-
#40 by WHAP on 28 May, 2013 18:37
-
Except for the price to launch
This is why I think it's really to bad that USAF/DoD and NASA have never seemed to been able get together and come up with a single rocket family that could take care of both of their needs.
EELVs do take care of DOD and most of NASA's needs (except for small sats), now and in the future. NASA has no real requirements that need more than Delta IV heavy
.
For the near term that is true. A better priced launcher could be made with greater mass and volume to replace the Delta IV heavy, that includes greater performance to GTO.
For now and this thread, what could be done to help lower the costs of the Atlas V and Delta IV?
Would eliminating the Atlas V 400 series help?
Could the 500 series do the job of the 400 series then?
Could an RL-10 replacement help any?
1. How does eliminating the vehicle you fly most help cut your costs?
2. There's probably less difference between the vehicles than you realize. Flying a more expensive PLF and potentially another SRB to make up for the loss of performance does not help cut costs.
3. How much will it cost to develop that engine? How much will each engine cost at the end? If there's a business case, then yes. But the RL-10 replacement discussions have quieted down of late. -
#41 by Antares on 28 May, 2013 18:46
-
A better priced launcher could be made with greater mass and volume to replace the Delta IV heavy, that includes greater performance to GTO.
It could be in work with FH, if that's what you imply. If it were possible, someone would have done it.
How would you have made a "requirement" to have commercial customers? You would have demanded that Atlas and Delta take a loss on those commercial launches? Commercial satellite companies won't pay ULA prices, so the govt would have had to make up the (arbitrary) difference - and got WTO scrutiny.
Sorry, but your ideas do not float with a few more layers of the onion peeled.Trying to run a program with a 535-member board of directors where 3/4 get mad when you spend too much and 3/4 get mad when your launch becomes a ballistic missile makes me condescend to that BoD.
But is really Congress that drove it to this point, or the USAF? IIRC (please correct me), it was USAF's initiative to create ULA in order to "cut costs" and therefore justify not downselecting to one EELV?
Congress didn't drive it. It's Congress's irrational critiques that drive conservative strategies in Agencies. USAF did not initiate the formation of ULA. Boeing's intent to abandon Delta due to insufficient profit margins did. -
#42 by Lurker Steve on 28 May, 2013 19:19
-
3. How much will it cost to develop that engine? How much will each engine cost at the end? If there's a business case, then yes. But the RL-10 replacement discussions have quieted down of late.
Let's say that the replacement costs 20 million less than the current RL-10. That would be fairly generous, yes ? At the current usage of 10-12 engines per year, that's still only a savings of 200 million. Do you spend 1 Billion or more in development and testing costs, in order to realize a 5-year payback, best case ? That's for the USAF / DOD to decide, since it's their money.
-
#43 by ChileVerde on 28 May, 2013 19:20
-
Sorry, but your ideas do not float with a few more layers of the onion peeled.
I'm definitely going to keep that in mind as a candidate for my next .sig .
-
#44 by TrueGrit on 28 May, 2013 19:25
-
Disingenuous headline to say the least... Key point here "program to add 60 more launches and extend the schedule for a decade". The headline seems to indicate the cost increase were not due to a massive increase in scope. The reality is that the numbers of launches has increased 65% (91-to-151) and the period of performance increased 150% (15-to-25). Surprise, surprise those increase in scope didn't come for free.
-
#45 by baldusi on 28 May, 2013 19:37
-
...
The Fleet Standardization Program (which was supposed to have its CDR in Oct-2012), was supposed to move to common avionics (Atlas Vs), common fairings (mix of Delta IV and Altas V), true common core on DIV and full integration of RS-68A. and moving all Us to RL-10C. Thus, they are doing most of what you proposed.
ULA has made many cost reducing changes during the past few years. There are more changes that I imagine could be made.
1.Going to a common upper stage engine.
2.Shifting to common avionics for Atlas and Delta, eliminating RIFCA.
3. Eliminating the 4-meter Delta upper stage.
4. Shutting down one of the West Coast launch pads (Atlas only flies once per year, Delta once every other year, on average).
5.Common payload fairings?
6. Common upper stage?
7. Delete one of the EELVs entirely.
the next line of work is working on a common upper stage (apparently, ACES), which implicitly, would move from three US to just one And since ACES is 4.6m, and is enclosed in fairing, I guess it will eliminate the 4m and 5m difference. So, that would leave eliminating pads, and eliminating a whole line.
Here's the interesting point. If you look at the cost of developing Atlas V Heavy (around 500M), is within a single flight of those required. And if they are going to use a new upper stage, anyways, it might have better performance than even the new enhanced DIVH. The only problem is that it would be really bad on the industrial base.
Also, most West launches are Atlas V, but Delta IV Heavy have flown and we don't know if it's going to need to fly again. Thus, it might happen that they need the pad of the rocket most likely to be deleted.
But that's not all. Currently, they can have a failure that grounds one rocket, and do dual campaigns thanks to dual pads on each coast. Thus, eliminating one rocket line and pad would mean a change on the capabilities.
Now, if there's a new entrant that actually gets certified for those missions, they could eliminate one of the rocket lines and two pads without losing any capabilities. In other words, I think that if they value that capabilities that much, the current plan of trying to get efficiencies while helping other companies get certified is the right path.QuoteBeyond these options, I wonder about longer term planning. I wonder if the Pentagon, and NASA, might be better served by dropping entirely the idea of having a long term launch services contract like EELV. Instead, issue commercial type services contracts for launches of entire satellite families.
That's not how economics work. The truth is that developing and certifying a new rocket to the required capabilities level is a decade's work. But most importantly, each program, even GPS requires so little launches per year, that can't work as tenant to any LV. Thus, nobody is going to design a whole new rocket for a particular payload.
One contract, for example, could be for GPS. Another could be for WGS. Another for SBIRS. Others for various NRO satellite families. The result would be rockets tailored for satellites, which might result in smaller rockets for most launches and lower costs. Periodic all or nothing competitions would serve to reign in costs.
CRS is better in that regard. But it also has a completely different set of requirements and risk profile.
Also, each fleet has its own delays and schedule risk. But if you average all the programs together, you get a much smoother launch schedule. And a constant pace means lower costs.
The truth is that simply competing the launches won't mean low prices. This is a very customized and capabilities sensitive client, and game theory and experience says that bait and switch is a viable pricing strategy, even in the long run.
As long as the US doesn't have a strong commercial launch market, the government won't be able to significantly lower its launch cost. As simple as that. Costs are gonna balloon, requirements are going to grow exponentially if you want to keep the exceptional track record. You either have a commercial market where competition keep things affordable, or you go with a custom solution and pay through your nose. It's simple. Any further analysis is a more sophisticated evolution of the same concept. -
#46 by a_langwich on 28 May, 2013 19:43
-
This is why I think it's really to bad that USAF/DoD and NASA have never seemed to been able get together and come up with a single rocket family that could take care of both of their needs.
EELVs do take care of DOD and most of NASA's needs (except for small sats), now and in the future. NASA has no real requirements that need more than Delta IV heavy
To clarify, I'm guessing you are referring to unmanned launch needs, and I would agree with that statement.
For manned launches, neither EELV is designed/prepared for manned launches right now, and human ingress/egress facilities and emergency detection and abort capabilities are about as real a requirement as could be. Future plans, in the slightly less real category, have so far invariably called for more mojo than the EELVs provide. (For the depot apologists, note that I'm saying no PoR yet has taken depots as a given and down-sized future payload requirements to EELV sizes. If you take "requirement" to mean what NASA demands that a launch vehicle provide, Delta IV heavy does not meet that requirement.) -
#47 by Antares on 28 May, 2013 19:53
-
Sorry, but your ideas do not float with a few more layers of the onion peeled.
I'm definitely going to keep that in mind as a candidate for my next .sig .
I'll be applying for Jim Taranto's next Metaphor Alert. -
#48 by a_langwich on 28 May, 2013 20:23
-
But that's not all. Currently, they can have a failure that grounds one rocket, and do dual campaigns thanks to dual pads on each coast. Thus, eliminating one rocket line and pad would mean a change on the capabilities.
True, as written: currently. But all the standardization you listed above (common avionics, common US engines, etc) increases the chances that a failure will ground both fleets. In the short term, it doubly increases the chance, because the debut flights of the common system add a bit of risk, and if something goes wrong both vehicles are grounded. Still, common sense says it needs to be done. In a really vibrant market, both supply chains might be sustainable and both might provide different innovations, but that's not the way things are right now.QuoteAs long as the US doesn't have a strong commercial launch market, the government won't be able to significantly lower its launch cost. As simple as that. Costs are gonna balloon, requirements are going to grow exponentially if you want to keep the exceptional track record. You either have a commercial market where competition keep things affordable, or you go with a custom solution and pay through your nose. It's simple. Any further analysis is a more sophisticated evolution of the same concept.
Completely agree. Once the external market for launches dried up, there's not much the government could do, except try to manage costs as best possible, and hope the market changes. And maybe it has changed, in that new companies have entered, and there possibly might be enough commercial traffic to support activity. -
#49 by WHAP on 28 May, 2013 21:01
-
3. How much will it cost to develop that engine? How much will each engine cost at the end? If there's a business case, then yes. But the RL-10 replacement discussions have quieted down of late.
Let's say that the replacement costs 20 million less than the current RL-10. That would be fairly generous, yes ?
"Generous" is putting it mildly
. What do you think an RL-10 costs? And where did you come up with that number? Please don't reference another thread in this forum. Any time I've seen an RL-10 cost get thrown around it's one poster quoting another and adding 25%, with no true reference.
-
#50 by RocketmanUS on 29 May, 2013 03:23
-
1 and 2 ) My guess was so there would only be one type of core manufactured for the Atlas V and only one type of PLF. Would not have to keep both on hand for a 60 day to launch readiness. If the SRB's are all common then it might not be that much of a cost increase when on is needed do to the increased mass in the 5m fairing over the 4m.
Except for the price to launch
This is why I think it's really to bad that USAF/DoD and NASA have never seemed to been able get together and come up with a single rocket family that could take care of both of their needs.
EELVs do take care of DOD and most of NASA's needs (except for small sats), now and in the future. NASA has no real requirements that need more than Delta IV heavy.
For the near term that is true. A better priced launcher could be made with greater mass and volume to replace the Delta IV heavy, that includes greater performance to GTO.
For now and this thread, what could be done to help lower the costs of the Atlas V and Delta IV?
Would eliminating the Atlas V 400 series help?
Could the 500 series do the job of the 400 series then?
Could an RL-10 replacement help any?
1. How does eliminating the vehicle you fly most help cut your costs?
2. There's probably less difference between the vehicles than you realize. Flying a more expensive PLF and potentially another SRB to make up for the loss of performance does not help cut costs.
3. How much will it cost to develop that engine? How much will each engine cost at the end? If there's a business case, then yes. But the RL-10 replacement discussions have quieted down of late.
3 ) Commercial design on their dime. Some competitor might make a better engine than the RL-10 and be great for the ACES common US too. Even Pratt & Whitney might find it practical to design a new engine that might make them more profit with lower cost in manufacturing a new type of engine ( new manufacturing technics too ).
The new engine could be a throttable engine with lower to higher thrust than the RL-10. It could possible offer higher ISP and better T/W.
1 ) Not FH but a launch capable of greater mass to LEO and GTO than the Delta IVH. Two stage to LEO and 3rd stage or SEP for GTO/BLEO. Payload to use disposable payload canisters to fit in the larger fairing ( payloads placed in canisters fitted for the given payload. Canisters designed to then fit in a one sized all fairing. Idea of the canister came from the Venture Star X-33 program.A better priced launcher could be made with greater mass and volume to replace the Delta IV heavy, that includes greater performance to GTO.
It could be in work with FH, if that's what you imply. If it were possible, someone would have done it.
How would you have made a "requirement" to have commercial customers? You would have demanded that Atlas and Delta take a loss on those commercial launches? Commercial satellite companies won't pay ULA prices, so the govt would have had to make up the (arbitrary) difference - and got WTO scrutiny.
Sorry, but your ideas do not float with a few more layers of the onion peeled.
2 ) If I understand right ULA prices are high because of Air Force requirements. I believe with a second VIF and MLP for Atlas V and sharing the launch pad the commercial side would be competitive with other launchers. The second VIF and MLP would not have to be on stand by for a 60 readiness to launch but could also be used by the Air Force. With the possible use of SEP for GTO/BLEO commercial sats might not need DIVH so Atlas V could be the only one used for commercial use.
-
#51 by joek on 29 May, 2013 05:43
-
2 ) If I understand right ULA prices are high because of Air Force requirements. I believe with a second VIF and MLP for Atlas V and sharing the launch pad the commercial side would be competitive with other launchers. The second VIF and MLP would not have to be on stand by for a 60 readiness to launch but could also be used by the Air Force. With the possible use of SEP for GTO/BLEO commercial sats might not need DIVH so Atlas V could be the only one used for commercial use.
As the rules currently stand (and aren't likely to change), commercial would have to pay its fair share of ELC costs. For NASA that was estimated as much as $100M/flight (that is in addition to all other launch services costs). A high commercial launch rate might bring that down to levels which might allow ULA to be commercially competitive, but that's a big bet...
That is a significant reason why ULA is not commercially competitive and has less to do with DoD requirements and more to do with the fact that the DoD is paying a large chunk of the bill to maintain the launch infrastructure. ULA can not simply use that infrastructure (and the monies paid by DoD) to subsidize commercial business.
How do you get from here to there? Lots of money. Where does that money come from? Not from ULA-Boeing-LM, at least any time soon, and certainly not unless there is credible evidence that commercial launch would experience significant growth. Boeing-LM's likely response to that argument would be been-there-done-that, spent-billions based on that assumption, don't want to do it again.
Moreover, adding an Atlas V VIF and MLP (somewhere in the vicinity of $340M if Space Florida is to be believed) doesn't help unless ULA were able to financially segregate and firewall commercial from DoD. Given that ULA has had trouble identifying and justifying costs or late (c.f. "should cost" reviews), that is unlikely and would only add to ULA-Boeing-LM's risk.
Much of this has already been discussed in the thread How Should ULA’s Business Model Change going Forward?. -
#52 by Lurker Steve on 29 May, 2013 13:48
-
3. How much will it cost to develop that engine? How much will each engine cost at the end? If there's a business case, then yes. But the RL-10 replacement discussions have quieted down of late.
Let's say that the replacement costs 20 million less than the current RL-10. That would be fairly generous, yes ?
"Generous" is putting it mildly. What do you think an RL-10 costs? And where did you come up with that number? Please don't reference another thread in this forum. Any time I've seen an RL-10 cost get thrown around it's one poster quoting another and adding 25%, with no true reference.
I just made up a number for the cost savings.
In order for the RL-10 replacement program to pay for itself in a reasonable time period, the new engine has to be basically free, right ? It's impossible to re-coup the development costs unless you think the replacement engine will be around for another 30-40 years. -
#53 by edkyle99 on 29 May, 2013 13:48
-
The Fleet Standardization Program (which was supposed to have its CDR in Oct-2012), was supposed to move to common avionics (Atlas Vs), common fairings (mix of Delta IV and Altas V), true common core on DIV and full integration of RS-68A. and moving all Us to RL-10C. Thus, they are doing most of what you proposed.
I thought RL-10C was only going to fly on Centaur. Its use on Delta in place of RL-10B-2 would hurt that rocket's performance, though the only major difference is the presence or absence of the extendible nozzle, as I understand things.Quote
The reason I raise this question is the obvious challenge of designing a rocket to cover the entire Medium to Heavy category. Lockheed Martin chose to defer Heavy, to minimize costs. What if the entire EELV contract had been broken into smaller mass/orbit categories, resulting in multiple contests rather than "one size fits all"? A contractor could pick and choose which ranges to bid. A Heavy might end up just being a Heavy, and so on.QuoteBeyond these options, I wonder about longer term planning. I wonder if the Pentagon, and NASA, might be better served by dropping entirely the idea of having a long term launch services contract like EELV. Instead, issue commercial type services contracts for launches of entire satellite families.
That's not how economics work. The truth is that developing and certifying a new rocket to the required capabilities level is a decade's work. But most importantly, each program, even GPS requires so little launches per year, that can't work as tenant to any LV. Thus, nobody is going to design a whole new rocket for a particular payload.
One contract, for example, could be for GPS. Another could be for WGS. Another for SBIRS. Others for various NRO satellite families. The result would be rockets tailored for satellites, which might result in smaller rockets for most launches and lower costs. Periodic all or nothing competitions would serve to reign in costs.
CRS is better in that regard. But it also has a completely different set of requirements and risk profile.
I understand that the economics don't work out on paper, but then again the economics supposedly did work out on paper for EELV - until the bills came due.
- Ed Kyle -
#54 by Jim on 29 May, 2013 14:05
-
The reason I raise this question is the obvious challenge of designing a rocket to cover the entire Medium to Heavy category. Lockheed Martin chose to defer Heavy, to minimize costs.
Most of the costs would be in GSE. There isn't anything to change on the vehicle, just adding nose cones and forward attach fittings.
A heavy would require a whole new pad if not outfitting one that is shared with a medium.
LM did design a vehicle that only used one core design to cover the range, unfortunately, they weren't selected for the heavy mission. The contractor selected had to design 5 unique cores to cover the spectrum.
Also, the intermediate class vehicles were driven by commercial requirement and the military adopted them when it saw the cost savings of not requiring heavies for many missions. -
#55 by baldusi on 29 May, 2013 14:22
-
I understand that the economics don't work out on paper, but then again the economics supposedly did work out on paper for EELV - until the bills came due.
Regrettably, it's not a symmetric problem. In economics, if it does work on paper, it's difficult that ti works in reality. If it doesn't works on paper, it's almost impossible that it works on reality. It's not a very exact science. And the huge problem is that you either are good at making business and actually doing them, or are "good" at doing analysis, and thus telling about a thing you can't do in real life. A bit like a cinema critic, but with bigger economic consequences. -
#56 by edkyle99 on 29 May, 2013 14:26
-
Not building the Heavy pad(s) saved money, which was a decision about the overall launch system. If I remember correctly, Lockheed Martin even deferred building any West Coast Atlas 5 pad initially, until the stolen Boeing launches were restored.
The reason I raise this question is the obvious challenge of designing a rocket to cover the entire Medium to Heavy category. Lockheed Martin chose to defer Heavy, to minimize costs.
Most of the costs would be in GSE. There isn't anything to change on the vehicle, just adding nose cones and forward attach fittings.
A heavy would require a whole new pad if not outfitting one that is shared with a medium.
LM did design a vehicle that only used one core design to cover the range, unfortunately, they weren't selected for the heavy mission. The contractor selected had to design 5 unique cores to cover the spectrum.
Also, the intermediate class vehicles were driven by commercial requirement and the military adopted them when it saw the cost savings of not requiring heavies for many missions.
Your latter point, about intermediate "dial a rocket" alternatives, is an example of how a commercial solution not specified by the government can save money. What, I wonder, would Lockheed Martin have offered - if DoD had not demanded a common core approach - to launch a 3 tonne to LEO polar satellite. It surely would have been a different rocket than a 6 tonne to GTO machine.
- Ed Kyle -
#57 by Prober on 29 May, 2013 14:30
-
3. How much will it cost to develop that engine? How much will each engine cost at the end? If there's a business case, then yes. But the RL-10 replacement discussions have quieted down of late.
Let's say that the replacement costs 20 million less than the current RL-10. That would be fairly generous, yes ? At the current usage of 10-12 engines per year, that's still only a savings of 200 million. Do you spend 1 Billion or more in development and testing costs, in order to realize a 5-year payback, best case ? That's for the USAF / DOD to decide, since it's their money.
no need to manufacture more RL-10's at a lower cost when you have a stock of them for the Delta IV. -
#58 by Jim on 29 May, 2013 14:46
-
What, I wonder, would Lockheed Martin have offered - if DoD had not demanded a common core approach - to launch a 3 tonne to LEO polar satellite. It surely would have been a different rocket than a 6 tonne to GTO machine.
That was where the small class EELV vehicle was going to cover but in a cost reduction trade, that class was eliminated to reduce configurations to manage. A different rocket would require a different pad, infrastructure, GSE, etc and the associated costs. Again, these decisions were based on a vehicle that was flying many more missions and costs for using a larger vehicle would be less than fielding a whole different vehicle.
LM already responded by eliminating Atlas II & III. -
#59 by Lobo on 29 May, 2013 15:56
-
What, I wonder, would Lockheed Martin have offered - if DoD had not demanded a common core approach - to launch a 3 tonne to LEO polar satellite. It surely would have been a different rocket than a 6 tonne to GTO machine.
That was where the small class EELV vehicle was going to cover but in a cost reduction trade, that class was eliminated to reduce configurations to manage. A different rocket would require a different pad, infrastructure, GSE, etc and the associated costs. Again, these decisions were based on a vehicle that was flying many more missions and costs for using a larger vehicle would be less than fielding a whole different vehicle.
LM already responded by eliminating Atlas II & III.
Jim,
If the Atlas V were upgraded to accept more AtlasSRB's, maybe a little like the Delta II base, could it's LEO and GTO performance match or surpas Delta IV heavy?
Or are there prohibitive technical problems with doing that?
Physically it looks like there's room for maybe another 4 more. But obviously just because there's room for them, doesn't mean it's feasible to do it.
Just curious.
.
. What do you think an RL-10 costs? And where did you come up with that number? Please don't reference another thread in this forum. Any time I've seen an RL-10 cost get thrown around it's one poster quoting another and adding 25%, with no true reference.