TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
  1. TMC is currently READ ONLY.
    Click here for more info.

SpaceX vs. Everyone - ULA, NG, Boeing, Lockheed, etc.

Discussion in 'SpaceX' started by Bgarret, Apr 25, 2014.

Tags:
  1. jeff_adams

    jeff_adams Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    618
    Location:
    Monterey
    In the age of 3-D printers they can't figure out how to build their own engine?
     
  2. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    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.
     
  3. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    8,229
    Location:
    San Diego
  4. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    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.
     
  5. jeff_adams

    jeff_adams Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    618
    Location:
    Monterey
    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.
     
  6. mhan00

    mhan00 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2014
    Messages:
    1,051
    Location:
    Southern California
    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.
     
  7. MartinAustin

    MartinAustin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,670
    Location:
    Austin, Texas USA
    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
     
  8. Mario Kadastik

    Mario Kadastik Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Messages:
    2,189
    Location:
    Rae, Harjumaa, Estonia
    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 ;)
     
  9. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    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.
     
  10. doug

    doug Administrator / Head Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,843
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    The everlasting geek struggle of Star Trek vs Star Wars...
     
  11. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    8,229
    Location:
    San Diego
    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...
     
  12. scaesare

    scaesare Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2013
    Messages:
    8,178
    Location:
    NoVA
  13. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    #113 Grendal, May 19, 2015
    Last edited: May 19, 2015
    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.
     
  14. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
  15. AudubonB

    AudubonB One can NOT induce accuracy with precision!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2013
    Messages:
    7,951
    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?
     
  16. rolosrevenge

    rolosrevenge Dr. EVS

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,864
    I'm not sure Space X would want any of them.
     
  17. AudubonB

    AudubonB One can NOT induce accuracy with precision!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2013
    Messages:
    7,951
    That also is possible, but remember that Tesla's von Holzhausen came from GM, so there's an analogous precedent.
     
  18. adiggs

    adiggs Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    4,172
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    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.
     
  19. HVM

    HVM Savolainen

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    969
    Location:
    Finland
    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
     

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC