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.

[LegendCJS]

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

From my impressions it wasn't so much that the calculation determined that it had a 95% chance of success given the conditions the upper stage found itself in after releasing Dragon. 

It was that NASA and their monte carlo simulation group undertook months of study to determine that if everything was perfect, there was a better than 99% chance that the upper stage could safely relight and put the orbcomm satellite in a safe orbit with respect to the ISS. 

Re-doing the analysis for an upper stage with less fuel than accounted for in the first set of calculations would have taken the same amount of time (order of a month).  So the rough guess is a 95% chance of success, but the real answer was that it would have taken much longer than the upper stage life time on orbit to approve the re-light burn for any situation which fell out of the original envelope of the first analysis.

[docmordrid]

So this all-star group didn't evaluate scenarios that included situations in the F9 playbook (flight plan?)  like engine out?

[LegendCJS]

So this all-star group didn't evaluate scenarios that included situations in the F9 playbook (flight plan?)  like engine out?

My impressions could very well be in error of course.  But no trajectory computed on the fly fully autonomously to account for an unpredictable event can reasonably be considered to be in any "playbook"

[Jim]

So this all-star group didn't evaluate scenarios that included situations in the F9 playbook (flight plan?)  like engine out?

And another slur against NASA.  Face it, Spacex f'ed up and not NASA.

[joek]

Possible game changers:
Ion or Hall upper stages could significantly help SpaceX.

Not upper stages, but the effects of electric propulsion on LV selection are already being seen, as with Asia Broadcast Satellite (ABS) and Satmex; see  this thread.

[Elmar Moelzer]

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.

I never said that it was NASAs fault, nor did I imply that. I simply said that NASAs rules did not allow it. When this decision was made is irrelevant. It is not slander against NASA either. They set the rules and both SpaceX and Orbcomm accepted them. That was my point. Hadnt it been for these rules (that everyone agreed on), the Orbcomm mission would have still been a success, despite the engine failure. It is still SpaceX fault that the engine failed (ultimately), but that was a risk that all parties had agreed on. So I don't think that calling the flight a failure is completely fair.
That was all I was trying to express. People should stop overinterpreting things.

[Hyperion5]

So this all-star group didn't evaluate scenarios that included situations in the F9 playbook (flight plan?)  like engine out?

And another slur against NASA.  Face it, Spacex f'ed up and not NASA.

Orbcomm probably should have waited for the much more powerful v1.1 to send up their experimental satellite.  Given Spacex has said they can lift over 50% more to LEO with the newer version, the engine-out margins for launching both Dragon and the Orbcomm satellite would have been a lot better.  If the same problem had happened on the v1.1 and not the v1.0, I expect Spacex would have had better than a 99% chance of making both orbital insertions.

[Robotbeat]

Time is just as important for Orbcomm. Waiting 6 months or so may not have been a better option for them, considering they did get some testing done.

[LegendCJS]

So this all-star group didn't evaluate scenarios that included situations in the F9 playbook (flight plan?)  like engine out?

And another slur against NASA.  Face it, Spacex f'ed up and not NASA.

Orbcomm probably should have waited for the much more powerful v1.1 to send up their experimental satellite.  Given Spacex has said they can lift over 50% more to LEO with the newer version, the engine-out margins for launching both Dragon and the Orbcomm satellite would have been a lot better.  If the same problem had happened on the v1.1 and not the v1.0, I expect Spacex would have had better than a 99% chance of making both orbital insertions.

False.  If the same thing had happened to v1.1 as v1.0, it still would have been a set of conditions that were outside the envelope of calculation for the simulation team, and the no relight decision would have been taken just the same.

[Robotbeat]

False, you don't know that. If the upper stage had enough propellant and margin for relight, they would've done it on the last flight. But 95% chance of successful burn isn't 99%.

[IRobot]

Time is just as important for Orbcomm. Waiting 6 months or so may not have been a better option for them, considering they did get some testing done.

AFAIK, this was the best thing for Orbcomm, they made most of the testing and insurance payed the launch...

[LegendCJS]

False, you don't know that. If the upper stage had enough propellant and margin for relight, they would've done it on the last flight. But 95% chance of successful burn isn't 99%.

To me it is clearly not a propellant level thing. It is about an envelope of safe probabilities as determined by intensive calculation and simulation:

The mission was not faced with the situation where the probabilities were: 95% chance of getting Orbcomm into the pre-planed orbit and a 5% chance of slamming into ISS because the fuel ran short.  That is ridiculous. 

Now I do not know this for sure, but since conservative (read NASA decision process) engineering is all about defining specifications and meeting them, with clear decisions on go vs no go based on being in spec or not, I conclude the key issue must have simply been about being out side of the envelope of monte-carlo simulated scenarios, and this was the reason that no relight was approved.

I guess our ability to infer what the decision process really was hinges on two things:

1) Was/Is the 95% number explanation just a quick summary way of explaining the fact that the monte carlo probabilistic model simulation data, if not focused on the specific scenario in question, would have had higher uncertainty in the estimated probabilities when it was used to infer this off nominal situation?

2) The definition of "successful burn."  Is success hitting the pre-planed orbit (safely).  Is success hitting any orbit (safely) that might have kept Orbcomm form re-entering as quick as it did  (maybe 6 months would have been useful)?  Or was success with respect to the ISS and its safety alone, and it did not matter where the stage and Orbcomm payload went as long as ISS was safe?  Saying the fuel was too low causing a "95% chance of success" doesn't make a whole lot of sense given some of the possible definitions of success.

[simonbp]

This seems like a rather silly argument, as the vast majority of SpaceX free-flight payloads (dare I say 99% by mass) will not be launched on an ISS-bound F9. Indeed, I doubt if they will sell any more than they already have.

IMHO, ULA/LM/Boeing's problem is not now, but 5-10 years from now. Whether it's SpaceX or Blue Origin or XCOR or the Tooth Fairy, anyone who can get a reusable first stage working will quickly build up a flight history sufficient to have very high reliability. Then the insurance companies will see that ULA's already tiny profit margin disappears. And LM and Boeing's shareholders will drop ULA faster than, well, UTC dropped PWR...

[joek]

AFAIK, this was the best thing for Orbcomm, they made most of the testing and insurance payed the launch...

Insurance hasn't paid for anythig yet.  Orbcomm filed a claim.  How much insurance will pay is TBD.

[joek]

IMHO, ULA/LM/Boeing's problem is not now, but 5-10 years from now. Whether it's SpaceX or Blue Origin or XCOR or the Tooth Fairy, anyone who can get a reusable first stage working will quickly build up a flight history sufficient to have very high reliability. Then the insurance companies will see that ULA's already tiny profit margin disappears. And LM and Boeing's shareholders will drop ULA faster than, well, UTC dropped PWR...

While I agree with your sentiment, I do not believe your arguments apply:
1. ULA has for all intents and purposes ceded the commercial market and is a captive U.S. government supplier.
2. The U.S. government self-insures launches; insurance companies' view of ULA's has little or no bearing on ULA's reliability record--unless and until ULA re-enters the commercial market, which given their cost structure and history, appears unlikely for the foreseeable future.
3. Launch reliability, and thus insurance premiums, are largely independent of whether the payload is government or commercial.  While ULA may have an excellent track record, until and unless they re-enter the commercial market, that record is irrelevant.
4. Launch reliability, and thus insurance premiums, are dependent on track record--obviously the higher SpaceX's tempo--assuming they are successful--the faster the premiums decrease. 

In short, SpaceX's ability to establish a reliable launch record has little to do with reusability and everything to do with launch rate (i.e., demand).  Unless you subscribe to the theory that reusability will create a significant increase in demand and thus in SpaceX's launch rate, leading to a virtuous cycle.  While reusability with lower costs and consequent increase in demand may happen, I think it's a bit early to make such a call.

[Robotbeat]

Reusability Will allow you to fly more test flights for the same cost. It will discourage sharing flights, which will in and of itself increase flight rate. The reduced cost certainly will lead to more people choosing them, so a higher flight rate. That isn't a theory, it is microeconomics 101. That is assuming simply that reusability significantly reduces cost.

And, of course, you have an advantage of getting the hardware back after a flight for examination.

Also, you could fly The reusable first stage a few times jut to wring all the bugs out at low cost.

[simonbp]

In short, SpaceX's ability to establish a reliable launch record has little to do with reusability and everything to do with launch rate (i.e., demand).  Unless you subscribe to the theory that reusability will create a significant increase in demand and thus in SpaceX's launch rate, leading to a virtuous cycle.  While reusability with lower costs and consequent increase in demand may happen, I think it's a bit early to make such a call.

Lowering costs is a secondary factor for reusability. The real reason for it initially is to gain confidence in the vehicle. If a single rocket vehicle has flown ten times without a problem, that's a good sign that it's reliable. And, any weaknesses in the design will accumulate and start to show problems.

It's a bit a paradigm shift from the old ICBM mentality of "mass produce and hope they all work the one time they are fired" to the aircraft approach of "overengineer reliability and get a ton of flight hours before trusting the vehicle". Eventually, I suspect we'll see a spacecraft certification process like the FAA currently does for aircraft, with the prototype earning a type certificate and each space vehicle having to maintain an individual flightworthyness certificate. And without that certificate, you won't get either insurance or government contracts.

So, even if the market never ever grows beyond what it is now, and reusable rockets are just as expensive as expendable, they will still completely dominate the launch market. And unless they start investing their own money in an RLV, LM/Boeing/ULA are going to find themselves completely shut out of the launch market.

[Jim]

So, even if the market never ever grows beyond what it is now, and reusable rockets are just as expensive as expendable, they will still completely dominate the launch market. And unless they start investing their own money in an RLV, LM/Boeing/ULA are going to find themselves completely shut out of the launch market.

Huh?  there is no logic in that

[go4mars]

I think he means 'assuming reliability is proven to be better than with expendable launchers'...

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

For the government customer who has very expensive unique sats (>$1B in costs each) the concern is LV reliability and not cost of the LV. If two LV's have the same reliability then hey will choose the cheaper, maybe. Choice of LV is made at the time the satellite contract is started, 3-8 years for a govenment sat depending on complexity and whether it shares technology with existing other sats such as use of a commercial common sat bus. So the LV must show it is as reliable or better than the other LV choices at that time. So launches in 2015-2020 for ULA is most likely protected from SpaceX total poaching. But as time progresses over that period ULA will loose more and more missions to SpaceX if they show they have just as reliable a LV as ULA.

[Lurker Steve]

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.

And it wasn't OrbComm's fault that SpaceX cancelled the Falcon 1, which was the original LV for the contract. They didn't sign up for a ride as a secondary originally.

[happyflower]

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.

Jim,

My understanding from reading on-line is that ULA will be launching both CST-100 and D.C.. Would you happen to know when the designing starts, if the basic two engined Centaur/Atlas will be exactly the same for both CST-100 and D.C.? Or will that be two different vehicles?

[JohnFornaro]

"I’m hugely pleased with 66 in a row from ULA, and I don’t know the record of SpaceX yet," [Robert Stevens] said. "Two in a row?"

Sour grapes.

"Cost doesn’t matter at all if you don’t put the ball into orbit," said Lockheed’s Stevens.

OK.  Now tell us something that we don't know.

Why doesn't he welcome them into the fold?  No harm in being gracious.

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

Thank you. 

The problem is SpaceX's, and I'm sure they have "top men" working the problem.  Of course they want $900M of DoD biz, and of course they will have to get the reliability needed to earn this business.

The insurance companies will see that ULA's already tiny profit margin disappears.

Tiny?

Even so, I think your line of reasoning still holds.

The U.S. government self-insures launches; insurance companies' view of ULA's has little or no bearing on ULA's reliability record--unless and until ULA re-enters the commercial market, which given their cost structure and history...

While this is true, if ULA should have a flawless track record, that would be reflected in their future insurance premium.  So the relationship is not "irrelevant".  What the relationship is, between past track record and future premium, is: TBD and speculative.

In short, SpaceX's ability to establish a reliable launch record ... [is] a bit early to make such a call.

Yes.  Like I said, TBD and speculative.

[yg1968]

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).

I don't think that Boeing's CCiCap base period milestones actually includes flying a dual engine centaur on an Atlas V. The DEC must get to a CDR level but it doesn't need to fly on an Atlas V.

[Lars_J]

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).

I don't think that Boeing's CCiCap base period milestones actually includes flying a dual engine centaur on an Atlas V. The DEC must get to a CDR level but it doesn't need to fly on an Atlas V.

Where else would the DEC fly on, if not the Atlas V???

[yg1968]

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).

I don't think that Boeing's CCiCap base period milestones actually includes flying a dual engine centaur on an Atlas V. The DEC must get to a CDR level but it doesn't need to fly on an Atlas V.

Where else would the DEC fly on, if not the Atlas V???

I didn't mean that it could fly on another rocket. I meant that NASA is not paying for a flight to test the DAC as part of the CCiCap base period.

[baldusi]

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).

I don't think that Boeing's CCiCap base period milestones actually includes flying a dual engine centaur on an Atlas V. The DEC must get to a CDR level but it doesn't need to fly on an Atlas V.

Besides the fact the DEC has already flown, and the real issue are the new electric actuators on dual configuration, the test shouldn't be that expensive. They might get to offer the DEC for some LEO mission, and CCiCap competitor pay just the difference. Since the LEO performance is better, and might even have engine-out capability, they might even save the cost of a more expensive configuration to the payload's owner.
I'm guess that some of the commercial optical satellites, like WorldView-3, for example.

[ElonMuskFanboy]

Can SpaceX really overtake ULA? I think so, especially if the Falcon Heavy lives up to the hype. I've done the math.

At SpaceX's advertised price of 128 million max. And 119,000 pounds to LEO. Thats 1094 dollars per pound to orbit, am I correct?

So again if the Falcon Heavy lives up to the hype I believe ULA is in trouble.

[R7]

So again if the Falcon Heavy lives up to the hype I believe ULA is in trouble.

Yes, ULA is doomed. Their only hope is to create their own hype by posting humbug prices on their website and wish that the big money is in GTO.

[ElonMuskFanboy]

So again if the Falcon Heavy lives up to the hype I believe ULA is in trouble.

Yes, ULA is doomed. Their only hope is to create their own hype by posting humbug prices on their website and wish that the big money is in GTO.

Hey are you being sarcastic or are you being serious here? Are you implying that SpaceX's prices are humbug and hype? I'm trying to figure out whether or not you're being sarcastic here.

I mean I've been swept up by the Elon Musk hype train (as is obvious) and I'm a huge SpaceX fan! But can SpaceX really usurp ULA?

I see that the Falcon Heavy will supposedly lift 53,000 kg to LEO as opposed to Delta IV Heavy's 23,000 kg.

But here's where I get a little confused. The Delta IV Heavy can lift 13,130 kg to GTO whereas the Falcon Heavy can only lift a mere 12,000 kg to GTO, yet it can lift more than 4 times that amount to LEO.

I'm totally confused here cause SpaceX is stating that the Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket in use today yet thats not entirely true. Matter of fact I'm thinking about starting a whole thread dedicated to the matter cause I'm so perturbed over it.

Is this just hype on SpaceX's part or are they for real and will they eventually overtake ULA as topdog at the top of the rocket food chain?

[notherspacexfan]

ULA is not going anywhere. They make reliable rockets.

Re: delta IV vs FH performance to GTO - read up on ISP of hydrogen/oxygen vs RP1/oxygen

[Jim]

will they eventually overtake ULA as topdog at the top of the rocket food chain?

No

[ohlongjohnson]

will they eventually overtake ULA as topdog at the top of the rocket food chain?

No

I just love your posts, Jim!

[Atlan]

Well SpaceX can probably ger ULAs position but that would not hapen in a couple of years. If they prove reliability within say a decade(lets say 50-80 flights) wouldt ULA be then in serious trouble, because it might be hard to get their rockets to competitive prices and developing a new rocket might last a while?
Trying to keep the amazing peopleism out, so read this just as an what if....

[ElonMuskFanboy]

For those of you saying no I'd just like you to take 10 minutes out of your day to read this excellent article on the Falcon Heavy and its low price point. http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

I mean ULA is incredibly expensive and they're costs are projected to go up over the coming years, not down. I mean granted when it comes to GTO the Delta can lift just a little bit more than the FH but not a whole lot more. Whats the difference between 12,000 or 13,000 kg, negligible really. But on the other hand the FH can get 53 tons to LEO which is huge!!!! And at approximately 1094 dollars per pound to orbit. Thats a game changer right there.

If SpaceX can really deliver a payload to LEO at a little over a thousand dollars per pound to orbit. Then ULA's days of getting these huge DOD block buys for absurd amounts of money are over!

The US government is going to be over 17 trillion dollars in debt!!!! Just cant afford that.

Of course I'm no expert or genius so your guys input is much appreciated.

[Lar]

For those of you saying no I'd just like you to take 10 minutes out of your day to read this excellent article on the Falcon Heavy and its low price point. http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

I mean ULA is incredibly expensive and they're costs are projected to go up over the coming years, not down. I mean granted when it comes to GTO the Delta can lift just a little bit more than the FH but not a whole lot more. Whats the difference between 12,000 or 13,000 kg, negligible really. But on the other hand the FH can get 53 tons to LEO which is huge!!!! And at approximately 1094 dollars per pound to orbit. Thats a game changer right there.

If SpaceX can really deliver a payload to LEO at a little over a thousand dollars per pound to orbit. Then ULA's days of getting these huge DOD block buys for absurd amounts of money are over!

The US government is going to be over 17 trillion dollars in debt!!!! Just cant afford that.

Of course I'm no expert or genius so your guys input is much appreciated.

I'm almost the SpaceX  F A N B O I   that you are, but I know darn well that ULA has nothing to worry about until and unless F9 and F9H flight rates climb significantly, with good reliability, and the price points are adhered to.

Right now it's still 90% smoke and only 10% substance. Although each successful flight moves the needle in the substance direction.

Now, ULA ought to be making contingency plans[1], to be sure, but they don't have a clear and present danger. YET. ULA rockets work. They're reliable. They're delivering what DOD wants.

1 - schmoozing congressmen and generals, that's usually the most effective these days

[JohnFornaro]

Can SpaceX really overtake ULA? I think so, especially if the Falcon Heavy lives up to the hype. I've done the math.

At SpaceX's advertised price of 128 million max. And 119,000 pounds to LEO. Thats 1094 dollars per pound to orbit, am I correct?

So again if the Falcon Heavy lives up to the hype I believe ULA is in trouble.

Hey, I love the company too.

I'm sure you're a better math whiz than I am.  Most everybody here is.  There is a big difference between advertised price and guaranteed price.  In addition, in this field, it is political connections which make the deal, not pricing.

Like Jim said:

will they eventually overtake ULA as topdog at the top of the rocket food chain?

No  Pretty darn unlikely, knowing what I know about what's happening, how it happens, who the players are, and a host of other issues based on decades of industry involvement.

Didn't really fix it for him.   Just elaborated a mite for you, since two letters is a bit terse.

[Lurker Steve]

For those of you saying no I'd just like you to take 10 minutes out of your day to read this excellent article on the Falcon Heavy and its low price point. http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

I mean ULA is incredibly expensive and they're costs are projected to go up over the coming years, not down. I mean granted when it comes to GTO the Delta can lift just a little bit more than the FH but not a whole lot more. Whats the difference between 12,000 or 13,000 kg, negligible really. But on the other hand the FH can get 53 tons to LEO which is huge!!!! And at approximately 1094 dollars per pound to orbit. Thats a game changer right there.

If SpaceX can really deliver a payload to LEO at a little over a thousand dollars per pound to orbit. Then ULA's days of getting these huge DOD block buys for absurd amounts of money are over!

The US government is going to be over 17 trillion dollars in debt!!!! Just cant afford that.

Of course I'm no expert or genius so your guys input is much appreciated.

The problem is that most of the cost of the DOD missions in not in the launch vehicle, it's in the satellite itself.

Yes, the government is 17 trillion dollars in debt. NASA and the DOD will be getting less funding. That means missions are completely cancelled, not just shifted to a slightly less expensive launch provider.

Unless SpaceX learns how to pick up their launch pace, and launch more than 3 or 4 missions per year, they are not a viable supplier to the DOD. Of course, at that rate, they aren't a viable commerical launch provider either, since a reservation on their launch manifest is basically meaningless.

[apace]

The costs of the launch vehicle for DOD payloads is overrated here. If you have a multi-billion payload, the difference between D4H and FH is nothing.

[ElonMuskFanboy]

For those of you saying no I'd just like you to take 10 minutes out of your day to read this excellent article on the Falcon Heavy and its low price point. http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

I mean ULA is incredibly expensive and they're costs are projected to go up over the coming years, not down. I mean granted when it comes to GTO the Delta can lift just a little bit more than the FH but not a whole lot more. Whats the difference between 12,000 or 13,000 kg, negligible really. But on the other hand the FH can get 53 tons to LEO which is huge!!!! And at approximately 1094 dollars per pound to orbit. Thats a game changer right there.

If SpaceX can really deliver a payload to LEO at a little over a thousand dollars per pound to orbit. Then ULA's days of getting these huge DOD block buys for absurd amounts of money are over!

The US government is going to be over 17 trillion dollars in debt!!!! Just cant afford that.

Of course I'm no expert or genius so your guys input is much appreciated.

The problem is that most of the cost of the DOD missions in not in the launch vehicle, it's in the satellite itself.

Yes, the government is 17 trillion dollars in debt. NASA and the DOD will be getting less funding. That means missions are completely cancelled, not just shifted to a slightly less expensive launch provider.

Unless SpaceX learns how to pick up their launch pace, and launch more than 3 or 4 missions per year, they are not a viable supplier to the DOD. Of course, at that rate, they aren't a viable commerical launch provider either, since a reservation on their launch manifest is basically meaningless.

"slightly less expensive launch provider." Uh as far as I know at the advertised prices the FH is literally a fraction as expensive as a Delta IV Heavy launch.


And you're all not getting the bigger picture here. In order for commercial space to take off there has to be a cheap and affordable means of getting to orbit. If Bigelow Aerospace or any other private venture in space is to survive and become profitable then space access has to become cheaper, by many orders of magnitude cheaper.

And out of the ones vying to do that SpaceX is the one whom I believe has the best chance of succeeding. Elon Musk is a doer ladies and gents. This is a man that does!!!!!

I could totally see space tourism taking off and families taking vacations on the Moon for a couple of weeks and then coming back down to Earth. I could totally see people visiting Mars and then literally going back to Earth. I on the other hand, if given the opportunity, would relocate to Mars. The only way any of this will be possible is if somebody can make space access affordable! ULA will not do this but SpaceX (hopefully) will.

[Lurker Steve]

According to Elon, his little spat with the NY Times reviewer cost the company about 100 million in value. Yes, he's a "DOer".

Until we see a Falcon 9 launch without a Dragon on top, they don't have much chance of suceeding in the DOD or Commerical market. Those launches are delayed, again.....

[starsilk]

So again if the Falcon Heavy lives up to the hype I believe ULA is in trouble.

Yes, ULA is doomed. Their only hope is to create their own hype by posting humbug prices on their website and wish that the big money is in GTO.

I see that the Falcon Heavy will supposedly lift 53,000 kg to LEO as opposed to Delta IV Heavy's 23,000 kg.

But here's where I get a little confused. The Delta IV Heavy can lift 13,130 kg to GTO whereas the Falcon Heavy can only lift a mere 12,000 kg to GTO, yet it can lift more than 4 times that amount to LEO.

I'm totally confused here cause SpaceX is stating that the Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket in use today yet thats not entirely true. Matter of fact I'm thinking about starting a whole thread dedicated to the matter cause I'm so perturbed over it.

Delta IV (and Atlas-V) have hydrolox upper stages (hydrogen and oxygen). that gives a much higher ISP, and means they do much better for high energy orbits. Falcon 9 (and F9H) has a kerolox upperstage (kerosene and oxygen), which has a lower ISP, and consequently lower performance to high energy orbits. in 'car terms' F9H is a muscle car with a huge engine(s), Delta IV / Atlas V are Ferraris, with smaller engines tuned for high performance.

so although F9H can lift a huge amount to LEO, its performance is way worse for high energy orbits like GTO, TLI, TMI etc. it makes up for that by being a bigger launcher.

[Chris Bergin]

Why did it take until now for someone to report that idiot's avatar? It took a person who's not even posted on this thread to notice it, yet there's a bunch of you who posted outrage over it without bothering to report it or inform me.

Idiot banned.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

A number of interesting points made in this debate. ULA clearly have a decent business for a few years yet (no matter how successful SpaceX are in the short(ish) term).

However, what I don't see is where ULA are going to get much growth beyond their current business? If SpaceX continue to be successful then I think they're better placed to capture new business. (Of course assuming the market does indeed grow.) Longer-term that'll tip the scales much more in SpaceX's favour, if ULA don't evolve/innovate enough in response.

[Lobo]

Why did it take until now for someone to report that idiot's avatar? It took a person who's not even posted on this thread to notice it, yet there's a bunch of you who posted outrage over it without bothering to report it or inform me.

Idiot banned.

Having just seen this thread, I'm wondering what avatar got a guy banned?

Now I am curious.  Maybe someone could PM me with what the issue was?

[Jim]

A number of interesting points made in this debate. ULA clearly have a decent business for a few years yet (no matter how successful SpaceX are in the short(ish) term).

However, what I don't see is where ULA are going to get much growth beyond their current business? If SpaceX continue to be successful then I think they're better placed to capture new business. (Of course assuming the market does indeed grow.) Longer-term that'll tip the scales much more in SpaceX's favour, if ULA don't evolve/innovate enough in response.

No.  ULA only exists to operate the EELV's and their derivatives.  Lockheed/Boeing do the rest.

[Patchouli]

ULA is not going anywhere. They make reliable rockets.

Re: delta IV vs FH performance to GTO - read up on ISP of hydrogen/oxygen vs RP1/oxygen

FH seems optimized for LEO for GTO missions it seems to really need a high ISP second stage or the addition of a third stage.

[deltaV]

FH seems optimized for LEO for GTO missions it seems to really need a high ISP second stage or the addition of a third stage.

I think a stretched second stage is probably sufficient for a big boost in GTO performance.

[LouScheffer]

ULA is not going anywhere. They make reliable rockets.

Re: delta IV vs FH performance to GTO - read up on ISP of hydrogen/oxygen vs RP1/oxygen

It's true ULA makes reliable rockets, but it does not follow from this they are not going anywhere.  To see lots of counterexamples, look at "The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail", by Clayton Christensen.  He goes through example after example where established players (completely rationally) ignored new entrants, who were in general lower cost but could only address a small fraction of the market.  But the new entrants then grew in skill, started tackling a bigger portion of the market, and the big firms were in trouble.

This looks, at least at first glance, exactly like a case study from that book.  ULA (and Ariane) sell a very nice product that is working well for their customers.  SpaceX, though potentially cheap, is not a current threat since it does not yet have an extensive track record, lacks a high energy upper stage, doesn't do vertical integration, and so on.  But it certainly appears to be innovating faster, and that could be trouble for ULA in the long term.

[go4mars]

Thanks for the book tip.  I'll order a copy. 

Maybe getting slightly too hypothetical for the scope of this thread, but if an inexpensively reusable BFR does the orders of magnitude price magic, and keeps investing in R&D for even better space exploration technologies, the barrier to entry would be high for 'wanna-be' competitors.  They would need to aim for a different niche I suppose.  Like smaller-scale, larger-scale, or heaven help it; cheaper yet. 

[gregk]

In all this discussion, I think one thing is being left out that is VERY important to consider.  That is the culture of the company's in question.  Large government contractors VS smaller purpose created and agile privately funded (and properly funded, of course) company with the intent of changing the landscape right from the start...  Nuff Said???

BTW... Paralells can be seen, I think, between this industry and the auto industry if you look at Tesla, and to a lesser degree Toyota, VS the other big auto makers from a culture point of view.

My point is  CULTURE is what makes the difference.  When challenged, CHANGE OR DIE...

[john smith 19]

In all this discussion, I think one thing is being left out that is VERY important to consider.  That is the culture of the company's in question.  Large government contractors VS smaller purpose created and agile privately funded (and properly funded, of course) company with the intent of changing the landscape right from the start...  Nuff Said???

BTW... Paralells can be seen, I think, between this industry and the auto industry if you look at Tesla, and to a lesser degree Toyota, VS the other big auto makers from a culture point of view.

My point is  CULTURE is what makes the difference.  When challenged, CHANGE OR DIE...

A good point. ULA basically has 1 customer, the USG, It's every move is to keep that customer satisfied. That customers core interest is that their payloads launch reliably, for which they are are prepared to pay whatever ULA charge.

Short term Spacex have lobbied to be included on the EELV list of LV suppliers and it looks like the AF is willing to look at them for slightly more risky payloads. The implication is that if they start to demonstrate the kind of track record ULA have with Atlas and Delta they will be on the list for future launches, but as Jim mentioned that will be for payloads not yet being built.

It seems that ULA's belief is that getting that unbroken launch success is just that costly and if Spacex can deliver it then their prices will have to go up to what ULA charge because that's what this "launch assurance" process costs.

Well that's the story they tell themselves. Personally I think that F9's LOX/RP1 common propellants, common bulkhead, common engines  designed a decade or more later than either ULA LV is exponentially simpler to identify faults (fewer unique parts) and the increased redundancy means even if a fault gets to flight it can be countered.

Let's not forget if the first f9 ISS flight had been on a Delta or an Atlas the mission would have failed as the rocket would have probably been destroyed or failed to make orbit, 1 engine in the first stage is a pretty serious single point of failure.

ULA will launch plenty more rockets and charge the USG for the privilege. Either Spacex will deliver on high reliability at prices not far above what they are charging to customers outside the US (IE bringing foreign business back to the US) or they won't.

If they do then continuing to launch a govt payload small enough for a Spacex launcher on anything else will look more like misguided sentiment than a pragmatic business decision.

[Jim]

Let's not forget if the first f9 ISS flight had been on a Delta or an Atlas the mission would have failed as the rocket would have probably been destroyed or failed to make orbit, 1 engine in the first stage is a pretty serious single point of failure.

No, Atlas or Delta would not have had that kind of failure.  The nature of  the F9-1 payload allows for such things to happen.

[john smith 19]

No, Atlas or Delta would not have had that kind of failure.  The nature of  the F9-1 payload allows for such things to happen.

What's the payload got to do with it? I'd have said it's a question of the number of engines on the first stage.

[douglas100]

Let's not forget if the first f9 ISS flight had been on a Delta or an Atlas the mission would have failed as the rocket would have probably been destroyed or failed to make orbit, 1 engine in the first stage is a pretty serious single point of failure.

Let's also remember that the engine out capability of the first stage is a consequence of having to cluster a fairly large cluster of small engines. It's making a virtue out of a necessity.

I'd be more worried about the reliability of the Merlin vac. It is a potential single point failure.

[Jim]

No, Atlas or Delta would not have had that kind of failure.  The nature of  the F9-1 payload allows for such things to happen.

What's the payload got to do with it? I'd have said it's a question of the number of engines on the first stage.

Loss of payload (ISS logisitics) is no big deal.  It can take more risk.  That engine would have never flown on other missions.

[LouScheffer]

No, Atlas or Delta would not have had that kind of failure.  The nature of  the F9-1 payload allows for such things to happen.

What's the payload got to do with it? I'd have said it's a question of the number of engines on the first stage.

Loss of payload (ISS logisitics) is no big deal.  It can take more risk.  That engine would have never flown on other missions.

Is your argument (a) that folks with more critical payloads do more NDE, and hence would have been more likely to find the defect? 

Or (b) that other missions would not use an engine that's had significant time on the test stand?

There seems to be a tradeoff here.   Clearly (a) does not always work, no matter how hard you try.  For example, I'd suspect the recent Delta RL-10 problem will turn out to be a manufacturing flaw that slipped by.  This was true of the brazing flaw of a few years ago, and is probably true of almost all RL-10 failures, since the design flaws should be uncovered by now.

And (b) can help avoid the problems that (a) misses.  If the Delta mission had instead employed a used RL-10 with a few hundred seconds of testing, they perhaps would have found during testing, the engine weakness they only discovered during flight. 

In most branches of engineering, you achieve the best reliability with slightly used parts.  They should be used enough to uncover infant mortality due to manufacturing defects, but not so much as to approach wear-out.   Given both the Falcon and Delta experience, it's not yet clear what the 'right' amount of testing is.

[john smith 19]

Loss of payload (ISS logisitics) is no big deal.  It can take more risk. 

Where re-supply is concerned I'd expect the ISS to be able to survive at least one missed delivery unless they'd run out of some vital part, which I suspect ISS logistics take great care to never happen.

That engine would have never flown on other missions.

I'm having a little trouble parsing what you're saying. By "that engine" do  you mean the Merlin 1c variant, which is being phased out, or the Merlin engine design as a whole?

If you meant the latter then you appear to be saying the design is only fit for low reliability launches when the goal is to be human rated and human carrying (along with at least some payloads from the EELV contract).

That would be a serious accusation so could I just check that's what your saying?

I'm aware of the idea that fewer parts -> higher reliability provided nothing goes wrong but if something does go wrong with no engine out capability then the whole mission is lost.

Spacex completed it's primary mission to the ISS despite a partial engine failure. ULA is the "Spirit of St. Louis" model of reliability. Spacex's is the Boeing/Airbus model. Both had their place in history but I know which one I'd choose to fly on.