-
#80
by
TrueBlueWitt
on 02 May, 2014 15:34
-
First-time post, please be gentle...
Is there a thread discussing this: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1405/01engine/#.U2O5B1c0rOA? I checked and couldn't find one. It seems about as relevant to this thread as to any other thread, barring a new one.
Still trying to figure out why the government would spend $200m+ to develop a new rocket motor for a company that has "claimed' they could manufacture an RD-180 Locally in the time allotted. And why the government would think the US Taxpayers should pay for that, instead of competitively re-bidding those contracts(with ULA forced to come up with a domestic engine out of the money in that contract)
-
#81
by
deltaV
on 02 May, 2014 15:34
-
-
#82
by
abaddon
on 02 May, 2014 15:36
-
Thanks!
-
#83
by
AncientU
on 02 May, 2014 15:37
-
An intriguing development from the ULA side is their urgency to get the next batch of Russian engines shipped to the US. When is that batch slated to fly? If in 2017, why the urgency...
Just-in-time inventory management which is used in most modern businesses, avoids the cost of carrying inventory in a warehouse for two years (to pick a number). If ULA is using FIFO, and the next engine in the door is slated to gather dust until 2017, why the urgency? On the other hand, if using LIFO, these serial numbers could be assigned to 2015 vehicles... A check of the serial numbers/ship dates of the just-flown pair of RD-180s would illuminate this question.
Irrelevant. The engines are interchangeable. The urgency is that ULA sees the handwriting on the wall re Russian sourcing of the RD-180 and is trying to stockpile as many as they can before the door closes or the supply chain gets interrupted for some other reason beyond their control.
How does this fit into your picture?
United Launch Alliance has said it has enough rocket engines to last 2 1/2 years, but the injunction would bar it securing spare parts that could delay planned satellite launches.
Two and a half years worth of interchangeable engines should have lots of 'spare parts.'
Obviously ULA needs something from Russia that they don't have... any ideas?
-
#84
by
baldusi
on 02 May, 2014 15:38
-
If Russia refuses to sell RD-180, they lose one factory.
They lose none. With the Angara build up, it was decided to modernize and increase NPO Energomash engine factory. They were supposed to manufacture RD-171M, RD-180 and RD-191 for all Zenit, Atlas V and Angara. Thus, they would lose some work, but with Angara making it up for them. Their factory would be a bit oversized, though. And all those engines probably share their tooling, so it's not like they will have un used tooling. And if they decide to re engineer the Soyuz-2.1v with an RD-193, that might offset some of the work.
-
#85
by
Kabloona
on 02 May, 2014 16:34
-
United Launch Alliance has said it has enough rocket engines to last 2 1/2 years, but the injunction would bar it securing spare parts that could delay planned satellite launches.
Two and a half years worth of interchangeable engines should have lots of 'spare parts.'
Obviously ULA needs something from Russia that they don't have... any ideas?
Yes, in theory it "could" delay a launch if they need a spare part and have to pull it out of a fully assembled engine, as opposed to pulling a spare part off the shelf. What's the likelihood of that necessity, or that it seriosuly delays a launch? Probably very low.
What they need most at this point are more engines.
-
#86
by
Prober
on 02 May, 2014 16:54
-
ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
This is mostly bluster and not a lot of logic from ULA.
Their customer, the US Government, is the entity that (a) concerns itself with national security and (b) will make the final determination on the RD-180. Said Government is not going to put itself in a box re national security launches. They can allow resumption of RD-180 buys any time they deem necessary...assuming the temporary injunction is upheld, which it may not even be.
and assuming Russia doesn't refuse to sell them, just to make a point. it must be abundantly clear how much ULA wants them, now, which makes them prime candidates for retaliatory sanctions.
Why would Russia refuse to sell RD-180s to ULA? The only vehicle that uses the RD-180 is the Atlas V. Refusing to sell the RD-180 to ULA is the same as shutting down the production line.
Look up some of the old posts......Russia doesn't care for NRO and USAF launches using the RD-180.
-
#87
by
MP99
on 02 May, 2014 17:17
-
An intriguing development from the ULA side is their urgency to get the next batch of Russian engines shipped to the US. When is that batch slated to fly? If in 2017, why the urgency...
To build up stocks before the deadline date.
Just-in-time inventory management which is used in most modern businesses, avoids the cost of carrying inventory in a warehouse for two years (to pick a number).
And if ULA were carrying only three months of stock (to pluck a number), launches would stop in three months time, not 2+ years as could potentially happen now.
cheers, Martin
-
#88
by
Avron
on 02 May, 2014 17:21
-
An intriguing development from the ULA side is their urgency to get the next batch of Russian engines shipped to the US. When is that batch slated to fly? If in 2017, why the urgency...
To build up stocks before the deadline date.
Just-in-time inventory management which is used in most modern businesses, avoids the cost of carrying inventory in a warehouse for two years (to pick a number).
And if ULA were carrying only three months of stock (to pluck a number), launches would stop in three months time, not 2+ years as could potentially happen now.
cheers, Martin
no need to panic.. any purchase orders placed already are excluded
"The scope of this preliminary injunction does not extend to any purchase orders
that have been placed or moneys paid to NPO Energomash prior to the date of this
Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Susan G. Braden
SUSAN G. BRADEN
Judge
"
-
#89
by
AncientU
on 02 May, 2014 17:26
-
Just-in-time inventory management which is used in most modern businesses, avoids the cost of carrying inventory in a warehouse for two years (to pick a number).
And if ULA were carrying only three months of stock (to pluck a number), launches would stop in three months time, not 2+ years as could potentially happen now.
cheers, Martin
Agree that the long-term inventory is the right approach if your supply is unpredictable. But the potential to 'delay some planned satellite launches' sounds more like a near-term issue.
-
#90
by
Targeteer
on 02 May, 2014 19:55
-
-
#91
by
AncientU
on 02 May, 2014 20:30
-
The PR battle continues--this is listed as a sponsored post
http://boeing.rollcall.com/topic-a/sponsored-post/national-security-space-launch-mission-demands-precision/
"In recent weeks, a new entrant to the rocket manufacturing business has launched a campaign that distorts the truth about EELV and ULA and attempts to cite budget increases as cost overruns..." Won't even mention SpaceX by name.
full transparency into EELV’s accounting and business systems
Not what the GAO found.
While the previous two-contract structure of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program met Department of Defense (DOD) needs for unprecedented mission success and an at-the-ready launch capability, the scope of its capability contract limited DOD’s ability to identify the cost of an individual launch, as direct launch costs were not separated from other costs. Minimal insight into contractor cost or pricing data meant DOD may have lacked sufficient knowledge to negotiate fair and reasonable launch prices.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-377R
-
#92
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 11 Jun, 2014 06:44
-
-
#93
by
ChrisWilson68
on 11 Jun, 2014 06:54
-
Wow, ULA must be pretty insecure. They could have listed the things that are actually in their favor without being misleading,
Instead, they use a misleading title for the graphic that shows their experience (mislabeling it as a comparison of capabilities rather than experience) and a table where all but one line is grossly misleading.
-
#94
by
NovaSilisko
on 11 Jun, 2014 08:00
-
Having trouble even finding words in response to that. Comparing the full roster of ULA's launches since its formation, vs F9v1.1 which only first launched in September of last year.
Know the "Facts", understand the "Truth" - maxi-FUD!
The proud boast of having over twelve hundred individual suppliers seems amusing to me. Also, weren't the two GTO launches listed here actually supersynchronous orbits? I suppose that still counts as a type of GTO.
-
#95
by
MP99
on 11 Jun, 2014 08:24
-
Having trouble even finding words in response to that. Comparing the full roster of ULA's launches since its formation, vs F9v1.1 which only first launched in September of last year.
Know the "Facts", understand the "Truth" - maxi-FUD!
The proud boast of having over twelve hundred individual suppliers seems amusing to me. Also, weren't the two GTO launches listed here actually supersynchronous orbits? I suppose that still counts as a type of GTO.
Gwynne claimed recently that they have 3000 suppliers, of which 1100 are active enough that they accept a delivery from them weekly.
Cheers, Martin
-
#96
by
NovaSilisko
on 11 Jun, 2014 08:29
-
Gwynne claimed recently that they have 3000 suppliers, of which 1100 are active enough that they accept a delivery from them weekly.
Cheers, Martin
Wow - I guess my thought on what the average number of suppliers might be was way off. So in that case, is ULA trying to brag about how
many they have (given the ?? for spacex) or how
few?
-
#97
by
J-V
on 11 Jun, 2014 08:44
-
Gwynne claimed recently that they have 3000 suppliers, of which 1100 are active enough that they accept a delivery from them weekly.
Cheers, Martin
Could this be because SpaceX is buying more components and materials, and ULA is buying more larger subsystems?
-
#98
by
woods170
on 11 Jun, 2014 09:24
-
Well, at least those cards show that SpaceX has definitely managed to get ULA's attention.
First they ignore SpaceX - Check (2003 to 2009)
Then they laugh at SpaceX - Check (2009 to 2013)
Then they fight SpaceX - Check (2013 to present)
You can all guess the rest.
-
#99
by
Jakusb
on 11 Jun, 2014 11:08
-
@chronsciguy @ulalaunch @SpaceX @elonmusk I imagine the Nokia board had a similar chart when the iPhone was launched.
One of the funnier responses.
