These two rockets are going to account for a big percentage of total U.S. launches in coming years.
- Ed Kyle
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
They will, the "Perhaps. Perhaps not" is applicable to Spacex.
Again, I never claimed it had the same Isp, but you do realize the 465s is for the RL-10B2, which has the extensible nozzle extension and which I believe are being converted to the fixed nozzle version with less Isp (as used on the Atlas V), so the demand may be for an engine with ~451s Isp.
These two rockets are going to account for a big percentage of total U.S. launches in coming years.
- Ed Kyle
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
They will, the "Perhaps. Perhaps not" is applicable to Spacex.
PWR's price increases will inevitably be passed along by ULA, driving the cost of both the Atlas V and Delta IV even higher than they already are after ULA's own massive price increases. Both companies are relying on their monopoly positions, which is a dangerous gamble in the long run.
1. PWR's price increases will inevitably be passed along by ULA, driving the cost of both the Atlas V and Delta IV even higher than they already are after ULA's own massive price increases. Both companies are relying on their monopoly positions, which is a dangerous gamble in the long run.
2. In the interim, SpaceX's launchers will be far, far more competitively priced than anything ULA can offer. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations (taking into account the higher cost of the RL-10, but assuming that the RS-68 and RD-180 remain at their current price point) show that even if SpaceX misses its price targets by 50%, they will still have better pricing (both per-launch and per-kilogram) than ULA. And if the AV and DIVH first-stage engines increase in cost (though I don't see why the RD-180 would), it gives SpaceX an even greater price advantage.
Both companies are relying on their monopoly positions,
[/quote}
What proof do you have of this?
These two rockets are going to account for a big percentage of total U.S. launches in coming years.
- Ed Kyle
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
They will, the "Perhaps. Perhaps not" is applicable to Spacex.
PWR's price increases will inevitably be passed along by ULA, driving the cost of both the Atlas V and Delta IV even higher than they already are after ULA's own massive price increases. Both companies are relying on their monopoly positions, which is a dangerous gamble in the long run.
I've seen nothing to indicate that PWR is working on becoming more competitive. And while it's true that ULA is starting to look at other engines, it will be many years before they have anything operational. I suspect their collaboration with XCOR is more of "warning shot" at PWR, in hopes of motivating them to keep engine prices under control.
In the interim, SpaceX's launchers will be far, far more competitively priced than anything ULA can offer. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations (taking into account the higher cost of the RL-10, but assuming that the RS-68 and RD-180 remain at their current price point) show that even if SpaceX misses its price targets by 50%, they will still have better pricing (both per-launch and per-kilogram) than ULA. And if the AV and DIVH first-stage engines increase in cost (though I don't see why the RD-180 would), it gives SpaceX an even greater price advantage.
Even once ULA has a new engine to replace the costly RL-10, they'll find themselves in the position that SpaceX is in now -- i.e., putting a new and unproven launch vehicle up against a (by then) well-established competitor.
Of course, all this assumes that SpaceX will continue to be successful, which is by no means guaranteed. It's early days yet, and they still have a long way to go.
However, I hope that they are successful, since otherwise a lot of science missions (and manned missions) won't happen at all.
1. PWR's price increases will inevitably be passed along by ULA, driving the cost of both the Atlas V and Delta IV even higher than they already are after ULA's own massive price increases.
1. Huh? What do you think cause the "massive" ULA price increases in the first place?
Both companies are relying on their monopoly positions,
What proof do you have of this?
Go read an interview from Jim Maser where he admitted the RL10 price quote was obscenely high to prove a point to the government on the dire state of the liuid engine industry.
As much as the vox populi amateurs are trying to make something nefarious out of this, it's all quite open. PWR is as peeved about the state of the industry as you are.
PWR has only known of the end of the SSME / overhead sustainment contract since the FY11 Obama budget was announced in February 2010. Prior to that it was planned by both NASA and PWR as a follow-on to the SSME contract that would develop J2X and the liquid booster engine for some HLV.
And what do you know to counter Or doubt Antares?
But to answer your question specifically; industry has had the better part of a decade to plan for the Shuttle's retirement, and the RL10 enjoys a monopoly on the EELVs which launch our countries classified satellites - PWR is taking advantage of that.
But to answer your question specifically; industry has had the better part of a decade to plan for the Shuttle's retirement, and the RL10 enjoys a monopoly on the EELVs which launch our countries classified satellites - PWR is taking advantage of that.
Again, you have no proof that it is taking advantage or gouging. Just an outsider's uninformed opinion.
It is not the shuttle retirement causing the problem, it is the cancelation of CxP.
But to answer your question specifically; industry has had the better part of a decade to plan for the Shuttle's retirement, and the RL10 enjoys a monopoly on the EELVs which launch our countries classified satellites - PWR is taking advantage of that.
Again, you have no proof that it is taking advantage or gouging.
Jim, if you hit yourself on the head with a hammer what kind of 'proof' would you require that it hurts?
Jim, if you hit yourself on the head with a hammer what kind of 'proof' would you require that it hurts?
No, I get headaches from people who don't know what they are talking about making statement as though they do
sell RocketDyne to ULA to get some vertical integration
encourage Aerojet to make a RL10 clone.