike you.  :-)

Thanks for the kind wishes.  I hope things go well for you too.

~Jon

[Proponent]

The EELV's were fundamentally designed around DoD requirements and commercial satellite launch services, neither of which requires an HLV of any kind, with the single exception of a DoD/DARPA payload series that can only fly on an HLV. But that is not a continuing need so while the DoD will make use of an HLV when it becomes available, no HLV will be built just to support that.

Can you offer any evidence for DoD interest in an HLV?  This question has been considered before:  no evidence of a DoD need for an HLV has been offered, while good arguments have been made against it.