ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - General Discussion Thread 2

[joek]

If you're going to jump into the middle of a debate you should understand what is being debated.  The original claim that I retorted was:

That makes comparisons harder and the SpaceX GPS launch costs are already on a steep rise. ULA would not get away with that trick.

And ULA did, as the article I cited showed.

This discussion goes back over 7 years.  Been knee-deep in it since before you were around.  What's your point?  The article you cited is one of many possible, at best incomplete, and years late to the game.  You implied ULA could get away with "that trick".  I replied that they had not, and there are public records to show it.  You want to debate history with yourself, knock yourself out; you'll lose.

[joek]

So why does SpaceX have many government customers while ULA has one monolithic government customer? Afterall lets wind this back around to the post you originally took offense with.

ULA does not have "one monolithic government customer".  ULA is a launch provider, same as SpaceX, with the same myriad relationships with respect to the USG.  Name any USG entity and you will find a congruent relationship with ULA and SpaceX.  There is nothing special about ULA or SpaceX.

[Lars-J]

Seems like they would need a minimum of 5 engines on the core to use the middle engine for throttling down to land a booster. 5 engines is close to New Glenn. 

5 are not needed. You can have a center engine in a 3 or 4 engine layout. In this case a linear 3-engine setup like old-school Atlas would make the most sense. But I don't see it happening.

[spacenut]

They could have 5 RS-27 engines on a 5m core.  They could either parachute them like Vulcan or try to land the stage.  The RS-27 is a little more powerful than the Merlin, but can it throttle?  It would provide a little over 1 million lbs thrust.  More than Atlas V, but may require a little more fuel.  It could still be made to have strap on solids.  Don't know why they didn't try this instead of buying the BE-4's.  It could have been called Vulcan 5. 

[Lars-J]

They could have 5 RS-27 engines on a 5m core.  They could either parachute them like Vulcan or try to land the stage.  The RS-27 is a little more powerful than the Merlin, but can it throttle?  It would provide a little over 1 million lbs thrust.  More than Atlas V, but may require a little more fuel.  It could still be made to have strap on solids.  Don't know why they didn't try this instead of buying the BE-4's.  It could have been called Vulcan 5.

Much of the US space industry is still in the "fewer and bigger" engine mentality. I doubt having lots of smaller engines on Vulcan was ever seriously contemplated. (Even after a competitor doing fine with 9)

[Chasm]

Why would if you are Spacex leave money on the table? [....]

Me? I would price as high as I could get away with. =) 

I suspect they underbid the first one, or someone woke up and asked if ITS is already financed or why are are giving away that much money.
Mostly I had a good laugh seeing the latest GPS contract since it goes against the usual launch price reduction spiel.


Getting a bit closer to the topic. With demonstrated ruse ULA certainly has more work to do to stays viable in the long run. The way the company is set up (both LM and Boeing have to decide) does not help. Congress trying to play rocket lego with the engine choice does not help either. No matter the outcome I bet we'll see more of that with the ACES engine.

I hope that BE-4 works out as expected and that they move on in the Vulcan design. After that there were some signs that ACES is getting accelerated, I'd like to see more of that. Seeing IVF fly on a Centaur would be really cool.
After all the staff cuts ULA can use some overt signs that the company is indeed moving forward. Further down the road, who knows. ULA certainly has plans for that, including first stage reuse. After all one of the big complaints, lots of studies, little action.

[Coastal Ron]

If you're going to jump into the middle of a debate you should understand what is being debated.  The original claim that I retorted was:

That makes comparisons harder and the SpaceX GPS launch costs are already on a steep rise. ULA would not get away with that trick.

And ULA did, as the article I cited showed.

This discussion goes back over 7 years.  Been knee-deep in it since before you were around.

On NSF maybe.  The same discussions and debates were happening on Space Politics where I used to hang out, so I'm quite knowledgeable about the topic of ULA pricing (Shuttle pricing too).

You don't believe that ULA increased prices, and I've shown they have.  Water under the bridge though, since ironically ULA prepared the way for SpaceX to provide competition - which the U.S. Government has stated it's happy to have because they have not been happy with ULA pricing for many years.

Which brings us to this week in history, which was also historic.  Will ULA react to what happened, and if so in what way?  And if they don't react how will they not just survive in the future launch market, but thrive when competing with at least two reusable launch companies?

Let's hope ULA is looking into reusability instead of just give it lip service like their engine recovery concept...

[Brovane]

In the past? Yeah, certainly as the commercial market went bust and the government decided to decide things once more.
Today? I really doubt it.

April 2016 GPS contract: This is a firm-fixed price, standalone contract with a total value of $82,700,000.
March 2017 GPS contract: This is a firm-fixed price, standalone contract with a total value of  $96,500,490.

~16% increase a year, no additional requirements as far as I know.
If SpaceX keeps that up ULA should be competitive in no time at all.

We came to the conclusion on this board for the April 2016 contract that SpaceX bid both horizontal and vertical integration and the USAF selected horizontal integration, the lower price.   

For the March 2017 contract, the USAF could have selected vertical integration. 

So the difference in contract prices could be because of the difference in integration of the payloads. 

[joek]

You don't believe that ULA increased prices, and I've shown they have.

WTF?  I did not say ULA's prices did not increase (please do not put words in my mouth).  That EELV costs increased significantly through 2010, and threatened to spiral out of control after 2010 is a well documented fact.  I (and others) have provided plenty of documentation in other threads to that effect.  That ULA was primarily responsible for those cost increases by virtue of their sole source position is arguable and far from fact.

You want to lay blame or point a finger, look to DoD/USAF; that's where the buck stopped.  ULA has been the tail on the DoD dog for a long time... was told what to do, how much to spend, what to spend it on, and acceptable profit, by DoD.  Certainly there was some culpability on ULA's part, but it was a classic co-dependent relationship with DoD in every sense of the word.

ULA has never been a typical commercial enterprise.  ULA has always been a USG captive; formed by request and consent of the USG, subject to the whims of the USG, and hand-cuffed by the codicil's of its parents.  To evaluate, judge or criticize ULA as a typical commercial enterprise (as you and others have and continue to do) is intellectually dishonest, disingenuous and warped.

[jongoff]

Seems like they would need a minimum of 5 engines on the core to use the middle engine for throttling down to land a booster.  5 engines is close to New Glenn.  Otherwise, they could use the old RS-27 or H-1 engine from Saturn I and Delta II on a larger core like SpaceX.  They are going to eventually have to get away from the Russian engines.  Newer engines being developed by SpaceX and Blue Origin are metholox engines at around 500,000 lbs + thrust.  I don't know if they have even started on the AR-1, and it is also a 500k thrust engine.

They can also go with smaller landing engines. Ursa Major and Masten are both working on LOX/Methane engines in the 25klbf class (staged combustion for Ursa and expander cycle for Masten). There's nothing that says you have to use all the same engine size, especially if there are other customers for that engine size to keep the production rates up.

~Jon

[TrevorMonty]

Seems like they would need a minimum of 5 engines on the core to use the middle engine for throttling down to land a booster.  5 engines is close to New Glenn.  Otherwise, they could use the old RS-27 or H-1 engine from Saturn I and Delta II on a larger core like SpaceX.  They are going to eventually have to get away from the Russian engines.  Newer engines being developed by SpaceX and Blue Origin are metholox engines at around 500,000 lbs + thrust.  I don't know if they have even started on the AR-1, and it is also a 500k thrust engine.

They can also go with smaller landing engines. Ursa Major and Masten are both working on LOX/Methane engines in the 25klbf class (staged combustion for Ursa and expander cycle for Masten). There's nothing that says you have to use all the same engine size, especially if there are other customers for that engine size to keep the production rates up.

~Jon

How much thrust would Vulcan need for landing burn ie how many 25k engines would be needed.
Deorbit burn could be done by BE4s.

[Coastal Ron]

You want to lay blame or point a finger, look to DoD/USAF; that's where the buck stopped.

Right, and the two largest government contractors had no influence over the situation, and didn't in any way try to profit from their monopoly.

Sorry, I've worked for DoD contractors (and worked closely with program managers), and I know better.

ULA has never been a typical commercial enterprise.

They were barely a commercial enterprise, since the majority of their work was for a captive customer.

ULA has always been a USG captive;

Let's just agree to disagree...   

...formed by request and consent of the USG, subject to the whims of the USG, and hand-cuffed by the codicil's of its parents.

ULA is at the mercy of it's corporate parents, but Boeing and Lockheed Martin could have sold their portion of the business if they didn't want to put up with the abuse you say the government was giving them.  Aerojet even offered to buy the Atlas V from them, so apparently their stockholders like the abuse they are having to take...   

Circling back to the subject at hand though - and which you seem to not want to discuss in any way - the end of the line for all previous sins is coming.  Regardless whose they were.  Because if ULA shuts down Atlas V and Delta IV, and then only replaces them with one launcher, that means that Boeing and Lockheed Martin can't point to anyone but themselves for the future situation they will be in.

So should they proceed with the expendable Vulcan knowing what SpaceX and Blue Origin have accomplished in the field of reusability?

[Brovane]

So should they proceed with the expendable Vulcan knowing what SpaceX and Blue Origin have accomplished in the field of reusability?

I don't see ULA having any other choice with the current design of the Vulcan except to move forward.  Maybe they can speed-up the introduction of smart reusability with the Vulcan. 

[joek]

Sorry, I've worked for DoD contractors (and worked closely with program managers), and I know better.

Your assertion that " I've worked with..." counts for squat without evidence or cites.  You have not provided either, so why should anyone believe your assertions or opinions over demonstrable facts?

[Coastal Ron]

Sorry, I've worked for DoD contractors (and worked closely with program managers), and I know better.

Your assertion that " I've worked with..." counts for squat without evidence or cites.  You have not provided either, so why should anyone believe your assertions or opinions over demonstrable facts?

I wasn't aware that resumes had to be attached with every post we make, and certainly I've never seen yours, so what's that proverb about the pot calling the kettle black?

Maybe you feel the need to address any perceived slights against ULA.  I can understand that.  But the bigger question today is not what has happened in the past with ULA but what will happen in the future, and how that will affect ULA.

Is the current Vulcan design a good enough product for ULA to thrive in the reusable launcher future?  Yes or no?

[spacenut]

The Saturn IB worked fine with 8 engines.  The Saturn V worked fine with 5.  I don't understand the fear of having multiple engines with today's computers.  It worked back then.  Only recently (the last 20 years or so) do they want single engine rockets, or at most two engines, or 3 for a heavy version.  BO and SpaceX both are either planning, or have built multiple engine rockets that work.  It also seems that with multiple engines, one can use a center engine to land a booster.   

[AncientU]

The Saturn IB worked fine with 8 engines.  The Saturn V worked fine with 5.  I don't understand the fear of having multiple engines with today's computers.  It worked back then.  Only recently (the last 20 years or so) do they want single engine rockets, or at most two engines, or 3 for a heavy version.  BO and SpaceX both are either planning, or have built multiple engine rockets that work.  It also seems that with multiple engines, one can use a center engine to land a booster.

Only if one wants to land a booster.
They apparently think it folly. YMMV

[AncientU]

If you're going to jump into the middle of a debate you should understand what is being debated.  The original claim that I retorted was:

That makes comparisons harder and the SpaceX GPS launch costs are already on a steep rise. ULA would not get away with that trick.

And ULA did, as the article I cited showed.

This discussion goes back over 7 years.  Been knee-deep in it since before you were around.  What's your point?  The article you cited is one of many possible, at best incomplete, and years late to the game.  You implied ULA could get away with "that trick".  I replied that they had not, and there are public records to show it.  You want to debate history with yourself, knock yourself out; you'll lose.

As reported by Amy Butler over at AvWeek.

The Pentagon has declared that the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) project has exceeded its original projected per-unit cost by 58.4%, triggering a rigorous review under the Nunn-McCurdy program oversight law.

This is not meant to be a "the house is on fire!" post but rather a place to intelligently discuss the causes, effects, and potential solutions to this cost spike.

Edit: sorry about the URL, was too tired last night and couldn't check NSF from work to discover my error.

bolds mine

[Coastal Ron]

The Saturn IB worked fine with 8 engines.  The Saturn V worked fine with 5.  I don't understand the fear of having multiple engines with today's computers.  It worked back then.  Only recently (the last 20 years or so) do they want single engine rockets, or at most two engines, or 3 for a heavy version.  BO and SpaceX both are either planning, or have built multiple engine rockets that work.  It also seems that with multiple engines, one can use a center engine to land a booster.

Both SpaceX and Blue Origin are committed to using clusters of engines so that they can use a subset of them to land empty stages.  I think the physics and practicality of that design philosophy are pretty much proven, with the cost benefits of that maybe not yet proven but can be thought of as analogous to what the aircraft industry is already doing.

Maybe there is a long-term need for expendable rockets, but there is already ample supply of expendable rockets that could compete with an expendable version of the Vulcan.

From a business case standpoint, I just don't see how they can justify their current design if they plan to not only survive in the space transportation business, but thrive.  I just don't see a path to becoming the #1, #2, or even #3 launch provider, and if you're outside of that group you won't likely get much business.

This is a decision for ULA's parents to make, and I hope they are seriously considering rethinking their current approach...

[LouScheffer]

Rather than discuss how rockets were priced in the past, perhaps more relevant to Vulcan is how they will be priced when Vulcan is introduced.  Here would be my guess:

Stock commercial launch (LEO or GTO) = $50M.  Everyone will be able to do this, so the most competitive market.  Customers are also flexible here, helping their negotiating power.

Government launch (LEO, GPS, comsat-like military satellites) = $100M.   There are extra costs for dealing with the government.  and not as much competition (SpaceX and ULA for sure, maybe Orbital and/or BO?).  Use the recent GPS contract as a guess.  You could imagine this is low (SpaceX is underbidding) or high (SpaceX can lower the price with re-use).

High-end government launch = $250M.  Custom fairing, vertical integration, extra security, more mission assurance, etc.  Guessing here that the government will be willing to pay more per launch here, instead of payments for capability.  Their goal would be to get at least two bidders here, to help both reliability (in case of stand-down for one) and eventually help lower costs.