-
#60
by
Jim
on 29 Jan, 2013 19:29
-
East coast heavies go to GSO.
The Phase II wide body Centaur on a 55X would provide a west coast heavy equivalent.
-
#61
by
Lobo
on 29 Jan, 2013 21:33
-
East coast heavies go to GSO.
The Phase II wide body Centaur on a 55X would provide a west coast heavy equivalent.
Thanks Jim. Would a Phase II wide body Centaur on a 55x privide an east coast equivalent of D4H launching from the Cape?
And by wide body Centaur, is that an ACES-41? or is that a different stage? As in, about 41mt of propelalnt? I see referenced to each used interchangably sometimes, so I'm not sure if that' what WBC woudl be, or if WBC is a different/smaller stage tahn ACES-41.
So I'm assuming that a DCSS on a 55x couldn't get enough capacity to replace D4H? (41mt vs. about 27mt? prop capacity) I was just thinking since the stage already axisted, and looks like it may be used by NASA, that it might not be a bad stage to use on Atlas 55x, unless there was some technical reason it couldn't be used?
Would it be cheaper/easier to develop and fly AVH with existing Centaur (or possibly 5m DCSS) as a D4H replacement?
Or would it be cheaper/easier to develop WBC (or ACES?) and just fly it on the 55x single stick config and not fly a tri-core config?
-
#62
by
joek
on 30 Jan, 2013 02:06
-
Given CCP needs, there's also DEC to consider in the mix of possible upper stages. at least for Atlas V. Not sure that will help or would be another low-volume variant ULA has to lug around for the foreseeable future (assuming Atlas gets a CTS contract)?
-
#63
by
Hyperion5
on 30 Jan, 2013 21:13
-
After that, I think they really need to move everything to a single production plant.
Essentially already done. Decatur now builds Delta cores, Delta second stages, Atlas cores and Centaurs.
That's good. But they still operate two different booster cores with two different upper stages (3 really including 4m DCSS), with two different booster engines, and two pairs of launch facilities. Everything separate, with really nothing shared (as far as my limited knowledge goes). Both systems basically have the same capabilities, so they are both really redundant.
And all of that splits a manifest that isn't even large enough to keep just one LV system working anywhere near full capacity.
So its good they consolidated production, but it still seems like about the most inefficient way possible to operate. Even if the government is footing the bil for you to operate that inefficiently.
I guess it would be like if SpaceX was working on another booster that would have the same capabilities as F9 and FH, but have nothing in common with it. It would be a hydrolox or methane first stage, with a hydrolox or methane 2nd stage. It would need new pads at the CApe and VAFB. It would duplicate F9 and FH's capabilites, but share nothing with it. And they would split their manifest with this new separate system.
I think a lot of people would scratch their head and wonder what the heck Elon was thinking, as that seems totally illogical and inefficient.
Yet that's what ULA does.
Now, ULA didn't really chose to do that, they were sort of pushed into forming and inherrited the liabilities and assets of Boeing and LM. But at this point right now, it seems like they woudl be looking at streamlining down to one common booster and upper stage, and try to get it's costs down and it's flight rate up.
Well at the very least all 4 m Delta IV cores and the 4 m DCSS are on their way out. It can't hurt going to a common 5 m DCSS and core for the Delta IV. That at least chops the number of different cores down to 2, and drops a full third of their upper stages. I think if ULA's going to survive long-term it has to be a fully independent business, not an appendage of a larger organization. Just look at Iridium and Motorola. Motorola took a huge brunt of losses creating the infrastructure for global satellite phone service, but Iridium wasn't turning a substantial profit until it was spun off as an independent firm. I suspect management benefits from a more focused business approach.
If I were making ULA into an independent firm, the first thing that'd have to happen is getting out from under Boeing and the Delta IV. To enable this, I'd invest in the infrastructure and engineering needed to make an Atlas V Heavy a reality. Then, when 2016 came around, the firm might be ready to take on Spacex with a more competitive approach. If I were assembling the next-gen "Atlas VI" I'd do a bit of picking and choosing.
Wide-body Booster--take advantage of Delta production facilities and make the new Atlas VI CCB 5 m in diameter.
5 m DCSS--The WBB allows you to use this, so why not save money and time and start with it? That gets you down to one upper stage.
Engines--I'd mount five AJ-500 engines on the new core, which should allow you to ditch all SRMs and if they're in an x-layout, you could potentially match Spacex in 1st stage reusability.
The new Atlas VI should then be able to just about do it all, though long-term I'd be looking into either cheaper hydrolox engines (and more of them for engine-out reliability) or methalox engines on the upper stage. You'd also probably have to make some pad upgrades for both the prospective Atlas VI and Atlas VI Heavy.
-
#64
by
Jim
on 30 Jan, 2013 22:25
-
Well at the very least all 4 m Delta IV cores and the 4 m DCSS are on their way out. It can't hurt going to a common 5 m DCSS and core for the Delta IV. That at least chops the number of different cores down to 2, and drops a full third of their upper stages.
Huh? Heavy uses 3 unique cores. 4m is not going away. Only the medium with no SRM is going away. 4m DCSS is not going way, until there is a common upperstage.
-
#65
by
deepseaskydiver
on 31 Jan, 2013 00:05
-
Perhaps comments from the George Sower's Q&A (
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29751.0;all) would be informative:
Implementing commonality between the Atlas and Delta product lines is a key element in increasing efficiency and reducing cost. In the first 5 years of ULA we have made great strides on the process and organization side of the house. And we are starting to make progress on the hardware side as well. The RL10C engine is an important example. Common Avionics is 100% internally funded and will reduce our avionics parts count by factors. ACES is the next big step.
So ULA is internally organizing to reduce duplication. For the hardware side, we can look forward to a couple things:
- Common RL-10
- Common avionics
- Common upper stage
After that, it becomes more of a guess, but the QA did have some other comments by Sowers that are interesting; basically saying that an Atlas V heavy is unlikely, but that 5m Atlas cores are an intriguing path forward.
Personally, I would not be surprised to see ULA moving towards trying to launch everything they can on Atlas, and only using Delta IV Heavy for the payloads that require it, especially once there's a common upper stage. That way there's no need to buy ATK solids, and (hopefully) lower costs for the Atlas aerojet solids with the (presumably) increased quantity there. Additionally, Delta core production is further simplified by dropping the medium/medium+ cores. The question with this, though, is do Delta costs then rise (wiping out any savings) because Delta infrastructure is not being used as much (especially the RS-68)? Tough to tell that looking in from the outside.
-
#66
by
Joel
on 31 Jan, 2013 00:25
-
I advocate that ULA simply accepts that they will not be able to compete with either Atlas V or Delta IV and go all-in on reusability. There are so many companies trying to make cheap expendable launchers that probably no one will make much money.
They should drop Atlas V completely and in the Delta IV, replace the RS-68 with twin RS-25 and develop VTVL booster fly-back and cross-feed.
*sigh*
-
#67
by
Joel
on 31 Jan, 2013 01:04
-
I advocate that ULA simply accepts that they will not be able to compete with either Atlas V or Delta IV and go all-in on reusability. There are so many companies trying to make cheap expendable launchers that probably no one will make much money.
They should drop Atlas V completely and in the Delta IV Heavy, replace the RS-68 with twin RS-25 and develop VTVL booster fly-back and cross-feed. The two side cores return to the pad. The center core goes to LEO and then returns to pad after a few orbits. Use a small kick-stage for BLEO. 6 identical engines, 3 identical cores (save for TPS).
-
#68
by
Lobo
on 31 Jan, 2013 03:19
-
I advocate that ULA simply accepts that they will not be able to compete with either Atlas V or Delta IV and go all-in on reusability. There are so many companies trying to make cheap expendable launchers that probably no one will make much money.
They should drop Atlas V completely and in the Delta IV Heavy, replace the RS-68 with twin RS-25 and develop VTVL booster fly-back and cross-feed. The two side cores return to the pad. The center core goes to LEO and then returns to pad after a few orbits. Use a small kick-stage for BLEO. 6 identical engines, 3 identical cores (save for TPS).
I don't think so.
First, reusability needs a pretty high flight rate to realize savings. I don't think ULA's current manifest is enough to justify it. They'd need to be able to cut their prices down enough to compete in the commercial market.
I think if they were to pursue it, they'd need to develop really a new booster entirely.
LM has looked at various techniques of mid-air capture of a jettisoned engine, etc, for partial reusability. And they never chose to adopt any of it.
I think if they were to go that route, they'd first have to streamline enough to get costs down to start getting more business than just the government. Then if there was a high enough flight rate to justify looking at reusability, they could.
That sort of what SpaceX is doing. Although their experimenting with grasshopper is probably premature as they've only launched a few F9's. But I think they hope to get a high enough flight rate to justify actually trying to implement it. Until then, I expect it'll be more of a pet side-project.
-
#69
by
sdsds
on 31 Jan, 2013 04:57
-
Joel has a good point. There's a chance SpaceX will make boost-back, powered-landing first stages look "easy." Were that to happen, any ULA business model that continued to fly expended first stages could be doomed. If RS-25 is 2.4 m in diameter, and two would fit under the 5.1 m Delta tanks, that might lead to a launch system able to compete with a reusable Falcon.
-
#70
by
Joel
on 31 Jan, 2013 09:23
-
My main point is that there is soon to be a huge overcapacity of expendable launchers in general. SpaceX, Orbital, maybe ATK, Europeans, Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, all of them compete with ULA for expandable launchers and the competition is only getting fiercer. What will inedibly happen is that all of them will lose money, unless they have significantly lower costs than all the other in some segment.
So, what I'm saying is that any attempt by ULA to compete with expendables is doomed to fail. At the same time, ULA has most of the hardware needed for a RLV and I think that you can argue that they are closer to achieving a RLV than any other entity. They have access to a large knowledge database, they are already working with hydrolox, which is the propellant of choice for RLV and there is an engine that they could use off-the-shelf, the SSME.
-
#71
by
Jim
on 31 Jan, 2013 11:26
-
So, what I'm saying is that any attempt by ULA to compete with expendables is doomed to fail.
Not true, RLV at low flight rates is worse than expendables.
-
#72
by
BrightLight
on 31 Jan, 2013 11:51
-
So, what I'm saying is that any attempt by ULA to compete with expendables is doomed to fail.
Not true, RLV at low flight rates is worse than expendables.
Maybe - the existing model for a rlv indicates that a low flight rate is costly
If xcor builds an orbital system as they claim they are interested in, they may have a better model. For now, ULA and SpaceX are building a system that works within the funding profiles here in the us. ULA uses reliability as a metric to beat the competition and right now it's working well.
-
#73
by
LouScheffer
on 31 Jan, 2013 13:30
-
My main point is that there is soon to be a huge overcapacity of expendable launchers in general. SpaceX, Orbital, maybe ATK, Europeans, Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, all of them compete with ULA for expandable launchers and the competition is only getting fiercer.
So, what I'm saying is that any attempt by ULA to compete with expendables is doomed to fail. [...]
This is not clear to me, if they decide to make a serious run at this. The question is, can technical experts learn low-cost faster than low-cost folks can learn the technical needs?
I used to work at HP back when it was a high-tech, high-cost, performance based, scientific instrument company. One division wanted to get into consumer computer peripherals. We laughed at them, saying that there was no way they could compete in products costing only a few hundred dollars. The manual alone (for the products we were currently building) cost more than their target build price.
But they surprised us. They studied how the low-cost guys did it and copied methods where appropriate. They put their R&D bucks into methods that could be produced at low cost, rather than those that had world-beating performance. They would introduce new models with lower performance but even lower cost.
Pretty soon, they were making more money than the old instrument builders. Soon after, HP as a whole decided to concentrate on this market, and spun out the scientific instruments as Agilent. Now they are almost completely a consumer, high volume, low-cost, company.
So leopards CAN change their spots, if they are sufficiently motivated and focused. However, I suspect the only way this might happen is if ULA is cast free of Boeing and LM, such that the jobs and futures of all concerned rest on making this work.
-
#74
by
Joel
on 31 Jan, 2013 15:14
-
So, what I'm saying is that any attempt by ULA to compete with expendables is doomed to fail.
Not true, RLV at low flight rates is worse than expendables.
This is besides the point. I'm saying that they won't be able to make money with expendables. If they also cannot make money with RLVs, they should just liquidate the whole rocket division.
I do think, however, that ULA has a better shot at getting a RLV than any other entity (including SpaceX). They would obviously need to dramatically cut the cost per flight and hope that this will translate into high flight rates. It's a high-risk, but potentially high-gain venture.
-
#75
by
Jim
on 31 Jan, 2013 15:20
-
So, what I'm saying is that any attempt by ULA to compete with expendables is doomed to fail.
Not true, RLV at low flight rates is worse than expendables.
This is besides the point. I'm saying that they won't be able to make money with expendables.
No, that can not be said. They are making money now and will continue to.
-
#76
by
Jim
on 31 Jan, 2013 15:23
-
I do think, however, that ULA has a better shot at getting a RLV than any other entity (including SpaceX). They would obviously need to dramatically cut the cost per flight and hope that this will translate into high flight rates. It's a high-risk, but potentially high-gain venture.
ULA only exists to operate the EELV's and their derivatives. A new RLV is not within their scope and would be up to Boeing or LM to develop.
-
#77
by
BrightLight
on 31 Jan, 2013 15:41
-
ULA has been using its reliability as a competitive tool against Ariane, Russian LV's and SpaceX. SpaceX has a shot at competing with both the Atlas and Delta once they can show a proven track record, I suspect this will take several years of continuous successful launches. Payload builders spending hundreds of millions on the payload (or more) are most concerned with getting that payload to the right orbit, right now IMO ULA is the best option. The cost reduction methods used by ULA are not transparent at this time but, I suspect as SpaceX becomes more viable, we shall see a reduction or stabilization in ULA cost structure.
-
#78
by
Joel
on 31 Jan, 2013 18:49
-
ULA has been using its reliability as a competitive tool against Ariane, Russian LV's and SpaceX. SpaceX has a shot at competing with both the Atlas and Delta once they can show a proven track record, I suspect this will take several years of continuous successful launches. Payload builders spending hundreds of millions on the payload (or more) are most concerned with getting that payload to the right orbit, right now IMO ULA is the best option. The cost reduction methods used by ULA are not transparent at this time but, I suspect as SpaceX becomes more viable, we shall see a reduction or stabilization in ULA cost structure.
ULA is not competitive against Ariane. They are kept alive artificially by the US gvmt, but it's just a matter of time before SpaceX overtakes them there. Now is the time for them to look ahead and be proactive. And with ULA I mean LM and/or Boeing. Probably Boeing if it builds on Delta IV.
-
#79
by
joek
on 31 Jan, 2013 21:59
-
ULA has been using its reliability as a competitive tool against Ariane, Russian LV's and SpaceX.
ULA--or in this context Boeing and LM commercial launch services--haven't been considered viable commercial providers for some time, and unless there are substantive changes in U.S. policy (edit: not to mention ULA's costs), that's unlikely to change in the foreseeable future; see:
National Security and the Commercial Space Sector, CSIS, July 2010
In particular:
C.1 Lack of reliable access to launch suppliers effectively reduces launch supply.
D.1 Limited access to U.S. launch opportunities for commercial satellites.