-
#180
by
deltaV
on 09 Mar, 2015 03:02
-
Well, ULA at least thinks partial reusability is possible:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Evolution/EELVPartialReusable2010.pdf
The question is not whether reuse is possible (of course it is) but whether it makes economic sense. IIRC that paper says partial reusability should be economical but actions speak louder than words. If ULA believed that reusability would be cost effective then the new launcher they're developing would presumably be (partially) reusable. Of course it's possible they have secret plans for reuse that they're keeping secret for competitive reasons but I think it's more likely they haven't announced reusability plans because they don't expect the benefits of partial reusability to be worth the development costs and risks that partial reusability would be as disappointing as it was for the space shuttle.
-
#181
by
RocketGoBoom
on 09 Mar, 2015 03:38
-
I watched the video and read most of the 9 pages of this thread before posting. Bruno is trying to get ULA into the new competitive situation that has been forced upon them. But it all feels like a half-hearted effort. I did not get the sense that he and ULA recognize just how much their market is being altered and what the real risks are.
I have managed a business where the competition comes in and takes 30% of revenue. Guess what ... that is enough to put many businesses into bankruptcy. Losing 30% of your market without adjusting quickly can result easily in the company bleeding money.
If SpaceX just takes 30% of the launches that ULA currently has (a very reasonable estimate) and also forces ULA to bid more competitively on the remaining 70%, the end result could be a MASSIVE reduction in ULA revenue. In fact, I would guess that they would be heavily losing money.
This scenario is coming for ULA in the next 3 years. SpaceX is going to starting winning some of these launches. ULA doesn't have 5 years years to get their act in gear. These contracts start making payments years before the actual launch. So the cash flow will start changing as soon as SpaceX starts winning some bids, which is possible in 2015.
ULA should be given credit for recognizing that they need to adapt. However I have not seen anything that indicates they are adjusting quickly enough to survive beyond the next 5 years. If they really lose 30% of their gov't launch market and have to drop their bids to maintain the other 70%, my guess is that Boeing / Lockheed will have to put in a lot of cash to keep ULA operational.
There is no way that the $1 billion per year in overhead money will continue once there is a viable competitor also bidding on launches. It might continue for an extra year or two, as a transition period for ULA to adjust to the new environment, but there will be immense Congressional pressure to cancel that subsidy.
-
#182
by
GWH
on 09 Mar, 2015 03:39
-
Well Tory Bruno is doing a reddit AMA on the 11th, although not discussing the NGLV...
-
#183
by
clongton
on 09 Mar, 2015 04:09
-
Well, ULA at least thinks partial reusability is possible:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Evolution/EELVPartialReusable2010.pdf
The conclusions section had interesting statement. Recovered engines should be more reliable as the are Flight proven.
The paper is from 2008, which in this business is a very long time ago. And notice that it did not attempt to recover the booster at all, only the engine pod, by dropping it into the sea. As expensive as the RD-180's are they still did not follow thru on it.
The RS-25 for example are expensive engines. The RS-25 DID get reused, even though it was less expensive to build a new engine than to refurbish a "Flight Proven" article. But that was only because Shuttle was committed to reuse and NASA did not need to justify a bottom line expense of the engine. I would wager that is the same reason ULA did not follow thru with RD-180 reuse as well. There was no incentive to recover and reuse the engines because the Air Force, NASA and DoD would simply pick up the tab for new engines without batting an eyelid.
Along comes SpaceX and they are attempting to create a completely reusable rocket, including the tanks and airframe, which will require boost-back and RTLS. Personally I don't see barges as a viable long term solution. There are too many variables that cannot be controlled sufficiently to build a business case on. RTLS is the 800 lb gorilla in the room and yet it is the future of reusable launch vehicles, if they are to work. Unlike the RD-180's, the F9 engines are too inexpensive to justify recovering just them. New ones come off the line for less expense than what it would take to recover and refurbish unless they come back with the launch vehicle as a package. So it is not whether or not it CAN be done, but whether it is "possible" to do that in a way that makes any sense. Sure it CAN be done. But in such a scenario there is far more to consider than the vehicle and the physics. There are huge safety regulations and impact statements that need to be complied with. And the BIG one is that politicians could scuttle the whole thing if they get enough pushback from the local constituents. Case in point is a nuclear engine. We all know they can be safely flown and yet a small but vocal group of anti-nuke advocates have succeeded in creating such fear mongering that nuclear rocket engines will never fly from the earth's surface for the foreseeable future. It is entirely possible that the same thing could happen to SpaxeX and ULA if enough grumbling happens among the locals. Those are the kinds of things that fall under the "Possible" label, not physics.
CAN it be done? Certainly. Will it be done? That remains to be seen, and I am not speaking of just the physical boost-back RTLS because we all know that will probably work. It's the rest of the story that will determine the end result. It remains to be seen. We all wish them luck, but it still remains to be seen.
It is entirely possible that it will be demonstrated to be be completely possible and yet SpaceX and ULA could end up recovering at sea because of other factors, unrelated to what is actually possible. That would drive the design of ULA's new LV and force a redesign of the F9. I have a feeling ULA is holding its breath until they see how this RTLS approach actually pans out.
-
#184
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 09 Mar, 2015 05:07
-
I watched the video and read most of the 9 pages of this thread before posting. Bruno is trying to get ULA into the new competitive situation that has been forced upon them. But it all feels like a half-hearted effort. I did not get the sense that he and ULA recognize just how much their market is being altered and what the real risks are.
I have managed a business where the competition comes in and takes 30% of revenue. Guess what ... that is enough to put many businesses into bankruptcy. Losing 30% of your market without adjusting quickly can result easily in the company bleeding money.
If SpaceX just takes 30% of the launches that ULA currently has (a very reasonable estimate) and also forces ULA to bid more competitively on the remaining 70%, the end result could be a MASSIVE reduction in ULA revenue. In fact, I would guess that they would be heavily losing money.
This scenario is coming for ULA in the next 3 years. SpaceX is going to starting winning some of these launches. ULA doesn't have 5 years years to get their act in gear. These contracts start making payments years before the actual launch. So the cash flow will start changing as soon as SpaceX starts winning some bids, which is possible in 2015.
ULA should be given credit for recognizing that they need to adapt. However I have not seen anything that indicates they are adjusting quickly enough to survive beyond the next 5 years. If they really lose 30% of their gov't launch market and have to drop their bids to maintain the other 70%, my guess is that Boeing / Lockheed will have to put in a lot of cash to keep ULA operational.
There is no way that the $1 billion per year in overhead money will continue once there is a viable competitor also bidding on launches. It might continue for an extra year or two, as a transition period for ULA to adjust to the new environment, but there will be immense Congressional pressure to cancel that subsidy.
I can't see this happening with such a market (inelastic?) like aerospace. While 30% loss of the current missions sounds about right, I can't see ULA going into deep trouble with the savings they are trying to implement, simply because the market will be expanding to the point that no single LSP could swallow them all.
And remember, everyone in the world with new LVs coming on line are trying to slash the launch price down to ~$US 50M for the "EELV-M" class missions (even the quiet Japanese). Some will probably fail to reach that point, but with BO on board I can see ULA achieving that. At $50M, the difference between the "Atlas VI" and the F9R may not be as far as people think(*).
(*)Slightly OT - my guess is that F9R may eventually lower its price to $25-30M once re-usability enters normal operations, i.e. almost the same as the "Russian missiles" that caused the X-company to come into existence. But prices of <$10M will not happen until at least 10-25 years later for a rocket of such size with new clean sheet designs. Now I need to open up a new thread for that discussion......
-
#185
by
ChrisWilson68
on 09 Mar, 2015 06:57
-
Honestly, it's absurd, but STILL you have people who should know better repeating this idea that there's some question about whether or not reuse is possible.
It seems possible, it probably is possible, but it has yet to be proven for big liquid fueled booster stages, so of course there are questions. Until a stage lands safely and is subsequently reused there will continue to be valid questions.
I've never set foot in Alaska. It seems possible I could go there, it probably is possible, but it has yet to be proven that I personally could actually go to Alaska. Until I'm actually in Alaska, there will continue to be valid questions.
Alaska exists. I know it exists because it is on maps and I've seen pictures, some of them from space. Also I know a guy who went there.
Show me a photograph of a cryogenic liquid propellant fuel rocket stage in the EELV class that has boosted an orbital mission, been recovered, refurbished, and re-flown.
My analogy was comparing X, "stage reusability", with Y, "me being in Alaska". Your responses confuses that with Y being "Alaska existing". That's not what I was comparing. So your answer doesn't negate my point. It doesn't even actually address the point of my analogy.
The point of my analogy is that the line of reasoning "X hasn't happened therefor we don't know if it's possible" is not valid. Sometimes, even if X hasn't happened, we can reasonably conclude it's possible.
-
#186
by
TrevorMonty
on 09 Mar, 2015 07:32
-
ULA may lose 30% the govt launches to SpaceX, but a lower cost NGLV should pickup a few commercial satellite launches (at expense of ArianeSpace) plus there the ISS CST100 missions and maybe additional COTS missions, depending who wins CRS2. In addition there is still Bigelows private station which will have CST100 missions plus possibility of CST100 tourist flights.
I predicting they will still do 12+ launches a year.
-
#187
by
edkyle99
on 09 Mar, 2015 13:15
-
The point of my analogy is that the line of reasoning "X hasn't happened therefor we don't know if it's possible" is not valid. Sometimes, even if X hasn't happened, we can reasonably conclude it's possible.
Sometimes we can, but when it comes to cost-effective orbital liquid rocket stage recovery and reuse, I personally cannot yet make that leap.
- Ed Kyle
-
#188
by
Proponent
on 09 Mar, 2015 15:58
-
If SpaceX just takes 30% of the launches that ULA currently has (a very reasonable estimate) and also forces ULA to bid more competitively on the remaining 70%, the end result could be a MASSIVE reduction in ULA revenue. In fact, I would guess that they would be heavily losing money.
This scenario is coming for ULA in the next 3 years. SpaceX is going to starting winning some of these launches. ULA doesn't have 5 years years to get their act in gear. These contracts start making payments years before the actual launch. So the cash flow will start changing as soon as SpaceX starts winning some bids, which is possible in 2015.
ULA should be given credit for recognizing that they need to adapt. However I have not seen anything that indicates they are adjusting quickly enough to survive beyond the next 5 years. If they really lose 30% of their gov't launch market and have to drop their bids to maintain the other 70%, my guess is that Boeing / Lockheed will have to put in a lot of cash to keep ULA operational.
There is no way that the $1 billion per year in overhead money will continue once there is a viable competitor also bidding on launches. It might continue for an extra year or two, as a transition period for ULA to adjust to the new environment, but there will be immense Congressional pressure to cancel that subsidy.
I hope you're right about the amount of pressue ULA will be under in the next years (just to be clear, I'm not hoping that it will go bust, rather that it will successfully respond and innovate). I could imagine, however, Congress discovering a need to have more than one launch provider for DoD and NRO missions (despite the fact that with ULA it's been content to live with a single provider for years). I don't see ULA getting a full gigabuck a year anymore, but I could imagine some significant fraction of that going its way for years to come. Congress [SLS fans please ignore]has, after all, defined a need for SLS and[/SLS fans please ignore] is completely uninterested in whether cheaper, better alternatives to SLS might exist.
-
#189
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 09 Mar, 2015 17:44
-
Suggest that the compromises by ULA's rival can only be accepted by ULA in the light of actual flight history as it unfolds. Beyond NGLV.
-
#190
by
Lobo
on 09 Mar, 2015 18:34
-
ULA may lose 30% the govt launches to SpaceX, but a lower cost NGLV should pickup a few commercial satellite launches (at expense of ArianeSpace) plus there the ISS CST100 missions and maybe additional COTS missions, depending who wins CRS2. In addition there is still Bigelows private station which will have CST100 missions plus possibility of CST100 tourist flights.
I predicting they will still do 12+ launches a year.
@this.
Here's the main thing. Right now ULA does almost exclusively government payloads (with a few exceptions). SpaceX could come in and take 30% of those payloads. But in doing so, they'll become the redundant launch provider, which will take the shackles off of ULA (velvet shackles, but still shackles) to start to do what they choose to do to lower their costs. Moves which the government hasn't allowed them to do thus far, and frankly there wasn't just need to do them. If you sole customer wants you to keep the status quo, and is willing to cover your costs and pay you a tidy profit to do so...there aren't a lot of businesses that will be fighting to upset the apple cart.
So with SpaceX's competition, comes the freedom to make changes. A 30% reduction in government payload contracts could probably be easily absorbed by being able to shut downt he Delta line and facilities. So it might not be as big of a blow as some suggest. Beyond that, a new LV that's competative with SpaceX on the open market then opens the door for ULA to take some of the commercial business that SpaceX has been developing a bit of a monopoly on themselves. (Not quite as there's international competition, but they've been doing very well in that EELV-medium sat market, and really building up a large market share there). ULA may come and nibble into that if they can drop their costs enough. They may have some issues with legacy and unions there that SpaceX doesn't have, so how aggressive will they be in their structuring to punch back at SpaceX?
How much with SpaceX's prices go up as they accomodate USAF/DoD certifications/hurdles?
-
#191
by
TrevorMonty
on 09 Mar, 2015 19:27
-
SpaceX's launches have progressively increased over the years and will likely increase with inflation. Their only hope to contain and drop prices is reusability.
The NGLV booster should be cheaper than F9 to build, auto pressurisation should eliminate He and all it's expensive tanks and fittings. The fitting costs for 2 engines would be cheaper than 9.
If ULA build BE4 under license then the actual build (includes testing) cost for 2x BE4 using additive manufacturing (which it was designed for) would be cheaper than 9x Merlin's. ULA will still have to pay Blue a royalty, price unknown.
In near term they will be stuck with existing expensive upper stage. The replacement ACES upper stage should be cheaper than Centuar and considerably more capable than F9 for BEO missons.
-
#192
by
The Amazing Catstronaut
on 09 Mar, 2015 19:50
-
SpaceX's launches have progressively increased over the years and will likely increase with inflation. Their only hope to contain and drop prices is reusability.
The NGLV booster should be cheaper than F9 to build, auto pressurisation should eliminate He and all it's expensive tanks and fittings. The fitting costs for 2 engines would be cheaper than 9.
If ULA build BE4 under license then the actual build (includes testing) cost for 2x BE4 using additive manufacturing (which it was designed for) would be cheaper than 9x Merlin's. ULA will still have to pay Blue a royalty, price unknown.
In near term they will be stuck with existing expensive upper stage. The replacement ACES upper stage should be cheaper than Centuar and considerably more capable than F9 for BEO missons.
Well, I wouldn't say "their only hope" - everything under the sun increases in cost with inflation, including ULA's launch costs, manufacturing costs, import costs, and the rest. The same applies for SpaceX and everybody else, so inflation expenses is a little bit straw man.
For SpaceX to lose out in the foreseeable future would require them to stop innovating on their tech and business model. That stoppage hasn't had any precedents, and I'll eat my trilby if it occurs.
Cost of launch isn't just in the manufacturing cost of the rocket, it runs a lot deeper than that. Also, SpaceX has got Merlin engine mass production down to an art; you're saying an engine that is produced in far greater numbers than the BE4 will become somehow more expensive than the BE4? What are you basing that upon?
-
#193
by
jongoff
on 09 Mar, 2015 22:11
-
SpaceX's launches have progressively increased over the years and will likely increase with inflation. Their only hope to contain and drop prices is reusability.
The NGLV booster should be cheaper than F9 to build, auto pressurisation should eliminate He and all it's expensive tanks and fittings. The fitting costs for 2 engines would be cheaper than 9.
If ULA build BE4 under license then the actual build (includes testing) cost for 2x BE4 using additive manufacturing (which it was designed for) would be cheaper than 9x Merlin's. ULA will still have to pay Blue a royalty, price unknown.
In near term they will be stuck with existing expensive upper stage. The replacement ACES upper stage should be cheaper than Centuar and considerably more capable than F9 for BEO missons.
I guess you're saying that as expendable boosters, NGLV could likely be cheaper to build/operate than Falcon 9v1.1. It's possible, but I'm skeptical. It may be close enough to keep ULA in the game though. But the real question is, where will SpaceX be in 2019 when NGLV starts flying. If SpaceX is recovering F9R first stages and reusing them before then (high probability IMO), just competing with an expendable F9 won't be enough. The good news is that I think SpaceX will be far enough into reusability before the NGLV first stage design is totally locked down that ULA might just be able to play second-mover in the reusability world.
It'll be fun to watch. As much as I love SpaceX and what they're doing for the industry, it's good to have two solid and affordable providers. And so far my experience has been that ULA is easier to work with than SpaceX (unless you happen to be a satellite customer), so keeping them competitive would be good.
~Jon
-
#194
by
Robotbeat
on 09 Mar, 2015 22:36
-
It's an annoying, over-used buzzword, but "disruption" is a real thing. When a genuinely disruptive competitor comes along, all bets are off.
ULA's survival is not guaranteed. Certainly, staying at their current 12+ flights per year is not guaranteed. (Neither is SpaceX's future dominance or even continued survival, of course.)
When you have a significant change in the launch industry, like the introduction of reuse or a new competitor in the usually staid world of launch, then you can easily have a dramatic change happen fairly rapidly, and previous safe bets may no longer be set in stone.
Palm Pilot. Nokia. Blackberry.
I don't think ULA can count on sticking around (or at least doing anywhere near 12 launches a year) without a fight. Tory Bruno, though, seems intent on giving Elon Musk a run for his money, and good for him!
-
#195
by
Robotbeat
on 09 Mar, 2015 23:00
-
He said his goal of his tenure, compared to prior CEO Gass's goal of the formation of ULA, was to find a way for ULA to survive.
I believe him capable of it.
I actually kind of hope he (partially) fails and ULA is sold to, say, Blue Origin.
ULA has some AWESOME engineers. They deserve to be free of Boeing/LM.
-
#196
by
su27k
on 10 Mar, 2015 13:09
-
http://www.discoverula.com/Our SMART reuse initiative, beginning in 2015, will study ways to refurbish the components of our rockets that provide meaningful benefits to the environment and our customers.
-
#197
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Mar, 2015 13:58
-
This thread is tired and factional, even with trims.
So let's end it here and you can all get on with your business.
