-
How Should ULA’s Business Model Change going Forward? by Lobo on 15 Jan, 2013 18:46
-
I looked back a couple of thread pages, but couldn’t find any topic specifically about this. Basically, what I’m wondering, is what changes to their product line and business model going forward should ULA do, if any? (Maybe what they are doing is fine and will sustain them for another decade?)
I’m certainly no expert on ULA’s operation or history, but I think I know enough to figure out the reason they have two LV’s. Boeing(McDonnell-Dougla)s and Lockheed-Martin each had their own LV’s, and the merger to ULA was sort of to settle LM’s lawsuits against Boeing for some information theft??
That and Boeing wanted to get out of the market completely, but the government didn’t want them to. So it was an overall compromise.
I’m assuming the reason the government didn’t want Boeing to get out was they wanted to LV’s for redundancy in the EELV program? As both LV’s were new and in case there was problem with Atlas V? Since Titan IV was retired.
But today, both LV’s have proven very reliable, so I wouldn’t think there’s as much need for two separate LV’s any more. And meeting USAF’s needs have make both EELV’s very expensive for commercial customers. So with little commercial business, ULA’s primarily gotten just government business which is limited. And what business there is, is split up between two LV programs. Thus we see just seemingly one or two launches of each per year. So what is the reason today and going forward for ULA to operate both LV’s? Obviously I’m assuming the government currently wants them to do so, and thus paying those high prices to maintain both systems to have them available.
But will that continue? Should that continue? Can’t ULA commonize on just one LV and one upper stage and try to bring the costs down, which might allow them to get more commercial business too?
Now add to that mix SpaceX, which sounds like they will get the opportunity to start bidding on government launch contracts in the future (I believe I’ve read around the site), -could- be a competitor of theirs in the future, although not the immediate future. And even if SpaceX only gets –some- government business, like some payloads that can be horizontally integrated (as I haven’t heard any plans for SpaceX to build a new VIF at LC-40 or VAFB), that would reduce ULA’s currently low launch rate even more. And that remaining business is still split between two LV systems.
Just seems like there would or will have to be some discussions by ULA and USAF/DoD to streamline to just a single LV system, with maximum commonality. I would assume Atlas V would probably be the LV of choice, as I think it’s cheaper to make, and smaller, and other than giving up a couple of tonnes to D4H, covers all of the rest of the Delta IV line. Also it’s getting the investment to man-rate it for commercial crew, which I would suspect at least CST-100 will get a contract, even if DC does not.
So, is there any plans or concepts at ULA to streamline to just the Atlas V? Maybe develop the AVH to replace the D4H?
Or to streamline to just an Atlas Phase 2? Which should still be man-rated as Atlas V will be man-rated. Maybe Centaur is retired, and DCSS is used on it? Or the stretched DCSS used as iCPS on SLS Block 1?
Would an Atlas Phase 2 with DCSS upper stage really be any more expensive to produce per unit than a Delta IV Medium (5,2)? Two RD-180’s vs. one RS-68 + two GEM-60’s. The rest of the costs should be about the same, but Atlas Phase 2 core would actually be shorter with less metal than the D4 core I think. And you get more than a D4H’s capacity.
Even though it’s more capacity than a lot of payloads need, if you make just that one LV with that one upper stage, and just “mass produce” it. Especially if the LV is about the same cost as a Delta IV medium. And you automatically double the flight rate since the missions aren’t split between two LV’s. And maybe pick up a few more launches a year of CST-100 to the ISS, as well as some more commercial work if the costs come down.
I would think the 5m Atlas Phase 2 core could be launched from LC-37 and SLC-6 with not a lot of modifications, as those facilities are already set up to handle 5m core LV’s. And the Atlas Phase 2 cores would be shorter (about 9m shorter I think) so the doors should handle it fine and the and platforms should be able to be moved down without too much hassle. RP-1 tanks would need to be added to both obviously.
Obviously ULA has been kicking around Atlas Phase 2 for some time, I just assume there’s been no payloads that a D4H can’t handle, and the government has been subsidizing both lines to keep them active?
So, going forward, will/should ULA stream line to just one existing LV? Or perhaps merge both lines into an Atlas Phase 2? Or just keep doing what they are doing and hope USAF/DoD keeps paying them enough to split a handful of missions each year between the two LV’s and maintain them both?
(I’m assuming Jim will have a lot of insight on this…if we can get him to say more than one sentence. :-) )
-
#1 by edkyle99 on 15 Jan, 2013 19:10
-
ULA is already at work on its future plans. One step is RL10C, which will reconfigure excess Delta 4 upper stage engines to power Centaur stages on Atlas 5. Another is, reportedly, a plan to work toward common avionics for Atlas and Delta (basically replacing Delta's outmoded system with the Atlas hardware).
RS-68A is allowing ULA to begin producing a true "common" core for all Delta 4 variants. There are signs that the 4-meter diameter Delta 4 upper stage may be on the way out, longer term. Meanwhile, the 5-meter stage is going to fly on SLS.
ULA can't get rid of Delta because it needs the Heavy. It would need to get megabucks from the Pentagon for Atlas 5 Heavy first, which seems unlikely.
- Ed Kyle -
#2 by cordor on 15 Jan, 2013 19:35
-
Delta 4 heavy don't seems to be able to complete with FH.
-
#3 by Jim on 15 Jan, 2013 19:41
-
Delta 4 heavy don't seems to be able to complete with FH.
FH does not have a flight and until it does from both coasts, it is not able to compete with Delta IV heavy -
#4 by baldusi on 15 Jan, 2013 20:12
-
Delta 4 heavy don't seems to be able to complete with FH.
Why do you say that? Are you comparing LEO 200km x 28 or GTO x 15 deg, or GSO?
Are you talking abouta Fairing sizes?
Are you talking about mission lengths?
Upper stage restarts?
Overall reliability? -
#5 by simonbp on 15 Jan, 2013 20:35
-
Delta 4 heavy don't seems to be able to complete with FH.
FH does not have a flight and until it does from both coasts, it is not able to compete with Delta IV heavy
Yes, but that's going to happen much faster than ULA could possibly come up with a Falcon Heavy competitive vehicle. So, Delta has the advantage for the next few years, but it's difficult to imagine it surviving after Falcon Heavy becomes fully operational.
Which is exactly Lobo's point: ULA needs a new business model, or they will be gradually edged out of existence by losing more and more government launch contracts. In the last round of EELV buys, about 1/3 of the cores authorized were to be competed (which favors SpaceX). Assuming no disaster, next time it will be at least most of the cores competed, and that's not good for ULA.
Personally, if I were in charge of ULA, I'd be pushing to get all the IP from Lockheed Martin's RBS entry transfered over to ULA and then continue to develop it with internal funds. A large factor why USAF canceled RBS was not because they didn't want a reusable first stage, but because they saw several companies (i.e. SpaceX and Blue Origin) developing EELV-class reusable first stages and didn't see the need to subsidize development. That rather puts ULA on the spot to either fund its own reusable first stage or give up on winning future contracts. -
#6 by edkyle99 on 15 Jan, 2013 20:51
-
Lets keep something in mind when it comes to Falcon Heavy. It is a new rocket.
It uses engines that have not yet flown, on stages that have not yet flown, with a payload fairing that hasn't flown, from pads that have not yet been completed (or, in one case, even started).
The core will be 30% taller than the existing Falcon 9. That's a whole new arena of flight control that hasn't flown. Not yet.
Heavy can't fly until F9 v1.1 flies, successfully. Assuming all of this works, and Falcon Heavy flies and works, the Pentagon is not going to jump on board with both feet. This rocket is going to have to prove itself. Over several years and several launches. (Keep in mind that the most recent Falcon 9 failed, so success is not guaranteed.)
Even then, there is no guarantee that it will actually be cheaper than Delta 4 Heavy. Remember that Delta 4 Heavy was originally supposed to cost $150 million - it was in all the news reports in the years before it finally flew. The reports, of course, were wrong. It probably costs three or four or more times that much today. I take projections of Falcon Heavy costs with that history in mind.
- Ed Kyle -
#7 by Lurker Steve on 15 Jan, 2013 21:50
-
Delta 4 heavy don't seems to be able to complete with FH.
FH does not have a flight and until it does from both coasts, it is not able to compete with Delta IV heavy
Yes, but that's going to happen much faster than ULA could possibly come up with a Falcon Heavy competitive vehicle. So, Delta has the advantage for the next few years, but it's difficult to imagine it surviving after Falcon Heavy becomes fully operational.
Which is exactly Lobo's point: ULA needs a new business model, or they will be gradually edged out of existence by losing more and more government launch contracts. In the last round of EELV buys, about 1/3 of the cores authorized were to be competed (which favors SpaceX). Assuming no disaster, next time it will be at least most of the cores competed, and that's not good for ULA.
Personally, if I were in charge of ULA, I'd be pushing to get all the IP from Lockheed Martin's RBS entry transfered over to ULA and then continue to develop it with internal funds. A large factor why USAF canceled RBS was not because they didn't want a reusable first stage, but because they saw several companies (i.e. SpaceX and Blue Origin) developing EELV-class reusable first stages and didn't see the need to subsidize development. That rather puts ULA on the spot to either fund its own reusable first stage or give up on winning future contracts.
I'm not sure they need to go the reusable route to compete. They just need to reduce costs. Maybe part of that is squeezing more costs out of their suppliers (PWR). I don't know how many RL-10s ULA has in stock, but their manifest over the next couple of years looks like a opportunity to perform a rather large block purchase, which should add up to some sort of discounted price (or alternate US engine selection). -
#8 by Hyperion5 on 15 Jan, 2013 23:09
-
Heavy can't fly until F9 v1.1 flies, successfully. Assuming all of this works, and Falcon Heavy flies and works, the Pentagon is not going to jump on board with both feet. This rocket is going to have to prove itself. Over several years and several launches. (Keep in mind that the most recent Falcon 9 failed, so success is not guaranteed.)
If we're going to define a partial failure as a full-on failure, Ed, then both the Atlas V and Delta IV have suffered "failures". Spacex is going to learn from that moment and be better for it. Besides, the Falcon 9 did manage to handle the situation pretty well. There was no vehicle disintegration like there was on the Ariane 5's first launch, and you'll notice the Ariane 5 is one of the dominant GTO launchers today.
----
As for changing ULA's business plan? I've got a few ideas from ULA's own pages. http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/product_cards/guides/AtlasVUsersGuide2010.pdf
1.4.6 Atlas V Future Enhancements
Section 8 provides insight to the Atlas V customer community of the Atlas V program plans for enhancing the Atlas V launch vehicle to meet launch services requirements of the 21st Century.
Future enhancements include:
1. Large diameter & longer PLF
2. Common Upper Stage
3. Wide-Body Booster (WBB)
4. Heavy-Lift Evolution
5. Centaur Sun Shield (CSS)
For the latest information on future and current enhancements please contact ULA.
------
If I were in charge of their product planning, I'd change the Atlas V design to the wide-body booster (5 m) with the Delta IV 5m upper stage and continue adding PLF options. Around 2020, when I expect the Falcon Heavy might qualify for its first true DoD missions, I'd kill off the Delta IV and replace the Delta IV Heavy with the Atlas V Heavy. I know that wouldn't be cheap, but in my eyes inaction is a bigger risk than investing the money to make it happen. This single family approach would max out the Atlas V family's flight rate and should bring down costs. Assuming that wasn't enough, I'd upgrade the upper stage to the ACES, preferably using a newer engine (NGE or RL-10C) that is more easily mass-produced. I'd replace the RD-180 with the AJ-1-E6 not long afterwards and look into adding engine-out redundancy to the US for better reliability.
More ambitiously I'd probably look into a more advanced, potentially reusable design for the Atlas VI if Spacex keeps pushing farther with Grasshopper. In terms of business, although it might be too much to hope, I'd try to control prices and compete for at least some commercial contracts to make up for Orbital & Spacex cutting into NASA & DoD business.
-
#9 by edkyle99 on 16 Jan, 2013 03:06
-
If we're going to define a partial failure as a full-on failure, Ed, then both the Atlas V and Delta IV have suffered "failures".
I do count the EELV failures, and the successes. There have been 53 EELV successes. Falcon v1.1 and Heavy need to prove themselves equally reliable, which is not a given and will take time.QuoteIf I were in charge of their product planning, I'd change the Atlas V design to the wide-body booster (5 m) with the Delta IV 5m upper stage and continue adding PLF options.
But isn't high cost the EELV problem? Wouldn't making EELV fatter and heavier exacerbate the problem? Europe is thinking about shrinking Ariane to cut costs.
- Ed Kyle -
#10 by baldusi on 16 Jan, 2013 04:45
-
But isn't high cost the EELV problem? Wouldn't making EELV fatter and heavier exacerbate the problem? Europe is thinking about shrinking Ariane to cut costs.
I've seen three modern theories about scalability. Use cores plus solids (EELV), which you can only made with Vertical Integration (at least at the solids side), use many small cores (Angara and Long March 5), use just two cores, have a single and a heavy version and apply all your savings to making the heavy cheap enough (like Falcon 9/Heavy and Ariane 6).
It seems to me that the current EELV's are exactly what the government ordered. May be, just may be, if they move to Wide Centaur with IVF, and wide core and do away with the solids, or at least do like the Delta IV and only have the expensive vertical integration on the pad when required, an Atlas V Ph2 with no solids could cover everything currently on the manifest but a couple of NROL (I'm assuming) and with dual manifesting might even be commercially competitive.
And if they went with a single RD-175, they might simply cover everything with a single launcher, no need for solids. Just two stages (Ph2 + Wide Centar), one faring with, may be, a couple of fairing extensions, and horizontal integration until sending it to the pad. The economics should lower a lot of overhead. I don't think that the current cost of an 401 is very competitive.
I mean, from what I've seen, the marginal cost of each rocket is not that bad, it's the whole supporting infrastructure and dual production lines (though they are consolidating). -
#11 by Lobo on 16 Jan, 2013 06:26
-
If we're going to define a partial failure as a full-on failure, Ed, then both the Atlas V and Delta IV have suffered "failures".
I do count the EELV failures, and the successes. There have been 53 EELV successes. Falcon v1.1 and Heavy need to prove themselves equally reliable, which is not a given and will take time.QuoteIf I were in charge of their product planning, I'd change the Atlas V design to the wide-body booster (5 m) with the Delta IV 5m upper stage and continue adding PLF options.
But isn't high cost the EELV problem? Wouldn't making EELV fatter and heavier exacerbate the problem? Europe is thinking about shrinking Ariane to cut costs.
- Ed Kyle
The cost of EELV's is the problem, but I think very little of that cost is a factor of the amount of alloy in the tanks and barrel.
Besides, Delta IV is -aready- a 5m "wide body" booster. I don't think the problem is it's size, it's the overhead given the very low production rate.
I would think the actual cost of the alloy and the fuel are a very small part of the cost per LV.
A Ford F150 is "bigger and fatter" than a Lamborgini, but costs only a fraction of the price, because a million of them roll off the assembly line every year vs. a few hundred (or thousand, or whatever rate Lamborgini's are built).
A little of the cost might be in the Lamborgini's high performance components, but much of it is probaboy economics of scale.
If Ford only built 1000 F150's a year, the cost per truck would probably be very expensive because those 1000 trucks would have to support the entire cost of the production line. Even worse if it's just 3 or 4 trucks a year.
I think you get costs down more by getting commonality and production rate up, than going smaller per se.
Barring some severe problem with what prices SpaceX really needs to sell F9 v1.1 for, it will be a more powerful (first stage) rocket than either a single stick Atlas V or Delta IV, but much cheaper.
I think SpaceX is on the right track as far as production rate and commonality. Everything uses the same upper stage, the same engines, the same MPS, the same cores, the same propellants, etc.
It doesn't matter if a customer only needs 1/2 of what a F9 can do, the F9 cost is such that they still use it, driving up production scale further.
From the outside looking in, this would -seem- to be the way ULA ought to go. Since they already have 5m core and tank tooling, it's not like they have to make a -new- investment for it. They already are making a 5m upper stage. A 5m Atlas Phase 2 would need the tanking and plumbing changed, and barrel shortened, for the different propellant ratios, but I wouldn't think that would be a bad expense. once the existing tooling is adjusted for the new lengths, all the same existing equipment should still be used.
REtire the 3.71m production line, as well as the Centaur production line. Stop buying RS-68's. Make every core the shorter, kerolox version of the curent Delta IV 5m core, put two RD-180's on the bottom and a DCSS on the top, and put everything on that. No SRB's, no two types of RL-10's, no 3 different upper stages, no two different cores, no two different avionics. One booster engine, one CCB first stage, one upper stage, and one PLF (either the Delta 5m, or Atlas 5.4m). And that's it.
No chocolate, vanilla, straberry and rocky road ice cream. Just Vanilla...and make lots and LOTS of vanilla.
But again, that's from the outside looking in with my limited knowledge. That's why I'm asking. :-) -
#12 by Lobo on 16 Jan, 2013 07:09
-
Yes, but that's going to happen much faster than ULA could possibly come up with a Falcon Heavy competitive vehicle. So, Delta has the advantage for the next few years, but it's difficult to imagine it surviving after Falcon Heavy becomes fully operational.
Which is exactly Lobo's point: ULA needs a new business model, or they will be gradually edged out of existence by losing more and more government launch contracts. In the last round of EELV buys, about 1/3 of the cores authorized were to be competed (which favors SpaceX). Assuming no disaster, next time it will be at least most of the cores competed, and that's not good for ULA.
Well, my -question- is does ULA need a new business model?, because from the outside, it seems like they should.
It seems like they are doing things about as inefficiently as possible with two separate LV lines to split between a limited number of annual launches. Partly the result of the low flight right, and partly due to government requirement, prices are so high that commercial markets have mostly gone to other providers like Araine, Russia, and soon to be SpaceX.
There are reasons it is what it is, like how ULA was formed, and government wanting redundancy. I get that. But it seems like today much has changed or is changing, and is there still enough reason for ULA to keep going the way they've been going? Or could/should still change, and ULA try to see if they can go with a cheaper, more common single LV that would meet USAF's requirements for EELV's, but be able to compete and try to get more commercial work? With all of their infrastruction and experience with USAF's requirements, could they streamline, and still keep that reliability up for the government?
I suppose that's a shorter version of why I started this thread.
-
#13 by Lobo on 17 Jan, 2013 22:43
-
Delta 4 heavy don't seems to be able to complete with FH.
FH does not have a flight and until it does from both coasts, it is not able to compete with Delta IV heavy
Jim,
What is your opinion on ULA's business model going forward? Any desire by them or USAF to streamline to perhaps just one LV? Especially given the very successful track record of Atlas and Delta? Are two separate LV's really needed by USAF today and going forward?
And SpaceX won't be eating into any of their business in the near future, but I have to think ULA would be aware of that potential down the road, at least on government payloads which can be horizontally integrated. Wouldn't they? Even if SpaceX were to only nibble off like 20% of government payloads, that's 20% of an already limited number of yearly launches that would still be split between two LV's. Seems like ULA would have to charge even more per launch to keep both lines open.
If USAF is still willing to pay it to keep the two EELV's at thier disposal, then I suppose ULA would have not reason or need to change anything. But from the outside looking in, it seems like an untennable business model at worst, and a highly inefficient one at best.
At least from the outside...what say you? -
#14 by Hyperion5 on 17 Jan, 2013 23:06
-
Delta 4 heavy don't seems to be able to complete with FH.
FH does not have a flight and until it does from both coasts, it is not able to compete with Delta IV heavy
Jim,
What is your opinion on ULA's business model going forward? Any desire by them or USAF to streamline to perhaps just one LV? Especially given the very successful track record of Atlas and Delta? Are two separate LV's really needed by USAF today and going forward?
And SpaceX won't be eating into any of their business in the near future, but I have to think ULA would be aware of that potential down the road, at least on government payloads which can be horizontally integrated. Wouldn't they? Even if SpaceX were to only nibble off like 20% of government payloads, that's 20% of an already limited number of yearly launches that would still be split between two LV's. Seems like ULA would have to charge even more per launch to keep both lines open.
If USAF is still willing to pay it to keep the two EELV's at thier disposal, then I suppose ULA would have not reason or need to change anything. But from the outside looking in, it seems like an untennable business model at worst, and a highly inefficient one at best.
At least from the outside...what say you?
Tempting Jim to respond, eh? Good luck with that.
The best bet I'd think is hedging on ULA moving towards common avionics and upper stage. After that, I think they really need to move everything to a single production plant. I still say they ought to kill off Delta in a few years and concentrate everything on the cheaper Atlas family. They'll need to invest in some pad upgrades and in the Atlas family, but inaction does not seem a smart strategy in the face of growing competition. They should save money in the long run by reducing their fixed costs by halving their number of plants, launchpads, chopping their number of upper stages from 3 to 1, and halving their CCB count along with their lower stage engine types. If they go to the Wide-body booster design (5 m) and add a second RD-180 they should be able to eliminate their need for solids. That'd make things quite simple with only 2 engines, 2 stages, 1 avionics package, and 2 pads to use. That would at least make it a tougher fight for Spacex and potentially Orbital.
-
#15 by Lobo on 17 Jan, 2013 23:14
-
Even then, there is no guarantee that it will actually be cheaper than Delta 4 Heavy. Remember that Delta 4 Heavy was originally supposed to cost $150 million - it was in all the news reports in the years before it finally flew. The reports, of course, were wrong. It probably costs three or four or more times that much today. I take projections of Falcon Heavy costs with that history in mind.
- Ed Kyle
I had no idea what the original cost estimates for Detla 4 Heavy were to be. But let's pull on this thread a little. Why are the actual rates so much higher? When were those old estimates given? Delta IV Heavy flew two years before the formation of ULA. Were they under the assumption of perhaps MD, then Boeing-MD were get a sole EELv supplier contract? So that the production rate would be for the full annual government manifest, plus cheap enough to land a good chunk of the commercial market?
If so, then the fact that D4 cores are only produced at a fraction of the rate that they may have been estimated to be producted could be part of that. I remember someoen saying that RS-68 would be a very cheap engine if the production rate was sufficient.
Also, I imagine MD, then Boeing, then ULA inherrited all of the heritage liability as that progressed, like union costs and political forces, being as large as they are. So, you might have massively high overhead with very low production, which is always a recipe for high costs. Now add to that that ULA has not gotten very much commercial business (I assume due to high costs), and that they have to split up what limited business they do get...primarily from the government...between two LV with basically overlapping capabilities. Seems like about the most inefficient way possible. Which -could- be why costs are 3-4 times what they were initially estimated to be.
If that -is- the case, then the only way SpaceX's costs would go up 3-4 times too, woul be if they get locked into the same situation. They'd have to split up their business between two completely different LV’s with completely different equipment, engines, infrastructures, and launch facilities. And those LV’s would have to be sort of managed by two different groups that weren’t necessarily trying to work together in all things (like Boeing and LM), with competing turf-wars, etc. And they’d have to unionize, and take on a lot of legacy liabilities.
However…none of those things are likely to be a factor in SpaceX’s business plan. Quite the opposite it would seem. They have a single CEO/owner, and thus a single goal and vision. They are new, so there is no legacy liabilities or unions liabilities. They seem to be striving for maximum commonality and streamlining, and going with as much “off-the-shelf” as possible. They seem to be specifically going after the commercial market by focusing on keep costs down to a level where they will get a big chunk of that market. Which will get production rates up, and help keep costs down. If they are flying a single LV (including F9 & FH as one LV because of commonality), and flying it 20 times a year, probably the cost per launch will be much less than if you are flying two LV’s, each 1-3 times per year.
I am certainly no expert, and FH could very well end up being much more expensive than planned. But…I think probably a lot of ULA’s cost issues are a combination of specifically catering to the government (which is complicated, beuracratic, and expensive), and the legacy of how they were formed, as well as maintaining two redundant LV’s which don’t even compete with each other. It might be better if Boeing and LM competed for contracts, but in their formation, they had a monopoly on the government launching business for a decade…which is usually a situation where things get more costly, not less.
-
#16 by Lobo on 17 Jan, 2013 23:26
-
Tempting Jim to respond, eh? Good luck with that. The best bet I'd think is hedging on ULA moving towards common avionics and upper stage. After that, I think they really need to move everything to a single production plant. I still say they ought to kill off Delta in a few years and concentrate everything on the cheaper Atlas family. They'll need to invest in some pad upgrades and in the Atlas family, but inaction does not seem a smart strategy in the face of growing competition. They should save money in the long run by reducing their fixed costs by halving their number of plants, launchpads, chopping their number of upper stages from 3 to 1, and halving their CCB count along with their lower stage engine types. If they go to the Wide-body booster design (5 m) and add a second RD-180 they should be able to eliminate their need for solids. That'd make things quite simple with only 2 engines, 2 stages, 1 avionics package, and 2 pads to use. That would at least make it a tougher fight for Spacex and potentially Orbital.
Actually, I am more begging Jim to indulge my curiosity because I think his views on this would be the most informative in the real world. We can speculate all we want, but I think most of us will have criteria we don’t know how to factor in that he does.
As to your other comments. I think Atlas Phase 2 using the Delta’s 5m tooling, and going with a common DCSS, and launching it from the Delta Launch facilites would be the –best- plan going forward, in the long run for reasons we’ve both mentioned.
However, what might be the fastest/cheapest in the short term, and a decent option in the long run, would be to upgrade Delta with the Atlas avionics (sounds like Atlas has the better avionics?), retire Altas completely, and just fly D4 and D4H. At least now you are getting commonality in infrastructure and hardware. Delta IV could also be upgraded with lighter weight Al-Li for better performance (according to Boeing’s slides anyway). And D4H could mount 6 GEM-60’s, to get LEO performance in the 30-40mt range and be very similar to what FH will likely do, with much better GTO performance…if/when necessary.
One problem with this, would be what to do with CST-100 and DC, as the RD-180 is the one that will be getting the man-rating upgrade. Not sure what they’d do about that. But if they could figure something out, then maybe they could just streamline on an upgraded Delta IV system. Commercial crew might be a mute point if NASA downselects to only SpaceX. In which case there won’t be a need for a man-rated RD-180.
-
#17 by Hyperion5 on 20 Jan, 2013 07:17
-
Tempting Jim to respond, eh? Good luck with that. The best bet I'd think is hedging on ULA moving towards common avionics and upper stage. After that, I think they really need to move everything to a single production plant. I still say they ought to kill off Delta in a few years and concentrate everything on the cheaper Atlas family. They'll need to invest in some pad upgrades and in the Atlas family, but inaction does not seem a smart strategy in the face of growing competition. They should save money in the long run by reducing their fixed costs by halving their number of plants, launchpads, chopping their number of upper stages from 3 to 1, and halving their CCB count along with their lower stage engine types. If they go to the Wide-body booster design (5 m) and add a second RD-180 they should be able to eliminate their need for solids. That'd make things quite simple with only 2 engines, 2 stages, 1 avionics package, and 2 pads to use. That would at least make it a tougher fight for Spacex and potentially Orbital.
Actually, I am more begging Jim to indulge my curiosity because I think his views on this would be the most informative in the real world. We can speculate all we want, but I think most of us will have criteria we don’t know how to factor in that he does.
As to your other comments. I think Atlas Phase 2 using the Delta’s 5m tooling, and going with a common DCSS, and launching it from the Delta Launch facilites would be the –best- plan going forward, in the long run for reasons we’ve both mentioned.
However, what might be the fastest/cheapest in the short term, and a decent option in the long run, would be to upgrade Delta with the Atlas avionics (sounds like Atlas has the better avionics?), retire Altas completely, and just fly D4 and D4H. At least now you are getting commonality in infrastructure and hardware. Delta IV could also be upgraded with lighter weight Al-Li for better performance (according to Boeing’s slides anyway). And D4H could mount 6 GEM-60’s, to get LEO performance in the 30-40mt range and be very similar to what FH will likely do, with much better GTO performance…if/when necessary.
One problem with this, would be what to do with CST-100 and DC, as the RD-180 is the one that will be getting the man-rating upgrade. Not sure what they’d do about that. But if they could figure something out, then maybe they could just streamline on an upgraded Delta IV system. Commercial crew might be a mute point if NASA downselects to only SpaceX. In which case there won’t be a need for a man-rated RD-180.
I think the big problem with going exclusively with the Delta IV family is going to be cost. The Atlas V family is cheaper and flies more often, and thus seems the more logical of the two to use. There's also the fact that cheap all-hydrolox rockets are not exactly seen anywhere. The Chinese, French and Russians may now have some very nice hydrolox engines, but they are either used on relatively expensive (but reliable) launchers like the Ariane 5, or they're exclusively for use on upper stages (China & Russia). Atlas V Phase 2 seems to me to have fewer complications due to hydrogen only being used on the Centaur stage and the fact that unlike the Delta IV family it would likely not require solids to launch all Atlas V 401-551 payloads. That's something a 5 m Delta IV simply cannot do. -
#18 by edkyle99 on 20 Jan, 2013 19:05
-
I had no idea what the original cost estimates for Detla 4 Heavy were to be. But let's pull on this thread a little. Why are the actual rates so much higher?
As you went on to suggest, a big part of the cost has to do with EELV not proceeding as originally planned. It was supposed to be winner take all, but the Pentagon couldn't take the leap, deciding to keep two systems while simultaneously running into payload issues that cut the number of overall government launches. Delta 4, especially, was designed to support all of the EELV requirements, but was left with a fraction of the expected total work.
Another factor is the DoD requirements themselves, which require two launch sites, and systems and payload processing that requires more man-hours than commercial satellite campaigns. These same issues will add costs to Falcon, which makes me wonder how it can compete commercially while still meeting the DoD requirements.
- Ed Kyle -
#19 by joek on 20 Jan, 2013 20:33
-
I had no idea what the original cost estimates for Detla 4 Heavy were to be. But let's pull on this thread a little. Why are the actual rates so much higher?
As you went on to suggest, a big part of the cost has to do with EELV not proceeding as originally planned. It was supposed to be winner take all, but the Pentagon couldn't take the leap, deciding to keep two systems while simultaneously running into payload issues that cut the number of overall government launches. Delta 4, especially, was designed to support all of the EELV requirements, but was left with a fraction of the expected total work.
Also the no-show of the then projected Real Big Real Soon commercial launch market which colored many decisions way-back-when. Then compounded by seemingly perrenial EELV management issues, for which DoD at. al. have been spanked several times. (Search for "GAO EELV" and pull on that thread--enough reading and references to make even the strongest weep.)QuoteAnother factor is the DoD requirements themselves, which require two launch sites, and systems and payload processing that requires more man-hours than commercial satellite campaigns. These same issues will add costs to Falcon, which makes me wonder how it can compete commercially while still meeting the DoD requirements.
Those requirements will certainly add costs, some fixed and some variable. How much those costs can be isolated or apportioned to different classes of customers, and thus how much those costs will add to SpaceX's commercial side is an open question.
Arguably ULA's (and hence BLS and LMCLS) cost and management structure has evolved over the years to primarily serve one customer: the U.S. government, and in particular NSS (DoD, NRO, ...). Unwinding or segregating that from commercial is going to be difficult and will take time (assuming ULA-Boeing-LM choose that path).
The best bet I'd think is hedging on ULA moving towards common avionics and upper stage. After that, I think they really need to move everything to a single production plant. I still say they ought to kill off Delta in a few years and concentrate everything on the cheaper Atlas family. They'll need to invest in some pad upgrades and in the Atlas family, but inaction does not seem a smart strategy in the face of growing competition. They should save money in the long run by reducing their fixed costs by halving their number of plants, launchpads, chopping their number of upper stages from 3 to 1, and halving their CCB count along with their lower stage engine types. If they go to the Wide-body booster design (5 m) and add a second RD-180 they should be able to eliminate their need for solids. That'd make things quite simple with only 2 engines, 2 stages, 1 avionics package, and 2 pads to use. That would at least make it a tougher fight for Spacex and potentially Orbital.