ULA launch and discussion thread

[Canopus]

10 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

That’s a good niche for ULA. While the billionaires of new space are trying to build gargantuan rockets for their dream colonies, ULA is quietly moving towards the industrialization of Earth-Moon system. 

Well this and Bezos vision work hand in hand. The only one who wants to build a far off colony seems to be Musk.

13 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Interesting. Wonder how much will survive of this plan when certain two companies will put their high - capacity, reuseable heavy lifters on the market.

There doesn't seem to be a transportation monopoly on earth. So why should it be much different in space?

[Scotius]

ULA's own plan reeks of monopolism. They offer other companies ride to the Moon, like they will be only ones capable of doing so in foreseeable future. But what will happen if there will be two competing companies on the market - offering the same ride, and probably cheaper? Will one third of the cake be enough to feed this ambitious plan? Notice that besides ACES ULA's plan doesn't mention anything groundbreaking and innovative technology-wise. It reminds me of shipyards and maritime companies still building and holding on to sailships, while steamers were becoming technologically and logistically viable for transoceanic transport. A bit less hubris wouldn't hurt anyone...

[Canopus]

13 minutes ago, Scotius said:

ULA's own plan reeks of monopolism. They offer other companies ride to the Moon, like they will be only ones capable of doing so in foreseeable future. But what will happen if there will be two competing companies on the market - offering the same ride, and probably cheaper? Will one third of the cake be enough to feed this ambitious plan? Notice that besides ACES ULA's plan doesn't mention anything groundbreaking and innovative technology-wise. It reminds me of shipyards and maritime companies still building and holding on to sailships, while steamers were becoming technologically and logistically viable for transoceanic transport. A bit less hubris wouldn't hurt anyone...

Sorry but refueling upper stages, keeping them alive and reusing them in space is maybe even more groundbreaking than landing rockets on earth. Quite the opposite of hanging on to "Sailing ships".

[tater]

5 minutes ago, Canopus said:

Sorry but refueling upper stages, keeping them alive and reusing them in space is maybe even more groundbreaking than landing rockets on earth. Quite the opposite of hanging on to "Sailing ships".

Propellant depots have been talked about for ages, but certain congress types for some inexplicable reason hated the idea (maybe it wasn't invented in Alabama?). As a result, there was no NASA money in it.

ULA, and its parent companies could have just built it ages ago on their own dime... but that's not how they roll. They can talk about a cislunar architecture, but there is usually some small print at the bottom about giving them billions of dollars first.

[Canopus]

1 minute ago, tater said:

Propellant depots have been talked about for ages, but certain congress types for some inexplicable reason hated the idea (maybe it wasn't invented in Alabama?). As a result, there was no NASA money in it.

Well yeah, talked about. Unlike reusing Launch vehicles which has been done since 1981.

[Scotius]

But this is exactly what BFR (and especially tanker variant) is about. Only SpaceX is working on a freighter, while United Launch Alliance is offering a tug. Granted - both are useful, both have their own niches. But in the end, you want biggest bang for your bucks. A tug will not cut it when you have an industry crying for supplies in bulk, cheap.

[tater]

11 minutes ago, Canopus said:

Well yeah, talked about. Unlike reusing Launch vehicles which has been done since 1981.

Not cost-effectively. We'll know more in the next few months about reuse with block 5.

Shuttle ETs cost 75 M$ each, apparently. Orbiters cost 2 B$ each. Given the ~1.5+ billion $ per launch cost of the program (210B$/135), that means the per launch cost, minus orbiter costs was still close to 1.5 B$. The tank was noise. So they managed to spend on the order of 1.4 billion dollars each launch refurbishing the Orbiter and SRBs, and keeping the lights on.

That's like owning a $50,000 car that costs $37,000 at the shop between trips to the grocery store.

[Racescort666]

1 minute ago, tater said:

That's like owning a $50,000 car that costs $37,000 at the shop between trips to the grocery store.

Sounds like a used Ferrari.

[tater]

That said, the tug idea is huge.

The big thing they need to do is to ride AJ to make the RL-10 cost what it should actually cost. It can be supercar prices, but each RL-10 should not cost as much as an entire F9 booster, that's absurd.

[Canopus]

1 minute ago, tater said:

Not cost-effectively. We'll know more in the next few months about reuse with block 5.

Shuttle ETs cost 75 M$ each, apparently. Orbiters cost 2 B$ each. Given the ~1.5+ billion $ per launch cost of the program (210B$/135), that means the per launch cost, minus orbiter costs was still close to 1.5 B$. The tank was noise. So they managed to spend on the order of 1.4 billion dollars each launch refurbishing the Orbiter and SRBs, and keeping the lights on.

That's like owning a $50,000 car that costs $37,000 at the shop between trips to the grocery store.

Not saying it made sense, but it has been done extensively. All i'm saying is that i think calling ULA stuck in their ways, when they really are looking to implement some new technologies is a little unfair.

[tater]

2 minutes ago, Canopus said:

Not saying it made sense, but it has been done extensively. All i'm saying is that i think calling ULA stuck in their ways, when they really are looking to implement some new technologies is a little unfair.

I like Bruno, and I think he's trying, but hamstrung.

[PB666]

4 hours ago, Racescort666 said:

That's certainly bold.

Thats not the word I would use for it. 

4 hours ago, Scotius said:

ULA's own plan reeks of monopolism. They offer other companies ride to the Moon, like they will be only ones capable of doing so in foreseeable future. But what will happen if there will be two competing companies on the market - offering the same ride, and probably cheaper? Will one third of the cake be enough to feed this ambitious plan? Notice that besides ACES ULA's plan doesn't mention anything groundbreaking and innovative technology-wise. It reminds me of shipyards and maritime companies still building and holding on to sailships, while steamers were becoming technologically and logistically viable for transoceanic transport. A bit less hubris wouldn't hurt anyone...

You put the cart before the horse. So bruno is going to carry, bigelow is going to house, who is going to capture, mine, pay for the moon colonies with what proceeds?

[PB666]

3 hours ago, tater said:

I like Bruno, and I think he's trying, but hamstrung.

Its a freeworld noone stopping his company from innovation on a Tangent. Some of us are waiting for the lights to come.

I have read the many posts. My one question is that how is ULA going to do the truck and fuel stuff, when they cant tie thier own shoes without a nanny and a hand out from the government. 500,000,000 for a launch, not crewed, plus the govt gives them money, on top of that they can only do it a few times a year. This does not sound like a trucking company to me. 

[Canopus]

4 hours ago, PB666 said:

Its a freeworld noone stopping his company from innovation on a Tangent. Some of us are waiting for the lights to come.

I have read the many posts. My one question is that how is ULA going to do the truck and fuel stuff, when they cant tie thier own shoes without a nanny and a hand out from the government. 500,000,000 for a launch, not crewed, plus the govt gives them money, on top of that they can only do it a few times a year. This does not sound like a trucking company to me. 

This isn‘t a concrete plan about how it‘s going to happen, just telling whats possible. And, unlike with Mars, there seem to be quite a few interested parties, both commercial and governments, that could make use of this infrastructure. As for Launch cadence, they said they already can use the same pad in 17 days and launch from Vandenberg in the same week. And seeing as this is all a few years in the future, they can certainly work on that especially if there is demand.

[kerbiloid]

13 hours ago, tater said:

Shuttle ETs cost 75 M$ each, apparently. Orbiters cost 2 B$ each.

I'm even not sure what shocks me more:
-  a huge cryogenic space human-rated ET which costs just < 4% of the spaceship in whole (even without the price of SRB)
or
- a piece or rolled aluminium covered with foam which costs as 2..3 full-featured fighters.

This cognitive dissonance just liquids me out...

Edited March 23, 2018 by kerbiloid

[PB666]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

I'm even not sure what shocks me more:
-  a huge cryogenic space human-rated ET which costs just < 4% of the spaceship in whole (even without the price of SRB)
or
- a piece or rolled aluminium covered with foam which costs as 2..3 full-featured fighters.

This cognitive dissonance just liquids me out...

Would it please you more or less to know that with the shuttle you were getting a product and without it we will spend 2.5 billion, 2.15 to said company to do nothing. 

[tater]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

a piece or rolled aluminium covered with foam which costs as 2..3 full-featured fighters.

Cheap fighters. Or half an expensive one, lol (not counting dev costs).

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

I'm even not sure what shocks me more:
-  a huge cryogenic space human-rated ET which costs just < 4% of the spaceship in whole (even without the price of SRB)
or
- a piece or rolled aluminium covered with foam which costs as 2..3 full-featured fighters.

This cognitive dissonance just liquids me out...

Tankage is cheap... be glad there are no engines on the ET. Cost would skyrocket. 

Modern fighters are generally much more expensive.

[kerbiloid]

18 minutes ago, tater said:

Cheap fighters. Or half an expensive one, lol (not counting dev costs).

Lol indeed if talk about F-35 (140 M$ or so), but I meant the shuttle contemporaries. When shuttle and me were young, a fighter was costing about 30.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-price-of-each-of-these-jet-fighters-F15-F-16-F-18-Hornet-SAAB-Gripen-Rafale-Eurofighter-Typhoon-F-35-and-F-22-Raptor

15 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Tankage is cheap.

2 x F-15

Edited March 23, 2018 by kerbiloid

[PB666]

31 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Lol indeed if talk about F-35 (140 M$ or so), but I meant the shuttle contemporaries. When shuttle and me were young, a fighter was costing about 30.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-price-of-each-of-these-jet-fighters-F15-F-16-F-18-Hornet-SAAB-Gripen-Rafale-Eurofighter-Typhoon-F-35-and-F-22-Raptor

2 x F-15

Really, the best one we had from the period was F22. I saw them testing it in del rio, must be 15-20 years ago. Its total production cost is estimateed at $361 million dollars/unit. The cost was reestimated at $412M in 2012

Though its not clear how much better the jsf is in terms of cost per unit. 

Not counting the development cost shouldered by the USG the JSF runs about 85$ per next unit purchased cost analysis. 

So these are the choices of two moderns . . . .one is some in the low100M and the other in the 400M

 

[Racescort666]

16 hours ago, tater said:

each RL-10 should not cost as much as an entire F9 booster

I know the RL10 is labor intensive to build but where are you getting the cost for this? I thought we estimated the cost of a F9 booster to be $40m which is what the RS-25 was quoted to cost. I'm curious because I looked for the cost of the RL10 at one time and was unable to find good numbers.

[Bill Phil]

7 minutes ago, Racescort666 said:

I know the RL10 is labor intensive to build but where are you getting the cost for this? I thought we estimated the cost of a F9 booster to be $40m which is what the RS-25 was quoted to cost. I'm curious because I looked for the cost of the RL10 at one time and was unable to find good numbers.

I found 38 mil for an RL-10. That is ridiculous.

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Lol indeed if talk about F-35 (140 M$ or so), but I meant the shuttle contemporaries. When shuttle and me were young, a fighter was costing about 30.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-price-of-each-of-these-jet-fighters-F15-F-16-F-18-Hornet-SAAB-Gripen-Rafale-Eurofighter-Typhoon-F-35-and-F-22-Raptor

2 x F-15

At what time are we comparing costs? And with what year's dollar value? 

Not only that, but the ET is pretty complex. The thrust structure is unusual, it delivered propellants through severable connections, and acted as part of a stack that went times as fast as an F-15. Remember, the ET almost went to orbit.

[kerbiloid]

14 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

At what time are we comparing costs? And with what year's dollar value? 

I guess at the time when both shuttle and F-15 were being built.

14 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

The thrust structure is unusual, it delivered propellants through severable connections,

While F-15, 16, 18 are made of wooden planks ?

Btw, 2 x F-15 weight almost the same as ET.

So, price per tonne is the same. 1 t of an insulated aluminium tank costs as 1 t of a supersonic fighter with all its systems.

Edited March 23, 2018 by kerbiloid

[tater]

32 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

I found 38 mil for an RL-10. That is ridiculous.

This is the number I consistently find, though sometimes it's quoted 10M $ less (which is still grossly high).

[PB666]

1 hour ago, Racescort666 said:

I know the RL10 is labor intensive to build but where are you getting the cost for this? I thought we estimated the cost of a F9 booster to be $40m which is what the RS-25 was quoted to cost. I'm curious because I looked for the cost of the RL10 at one time and was unable to find good numbers.

Last I saw was $25M Thnk the cost went up after one of the engines underperformance, something about separation in the bell . . . . . The bell is not made of metal per say, its made of some space age composite

This is not any RL10 engine, each are very different beast, this is the RL10b-2. To put this another way you are paying 30M to get 25 additional ISP about 5 kT more thrust. 

Accordingly the RL10c-x are supposed to be cheaper and i believe machine printable for one version. But you should note that the critical problem with the b-2 is not the cost, the problem is the outer radius of the bell. Because there is a theoretical limit on the expander cycle, and be cause proposed rockets need more thrust along the suborbital, they must pack more engines. Because they must pack more engines the b-2 bell has got to go, and so you have a cheaper engine.