-
America’s Premier Launch Services Provider Discusses Future Innovations by Chris Bergin on 26 Jun, 2015 17:08
-
America’s Premier Launch Services Provider – United Launch Alliance – Discusses Future Innovations While Maintaining Industry Leading Reliability and Capability
CEO States Uncertainty in FY15 National Defense Authorization Act Could Eliminate Competition and Jeopardize Assured Access to Space
Washington, D.C., (June 26, 2015) – United Launch Alliance (ULA) President and CEO Tory Bruno testified today before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, regarding the future of space and how ULA is working with innovative partners to develop an American rocket engine.
Bruno noted that ULA is well-positioned to retain its position as the unsurpassed industry leader, building on its record of reliable, on-time and on- or under-budget launch services even as the company transforms to meet market needs. One of the company’s primary objectives is ensuring a timely and smooth transition to a domestic rocket engine.
“To end use of the RD-180 engine and make commercial investments in a new engine and system that will meet our national launch requirements, ULA needs the ability to compete into the next decade,” said Bruno. “The House has correctly addressed concern over the RD-180 engine by allowing ULA to use engines already on contract while prohibiting additional purchases, which reflects the original intent of the FY15 National Defense Authorization Act.”
ULA supports the U.S. goal of relying on American-made rocket engines to ensure access to space. To achieve that goal, ULA has signed agreements with Blue Origin and Aerojet Rocketdyne to develop engines for its next-generation launch vehicle -- Vulcan.
As the Air Force testified to Congress earlier this year, a new engine requires six to eight years to develop, test, certify and prepare for operational missions. In addition, a new engine is not a direct replacement to the RD-180 – any new engine would require significant booster redesign.
“One cannot just plug a new ‘form-fit-function’ engine into a rocket and expect system reliability,” said Bruno. “Neither engine under development by our partners would automatically work as a one-to-one replacement.”
During his testimony, Bruno reiterated that ULA fully supports competition in the launch industry.
“We welcome competition on a fair and level playing field. However, if the current law is not modified, America will not have assured access to space and competition will have been unintentionally eliminated, giving the new entrant a monopoly,” he said. “ULA would like to continue its stellar service to our nation’s warfighter and intelligence community, but can only do so if the replacement for the Atlas V is cost competitive.”
He noted three goals ULA is pursuing to ensure the company can continue to support the nation’s needs for assured access to space:
· Ensure ULA is able to use all of the engines currently on contract to allow for a smooth transition to an American-made engine
· Retire the Delta IV Medium launch vehicle to eliminate the costs of maintaining two infrastructures
· Develop an American-made engine that provides 35 percent greater performance over the RD-180
“I am optimistic about the future of space launch, what my company does for this nation, and the great things that come from investing in American ingenuity to advance our space needs,” said Bruno. “ULA is proud of the combined century of Atlas and Delta launch heritage, and we are transforming to continue to be the nation’s provider with a more capable, more affordable next-generation launch vehicle.”
Since its inception in 2006, ULA has launched 96 missions with 100 percent mission success. ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV rockets are the more powerful and reliable in the world and are the only rockets that fully meet the needs of the U.S. national security community.
With more than a century of combined heritage, United Launch Alliance is the nation’s most experienced and reliable launch service provider. ULA has successfully delivered more than 95 satellites to orbit that provide critical capabilities for troops in the field, aid meteorologists in tracking severe weather, enable personal device-based GPS navigation and unlock the mysteries of our solar system.
For more information on ULA, visit the ULA website at www.ulalaunch.com, or call the ULA Launch Hotline at 1-877-ULA-4321 (852-4321). Join the conversation at www.facebook.com/ulalaunch, twitter.com/ulalaunch and instagram.com/ulalaunch. -
#1 by sghill on 26 Jun, 2015 18:01
-
Quote
As the Air Force testified to Congress earlier this year, a new engine requires six to eight years to develop, test, certify and prepare for operational missions. In addition, a new engine is not a direct replacement to the RD-180 – any new engine would require significant booster redesign.
“One cannot just plug a new ‘form-fit-function’ engine into a rocket and expect system reliability,” said Bruno. “Neither engine under development by our partners would automatically work as a one-to-one replacement.”
During his testimony, Bruno reiterated that ULA fully supports competition in the launch industry.
“We welcome competition on a fair and level playing field. However, if the current law is not modified, America will not have assured access to space and competition will have been unintentionally eliminated, giving the new entrant a monopoly,” he said. “ULA would like to continue its stellar service to our nation’s warfighter and intelligence community, but can only do so if the replacement for the Atlas V is cost competitive.”
Meanwhile, from the SpaceX statement to the Armed Services sub committee.QuoteSpaceX has successfully developed the 9 engines mentioned above in the past 13 years. In the case of the Merlin 1C, which powered the first successful Falcon 1 missions and the first 5 Falcon 9 missions, the engine went from design to flight in just two years. The follow-on Merlin 1D, which currently powers the Falcon 9, and has more flight heritage than than the first stage engines on the Atlas V and Delta IV combined, went from development to first flight in less than two years. These engines are not clones of past designs, the M1D is the most efficient rocket engine in history by thrust to weight ratio......
Hmmmm. One of these things is not like the other.
Yes, I know I'm being a teeny bit unfair, but not by much given the delta between the two development times. -
#2 by edkyle99 on 26 Jun, 2015 22:56
-
Big difference between gas generator and staged combustion development effort. Also, Merlin produces 3.5 times less thrust than BE-4, which further scales the effort. It does show how smart SpaceX has been in its propulsion decisions (so much fan focus on reusability, etc., but that darn engine is the crux of the entire matter - the real key to Falcon 9 competitiveness). On the other hand, staged combustion, if done right, could be a tough competitor in the long run, because it will take 28 Merlins to compete with only two BE-4s and an RL10.
- Ed Kyle -
#3 by Coastal Ron on 26 Jun, 2015 23:06
-
On the other hand, staged combustion, if done right, could be a tough competitor in the long run, because it will take 28 Merlins to compete with only two BE-4s and an RL10.
If SpaceX perfects reusability, then until ULA perfects reusability the formula is a different one, since 27 of the 28 Merlins will be able to be reused many times but the 2ea BE-4's will be thrown away after each launch. That's the cost equation ULA is facing... -
#4 by quanthasaquality on 26 Jun, 2015 23:29
-
Meanwhile, from the SpaceX statement to the Armed Services sub committee.
QuoteSpaceX has successfully developed the 9 engines mentioned above in the past 13 years. In the case of the Merlin 1C, which powered the first successful Falcon 1 missions and the first 5 Falcon 9 missions, the engine went from design to flight in just two years. The follow-on Merlin 1D, which currently powers the Falcon 9, and has more flight heritage than than the first stage engines on the Atlas V and Delta IV combined, went from development to first flight in less than two years. These engines are not clones of past designs, the M1D is the most efficient rocket engine in history by thrust to weight ratio......
Hmmmm. One of these things is not like the other.
Yes, I know I'm being a teeny bit unfair, but not by much given the delta between the two development times.
SpaceX has been evolving a single rocket engine, starting from the incomplete fastrac engine that Marshall worked on during the late 90s.
I am curious how SpaceX will make its merlin engines low cost, high thrust to weight, and very reusable. The SSME was expensive, and it was a lot of work to make it somewhat reusable. With expensive SSME refurbishment. -
#5 by Dante80 on 27 Jun, 2015 00:03
-
I am curious how SpaceX will make its merlin engines low cost, high thrust to weight, and very reusable. The SSME was expensive, and it was a lot of work to make it somewhat reusable. With expensive SSME refurbishment.
Correct me if I am wrong, But I think the two first points are already demonstrated.
1. Merlin seems to be pretty low cost, judging both by SpaceΧ launch prices and their strategy of engine production (10 engines per launch, a lot of engines produced, pretty straightforward gas generator kerolox design)
2. I think the Merlin 1d has the best TWR in the world right now.
Regarding re-usability, we will have to wait and see. SpaceX has been saying that they have designed the Merlin to be re-usable (higher margins etc), but they will have to land some first stages and actually test the engines again to prove the concept. Also, I don't know how much will coking be an issue on merlin re-usability.
As a principle, designing an engine to be re-usable means that the engine is more expensive than one that is designed to be expendable. At the same time, the goal is that the higher cost is offset by the fact that you can use the engine again, instead of building another one. And the key point here is what the refurbishment cost is going to be. We will have to see. -
#6 by ChrisWilson68 on 27 Jun, 2015 00:13
-
Meanwhile, from the SpaceX statement to the Armed Services sub committee.
If SpaceX wants to insist they are different engines maybe the USAF should play along. New LV certification for each "new engine."QuoteSpaceX has successfully developed the 9 engines mentioned above in the past 13 years. In the case of the Merlin 1C, which powered the first successful Falcon 1 missions and the first 5 Falcon 9 missions, the engine went from design to flight in just two years. The follow-on Merlin 1D, which currently powers the Falcon 9, and has more flight heritage than than the first stage engines on the Atlas V and Delta IV combined, went from development to first flight in less than two years. These engines are not clones of past designs, the M1D is the most efficient rocket engine in history by thrust to weight ratio......
Hmmmm. One of these things is not like the other.
Yes, I know I'm being a teeny bit unfair, but not by much given the delta between the two development times.
That would not be an issue, since only two engines, regular and vac versions of Merlin 1D, have ever been included in any certification effort by the USAF. The uprating of the thrust through prop densification has never been called a new engine by SpaceX. And SpaceX has never indicated any plans to replace Merlin 1D on a Falcon 9-class vehicle.
-
#7 by ChrisWilson68 on 27 Jun, 2015 00:18
-
I am curious how SpaceX will make its merlin engines low cost, high thrust to weight, and very reusable. The SSME was expensive, and it was a lot of work to make it somewhat reusable. With expensive SSME refurbishment.
Correct me if I am wrong, But I think the two first points are already demonstrated.
1. Merlin seems to be pretty low cost, judging both by SpaceΧ launch prices and their strategy of engine production (10 engines per launch, a lot of engines produced, pretty straightforward gas generator kerolox design)
2. I think the Merlin 1d has the best TWR in the world right now.
I completely agree.Regarding re-usability, we will have to wait and see. SpaceX has been saying that they have designed the Merlin to be re-usable (higher margins etc), but they will have to land some first stages and actually test the engines again to prove the concept. Also, I don't know how much will coking be an issue on merlin re-usability.
I agree we'll have to wait and see if there are any surprises on reusability.
But coking won't be a problem for SpaceX's plans. They've already had a Merlin 1D on the test stand that they've fired over and over. So SpaceX already knows very well how coking affects Merlin 1D.
Even after that engine test program was concluded, Elon said that a Merlin 1D could fire 30 times before needing some parts replaced in an overhaul. I don't know if they managed to making the engine do little coking or they know how to clean it out easily, but SpaceX knows the answer and they believe it won't cause their reuse plans to fail, so I think we should believe them.
-
#8 by ChrisWilson68 on 27 Jun, 2015 00:25
-
I think ULA laying it on so thick with the "America's Premier Launch Provider" stuff really backfires on them, and they don't even know it. ULA's communication department seems to be stuck in the 1950s and doesn't get how these kinds of heavy-handed messages don't resonate with people today.
People today respond to more genuine, realistic messages.
-
#9 by Dante80 on 27 Jun, 2015 00:34
-
Mr Bruno's plan is sound imo, although pretty difficult to accomplish.
1. He understands that ULA must become/remain competitive.
2. He understands the need for consolidation.
3. His plan for Vulcan is pretty good (and his collaboration with Blue Origin both unexpected and commendable).
4. ACES and SMART bring a lot of innovation to the table.
5. Phasing out the DIV is the right thing to do, especially since its far less competitive than Atlas.
6. Trying to keep Atlas afloat as long as possible so that the transition to Vulcan is smooth is the obvious choice (both for him and for the EELV program in general).
I wish the best to him and ULA! -
#10 by rayleighscatter on 27 Jun, 2015 00:41
-
People today respond to more genuine, realistic messages.
Colonize Mars? -
#11 by ChrisWilson68 on 27 Jun, 2015 01:05
-
I don't begrudge ULA touting their historical success. It is quite impressive. But I do agree that it would be more accurate for them to say America's Premier Government Launch Services Provider. There's nothing wrong with that because it's true. But then you'd have to accurately state that SpaceX is America's Premier Commercial Launch Services Provider. As that is also true.
Yeah, but the point is SpaceX press releases never say "America's Premiere SOMETHING" -- they just say "SpaceX". They'll tell you about why they think SpaceX is great, but not in that kind of off-putting language.
-
#12 by Bob Shaw on 27 Jun, 2015 01:08
-
Er...
...SpaceX is dealing with a much more benign engineering environment than the SSME, which is why their rather conservative designs work in terms of reuse. No LH2/02 *big* engines, warm cryogenics, multiply redundant engine units - you're looking at a different game.
SpaceX has embraced KISS, and is building the Big Dumb Booster, trading best for good enough. -
#13 by ChrisWilson68 on 27 Jun, 2015 01:11
-
People today respond to more genuine, realistic messages.
Colonize Mars?
Well that's just the thing -- SpaceX doesn't inappropriately push the Mars colonization idea. Today, for example, SpaceX had a press release about their program to land and re-use stages, in preparation for their landing attempt on Sunday. The word "Mars" didn't even appear in the article, let alone having it titled "America's Premiere Mars Settlement Company -- SpaceX -- Will Soon Land a Stage".
When they do talk about Mars, it's in a very earnest and genuine way -- not in marketing-speak.
-
#14 by ChrisWilson68 on 27 Jun, 2015 01:16
-
[quoting Bruno] We welcome competition on a fair and level playing field.
Cool! So I guess Bruno is willing to immediately end the launch-capabilities contract that give ULA $1 billion a year even if they don't fly and tear up the block buy contract that locks out competition for years into the future.
-
#15 by QuantumG on 27 Jun, 2015 03:54
-
I think your confusion comes from the word "America's".. don't you know that the US government is America? Now when you read "serving America's interests" in articles about the US you'll understand.
-
#16 by Chris Bergin on 27 Jun, 2015 14:48
-
People today respond to more genuine, realistic messages.
Colonize Mars?
Well that's just the thing -- SpaceX doesn't inappropriately push the Mars colonization idea. Today, for example, SpaceX had a press release about their program to land and re-use stages, in preparation for their landing attempt on Sunday. The word "Mars" didn't even appear in the article, let alone having it titled "America's Premiere Mars Settlement Company -- SpaceX -- Will Soon Land a Stage".
When they do talk about Mars, it's in a very earnest and genuine way -- not in marketing-speak.
-
#17 by edkyle99 on 27 Jun, 2015 16:19
-
ULA is currently "America's Premier Launch Services Provider" by every measuring stick I can imagine.
Since 2010 inclusive, ULA has performed 59 launches with no failures. During the same period, SpaceX performed 18 launches with a failure and Orbital performed 15 launches with two failures. If the monetary value of the combined payloads were compared, the difference would be even greater.
As for the idea that another company could be tagged a "commercial launch" leader, the fact is that none of these companies have orbited as many U.S. based (since the claim is "America" which I assume is meant as short hand for U.S.A.) commercial satellite operator satellites during the period as Proton or Ariane.
- Ed Kyle -
#18 by ArbitraryConstant on 27 Jun, 2015 17:28
-
Perhaps the "fewest engines" era is over?
Seemingly continued squeamishness from established providers, but new entrants (FireFly, Rocket Lab) seem just fine with 9+ engines on the first stage.On the other hand, staged combustion, if done right, could be a tough competitor in the long run, because it will take 28 Merlins to compete with only two BE-4s and an RL10.
I find this about as convincing as dismissing PCs because you only need one mainframe. -
#19 by Semmel on 27 Jun, 2015 19:01
-
Its very interesting to observe the connection of ULA, BO and AR at the hearing. BOs engine BE-4 is likely to be better performing, given that it uses natural gas. But than again, BO might become a competitor in the future. ARs engine AR-1 sounds not bad, but takes apparently longer and (assumed by me based on the fuel type) less performance than the BE-4.
So technically the BE-4 seems to be the better choice. But then again, I wouldnt trust anything that comes out of BO at this point, simply because of their secrecy. Someone acts like that if he has something to hide and I cant really trust someone who is not open. The BE-3 apparently works quite well, but unless there is some heritage, I would not give it much trust either.
That is really a tough choice. Im very interested how it pans out.. -
#20 by Zed_Noir on 27 Jun, 2015 19:12
-
But which one is cheaper. The 28 Merlins or the 2 BE-4 plus the RL-10C?On the other hand, staged combustion, if done right, could be a tough competitor in the long run, because it will take 28 Merlins to compete with only two BE-4s and an RL10.
I find this about as convincing as dismissing PCs because you only need one mainframe.
Hmm. Ed is comparing the Vulcan 501 to a Falcon Heavy! Which is the equivalent with the Vulcan 561 with 6 strapped-on solid rocket boosters.
IMO, the Vulcan 501 is about equivalent to the Delta IV medium+ (5,2) not the Delta IV Heavy. -
#21 by Kryten on 27 Jun, 2015 19:20
-
Given SpaceX isn't intending to use dual-launch, isn't Falcon Heavy their equivalent to all Vulcan variants?
-
#22 by Hauerg on 27 Jun, 2015 19:40
-
ULA is currently "America's Premier Launch Services Provider" by every measuring stick I can imagine.
Wrong.
Since 2010 inclusive, ULA has performed 59 launches with no failures. During the same period, SpaceX performed 18 launches with a failure and Orbital performed 15 launches with two failures. If the monetary value of the combined payloads were compared, the difference would be even greater.
As for the idea that another company could be tagged a "commercial launch" leader, the fact is that none of these companies have orbited as many U.S. based (since the claim is "America" which I assume is meant as short hand for U.S.A.) commercial satellite operator satellites during the period as Proton or Ariane.
- Ed Kyle -
#23 by Kabloona on 27 Jun, 2015 20:01
-
So technically the BE-4 seems to be the better choice. But then again, I wouldnt trust anything that comes out of BO at this point, simply because of their secrecy. Someone acts like that if he has something to hide and I cant really trust someone who is not open. The BE-3 apparently works quite well, but unless there is some heritage, I would not give it much trust either.
Probably the people who are buying the engine (ULA) have a little more insight into what BO is doing than we do.
;-) -
#24 by Rocket Science on 27 Jun, 2015 20:15
-
I think it’s fair for ULA to thump their chest at this point in time. Going forward however; with their level of uncertainty, it “may” be their “last” time...
-
#25 by nadreck on 27 Jun, 2015 20:20
-
This debate about the phrase "America's Premier Launch Services Provider" all reminds me of two things:
1) Robert Heinlein's "I met a lizard the other day who proudly told me he was a brontosaurus on his mother's side"
2) Someone I worked with who would retreat behind the litany "I am the former president of NEDCO, Northern Electric's Canadian operation" whenever he couldn't get what he wanted from a supplier, contractor, government employee. -
#26 by edkyle99 on 27 Jun, 2015 20:27
-
#27 by Patchouli on 27 Jun, 2015 21:17
-
Big difference between gas generator and staged combustion development effort. Also, Merlin produces 3.5 times less thrust than BE-4, which further scales the effort. It does show how smart SpaceX has been in its propulsion decisions (so much fan focus on reusability, etc., but that darn engine is the crux of the entire matter - the real key to Falcon 9 competitiveness). On the other hand, staged combustion, if done right, could be a tough competitor in the long run, because it will take 28 Merlins to compete with only two BE-4s and an RL10.
Spacex was very smart to go with a conservative gas generator engine as it allowed them to get something flying without going into materials development.
- Ed Kyle
Their only mistake was as Musk admitted himself was that Falcon 1 might have been a bit too small and he wished they started with a rocket about twice it's size.
Now Falcon and Saturn both have shown they can handle an in flight failure and still complete the mission so maybe have 5 to 9 engines in the first stage is not a bad thing.
From a failure stand point two engines is probably the worst possible number to have in the first stage as you doubled the change of failure but do not even have enough margin to handle a one at any point in first stage burn.
BTW gas generator engine can be made just as high thrust as a staged combustion engine.
A single F-1 sized GG engine would generally outperform two BE-4s by a good margin despite having a lower ISP.
Though it might be more expensive then even two BE-4s despite being easier to develop.
-
#28 by watermod on 28 Jun, 2015 00:14
-
With the negative comparison of small engines over large followed by discussion of three possible new large engines...
I was amused to see one possible very large engine NOT mentioned.
An engine that is a constant thread generator on these forums.
So does anybody have any clue when SpaceX will have a large enough piece of one of their Raptors on a test bed that even SpaceX critics or Capitol Hill can call it a large engine under development?
-
#29 by ArbitraryConstant on 28 Jun, 2015 01:50
-
But which one is cheaper. The 28 Merlins or the 2 BE-4 plus the RL-10C?
Well, from that hearing it sounds like a bit less than $20m for the BE-4 pair. My understanding is RL-10 also costs a bit less than $20m. So call it ~$35m for engines on a Vulcan 401.
I would be astonished if the unit cost of Merlin were even $1m, otherwise the price delta between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy would be bigger.Hmm. Ed is comparing the Vulcan 501 to a Falcon Heavy! Which is the equivalent with the Vulcan 561 with 6 strapped-on solid rocket boosters.
No, what he's doing is surveying the entire range of payloads and selecting for the purpose of discussion the narrow window between where a Falcon 9 wouldn't be enough but a Vulcan would not yet need solids. Anything outside that window is quite a lot more favorable to SpaceX, but it's worth discussing because it's good to allow charitable assumptions in a discussion and I don't think Vulcan's costs look that good there. Merely less bad.
??