-
Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne cost increases...
by
Robotbeat
on 14 Apr, 2011 23:09
-
So, $30 million for an RL-10? All because SSME is going away (maybe)?
What about the RS-68 engine? How much has it gone up?
It seems to me that PWR has some fat it will need to cut, otherwise they will lose business. ULA is already pursuing the idea of an RL-10 replacement with XCOR. SpaceX apparently can produce Merlin engines pretty inexpensively.
Why such high costs? Is there any fat there to cut, or is it just that they don't want to cut it?
(mods: I think this is a good place for this thread, but feel free to move it to another location)
-
#1
by
robertross
on 14 Apr, 2011 23:16
-
So, $30 million for an RL-10? All because SSME is going away (maybe)?
Well I doubt it's simply that SSME is going away, but rather there is no longer a contract in place to service them for the shuttle.
If by some miracle the SD-HLV goes ahead with an SSME-based system, then we are likely to see a reversal in these price increases. If they go further and implement an RS-25e or just a channel-wall nozzle, then there will likely be similar savings, if not greater.
But in the interim, with a stockpile of SSMEs to use, and the first flight of a full-up block 0 potentially in 2015-2016, then that's at least 4 years of 0 flight engines being manufactured.
-
#2
by
Robotbeat
on 14 Apr, 2011 23:27
-
So, $30 million for an RL-10? All because SSME is going away (maybe)?
Well I doubt it's simply that SSME is going away, but rather there is no longer a contract in place to service them for the shuttle.
If by some miracle the SD-HLV goes ahead with an SSME-based system, then we are likely to see a reversal in these price increases. If they go further and implement an RS-25e or just a channel-wall nozzle, then there will likely be similar savings, if not greater.
But in the interim, with a stockpile of SSMEs to use, and the first flight of a full-up block 0 potentially in 2015-2016, then that's at least 4 years of 0 flight engines being manufactured.
Right, but why does it automatically mean they raise the prices on all their other engines? The presumed answer is that they still are paying for much of the overhead needed to produce the SSME. Can't they just cut their overhead?
It seems to me that they are just trying to profit (which isn't bad) and think that $30 million per RL-10 is what the market (or, rather, ULA) will bear so why should they charge a lower price?
-
#3
by
robertross
on 14 Apr, 2011 23:55
-
So, $30 million for an RL-10? All because SSME is going away (maybe)?
Well I doubt it's simply that SSME is going away, but rather there is no longer a contract in place to service them for the shuttle.
If by some miracle the SD-HLV goes ahead with an SSME-based system, then we are likely to see a reversal in these price increases. If they go further and implement an RS-25e or just a channel-wall nozzle, then there will likely be similar savings, if not greater.
But in the interim, with a stockpile of SSMEs to use, and the first flight of a full-up block 0 potentially in 2015-2016, then that's at least 4 years of 0 flight engines being manufactured.
Right, but why does it automatically mean they raise the prices on all their other engines? The presumed answer is that they still are paying for much of the overhead needed to produce the SSME. Can't they just cut their overhead?
It seems to me that they are just trying to profit (which isn't bad) and think that $30 million per RL-10 is what the market (or, rather, ULA) will bear so why should they charge a lower price?
Yes, there is some 'profit taking', but this is the capitalist market we all love...
oh wait.
You still have all the buildings to heat/air-condition, machinery & maintenance, test facilities, retain a certain amount of the workforce to keep certain skills, you have all the administrative people that have a much-reduced work load, but still present. I'm not sure if P&W is unionized down there, but they certainly are up here in Canada - so there is inflation-adjusted pay, and don't forget to expect severance packages or job retention costs. If they have to pay property taxes, they aren't going down.
You also have volume price reductions for metals now lost. Commodities are also going up drastically, which is compounding the problem.
Add it all up, and you realize that this is the INVERSE of the economies of scale, and many are ill-prepared for the consequences.
-
#4
by
gospacex
on 15 Apr, 2011 00:13
-
I bet Tom Mueller has a special glint in his eyes when he hears these news! >:]
-
#5
by
Robotbeat
on 15 Apr, 2011 00:26
-
If PWR's costs (as opposed to prices) have gone up proportionally to their prices, then they have some serious down-sizing to do. They must stay competitive or someone will come by and steal their lunch (launch? sorry.
).
-
#6
by
robertross
on 15 Apr, 2011 00:33
-
If PWR's costs (as opposed to prices) have gone up proportionally to their prices, then they have some serious down-sizing to do. They must stay competitive or someone will come by and steal their lunch (launch? sorry. ).
Really? Who? Think about it. Jim's famous words "rockets aren't Legos". You can't toss another into a pre-existing design without spending gobs of money to re-design & re-certify.
Now for NEW designs, you have options, but this is still a VERY narrow industrial base. Of course other companies would love the business, but they would all face the same issues at the end of the day.
-
#7
by
Robotbeat
on 15 Apr, 2011 00:41
-
If PWR's costs (as opposed to prices) have gone up proportionally to their prices, then they have some serious down-sizing to do. They must stay competitive or someone will come by and steal their lunch (launch? sorry. ).
Really? Who? Think about it. Jim's famous words "rockets aren't Legos". You can't toss another into a pre-existing design without spending gobs of money to re-design & re-certify.
Now for NEW designs, you have options, but this is still a VERY narrow industrial base. Of course other companies would love the business, but they would all face the same issues at the end of the day.
XCOR (in partnership with ULA), for one. They are considered by some to be a nobody, now, but have actually lots of real experience with firing rocket engines. But at $30 million a pop for an engine that not that long ago was once made for an order of magnitude cheaper, there's room. There's also Aerojet. And SpaceX.
At $30 million a pop for a lousy 25klb thrust hydrolox engine (a wonderful engine, but shouldn't cost so much), it's worth ULA's while to look around. And if ULA doesn't find anything (which I find unlikely), there's always the possibility that ULA will lose more and more customers to folks like Orbital (some sort of upgrade of Taurus II or even a new launcher) or SpaceX.
-
#8
by
robertross
on 15 Apr, 2011 00:53
-
If PWR's costs (as opposed to prices) have gone up proportionally to their prices, then they have some serious down-sizing to do. They must stay competitive or someone will come by and steal their lunch (launch? sorry. ).
Really? Who? Think about it. Jim's famous words "rockets aren't Legos". You can't toss another into a pre-existing design without spending gobs of money to re-design & re-certify.
Now for NEW designs, you have options, but this is still a VERY narrow industrial base. Of course other companies would love the business, but they would all face the same issues at the end of the day.
XCOR (in partnership with ULA), for one. They are a nobody, now. But at $30 million a pop for an engine that not that long ago was once made for an order of magnitude cheaper, there's room. There's also Aerojet. And SpaceX.
At $30 million a pop for a lousy 25klb thrust hydrolox engine (a wonderful engine, but shouldn't cost so much), it's worth ULA's while to look around. And if ULA doesn't find anything (which I find unlikely), there's always the possibility that ULA will lose more and more customers to folks like Orbital (some sort of upgrade of Taurus II or even a new launcher) or SpaceX.
Even if they license out the design, you're looking at a (what) 5 year timeframe to fabricate and test? Totally unrealistic. If there were ways for ULA to reduce costs, they could be factored over that period of time and perhaps reduce the per/unit cost down.
But the simple fact is that low production rates increase per unit costs. No different than buying obsolete 1-of parts for machines.
-
#9
by
Robotbeat
on 15 Apr, 2011 01:54
-
If PWR's costs (as opposed to prices) have gone up proportionally to their prices, then they have some serious down-sizing to do. They must stay competitive or someone will come by and steal their lunch (launch? sorry. ).
Really? Who? Think about it. Jim's famous words "rockets aren't Legos". You can't toss another into a pre-existing design without spending gobs of money to re-design & re-certify.
Now for NEW designs, you have options, but this is still a VERY narrow industrial base. Of course other companies would love the business, but they would all face the same issues at the end of the day.
XCOR (in partnership with ULA), for one. They are a nobody, now. But at $30 million a pop for an engine that not that long ago was once made for an order of magnitude cheaper, there's room. There's also Aerojet. And SpaceX.
At $30 million a pop for a lousy 25klb thrust hydrolox engine (a wonderful engine, but shouldn't cost so much), it's worth ULA's while to look around. And if ULA doesn't find anything (which I find unlikely), there's always the possibility that ULA will lose more and more customers to folks like Orbital (some sort of upgrade of Taurus II or even a new launcher) or SpaceX.
Even if they license out the design, you're looking at a (what) 5 year timeframe to fabricate and test? Totally unrealistic. If there were ways for ULA to reduce costs, they could be factored over that period of time and perhaps reduce the per/unit cost down.
But the simple fact is that low production rates increase per unit costs. No different than buying obsolete 1-of parts for machines.
ULA apparently has a stock-pile of RL-10 engines (how many, I'm not sure... but probably a few years' worth). It's
not unrealistic for them to switch, or they wouldn't be spending money working with XCOR on it. There have been plans for a modified upper stage for a while (whether common centaur or ACES), and Aerojet has been working on a hydrogen turbopump for a 40K class upper stage engine for the Air Force for a while, now.
EDIT:I'd really be interested in what industry insiders think about the situation.
-
#10
by
sdsds
on 15 Apr, 2011 02:22
-
What about the RS-68 engine? How much has it gone up?
This seems to be assuming the RS-68 price has gone up some non-zero amount.
Right, but why does it automatically mean they raise the prices on all their other engines?
This makes that assumption more explicit. Are you asking whether, or asserting that, there have been prices increases on "all their other engines?" To build a theory about this one might investigate the facilities where each engine is produced, and see if SSME and RL10 have some shared overhead costs not borne by e.g. RS-68.
-
#11
by
neilh
on 15 Apr, 2011 02:27
-
There have been plans for a modified upper stage for a while (whether common centaur or ACES), and Aerojet has been working on a hydrogen turbopump for a 40K class upper stage engine for the Air Force for a while, now.
I actually didn't recall seeing anything about this, so I googled and found this from last year:
"Aerojet Delivers Upper Stage Engine Technology (USET) Liquid Hydrogen Turbopump to AFRL"
http://www.aerojet.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=249To support IHPRPT goals, the USET program has incorporated several technologies which will improve upper-stage engine developments methods and designs. These technologies have been incorporated into a liquid hydrogen, lightweight and high-speed turbopump delivered to AFRL. The primary program goal to develop advanced computational tools and methods to improve the capability to develop advanced 40K class upper-stage engines for the USAF was completed in 2007 and anchored through hydrogen-scaled water rig tests. The USET turbopump is designed to rotate at 90,000 rpm which is approximately two and one half times faster than the Space Shuttles Main Engines (SSME) high-pressure hydrogen turbopump while generating the equivalent stage pressure rise. The USET hydrogen turbopump is roughly the size of a swimming pool pump and could drain the average-size swimming pool in 12 minutes, if water was to replace the liquid hydrogen fuel.
-
#12
by
Downix
on 15 Apr, 2011 02:38
-
Been pondering this a bit. If the RL-10 is to stay at $30 million, then the J-2X is not that bad of a price at $45 million a piece.
-
#13
by
robertross
on 15 Apr, 2011 02:45
-
Been pondering this a bit. If the RL-10 is to stay at $30 million, then the J-2X is not that bad of a price at $45 million a piece.
Oh, I wouldn't count that price to remain that low either. Would you?
-
#14
by
Lurker Steve
on 15 Apr, 2011 02:47
-
So I realize that the don't have all of the proper tooling in place, but if there are really a trained manufacturing staff looking for something to do, wouldn't this be a great time to bring the RD-180 production in-house ? Sure the US labor is more expensive than Russian labor, but if you want to retain a talented labor pool, how about giving them something useful to do.
-
#15
by
Robotbeat
on 15 Apr, 2011 02:48
-
What about the RS-68 engine? How much has it gone up?
This seems to be assuming the RS-68 price has gone up some non-zero amount.
Right, but why does it automatically mean they raise the prices on all their other engines?
This makes that assumption more explicit. Are you asking, or asserting, that there have been prices increases on "all their other engines?" To build a theory about this one might investigate the facilities where each engine is produced, and see if SSME and RL10 have some shared overhead costs not borne by e.g. RS-68.
I would think the far safer assumption is that SSME and RS-68 have shared overhead costs (not SSME and RL-10), since RS-68 has SSME heritage and they are much nearer each other in thrust (and are both sea-level engines).
It's because of this that I think it's a pretty darned safe assumption that if RL-10 has such a big price increase because of SSME ending that RS-68 will have at least some sort of price increase. Please correct me if you have evidence (or personal experience) that I'm wrong.
-
#16
by
pummuf
on 15 Apr, 2011 02:57
-
If the RL-10 is to stay at $30 million, then the J-2X is not that bad of a price at $45 million a piece.
yes it is
-
#17
by
pummuf
on 15 Apr, 2011 03:00
-
So, $30 million for an RL-10? All because SSME is going away (maybe)?
does PWR have marketing rights to the RD-0146?
-
#18
by
Downix
on 15 Apr, 2011 03:07
-
What about the RS-68 engine? How much has it gone up?
This seems to be assuming the RS-68 price has gone up some non-zero amount.
Right, but why does it automatically mean they raise the prices on all their other engines?
This makes that assumption more explicit. Are you asking, or asserting, that there have been prices increases on "all their other engines?" To build a theory about this one might investigate the facilities where each engine is produced, and see if SSME and RL10 have some shared overhead costs not borne by e.g. RS-68.
I would think the far safer assumption is that SSME and RS-68 have shared overhead costs (not SSME and RL-10), since RS-68 has SSME heritage and they are much nearer each other in thrust (and are both sea-level engines).
It's because of this that I think it's a pretty darned safe assumption that if RL-10 has such a big price increase because of SSME ending that RS-68 will have at least some sort of price increase. Please correct me if you have evidence (or personal experience) that I'm wrong.
From what I am aware, there is more overhead sharing between the SSME and RL-10 than between either and the RS-68. I also have heard that the J-2X was to take advantage of this overhead capacity as well. This would mean the tools needed to work on the engines more than anything I could imagine. The RL-10 and SSME share a lot of the same needs in this regards, and I can see the J-2X from it's diagrams sharing those same needs. While the parts may not be the same, the methods to manufacture are. The RS-68, by comparison, has far less manual labor involvement, more automation from what I have seen, which means it's tooling is more focused, less able to be shared between it and other product lines.
The RD-180 would be in a similar situation to the RL-10 and SSME, and likely if domestic production of it were to occur, it would share this overhead costs as well.
-
#19
by
sdsds
on 15 Apr, 2011 03:12
-
To build a theory about this one might investigate the facilities where each engine is produced, and see if SSME and RL10 have some shared overhead costs not borne by e.g. RS-68.
I would think the far safer assumption is that SSME and RS-68 have shared overhead costs (not SSME and RL-10). [...] Please correct me if you have evidence (or personal experience) that I'm wrong.
I have no affirmative proof to offer you, just two carefully couched questions: (1) Is there any evidence that any RS-68 has ever been built anywhere other than the Stennis Engine Assembly Facility, which is reportedly "capable of producing as many as 40 RS-68 engines per year?" (2) Is there any evidence that any SSME has ever been built anywhere other than Canoga Park, California?
My personal assumptions are quite obviously embedded in those questions!
oh wait.
).