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.
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.
Tooling costs driving design and prices on a engines costing tens of millions each? Ridiculous. What's the tooling made out of, solid gold?
Tooling costs driving design and prices on a engines costing tens of millions each? Ridiculous. What's the tooling made out of, solid gold?Not just the tooling costs but the people to work those tools. Those people cost money, used or not. You cannot hire people for 3 months, fire them, then rehire them a year later. With no SSME, the RL-10 has to support the full employment cost for the engines, which means we now can see roughly how much of the SSME cost was just in salary and tooling.
Tooling costs driving design and prices on a engines costing tens of millions each? Ridiculous. What's the tooling made out of, solid gold?Not just the tooling costs but the people to work those tools. Those people cost money, used or not. You cannot hire people for 3 months, fire them, then rehire them a year later. With no SSME, the RL-10 has to support the full employment cost for the engines, which means we now can see roughly how much of the SSME cost was just in salary and tooling.
Sounds like a lot of rationales and assumptions. If a business can't adapt to changing markets it should cease to exist.
Tooling costs driving design and prices on a engines costing tens of millions each? Ridiculous. What's the tooling made out of, solid gold?Not just the tooling costs but the people to work those tools. Those people cost money, used or not. You cannot hire people for 3 months, fire them, then rehire them a year later. With no SSME, the RL-10 has to support the full employment cost for the engines, which means we now can see roughly how much of the SSME cost was just in salary and tooling.
Sounds like a lot of rationales and assumptions. If a business can't adapt to changing markets it should cease to exist.
Tooling costs driving design and prices on a engines costing tens of millions each? Ridiculous. What's the tooling made out of, solid gold?Not just the tooling costs but the people to work those tools. Those people cost money, used or not. You cannot hire people for 3 months, fire them, then rehire them a year later. With no SSME, the RL-10 has to support the full employment cost for the engines, which means we now can see roughly how much of the SSME cost was just in salary and tooling.
Sounds like a lot of rationales and assumptions. If a business can't adapt to changing markets it should cease to exist.Agreed.
I have a feeling PWR will learn to adapt. Either them, or ULA will. Or ULA's customers will. $30 million per RL-10 is not a stable situation.
A price change is an adaptation, however. It is a business tactic, that their product is worth the higher pricetag. And, truth be told, as it is right now, they're right. The RL-10 offers the best in-space performance out there right now. Only a single Russian engine compares, and it is within spitting distance price-wise due to the demand.
A price change is an adaptation, however. It is a business tactic, that their product is worth the higher pricetag. And, truth be told, as it is right now, they're right. The RL-10 offers the best in-space performance out there right now. Only a single Russian engine compares, and it is within spitting distance price-wise due to the demand.
does PWR have US marketing rights to the RD-0146?
A price change is an adaptation, however. It is a business tactic, that their product is worth the higher pricetag. And, truth be told, as it is right now, they're right. The RL-10 offers the best in-space performance out there right now. Only a single Russian engine compares, and it is within spitting distance price-wise due to the demand.
does PWR have US marketing rights to the RD-0146?They have worldwide marketing rights for any application of the engine outside of Russia.
A price change is an adaptation, however. It is a business tactic, that their product is worth the higher pricetag. And, truth be told, as it is right now, they're right. The RL-10 offers the best in-space performance out there right now. Only a single Russian engine compares, and it is within spitting distance price-wise due to the demand.
does PWR have US marketing rights to the RD-0146?They have worldwide marketing rights for any application of the engine outside of Russia.
And that's the "Russian engine .. within spitting distance price-wise" ?
A price change is an adaptation, however. It is a business tactic, that their product is worth the higher pricetag. And, truth be told, as it is right now, they're right. The RL-10 offers the best in-space performance out there right now. Only a single Russian engine compares, and it is within spitting distance price-wise due to the demand.
does PWR have US marketing rights to the RD-0146?They have worldwide marketing rights for any application of the engine outside of Russia.
And that's the "Russian engine .. within spitting distance price-wise" ?Bingo.
Funny how that works, they control access to the other engine which could compete... and how it's pricetag is not that much different.
A price change is an adaptation, however. It is a business tactic, that their product is worth the higher pricetag. And, truth be told, as it is right now, they're right. The RL-10 offers the best in-space performance out there right now. Only a single Russian engine compares, and it is within spitting distance price-wise due to the demand.
does PWR have US marketing rights to the RD-0146?They have worldwide marketing rights for any application of the engine outside of Russia.
And that's the "Russian engine .. within spitting distance price-wise" ?Bingo.
Funny how that works, they control access to the other engine which could compete... and how it's pricetag is not that much different.
"Only a single Russian engine compares, and it is within spitting distance price-wise due to the demand."
really?
A price change is an adaptation, however. It is a business tactic, that their product is worth the higher pricetag. And, truth be told, as it is right now, they're right. The RL-10 offers the best in-space performance out there right now. Only a single Russian engine compares, and it is within spitting distance price-wise due to the demand.
does PWR have US marketing rights to the RD-0146?They have worldwide marketing rights for any application of the engine outside of Russia.
And that's the "Russian engine .. within spitting distance price-wise" ?Bingo.
Funny how that works, they control access to the other engine which could compete... and how it's pricetag is not that much different.
What evidence do you have that the RL10 shouldn't cost so much? Please cite data or don't post opinions.
If you expect a business to adapt, then you have to get away from the government being the only customer. Executive agencies don't like systems to change from a proven configuration when they carry 9 or 10 figure cargo. Congress doesn't like systems to change when it could mean fewer jobs in their districts. This problem is not the contractors' faults.
You have to have certain folks just to manage an organization. So producing no engines a year still has a cost. There's really very little fat to cut in a private sector organization. The SSME contract was paying most of the PWR overhead. $45M is probably not the real price of a J2X since it was being done under the SSME contract. Some of West Palm's RL10 fixed costs were supported by the SSME contract as well because of the "Alternate Turbopumps." RS68 parts are fabricated in Canoga Park and at suppliers and then the big components are integrated at Stennis.
If you expect a business to adapt, then you have to get away from the government being the only customer. Executive agencies don't like systems to change from a proven configuration when they carry 9 or 10 figure cargo. Congress doesn't like systems to change when it could mean fewer jobs in their districts. This problem is not the contractors' faults.
What evidence do you have that the RL10 shouldn't cost so much? Please cite data or don't post opinions.
You have to have certain folks just to manage an organization. So producing no engines a year still has a cost. There's really very little fat to cut in a private sector organization. The SSME contract was paying most of the PWR overhead. $45M is probably not the real price of a J2X since it was being done under the SSME contract. Some of West Palm's RL10 fixed costs were supported by the SSME contract as well because of the "Alternate Turbopumps." RS68 parts are fabricated in Canoga Park and at suppliers and then the big components are integrated at Stennis.
If you expect a business to adapt, then you have to get away from the government being the only customer. Executive agencies don't like systems to change from a proven configuration when they carry 9 or 10 figure cargo. Congress doesn't like systems to change when it could mean fewer jobs in their districts. This problem is not the contractors' faults.
What evidence do you have that the RL10 shouldn't cost so much? Please cite data or don't post opinions.Thanks for the response!
My "evidence" is only the past figures given for the cost of the RL-10, which range from ~$2-4 million to ~$13 million or so (depending on the source) within the last twenty or thirty years. Unfortunately, I don't have any good sources to show, but my evidence is merely the past cost figures given for producing the engine.
I would suspect that almost any hard figures coming directly from the company would be "proprietary" (I hate that word), so it's pretty hard to blame someone for not giving hard evidence in this case (though I certainly would prefer hard evidence to hand-waving).