-
#20
by
MP99
on 20 Oct, 2014 06:33
-
It will be interesting to see the nonsense that will come up on this thread
Well, what do you think?
Other than getting cheaper engines, getting rid of unions and not paying overtime, there is not much they can do. The rest is driven by customer requirements. Every vehicle change is reviewed by its customers by participating all the review boarda.
Is there anything that could be done to streamline pad ops?
Cheers, Martin
-
#21
by
Llian Rhydderch
on 20 Oct, 2014 11:49
-
ULA does not sell launch services on the commercial market, that is for LM Commercial Launch Services Company and Boeing Launch Services Company to do.
Who would sell Atlas Blue launches commercially?
If this is just another Atlas V, that would imply LM? I guess little demand for Delta IV on the commercial market today, so they're not losing much by not being able to offer Blue.
Cheers, Martin
That's a good question, Martin.
I don't think we can know for sure on that at this time. It's clear from recent actions at ULA that they are making initial steps to improve their competitive posture, and contrary to what has been asserted for a long time by many on these forums, they are doing it with the development of a new rocket as a part of the setup to getting their costs somewhat reduced.
My take is that the same board and ownership that they've had for years will have to streamline a number of the meta-agreements they have in place to allow them to operate a business more efficiently going forward, especially in the commercial market. So I would expect they will modify any existing restrictions (from the LMCO/Boeing level of governance) and put in place new rules that allow ULA to market/sell the launch services across the full extent of their customer set.
But that's not the only way it could fall out, so I think we'll have to wait to see how ULA eventually answers that question.
-
#22
by
Oli
on 20 Oct, 2014 13:18
-
-
#23
by
Jim
on 20 Oct, 2014 13:37
-
It will be interesting to see the nonsense that will come up on this thread
It is interesting to see that you are already dismissing the article and thus what the new ULA CEO talked about.
No, I already have pointed out the many other things that they are doing.
"common avionics (with common launch control systems), common adapters, common upper stage engines, and common practices coming on line and work on common fairings, common upper stage and a new "common"? booster,"
Most of this was in work before the new CEO.
The bulk of their costs are in people and this is what drives their manpower requirements:
union, paying overtime and customer requirements.
-
#24
by
mmeijeri
on 20 Oct, 2014 13:39
-
Other than getting cheaper engines, getting rid of unions and not paying overtime, there is not much they can do. The rest is driven by customer requirements. Every vehicle change is reviewed by its customers by participating all the review boarda.
Shouldn't consolidating to a single vehicle lead to substantial savings?
-
#25
by
Zed_Noir
on 20 Oct, 2014 14:01
-
ULA does not sell launch services on the commercial market, that is for LM Commercial Launch Services Company and Boeing Launch Services Company to do.
Who would sell Atlas Blue launches commercially?
...
IMO, maybe Blue Origin. Since they have a stake in the new launch vehicle.
-
#26
by
veblen
on 20 Oct, 2014 14:31
-
It will be interesting to see the nonsense that will come up on this thread
Well, what do you think?
Other than getting cheaper engines, getting rid of unions and not paying overtime, there is not much they can do. The rest is driven by customer requirements. Every vehicle change is reviewed by its customers by participating all the review boarda.
Atlas V 401 costs $164 million per launch.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140520/DEFREG02/305200034/ULA-Reveals-Pricing-Data-Hits-Back-SpaceX
SpaceX offers approximately the same capability for ~$90m (~50% more than commercial according to Musk), or $97m according to an existing contract.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/spacex-to-launch-two-military-satellites
What do you think explains the price difference, apart from "cheaper engines (rd-180, rs-68 are hardly expensive), unions and overtime"? Customer requirement alone?
Customer requirements?
Why did NASA take so long to launch DSCOVR, even after Nov 2008? Because it seems they decided that everything else in the pipeline had priority, just a couple of eg launching TDRSS and GOES-P, many other sats that do the job this one will and are probably much more capable, and last but not least science missions to Mars and the outer solar system: if you don't launch in the window the mission gets delayed at least 2 years or you add several years to the time to complete the mission (New Horizons). SpaceX Orbcomm launch experience back in May simply wouldn't have worked for those missions. But with DSCOVR it is different, it is not a "now or never launch window" it is more like now or never for the actual hardware (sticky solar panels? hope not), being made completely obsolete by a bevy of other earth/sun observing sats, and the back and forth political landscape. But I do look forward to the pretty pics of our Earth-Moon system from DSCOVR.
-
#27
by
woods170
on 20 Oct, 2014 14:36
-
Right now they have four launch complexes, one for each rocket on each coast.
6 Technically. They also have pads for Delta II on both coasts, although SLC-17 at CCAFS has no work . I'm not sure if its still being maintained by ULA though. I also have no idea what their plans are for SLC-2W at Vandy in a few years once the last Delta II launches.
As Jim mentioned, the two East Coast Delta II pads are already being dismantled. SLC 2W at Vandenberg AFB has three more Delta II launches planned, then it too will be retired. (Though it has a nice flame trench that would look good with an Antares sitting above.)
- Ed Kyle
The flame trench of SLC 2W only handles the exhaust of the Delta II core stage main engine. None of the exhaust of the solids is channeled thru that flame trench.
I doubt the current flame trench is capable of handling a pair of AJ-26's without major modifications. We're talking over three times the amount of power when an Antares would be firing into it.
-
#28
by
Jim
on 20 Oct, 2014 14:46
-
Why did NASA take so long to launch DSCOVR, even after Nov 2008? Because it seems they decided that everything else in the pipeline had priority, just a couple of eg launching TDRSS and GOES-P, many other sats that do the job this one will and are probably much more capable, and last but not least science missions to Mars and the outer solar system: if you don't launch in the window the mission gets delayed at least 2 years or you add several years to the time to complete the mission (New Horizons). SpaceX Orbcomm launch experience back in May simply wouldn't have worked for those missions. But with DSCOVR it is different, it is not a "now or never launch window" it is more like now or never for the actual hardware (sticky solar panels? hope not), being made completely obsolete by a bevy of other earth/sun observing sats, and the back and forth political landscape. But I do look forward to the pretty pics of our Earth-Moon system from DSCOVR.
Because NASA has no requirements for DSCOVR. NOAA is paying for the spacecraft and the USAF is paying to launch it. It won't be made obsolete by a bevy of other earth/sun observing sats. DSCOVR is being launched because the ACE spacecraft is near the end of its life. ACE is in the position that DSCOVR will be flying to. ACE provides early warning of solar storm events that are important to NOAA and the USAF. The original secondary instruments: Solar Wind Plasma Sensor (Faraday Cup) and Magnetometer (MAG) are now primary and the former primary instruments: National Institute of Standards and Technology Advanced Radiometer (NISTAR) and Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) are now secondary and will be launched whether working or not.
DSCOVR is being launched on a USAF test flight program for Falcon 9.
-
#29
by
Lar
on 20 Oct, 2014 17:24
-
Some trimming, some editing.
No quarterbacking what the mods do. No casting aspersions on other posters. Goodness, peeps... Need to up the "excellent to each other" level a bit, ok?
-
#30
by
Jim
on 20 Oct, 2014 17:27
-
It's clear from recent actions at ULA that they are making initial steps to improve their competitive posture, and contrary to what has been asserted for a long time by many on these forums
Where has that been asserted? On the contrary, it is has be shown that they have been reducing costs and some of the ways have been documented.
-
#31
by
joek
on 20 Oct, 2014 17:44
-
My take is that the same board and ownership that they've had for years will have to streamline a number of the meta-agreements they have in place to allow them to operate a business more efficiently going forward, especially in the commercial market. So I would expect they will modify any existing restrictions (from the LMCO/Boeing level of governance) and put in place new rules that allow ULA to market/sell the launch services across the full extent of their customer set.
The proscription against ULA selling in the commercial market are in place as part of the consent order which allowed formation of ULA. Neither ULA, Boeing or LM can change them. The probability of anything changing before the consent order expires (
Oct 2016May 2017) is nil.* Which may be why ULA et. al. are making positioning moves now, in the expectation that things will change in 2017.
* edit: p.s. Which doesn't mean the consent order restrictions automatically disappear May 2017 and ULA et. al. can do whatever it wants.
-
#32
by
Llian Rhydderch
on 20 Oct, 2014 18:02
-
My take is that the same board and ownership that they've had for years will have to streamline a number of the meta-agreements they have in place to allow them to operate a business more efficiently going forward, especially in the commercial market. So I would expect they will modify any existing restrictions (from the LMCO/Boeing level of governance) and put in place new rules that allow ULA to market/sell the launch services across the full extent of their customer set.
The proscription against ULA selling in the commercial market are in place as part of the consent order which allowed formation of ULA. Neither ULA, Boeing or LM can change them. The probability of anything changing before the consent order expires (Oct 2016May 2017) is nil.* Which may be why ULA et. al. are making positioning moves now, in the expectation that things will change in 2017.
* edit: p.s. Which doesn't mean the consent order restrictions automatically disappear May 2017 and ULA et. al. can do whatever it wants.
Yes, I think that makes good sense.
It is highly likely that ULA can obtain a somewhat relaxed set of the "rules of the game" for how they compete, whether it be by prior court action when the consent decree expires as you say, or whether it be by demonstrating to the court that is administering the consent decree that the "facts on the ground" have changed.
Clearly, with respect to competition within the US launch industry, I think they could easily demonstrate the SpaceX success is just such a factor, and the same court that inveighed against the actions of Boeing/LMCO then, would fairly easily see that impediments to market competition that might (unintentionally) result from the court rulings ought to cease their effect a bit earlier than 2017.
-
#33
by
TrevorMonty
on 20 Oct, 2014 18:36
-
If Blue develop their own reusable BE4 booster eg 5 x BE4. I can see an opportunity for ULA to operate it with their own upper stage. Reusability will start the LV industry heading towards airline setup where operators lease or buy RLV from manufacturers.
Long term ULA may just become a LV provider and use RLVs built by other companies.
-
#34
by
sdsds
on 20 Oct, 2014 18:40
-
Other than getting cheaper engines, getting rid of unions and not paying overtime, there is not much they can do. The rest is driven by customer requirements. Every vehicle change is reviewed by its customers by participating all the review boarda.
Is there anything that could be done to streamline pad ops?
Jim semi-answered that, since the workers at ULA pads are represented by the machinists' union.
-
#35
by
Jim
on 20 Oct, 2014 19:05
-
Long term ULA may just become a LV provider and use RLVs built by other companies.
No, there is no point in that. ULA exists make money for its owners by building hardware to provide services for other users. It is not an operator of other's hardware to provide those services.
-
#36
by
Zed_Noir
on 20 Oct, 2014 20:06
-
Long term ULA may just become a LV provider and use RLVs built by other companies.
No, there is no point in that. ULA exists make money for its owners by building hardware to provide services for other users. It is not an operator of other's hardware to provide those services.
Believe @TrevorMonty predicts poorly and @Jim is correct. But idea pops up that ULA might be more valuable if sold for the owners. Especialy if ULA loses serious marketshare to SpaceX.
-
#37
by
edkyle99
on 21 Oct, 2014 00:57
-
The flame trench of SLC 2W only handles the exhaust of the Delta II core stage main engine. None of the exhaust of the solids is channeled thru that flame trench.
I doubt the current flame trench is capable of handling a pair of AJ-26's without major modifications. We're talking over three times the amount of power when an Antares would be firing into it.
True, but when they built this thing back in the day, for Thor originally, they did seem to potentially overbuild this "flame bucket". It looks like it has a chance to potentially handle higher thrust, especially if it could be modified.
- Ed Kyle
-
#38
by
russianhalo117
on 21 Oct, 2014 02:40
-
The flame trench of SLC 2W only handles the exhaust of the Delta II core stage main engine. None of the exhaust of the solids is channeled thru that flame trench.
I doubt the current flame trench is capable of handling a pair of AJ-26's without major modifications. We're talking over three times the amount of power when an Antares would be firing into it.
True, but when they built this thing back in the day, for Thor originally, they did seem to potentially overbuild this "flame bucket". It looks like it has a chance to potentially handle higher thrust, especially if it could be modified.
- Ed Kyle
When solids were introduced they strengthened the top of the flame bucket so that the solids exhaust could be deflected using the top of it. It was also strengthened when the more powerful RS-27 Family was employed on the booster.
Other than that its the same.
-
#39
by
Lobo
on 22 Oct, 2014 17:11
-
The flame trench of SLC 2W only handles the exhaust of the Delta II core stage main engine. None of the exhaust of the solids is channeled thru that flame trench.
I doubt the current flame trench is capable of handling a pair of AJ-26's without major modifications. We're talking over three times the amount of power when an Antares would be firing into it.
True, but when they built this thing back in the day, for Thor originally, they did seem to potentially overbuild this "flame bucket". It looks like it has a chance to potentially handle higher thrust, especially if it could be modified.
- Ed Kyle
When solids were introduced they strengthened the top of the flame bucket so that the solids exhaust could be deflected using the top of it. It was also strengthened when the more powerful RS-27 Family was employed on the booster.
Other than that its the same.
Is it strong enough for a ~880klb Antares booster?