I'm starting to modify my antipathy for Senator Shelby a touch. An interesting prospect is for ULA to rush purchase significant numbers of (now nearly obsolete) Russian engines, only to have SPACEX demonstrate reusibility in the next 12-18 months, leaving ULA with a bunch of engines with no payloads. By opening this purchase window for ULA, the wise Senator Shelby may have doomed the company.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Hah! The irony of it all. But I think ULA is doomed whether they buy a bunch of ancient Russian rocket engine or not, doomed to business model of a dwindling number of over-priced government contract launches as the company slowly shrinks...
adiggs
Well-Known Member
Anybody that wants to be competitive with SpaceX (government or not) at the business of putting things into space better be on a path to reusability in 2 or 3 years max. Once Spacex demonstrates reusability and begins building it into their pricing structure, the only competitive response can be treating rocket engines as free. Only governments pursuing a path of nation security and self-reliance can afford that level of expense, and mostly even governments can't afford that.
The real kicker is that SpaceX is not trying to put their competitors out of business. SpaceX just has a goal they intend to meet and the consequence of achieving that goal happens to blow away every competitor.
Fundamentally ULA is dead in the water. They are just too large and too scattered to be competitive even if SpaceX didn't succeed with reusability. Their only saving grace now is their track record, contracts, no politician wants to see a bunch of jobs go away, safety net as a backup launch system, and bureaucratic inertia.
Fundamentally ULA is dead in the water. They are just too large and too scattered to be competitive even if SpaceX didn't succeed with reusability. Their only saving grace now is their track record, contracts, no politician wants to see a bunch of jobs go away, safety net as a backup launch system, and bureaucratic inertia.
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
I would expect ULA to hang around a while longer. If for no other reason than "assured access to space" or redundancy in launch vehicles. Regardless of how over-priced ULA may or may not be. Unless another launch vehicle service provider pops up to provide the US Government with certified rockets. The US Government is not going to be comfortable with only Falcon 9 rockets. They need a Delta, Atlas, or any other certified rocket to back stop Spacex. Foreign rockets are out of the question. Blue Origin? Maybe, but not for a while yet. Until then, I don't see ULA going away. They still have a backlog to get through. Satellite operators are loath to rely on a single launch provider (although they do have access to foreign rockets), so they will keep spreading the business around.
On the other hand: would the US government accept "assured access to space" redundancy with actual reusable rockets. Meaning because rockets are no longer being expended in the near future, would a previously flown booster provide "redundancy" in case another Falcon 9 mission fails? I think not, because there are lots of other related issues revolving around a failed mission (possible damage to launch pads, failure in the expendable upper stage, etc.). But I do think it deserves a closer look in light of what the competition (ULA) would charge being an only 40% provider (minimum # of launches in order to remain viable). For example: if a reusable Falcon 9 mission only costs $10 million, but it cost $100 million for the same mission from ULA. Would the need for different suppliers justify the outrageous price difference? Perhaps of fleet of used Falcon 9 boosters sitting in the hanger, with multiple launch pads available would provide the needed redundancy in access to space. I just see the whole launcher redundancy becoming obsolete in the face of reusable boosters... maybe.
On the other hand: would the US government accept "assured access to space" redundancy with actual reusable rockets. Meaning because rockets are no longer being expended in the near future, would a previously flown booster provide "redundancy" in case another Falcon 9 mission fails? I think not, because there are lots of other related issues revolving around a failed mission (possible damage to launch pads, failure in the expendable upper stage, etc.). But I do think it deserves a closer look in light of what the competition (ULA) would charge being an only 40% provider (minimum # of launches in order to remain viable). For example: if a reusable Falcon 9 mission only costs $10 million, but it cost $100 million for the same mission from ULA. Would the need for different suppliers justify the outrageous price difference? Perhaps of fleet of used Falcon 9 boosters sitting in the hanger, with multiple launch pads available would provide the needed redundancy in access to space. I just see the whole launcher redundancy becoming obsolete in the face of reusable boosters... maybe.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
At the very least, if the pricing is $10M vs. $100M (I realize we're making up numbers to illustrate orders of magnitude), every $100M launch the US government pays for is going to get all kinds of negative publicity. Meanwhile, with reusability and order of magnitude lower pricing, SpaceX is going to be opening up space to a large number of new entrants. If SpaceX is also flying weekly (sounds crazy today, but that might be a holiday week in a few years), the "assured access to space" thing is going to be a lot less important.
And the usual reason for a second supplier - for pricing power as you pit them against each other - isn't going to sound too good in the media when you can get 10+ flights with one provider for the cost of 1 flight from the "keep them honest" supplier
Heck - that's such a huge reduction in cost that relative to today's pricing, all the satellites you want to build just got better than free.It just throws everything about space flight that we think we know today up in the air. Wouldn't it be amusing if this marked the start of real space tourism - not going up close to the boundary for a few minutes, but going all the way into orbit for a week of vacation, and then returning?
- - - Updated - - -
One thought I have about how things might change - once reusability starts happening for real, I see a change coming in rocket design. As I understand things today, rockets are designed around being the bare minimum weight and structure strength necessary to accomplish the mission. Every gram of anything past that point is waste.
When you stop throwing away $60M launch vehicles routinely, maybe it makes more sense to build heavier rockets with more structural integrity that can handle the stresses of multiple launches. Even if that cost goes up to $80M for the rocket and $500k for the propellant each launch, you're saving crazy amounts of money on the second launch and every launch afterwards.
Heck - maybe SpaceX puts payloads on a bigger Falcon Heavy in the future strictly because the 3 first stages can be recovered (yes - I am presuming that SpaceX figures out how to actually make that happen, instead of just the artists rendering of how it might work), where a Falcon with 1 first stage would be at it's limit and couldn't carry the fuel to be recovered.
chickensevil
Active Member
Funny how having a redundant launch provider only matters now that there are two... Where was the push to keep it from becoming just one provider before? Oh that's right because Boeing and Lockheed schemes together to hold a gun to the government's head threatening to quit launching altogether unless they caved too their demands... Now that the government can be free of their kidnappers, they are having a bit of Stockholm syndrome by saying they were wonderful to us... I mean sure they tied our hands together, but they gave us access to space! Can't you see? They just needed to make a little money, give them a little slack....
I don't think so. They'd have to seriously redesign their rocket to be able to use them though. The reality is that there are plenty of advanced engine designs out there that the government spent billions on. ULA could easily dust off some of those designs but they seem to be more interested in letting someone else design them or mimic the RD-180 instead.
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
#1- It is unlikely Spacex would willingly sell important rocket components to their competitor. Perhaps in a dire emergency (World War 3?) the government would compel them to.
#2- If ULA did get their hands on some Merlin 1Ds somehow, they couldn't do much with them at the moment. The Merlin engine is wildly different than the RD-180. Although the fuel is the same, not much else is. In rocket design, start by building your engine. Then when that's understood, build the stage (rocket body) around it. So in order to utilize Merlin engines on their rocket, they would have to completely redesign their first stage of the booster to accommodate the engines.
#3- I think for ULA, the only thing more humiliating than buying rocket engines from Putin is buying rocket engines from Elon Musk.
Thumper
Active Member
Nightly Business Report on PBS (produced by MSNBC) did a horrible job of reporting during a short sequence on the supposed "space race" upcoming in 2016. As seen at about 25 minutes into the show Nightly Business Report – January 1, 2016 - YouTube , the reporter seem unaware that SpaceX has done anything since the second stage failure last year or that the launch on 12/21 had been an enormous triumph. Also seemed bent on hyping Bezos. Dreadful coverage for a business show especially. You can write them from their website Nightly Business Report | Produced by CNBC
Orbital ATK, SpaceX Win Air Force Propulsion Contract.
"...to SpaceX for development testing of the Raptor upper stage engine"
http://spacenews.com/orbital-atk-spacex-win-air-force-propulsion-contracts/
http://www.losangeles.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123466879
"...to SpaceX for development testing of the Raptor upper stage engine"
http://spacenews.com/orbital-atk-spacex-win-air-force-propulsion-contracts/
http://www.losangeles.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123466879
hockeythug
Active Member
Now they have a contract with Eutelsat:
http://spacenews.com/with-eutelsat-win-spacex-has-business-with-all-5-top-satellite-fleet-owners/
http://spacenews.com/with-eutelsat-win-spacex-has-business-with-all-5-top-satellite-fleet-owners/
hockeythug
Active Member
Interesting that Sierra Nevada also got selected. Their Dream Chaser doesn't seem particularly well designed for cargo. Will they also be able to return cargo from the ISS?
I assume they'll launch from an Atlas V?
I assume they'll launch from an Atlas V?
hockeythug
Active Member
Via Reddit:
SpaceX Dragon, which launches on the Falcon 9, can return cargo to earth, can carry unpressurized cargo in the trunk, and is likely to be the least expensive. Major downside: is quite volume limited.
Orbital Cygnus, which launches on an Atlas V/Antares, has very high pressurized volume (almost triple the internal volume of Dragon), burns up in the atmosphere on return (useful for getting rid of trash). Major downside: new version of the Antares rocket has not yet flown.
Sierra Nevada Dreamchaser, which launches on Atlas V, returns cargo, lands horizontally using wings (high crossrange, gentle landing environment). Major downside: still needs further development, and has not yet flown in space.
Similar threads
- Article
