-
#40 by thydusk666 on 26 Apr, 2014 16:53
-
[..] (like Joe's Rockets "R" Us) could respond. [..]
Did you call?
-
#41 by hkultala on 26 Apr, 2014 17:15
-
Increasing thrust while not increasing vehicle mass will increase stresses at maxQ, while only delivering a relatively small payload increase.
Those increased stresses might be a concern. Agree it would be helpful to demonstrate early to avoid any doubt.
The stress at maxQ depends on the trajectory of the first stage and the amount of throttling done.
Also higher pressure gives better isp, so:
1) Having more thrust on liftoff helps a lot even if it's later throttled down
2) When not throttled down, the engines get couple of seconds better isp, which also helps
3) If the first stage is launched into higher trajectory (for example to make first stage recovery easier) it gets faster to higher, less dense atmosphere and the max-Q stresses are less. The optimal trajectory of course depends on whether the first stage is going to be recovered or not. -
#42 by Coastal Ron on 26 Apr, 2014 17:24
-
It's wider than that. The ULA factory has a a certain "standard" level of production where all costs are at a minimum. That's the number of cores/year where no one is idle, there are no left over alloy plates to store etc.
This block buy is not a change in the number of launches the Air Force wants to do, so the factory production rate doesn't change. All we're talking about here is how they buy their material.
For instance, ULA has a pretty good idea what their customers future needs are, and they can forecast what launchers will be needed. However, for many reasons, ULA only buys the amount of material needed to cover just the orders that the government places, which until now has been either single launches or maybe small lots. So when they go to buy the material for that order (let's say it's one Delta IV), then they are buying one RS-68 from Aerojet Rocketdyne and only getting the 1ea price for it. From a risk standpoint this makes sense, since they are fully covered in termination coverage in case the government were to stop buying ULA launches.
Until now the risk has been pretty low for ULA to buy large lots of material on their own, but in the world of government procurement that is not necessarily the best business practice, so they had no real incentive to do that. I was in this world, so I know how it works.QuoteIRL neither policy is fair. I believe there is a block buy size where ULA makes out and the USAF gets a lower unit price. But 36 cores is way too high unless the factory was designed for a huge production volume (I mean 2 a month or more).
And again, the block buy was not in response to an increase in production, but an attempt to implement common sense procurement strategies that result in a lower overall cost to the customer (i.e. the U.S. Government). -
#43 by john smith 19 on 26 Apr, 2014 17:57
-
I don't doubt that ULA has a pretty good idea of what the DoD would like to launch, as well as what is probably going to get approval to be launched. My point was that the policy of one-launch-at-a-time was not fair on ULA for an efficiency PoV. As you said the one off price of an RD180 is $Xm but buy them in Y sized lots and the price goes down. A block buy would safely allow ULA to buy those quantities knowing they would be used, but I cannot believe it needs a 36 core buy to deliver those savings.It's wider than that. The ULA factory has a a certain "standard" level of production where all costs are at a minimum. That's the number of cores/year where no one is idle, there are no left over alloy plates to store etc.
This block buy is not a change in the number of launches the Air Force wants to do, so the factory production rate doesn't change. All we're talking about here is how they buy their material.
For instance, ULA has a pretty good idea what their customers future needs are, and they can forecast what launchers will be needed. However, for many reasons, ULA only buys the amount of material needed to cover just the orders that the government places, which until now has been either single launches or maybe small lots. So when they go to buy the material for that order (let's say it's one Delta IV), then they are buying one RS-68 from Aerojet Rocketdyne and only getting the 1ea price for it. From a risk standpoint this makes sense, since they are fully covered in termination coverage in case the government were to stop buying ULA launches.
Until now the risk has been pretty low for ULA to buy large lots of material on their own, but in the world of government procurement that is not necessarily the best business practice, so they had no real incentive to do that. I was in this world, so I know how it works.QuoteIRL neither policy is fair. I believe there is a block buy size where ULA makes out and the USAF gets a lower unit price. But 36 cores is way too high unless the factory was designed for a huge production volume (I mean 2 a month or more).
And again, the block buy was not in response to an increase in production, but an attempt to implement common sense procurement strategies that result in a lower overall cost to the customer (i.e. the U.S. Government).
I think we are in violent agreement.
-
#44 by Coastal Ron on 26 Apr, 2014 21:25
-
I don't doubt that ULA has a pretty good idea of what the DoD would like to launch...
And the reason for that is that ULA's parents (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) build quite a few of the payloads, and they also have "friends in high places" that can provide them with additional information. And the Air Force too would be telling them what their forecasted needs are - no reason not to.QuoteMy point was that the policy of one-launch-at-a-time was not fair on ULA for an efficiency PoV.
Sure it's more overhead, but ULA is being paid to do that, so I'm not sure how anything is "not fair" to ULA.QuoteAs you said the one off price of an RD180 is $Xm but buy them in Y sized lots and the price goes down. A block buy would safely allow ULA to buy those quantities knowing they would be used, but I cannot believe it needs a 36 core buy to deliver those savings.
I too don't think 36 is a magical number of cost savings, and I think that number was pushed as high as possible in order to lock out competitors for as long as they could.
This topic is really about how government contractors do business and take risks versus commercial companies in competitive markets.
Typically government contractors buy to the contract, and may even get paid progress payments for accumulating material in advance (accumulated labor can be billed too). But regardless if they get progress payments, in order to mitigate their termination liability companies will not normally buy excess inventory. When dealing with the government, which is beholden to unpredictable actions from Congress, it's just good business sense not to risk too much. Plus, if you show you can get lower prices, then when the government does a price audit they will want you to lock in the lower prices you are getting, even though those prices were only because you were risking larger purchase sizes.
Out in the commercial market place it's usually different. Companies put a lot of effort into forecasting demand, and then try to maximize their procurement efforts to lower costs based on that. Changes in customer demand can affect that, and usually there are cancellation policies in place to mitigate those kinds of things, but the ultimate customers don't know or care about those risks because they are usually buying off of a standard price list. How well the company manages their inventory is part of how well they profit.
So what we have here is two different operational modes with ULA and SpaceX. ULA negotiates every launch, and SpaceX essentially has a catalog of services that you choose from to determine your price. One is opaque, the other transparent. And ULA has worked very hard to keep their pricing opaque.QuoteI think we are in violent agreement.
Or agreeing for different reasons. -
#45 by Jim on 26 Apr, 2014 22:00
-
. But 36 cores is way too high unless the factory was designed for a huge production volume (I mean 2 a month or more).
It was designed for 40 per year -
#46 by baldusi on 26 Apr, 2014 22:07
-
2) When not throttled down, the engines get couple of seconds better isp, which also helps
Merlin is a gas generator, the main chamber isp increases but you need to increase the Gas Generator mass flow, that's and actual isp loss. So it's not clear if isp would go up. And, without a redesign, while the expansion ratio would be higher, the pressure would be higher and thus it would overexpand on vacuum, so it would change the isp profile -
#47 by john smith 19 on 26 Apr, 2014 22:31
-
Would that be the single shift 5 days a week with no over time figure or the 24/7 with any absences covered by staff agencies?. But 36 cores is way too high unless the factory was designed for a huge production volume (I mean 2 a month or more).
It was designed for 40 per year -
#48 by Jim on 26 Apr, 2014 22:32
-
Would that be the single shift 5 days a week with no over time figure or the 24/7 with any absences covered by staff agencies?
The facility was designed for it -
#49 by Prober on 26 Apr, 2014 22:48
-
agreed, I set the new thread up to talk "commercial payloads". This is for government payloads.this thread takes things in another direction.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34558.0
No bearing on this thread, U.S. gov't payloads launch on U.S. rockets only.
-
#50 by john smith 19 on 27 Apr, 2014 13:00
-
The facility was designed for it
Perhaps but that is unhelpful. A data point without context proves very little.
It's also very unlikely that a mfg facility would only be economical at the maximum level of production. and in fact on that basis the block buy was too small.
That alone makes 36 rather an odd number. -
#51 by Star One on 27 Apr, 2014 14:15
-
agreed, I set the new thread up to talk "commercial payloads". This is for government payloads.this thread takes things in another direction.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34558.0
No bearing on this thread, U.S. gov't payloads launch on U.S. rockets only.
Tell that to the JWST, US government payload but being launched on a European launcher. -
#52 by JohnFornaro on 27 Apr, 2014 14:59
-
This is specifically the kind of stuff that Musk is likely peeved about. ULA never had to qualify a rocket configuration on 3 flights before being able to use it for government launches.
Because the USAF was intimately involved with Atlas and Delta development. They know what processes went into the design and testing of the vehicles. And the USAF would design and testing standards as part of the procurement process. The USAF has never bought a COTS launch vehicle before. In the 90's, when NASA started buying launch services and start putting out procurement solicitations, they realized that anybody (like Joe's Rockets "R" Us) could respond. So that is where the concept of certification came about. That is where the 14, 3 and 1 flights come from with the different amounts of insight penetration.
The "intimate involvement" of USAF with Atlas and Delta development certainly explains AF acceptance of those LV's without three qualifying flights.
Today, the times have changed, and the certification protocol includes three flights. I'd say that SpaceX needs to get cracking on the certification flights. They're at least two out of three, right? The benefit that they enjoy would seem to be a lack of "intimate involvement" in their design and development of F9 and the heavy. I'm guessing that intimate oversight adds to costs.
It's the principle of competition which ULA actively seeks to discourage for the simple reason that they like the billion dollar a year subsidy and they like the sole sourced contract. Facts on the ground have changed with the whole Ukranian thing going on, and the not too clear future supply of RD-180's. It is no longer an improbability that our relationship with Russia could deteriorate even further, and deteriorate quickly.
That block buy needs to be modified to include qualified competition.
-
#53 by rcoppola on 27 Apr, 2014 16:19
-
My issue from the beginning has been the whole concept of a "Core buy". It's such a ridiculous way to communicate what the product/service is. They're not buying 12 "Cores", they are buying 4 DHs to get their payloads to their intended destinations. It's not 24 cores, it's 24 AVs. (And yes, all the accompanying mission assurance costs, integration costs, etc...)
You don't buy cores, unless you plan on decorating your Hangar with nice metallic tubes on the walls instead of curtains. You buy a product / service to deliver your payload to it's intended destination. But no, that's too simple, it has to be complicated and technical sounding. I call BS once and for all.
I want to see an A/B column. Keep it real simple (All associated costs integrated into one transparent price):
Payload To Orbit = (A) F9 Cost - (B) AV Cost.
I'll even throw in some variables for the block buy fans. (X) For a single launch - (Y) For 5 launches - (Z) For 10 launches -
#54 by clongton on 27 Apr, 2014 16:26
-
I'd say that SpaceX needs to get cracking on the certification flights.
John, the certification requires 3 flights of the exact configuration that DoD would use. SpaceX has actually flown that configuration 4 times now, 3 times before the block buy signed contract was announced. That was the hard part. Everything is done, I believe, but the mountain of paperwork. Without the paperwork, which is the easy part, the certification is not completed. That is "part" of what has Elon upset. -
#55 by rcoppola on 27 Apr, 2014 16:30
-
Yes, and further, IIRC, they weren't supposed to need final certification to "Bid" on the launches, only to actually fly them. That added insult to injury.I'd say that SpaceX needs to get cracking on the certification flights.
John, the certification requires 3 flights of the exact configuration that DoD would use. SpaceX has actually flown that configuration 4 times now, 3 times before the block buy signed contract was announced. That was the hard part. Everything is done, I believe, but the mountain of paperwork. Without the paperwork, which is the easy part, the certification is not completed. That is "part" of what has Elon upset. -
#56 by Rocket Science on 27 Apr, 2014 17:12
-
Going forward, what is the engine plan for this block buy... Will the stockplile of RD180'suffice? Will they be allowed to buy more? Where is "this exact engine"they claim to have demonstrated they can build?
-
#57 by MP99 on 27 Apr, 2014 19:01
-
And, without a redesign, while the expansion ratio would be higher...
Doesn't "no redesign" mean "same expansion ratio"?
cheers, Martin -
#58 by MP99 on 27 Apr, 2014 19:03
-
Going forward, what is the engine plan for this block buy... Will the stockplile of RD180'suffice? Will they be allowed to buy more? Where is "this exact engine"they claim to have demonstrated they can build?
What are the penalties on ULA if they can't deliver because of no RD-180s?
cheers, Martin -
#59 by rcoppola on 27 Apr, 2014 20:44
-
Granted, it is admittedly a bit Tongue-in-Cheek. But what about the part you cut off? Is that kind of pricing / cost transparency request nonsense as well?My issue from the beginning has been the whole concept of a "Core buy". It's such a ridiculous way to communicate what the product/service is. They're not buying 12 "Cores", they are buying 4 DHs to get their payloads to their intended destinations. It's not 24 cores, it's 24 AVs. (And yes, all the accompanying mission assurance costs, integration costs, etc...)
You don't buy cores, unless you plan on decorating your Hangar with nice metallic tubes on the walls instead of curtains. You buy a product / service to deliver your payload to it's intended destination. But no, that's too simple, it has to be complicated and technical sounding. I call BS once and for all.
Nothing but nonsense.
