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.
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.
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.
That bears repeating. What ULA can do is proscribed by the DOD and FTC decree, and to a much lesser extent by LM and Boeing.
The sole reason for ULA's and the EELV program's existence is the DOD's requirements for "assured access to space". DOD is paying for it, and they take a dim view of anyone or anything which puts the program at risk or tries to get in that sandbox--and that includes Boeing or LM so much as looking at ULA for any reason other than supporting the EELV program.
ULA--or in this context Boeing and LM commercial launch services--haven't been considered viable commercial providers for some time
No, it is the opposite. It is Boeing and LM limiting what ULA can do more than the gov't. LM and Boeing share ULA's revenue, and hence it is better for each to go alone on new projects where they get 100% of the revenue.
They haven't been generally considered competitive. But as recently as 2011 DigitalGlobe purchased through Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services launch on an Atlas (scheduled for 2014) for a nominally commercial payload.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/03/16/atlas-launch-digitalglobal-satellite/
In the past Intelsat has also used Atlas V (launched in 2009; purchased in 2004). With the Sea Launch loss of IS-27 Intelsat could conceivably turn to Atlas again for a high assurance launch of a replacement satellite.
The choices of DigitalGlobe and Intelsat might be influenced by the preferences of one of their customers, i.e. a government/defense related consumer of their services. (IS-27 would have hosted a military communications payload; DigitalGlobe's high resolution imaging -- well -- everyone likes that! ;-) )
Only about now (Landsat DCM will be the 36th Atlas V launch) do the statistics begin to "prove" what ULA claims about mission success. Maybe that can lead to a viable business serving customers for whom the "time value" of lost satellites is irreplaceable?
No, it is the opposite. It is Boeing and LM limiting what ULA can do more than the gov't. LM and Boeing share ULA's revenue, and hence it is better for each to go alone on new projects where they get 100% of the revenue.
At a first order, maybe....
DOD will allow changes in the name of cost savings only if those do not substantively alter the complexion of ULA, including two LV's. If DOD allowed ULA to rationalize to a single LV.....
There is no question, it is exactly what I said.
What is missing? Or are you saying that ULA is primarily constrained my Boeing/LM's unwillingness to increase investment in ULA (e.g., eithe increase equity or forego cash flows from ULA, or both)?
Both. Both companies cut off ULA years ago. And that the inventory supply agreement is still in affect is a clue.
What is missing? Or are you saying that ULA is primarily constrained my Boeing/LM's unwillingness to increase investment in ULA (e.g., eithe increase equity or forego cash flows from ULA, or both)?
Both. Both companies cut off ULA years ago. And that the inventory supply agreement is still in affect is a clue.
I found the leading question and on-going discussion interesting. The premise appears to be that ULA’s rockets are too expensive. What is the basis of this premise? What would a reasonable price be for an Atlas or Delta?
standing in the way of other, more promising approaches (SpaceX, Blue Origin, ...).
standing in the way of other, more promising approaches (SpaceX, Blue Origin, ...).
How is that?
standing in the way of other, more promising approaches (SpaceX, Blue Origin, ...).
How is that?
Ok, the connection to SpaceX and Blue is not watertight. But the main point is that the two companies that are possibly the best positioned to revolutionize access to space via innovation, LM and Boeing, don't appear to be moving in that direction. My impression is that the reason for this is short-sightedness; it would take a decade or more to get a (potentially huge) return-on-investment on developing a fully-reusable launcher. SpaceX and Blue stand out because they appear to be able to look beyond the next fiscal quarter.
The premise appears to be that ULA’s rockets are too expensive. What is the basis of this premise?
What would a reasonable price be for an Atlas or Delta?