SpaceX vs Lockheed/Boeing

[sanman]

Recent inroads by SpaceX into its market had led one Lockheed official to comment abou the new upstart's capability:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/spacexs-entry-into-70-billion-us-launch-market-draws-lockheed-jab/2012/12/23/a0e4fd0c-4a2e-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html

So what's the future of competition betweeen SpaceX and established players like Lockheed and Boeing?

[LegendCJS]

From the link, three consecutive successful launches per "version" of a rocket is the certification requirement.  Does a launch for any customer count in this tally, or only launches for DoD?  I assume SpaceX's move to F9 v1.1 starts a fresh launch tally with the new rocket.  And 3 launched of the heavy would also needed.  I wonder if flying some of the F9H with cross feed and some without cross feed make enough change in configuration or version for each need 3 launches.  Anyone?

I understand testing the F9 v1.1 three times (compared to v1) as it is a whole new beast, but I wonder how the ULA rockets were certified considering how many different core and booster combinations are available.  Did every configuration need three successful launches to be certified?

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX has had 6 sequential successes, by ULA's definition (which is a good one).

[Hyperion5]

SpaceX has had 6 sequential successes, by ULA's definition (which is a good one).

Of course there will be people arguing that the failure to put the Orbcomm satellite into its correct orbit means the last flight was a failure.  Personally I think it should be called a partial success, as there should be a big caveat on the "failure".  Yes Spacex didn't put it into its proper orbit, but it was not put into the proper orbit because NASA calculated it had only a 95% chance of proper orbital insertion, not 99% as required by ISS safety rules.  The rocket had a 19 in 20 chance after losing an engine of completing both the primary and secondary missions.  I'm fairly sure it could have gotten the job done if not for ISS regulations.  While the Falcon 9 has had teething problems, they pale in comparison to how the Ariane 5 started out:



Right now the Ariane 5 might just be the most reliable launcher of the current era if we're going by consecutive successive launches.  ULA might be able to match the Ariane 5 in reliability, but they've been run out of the commercial market on prices by Ariane & the Russians, whose failure rates for rockets like the Proton are even higher.  ULA is going to have to make some major adjustments to their business model if Spacex starts running off increasing numbers of consecutive launch successes.  This is especially true because there's a possibility that even Orbital might someday get into their market with an upgraded Antares.  My suggestion to the Lockheed manager is less blustery talk and more action to be more price-competitive. 

[edkyle99]

Recent inroads by SpaceX into its market had led one Lockheed official to comment abou the new upstart's capability:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/spacexs-entry-into-70-billion-us-launch-market-draws-lockheed-jab/2012/12/23/a0e4fd0c-4a2e-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html

So what's the future of competition betweeen SpaceX and established players like Lockheed and Boeing?

"“Cost doesn’t matter at all if you don’t put the ball into orbit,’’ said Lockheed’s Stevens, who is retiring as chief executiveO and will be replaced by Chief Operating Officer Marillyn Hewson on Jan. 1."

I once heard that same "cost doesn't matter" mantra from a Titan program manager - but 1990 was a long time ago now.  I suspect that Mr. Stevens' replacement will have to deal with a different reality when it comes to costs. 

 - Ed Kyle

[john smith 19]

I understand testing the F9 v1.1 three times (compared to v1) as it is a whole new beast, but I wonder how the ULA rockets were certified considering how many different core and booster combinations are available.  Did every configuration need three successful launches to be certified?

Not sure about F9 v1.1 but I recall some of those Delta and Atlas configurations have never flown. For example IIRC part of the CCiCAP is to launch an Atlas with the a version of the Centaur that has not flown before to verify that configuration (I think Boeing got the money so presumably they will fly with a CTS-100 simulator).

[Elmar Moelzer]

Of course there will be people arguing that the failure to put the Orbcomm satellite into its correct orbit means the last flight was a failure.  P

Obrcomm was aware of the fact that this might happen and accepted the risk. Had this mission just launched the satellite, it would have still been a success, even with the engine failure. It was NASA who determined that they were not allowed to proceed.

[Jim]

I understand testing the F9 v1.1 three times (compared to v1) as it is a whole new beast, but I wonder how the ULA rockets were certified considering how many different core and booster combinations are available.  Did every configuration need three successful launches to be certified?

Vehicles are certified by core and upperstage combinations.  Number of solids does not matter.  So there are 2 Atlas V and 3 Delta IV combinations that would need to be certified.

[Jim]

Not sure about F9 v1.1 but I recall some of those Delta and Atlas configurations have never flown. For example IIRC part of the CCiCAP is to launch an Atlas with the a version of the Centaur that has not flown before to verify that configuration (I think Boeing got the money so presumably they will fly with a CTS-100 simulator).

Two engined Atlas V Centaur wasn't even designed.

[DGH]

I understand testing the F9 v1.1 three times (compared to v1) as it is a whole new beast, but I wonder how the ULA rockets were certified considering how many different core and booster combinations are available.  Did every configuration need three successful launches to be certified?

Vehicles are certified by core and upperstage combinations.  Number of solids does not matter.  So there are 2 Atlas V and 3 Delta IV combinations that would need to be certified.

Does RS-68A count as new and make the Delta IV start over?

[DGH]

Recent inroads by SpaceX into its market had led one Lockheed official to comment abou the new upstart's capability:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/spacexs-entry-into-70-billion-us-launch-market-draws-lockheed-jab/2012/12/23/a0e4fd0c-4a2e-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html

So what's the future of competition betweeen SpaceX and established players like Lockheed and Boeing?

ULA has higher cost very dependable GTO+ rockets.
SpaceX has a low cost largely unproven under GTO rocket.

In many ways they are designed for two very different markets.

To succeed:
SpaceX needs successful launches and IMO a third stage for GTO++.
ULA needs a bigger cheaper upper stage engine and more launches.

Possible problems:
Going from 95% reliability to LEO to 99% reliability to GTO could be an expensive proposition for SpaceX.
Low volume combined with high RL-10 costs could make ULA too expensive.

Possible game changers:
Ion or Hall upper stages could significantly help SpaceX.
The Air Force Next Generation Engine could help ULA.

[ugordan]

Going from 95% reliability to LEO to 99% reliability to GTO could be an expensive proposition for SpaceX.

Where did these numbers come from?

[DGH]

Going from 95% reliability to LEO to 99% reliability to GTO could be an expensive proposition for SpaceX.

Where did these numbers come from?

I did not quote real numbers.
I was just trying to express the concept that the last few percent is the hard part. For example the Russians still seem to have a better success rate to LEO then GTO.
Sorry for any confusion from my bad wording.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX has had 6 sequential successes, by ULA's definition (which is a good one).

Of course there will be people arguing that the failure to put the Orbcomm satellite into its correct orbit means the last flight was a failure.  Personally I think it should be called a partial success, as there should be a big caveat on the "failure".  Yes Spacex didn't put it into its proper orbit, but it was not put into the proper orbit because NASA calculated it had only a 95% chance of proper orbital insertion, not 99% as required by ISS safety rules.  The rocket had a 19 in 20 chance after losing an engine of completing both the primary and secondary missions.  I'm fairly sure it could have gotten the job done if not for ISS regulations.  While the Falcon 9 has had teething problems, they pale in comparison to how the Ariane 5 started out:



Right now the Ariane 5 might just be the most reliable launcher of the current era if we're going by consecutive successive launches.  ULA might be able to match the Ariane 5 in reliability, but they've been run out of the commercial market on prices by Ariane & the Russians, whose failure rates for rockets like the Proton are even higher.  ULA is going to have to make some major adjustments to their business model if Spacex starts running off increasing numbers of consecutive launch successes.  This is especially true because there's a possibility that even Orbital might someday get into their market with an upgraded Antares.  My suggestion to the Lockheed manager is less blustery talk and more action to be more price-competitive. 

SpaceX's failure is no worse than ULA failures in the past, not counted as failures in the 66 number.

[john smith 19]

Two engined Atlas V Centaur wasn't even designed.

Sounds like ULA have quite a bit of work ahead of them. 

That said it's not like earlier versions of a two engined Centaur have not flown on earlier versions of Atlas and the single engine Centaur stage has presumably given them a fair bit of data to chew on.

I hope they will take the opportunity to incorporate their Integrated Vehicle Fluids concept. With hindsight it's just the obvious way to go for any stage with both propellants being cryogens.

[Antares]

NASA calculated it had only a 95% chance of proper orbital insertion, not 99% as required by ISS safety rules.

It was NASA who determined that they were not allowed to proceed.

Do you have proof of NASA saying either of these?

[LegendCJS]

NASA calculated it had only a 95% chance of proper orbital insertion, not 99% as required by ISS safety rules.

It was NASA who determined that they were not allowed to proceed.

Do you have proof of NASA saying either of these?

Does a statement by SpaceX reps saying that this was the situation they were faced with and this was the reason they didn't do the second burn count as proof in your universe?

[ugordan]

Sigh. I picked up on that "NASA calculated" line, but didn't want to bring it up on account of it being off-topic, but yes, NASA didn't *calculate* any such thing in this case. They at most set a requirement (before flight!) that there needs to be a 99% chance of completing the burn, but it was the F9 flight computer that calculated the propellant quantity autonomously and made choices. Once the vehicle lifted off, it was on its own.

[docmordrid]

If NASA made "the 99% rule", isn't saying they didn't do the realtime calculus themselves a distinction with very little difference?

[ugordan]

No, because the obvious implication was that NASA is somehow at fault for what happened to Orbcomm. They didn't calculate anything, they set rules beforehand which SpaceX and/or Orbcomm didn't have to accept. The latter two could have decided to not fly secondaries at all.

Enough of this "NASA didn't allow", "NASA calculated" stuff already. It wasn't NASA's fault it was protecting its expensive orbiting asset.