-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
You've got me. I am not a rocket scientist but you'd think there have been some improvements in metallurgy in the last 16 years. The US/Air Force has used over 50 of these engines in their rocket. By their very nature they just can't be that complicated. It might take a bit of work to get an assembly line for all the various components together but it should be able to be done for a lot less than the $2 billion ULA says it would take to recreate the thing. Or do something different like SpaceX has done. I'm told by rocket scientists that the RD-180 is an exceptional engine. However there have been lots of testing done on newer engines like the RS-84. What is wrong with making some improvements to working designs? SpaceX is pushing the envelope and ULA needs to step it up quickly. The article says they are going to show off their new design which also has the ability to be reused.
ULA is screwed and they know it. Their current play is to fight Congress for allowing them to purchase more RD-180 engines. If Congress says no then ULA is over and done in 2019 or sooner. The 36 launch package deal is going to be their swansong until they manage to come up with something competitive with SpaceX. So the writing is on the wall because that is just not going to happen with their post Cold War big business mentality. It took decades to build the bureaucratic multi-state slow moving conglomeration that waits on the next government paycheck to bounce around an idea until the money runs out. All the young eager talent in the aerospace industry have moved over to the exciting SpaceX team. The Vulcan will be too little and too late to compete with the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy.
Hopefully they do get their act together quickly and cut out the fat so SpaceX has someone reasonably strong to compete against. SpaceX might just inspire them to dust off some of the good ideas that have been overlooked. Find something that works well and run with it. They will always be more expensive but they can be a good fall back in case there are any issues.
jeff_adams
Member
What makes SpaceX's rise even more impressive is the fact that Elon didn't seem to buy off politicians or military brass. ULA is a cesspool of conflict of interest and monopoly of business.
That interview was funny. He disputed the cost of the launches and said they were comparable to SpaceX's and he didn't understand how SpaceX was coming up with the 400 million dollar number, but when she asked him about the billion dollar subsidy, he said it wasn't a subsidy but related to launch expenses and maintenance, and that SpaceX gets it too, it's just accounted for in SpaceX's contract while it's a separate one for the ULA. Gee, maybe THATS where the mysterious extra money and expenses came from? If SpaceX includes all the maintenance and launch expenses with their contracted service and you charge a billion dollars more for it per year as a separate item, no, your launch costs are not comparable.
MartinAustin
Active Member
Hopefully this isn't too much of a deviation off-track, but I came across this 15-year-old British [i.e. not biased one way or another] documentary that explains how the RD-180 came to be. It's a rejuvenated version of a rocket motor that the USSR made in the 1960's to compete with Saturn 5 !!! Pretty amazing.
This was before SpaceX existed. Lockheed come across as nice guys... warm and fuzzies all around.
The Engines That Came In From The Cold - And how The NK-33/RD-180 Came To The USA - YouTube
This was before SpaceX existed. Lockheed come across as nice guys... warm and fuzzies all around.
The Engines That Came In From The Cold - And how The NK-33/RD-180 Came To The USA - YouTube
Mario Kadastik
Active Member
Surprised there's not more discussions on the Vulcan vs Falcon part 
The Vulcan (which sounds interestingly close to Falcon) is a small step forward from Delta and Atlas rockets merging the architecture and just evolutionary step. The interesting part is that they now plan to have an ejectable engine section that will re-enter using a heat shield and be caught by helicopters allowing for re-use of the engines in theory.
The reality of course is that it's a paper rocket with paper engine and a powerpoint level re-use that may or may not fly within a decade. Its cost in the future is not competitive with F9 launch costs now and the performance is essentially exactly the same as the F9 v1.2 (the supercooled lox, longer interstage etc upgrade flying in a month or two). The cost is 100M for Vulcan and 60M for F9. Also, the engine re-use of the Vulcan is a theory concept and would save ~20M so could in theory reduce the launch cost 10-20M while the F9 had an almost successful landing a couple of weeks ago. If you've not seen, check out the camera from the ASDS or the chase plane, it had to over-correct due to sticky valve and had too much lateral velocity at landing breaking one of the legs, but it did land, remain semi-upright for a good few seconds with the nitrogen thrusters doing their job keeping it steady, but once the thrusters finished the buckled leg gave way and the rocket fell over going kaboom. If they fix the valve, then they've shown three times now that they can hit their landing spot to within a couple of meters and will definitely nail a landing this year. That's full first stage re-use possibility in 2015/16
And don't even get me started on Ariane V/VI as those are in serious trouble. F9 is already stealing a lot of Ariane business on the lower slot (the "lighter" satellite in dual-launch) and with the Heavy coming this fall/next spring Ariane is starting to lose more and more of the main slot customers. The establishment is in serious trouble and it's definitely gotten to the phase of acknowledging SpaceX as a threat (with the ULA engine re-entry and capture showing clearly that they feel the re-use threat). And having launched this year already as many flights as Delta does in a year SpaceX is poised to become the second biggest launcher in the world (still ways to go to Soyuz territory) this year. Fun times ahead
The Vulcan (which sounds interestingly close to Falcon) is a small step forward from Delta and Atlas rockets merging the architecture and just evolutionary step. The interesting part is that they now plan to have an ejectable engine section that will re-enter using a heat shield and be caught by helicopters allowing for re-use of the engines in theory.The reality of course is that it's a paper rocket with paper engine and a powerpoint level re-use that may or may not fly within a decade. Its cost in the future is not competitive with F9 launch costs now and the performance is essentially exactly the same as the F9 v1.2 (the supercooled lox, longer interstage etc upgrade flying in a month or two). The cost is 100M for Vulcan and 60M for F9. Also, the engine re-use of the Vulcan is a theory concept and would save ~20M so could in theory reduce the launch cost 10-20M while the F9 had an almost successful landing a couple of weeks ago. If you've not seen, check out the camera from the ASDS or the chase plane, it had to over-correct due to sticky valve and had too much lateral velocity at landing breaking one of the legs, but it did land, remain semi-upright for a good few seconds with the nitrogen thrusters doing their job keeping it steady, but once the thrusters finished the buckled leg gave way and the rocket fell over going kaboom
. If they fix the valve, then they've shown three times now that they can hit their landing spot to within a couple of meters and will definitely nail a landing this year. That's full first stage re-use possibility in 2015/16 And don't even get me started on Ariane V/VI as those are in serious trouble. F9 is already stealing a lot of Ariane business on the lower slot (the "lighter" satellite in dual-launch) and with the Heavy coming this fall/next spring Ariane is starting to lose more and more of the main slot customers. The establishment is in serious trouble and it's definitely gotten to the phase of acknowledging SpaceX as a threat (with the ULA engine re-entry and capture showing clearly that they feel the re-use threat). And having launched this year already as many flights as Delta does in a year SpaceX is poised to become the second biggest launcher in the world (still ways to go to Soyuz territory) this year. Fun times ahead
That's because it's not really worth commenting on. The Vulcan is a fine design that you point out is so far out as to not be a consideration. The problem is that ULA was built around a cold war government bureaucracy mentality. It is a jobs program of immense proportions. The rockets are built in something like 8 states to spread the government money around. No chance it could ever compete with SpaceX which is a streamlined rocket building factory. No worries for the old guard. Lockheed has the F-35 and Boeing has the SLS boondoggle to fill their coffers.
The helicopter capture is utterly ridiculous.
Funny.
But yeah, ULA is still creating a jobs program and will continue to do so as long as the military and NASA continue to fund it. No reason to change if the customers are buying. And given that the politicians keep getting bribed, it may go on for a long time...
It looks like they'll be speeding things up at the last minute for approval:
SMC and SpaceX Formally Amend CRADA | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference
My comment:
This has two effects that I can foresee.
1. SpaceX gets to bypass a small amount of the Bureaucratic Red Tape for certification. I would not be surprised if the bypassed stuff is a waste of time and money.
2. It will allow ULA to "skip" the whole bureaucratic red tape thing to get their new rocket approved. Which would make this certification a one time hurdle for SpaceX only. Possibly very unfair. Meanwhile ULA is begging for more RD-180 engines to keep the money flowing. No one was upset when ULA was the only game in town and they were outrageously expensive. SpaceX shows up and now we're worried about a monopoly. I'm hoping this will push ULA into being much more competitive.
Interview: Gwynne Shotwell
An interview with Gwynne Shotwell about certification.
SMC and SpaceX Formally Amend CRADA | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference
My comment:
This has two effects that I can foresee.
1. SpaceX gets to bypass a small amount of the Bureaucratic Red Tape for certification. I would not be surprised if the bypassed stuff is a waste of time and money.
2. It will allow ULA to "skip" the whole bureaucratic red tape thing to get their new rocket approved. Which would make this certification a one time hurdle for SpaceX only. Possibly very unfair. Meanwhile ULA is begging for more RD-180 engines to keep the money flowing. No one was upset when ULA was the only game in town and they were outrageously expensive. SpaceX shows up and now we're worried about a monopoly. I'm hoping this will push ULA into being much more competitive.
Interview: Gwynne Shotwell
An interview with Gwynne Shotwell about certification.
Last edited:
It's over. SpaceX is finally certified.
SpaceX Gains Approval to Enter $70 Billion Military Market - Bloomberg Business
The block buy is still in effect and this only opens SpaceX up for launches that can be bid upon. SpaceX dropped the suit when the AF said they would open up more launches for bids.
Sorry for the cross post but this is the thread on the subject.
SpaceX Gains Approval to Enter $70 Billion Military Market - Bloomberg Business
The block buy is still in effect and this only opens SpaceX up for launches that can be bid upon. SpaceX dropped the suit when the AF said they would open up more launches for bids.
Sorry for the cross post but this is the thread on the subject.
With ULA's downsizing, might it be an opportunity for SpaceX to obtain key personnel? Could any of the 12 senior executives being let go be attractive to the SpaceX team? Or might there be a "No Compete" clause to whatever layoff package they receive?
rolosrevenge
Dr. EVS
adiggs
Well-Known Member
Do we know any of the 12 individuals that have taken the early retirement / separation opportunity and their actual resume / background? There are plenty of reasons why SpaceX might not want to adopt ULA culture and business conventions, but individuals at ULA may have a lot (and may have very little) to offer to SpaceX. Certainly based on the details of what's been posted here, I don't feel I know anything one way or the other.
ULA's homeboy?
"AMENDMENT TO THE RULES COMMITTEE
PRINT FOR H.R. 1735
OFFERED BY MR. COFFMAN OF COLORADO
At the end of subtitle A of title XVI, add the fol-
lowing new section:
1 SEC. 1616. ASSURANCE OF FULL LAUNCH CAPABILITY.
2 The Secretary of the Air Force may not award a con-
3 tract to a certified launch provider of the United States
4 unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that the launch
5 provider has one or more launch vehicles that is able to
6 accommodate all medium-weight and heavy-lift classes of
7 payloads included in the national security manifest."
http://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/COFFMA_0345715100933933.pdf
Uh, this buys time only to the moment when Falcon Heavy is certified. Needs to be worded like "two launch families" to help ULA... ;P
"AMENDMENT TO THE RULES COMMITTEE
PRINT FOR H.R. 1735
OFFERED BY MR. COFFMAN OF COLORADO
At the end of subtitle A of title XVI, add the fol-
lowing new section:
1 SEC. 1616. ASSURANCE OF FULL LAUNCH CAPABILITY.
2 The Secretary of the Air Force may not award a con-
3 tract to a certified launch provider of the United States
4 unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that the launch
5 provider has one or more launch vehicles that is able to
6 accommodate all medium-weight and heavy-lift classes of
7 payloads included in the national security manifest."
http://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/COFFMA_0345715100933933.pdf
Uh, this buys time only to the moment when Falcon Heavy is certified. Needs to be worded like "two launch families" to help ULA... ;P
Similar threads
- Article
