-
#60 by IRobot on 27 Apr, 2014 21:29
-
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...)
Although I don't support ULA on this subject, it is quite common for a client to do such kind of agreements with suppliers. It is just a different approach to a contract. In this case it ensures the supplier that a minimum production of a sub component will be done, for example to dilute setup costs.
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.
I had a client who asked my company for something similar: he asked us to produce "x" units of our products without incorporating the most expensive component. Why? It diluted our setup costs for production and reduced further orders lead time from 16 weeks to 4 weeks.
So right now we have "x" incomplete units stored, waiting for the next production run.
Not all contracts are as simple as providing a complete product/service. Not saying that this block buy is a good thing, but not all contracts are as linear as you make them.
-
#61 by baldusi on 27 Apr, 2014 22:03
-
Whops! You're right. I meant same expansion higher output pressure. Writing on phones is mistake prone.And, without a redesign, while the expansion ratio would be higher...
Doesn't "no redesign" mean "same expansion ratio"?
cheers, Martin -
#62 by Jim on 28 Apr, 2014 00:04
-
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?
Yes, just as much. Try asking Boeing for 777 prices -
#63 by kevin-rf on 28 Apr, 2014 00:26
-
With Boeing, take list price divide by 2 then add a few million depending on how much of a PITA the CEO of the airline is. The larger PITA the airline CEO, the closer to 1/2 they get
No two customers pay the same price for the same airframe, and no two airlines will admit to the other how much Boeing raked them over the coals.
btw. Like launch services, 777 prices do not include the engines. That is a separate contract with the engine manufacturer. -
#64 by Coastal Ron on 28 Apr, 2014 00:34
-
. 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
Yes ULA has lots of unused and potential capacity, but that has nothing to do with this core block buy. The block buy is an attempt to lower the procurement costs for launcher components within the current forecasted demand, not to address an increase in demand. -
#65 by TrevorMonty on 28 Apr, 2014 01:21
-
. 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
Yes ULA has lots of unused and potential capacity, but that has nothing to do with this core block buy. The block buy is an attempt to lower the procurement costs for launcher components within the current forecasted demand, not to address an increase in demand.
Lowering costs is how they sold it to government but it is more about ULA securing their business for next few years in face of serious competition.
-
#66 by cuddihy on 28 Apr, 2014 01:36
-
Every DoD COMSAT planned through 2018 is well outside of F9's max GTO throw weight. That includes at least 6 satellites already in the pipeline and more after. Ironically, they'd likely be amenable to horizontal integration the way NRO birds aren't. Too bad F9 is a bit small.
-
#67 by Lars_J on 28 Apr, 2014 03:31
-
Every DoD COMSAT planned through 2018 is well outside of F9's max GTO throw weight. That includes at least 6 satellites already in the pipeline and more after. Ironically, they'd likely be amenable to horizontal integration the way NRO birds aren't. Too bad F9 is a bit small.
But FH won't be. And it could be qualified (3 flights) by 2017. -
#68 by Lobo on 28 Apr, 2014 19:20
-
Every DoD COMSAT planned through 2018 is well outside of F9's max GTO throw weight. That includes at least 6 satellites already in the pipeline and more after. Ironically, they'd likely be amenable to horizontal integration the way NRO birds aren't. Too bad F9 is a bit small.
But FH won't be. And it could be qualified (3 flights) by 2017.
Which is likely the reason for the very fast timeline to be launching FH from 39A, per Shotwell's comments. Get those FH launches going ASAP to get qualified. Then specifically try to go after the payloads that are compatible with horizontal integration while they are working on a method of vertical integration at 39A. If FH can launch from 39A early next year, and can get a SLC-4E launch sometime later next year as well, they could possibly get a 3rd FH launch by the end of next year and be looking at qualification fairly rapidly.
If they are ready to land boosters back at the landing sight by next year, they could actually launch F9-expendable payloads on FH with reusable outboard boosters, for essentially the same price as an F9E. They could get the FH qualification flights using F9E payloads on the manifest, and not have to wait for FH class paylaods.
To help expedite FH's qualification. They need it flying ASAP to start bidding on those DoD payloads, because, as has been mentioned. F9 just isn't quite powerful enough on it's own. -
#69 by baldusi on 28 Apr, 2014 19:55
-
They don't really need DoD. First they have to actually cover their NASA and Commercial needs. Once they do, DoD would be a logical client. But currently they have about as much as they can handle.
-
#70 by TrevorMonty on 28 Apr, 2014 20:44
-
The last payload specifications for FH stated 7T to GTO with all 3 cores recoverable. So using FH for expendable F9E payload may work out slightly cheaper. Comes down to cost of a core vs extra costs of launching FH plus recovering 3 cores.
-
#71 by Lobo on 28 Apr, 2014 22:07
-
The last payload specifications for FH stated 7T to GTO with all 3 cores recoverable. So using FH for expendable F9E payload may work out slightly cheaper. Comes down to cost of a core vs extra costs of launching FH plus recovering 3 cores.
And that would beat F9E performance, come close to matching the largest D4M+ variant, and cover the Atlas range up to the 3 SRB Atlas variants.
As to cost of expending the core vs. recovering it, that probably depends of if "all 3 cores recoverable" means all three RTLS, or if the central core needs to be recovered down range. If all 3 are able to come back to the landing site, then that should be much cheaper than an F9R. Less so, or maybe a push if they have to recover down range, depending on how they'd do it.
-
#72 by Lobo on 28 Apr, 2014 22:25
-
They don't really need DoD. First they have to actually cover their NASA and Commercial needs. Once they do, DoD would be a logical client. But currently they have about as much as they can handle.
Agreed, but no one every said Musk wasn't ambitious. Although he always has the danger of over extending too quickly.
I think it's more a target of opportunity to take a swing for while they are growing as they would anyway. FH is needed really for DoD/USAF payloads, and they were planning on developing it anyway. They may just add a few things like vertical integration capability that they might no have have otherwise.
And Musk sees opportunity there in ULA's situation.
Atlas V is capable and relatively low cost. It's the more difficult competition for them. But...it's made in Russia, and there's hay to be made there, as we are seeing now. And it was probably just a matter of time before the US and Russian interests crossed and caused a situation where government payloads being dependant on an LV with a Russian supplied engine was being questioned. Musk isn't missing an opportunity to stir that pot some.
That leaves Delta IV. All US-made, but from what I understand, it's much more expensive than Atlas V, and more difficult to compete if cost can be raised as a significant issue....as Musk is trying to do. First he cast doubt on Atlas V's engine, and then if something happens there pushing payloads to Delta IV, then he just starts quoting the cost descrepency of F9/FH vs. D4/D4H, to leverage that.
So, he doesn't need DoD, but I don't think he has to reach far to get a foot in the door either. -
#73 by DGH on 17 May, 2014 12:34
-
Using the manifest here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1183418#new
and this thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33911.0
36 total cores minus 12 cores for the 4 heavies. Those 4 missions F9 can not compete for since their heavy is not ready. So 24 cores remain.
The first 4 USAF vehicles (non heavy) are:
1 Atlas-V(501) Possible X-37, performance wise it is F9 compatible. Integration wise, unknown
1 Atlas-V(511) USAF doesn't have a LEO mission for 5m, so possible GTO, Atlas V 11.5klb vs F9 10.7klb.
1 Delta-IVM+(4,2) GPS? GSSAP? GTO, Delta IV 13.6klb vs F9 10.7klb.
1 Delta-IVM+(5,4) USAF doesn't have a LEO mission for 5m, so possible GTO, Delta IV 15.2klb vs F9 10.7klb.
will get back to this later
Have not cross referenced any of these with the NSF launch manifest or Gunter's
According to this article:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/40567first-competitive-eelv-round-looks-like-a-two-horse-race
15 cores of the block buy have been ordered.
It seems these are considered part of the block buy as well.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32284.0;all
These are supposed to largely launch in fiscal 2015 (October 2014 till September 1015).
That would suggest the recent batch is for fiscal 2016 (October 2015 till September 1016).
