9 ms·
Did ULA actually do anything to deserve this or is this just to give a cut to some of the more traditional private contractors?
by asimpletune 6y ago
Did ULA actually do anything to deserve this or is this just to give a cut to some of the more traditional private contractors?
- sadfev 6y agoThey have deep legacy ties with DoD (aka lobbying), but they do launches for the military.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nightski 6y agoULA just launched the new Mars rover for NASA. I don't think SpaceX even has a vehicle capable of that... yet anyways.
- dogma1138 6y agoIt doesn’t, even the heavy isn’t enough.
- babesh 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy Not true. It has the highest capacity of any operational rocket.
- bryanlarsen 6y agoMars 2020 needed a vehicle that could lift almost 4000kg at a C3 energy of 18.4 Falcon Heavy can do that in recoverable mode and a lot more in expendable mode. To see available vehicles, select high energy and 18.4 into the c3 box. https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Query.aspx https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Query.aspx
- khuey 6y agoMars 2020 required vertical integration of the payload which SpaceX still doesn't do. EDIT: Also another thing I thought of is that SpaceX may not be certified to launch nuclear payloads (given their infrequency it probably doesn't make sense for them to bother).
- dwiel 6y agoWhat do you mean vertical integration?
- krisoft 6y agoIn this case "vertical integration" means that the rocket is standing upright while you are bolting the payload on to it. The alternative is "horizontal integration" where you bolt the payload on the rocket while the rocket is laying on its side. You transport the rocket to the launch pad on it's side, and only there do you tip the rocket+payload together to be upright. This sounds like a very small detail, but many payloads turns out to be highly optimized to only receive forces in one direction, and their structure is not certified to be cantilevered in such a way to "hang" from the tip of the rocket body.
- barney54 6y agoHere’s what I found: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/43840/why-did-spacex-choose-vertical-integration-for-starship https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/43840/why-did-spac... It appears that it means the assembly of the rocket—whether it is assembled horizontally or vertically. SpaceX rockets and payload are apparently assembled horizontally and then lifted upright.
- khuey 6y agoYes, you can see a pretty cool video of it in the first 20 seconds of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSwFU6tY1c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSwFU6tY1c
- GoOnThenDoTell 6y ago
- babesh 6y agoElon Musk’s Tesla Roadster begs to differ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk%27s_Tesla_Roadster#/media/File:Animation_of_SpaceX_Roadster_trajectory.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk%27s_Tesla_Roadster#/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk%27s_Tesla_Roadster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk%27s_Tesla_Roadster
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Hayvok 6y agoI was watching a congressional committee discussion on this subject a year or two ago - consensus seemed to be that the gov should always have at least two companies available to provide launch services. Hedges their bets a bit and it nurtures the industry.
- ceejayoz 6y agoIn other words: Paying inflated prices for ULA launches is cheaper in the long run than SpaceX having a monopoly.
- zamadatix 6y agoI think it'd be more apt to say paying inflated prices for a secondary mitigates finical risk than guarantees less spent over time. It may or may not actually be cheaper to pay both in the long run. On one hand theoretically if they were the only option in the world they could charge absurd amounts. On the other hand it seems they stand to make more in the coming years commoditizing launches to attract more overall customers/launches and charge them each millions than to charge a few customers billions. Also they'll never be the only one in the world but it is a risk they could end up the only commercial venture in the US capable of launching. One option is medium cost with low risk of astronomical (pun intended) cost and the other a low cost with a medium risk of astronomical cost.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- QuotedForTruth 6y agoIts more about the somewhat likely probability that a single launch provider will have a failure that necessitates a lengthy investigation during which they are grounded. Its nice in that situation to have another launch provider who can pick up essential missions.
- ceejayoz 6y agoThat's certainly a risk, but "we're the only launch provider in the US, and we just raised prices from $250M to $2.5B, and any potential competition will take 5-10 years to get up to capability" is a big risk too. The DOD isn't gonna launch GPS satellites on a Progress.
- sandworm101 6y agoThere are differences in the ULA and SpaceX launch options. There is far more to spacelaunch than cost per kilo to orbit. One of the big issues is that SpaceX doesn't do vertical payload integration. It's upper stage options are also very different than those of ULA. For many sats that isn't an issue, for some military sats it is a very big deal. When the payload is worth many times as much as the rocket, with incalculable trickledown impacts should its launch not go perfectly, your choice of rocket has to tick absolutely every box.
- Tuna-Fish 6y agoParticipation in the second NSSL requires vertical payload integration. SpaceX had to promise to be able to do it to submit a bid. They have never done it so far, but they will definitely do it in the near future.
- tomatoman 6y agoWhat is vertical payload integration?
- JshWright 6y agoWith rockets like the Atlas 5 (flown by ULA), the rocket is assembled vertically in a tall "hanger", and is then rolled out to the launch pad, remaining in the vertical position. The Falcon 9 is assembled rolled out to the pad horizontally, then it raised into the vertical position in preparation for launch. It can be more complicated to design satellites (esp satellites that have large optics in them) to deal with gravity in two different orientations. Atlas 5 "roll out": https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/07/28/photos-atlas-5-rolled-out-to-launch-pad-with-nasas-perseverance-mars-rover/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/07/28/photos-atlas-5-rolled-... Falcon 9: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYJuHuhPxGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYJuHuhPxGU Bonus video, Smarter Every Day chatting w/ the CEO of ULA while watching a Delta IV Heavy roll out to the launch pad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdPoVi_h0r0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdPoVi_h0r0
- 6y ago
- adventured 6y ago139 successful launches with a 100% success rate. Yeah, gee, if only they'd do something. I'm all for competition bringing down ULA's prices, however to pretend they haven't done anything to deserve contracts, is obscene.
- reddog 6y agoYou beat me to it. “Move fast and break things” isn’t the ethos your looking for when the payload cost billions.
- TomMarius 6y agoThat phrase refers to development.
- Denvercoder9 6y ago100% success rate is a lot easier if you inherit two working and tested rockets at birth of the company though. Both Atlas V and Delta IV had failures before ULA was formed. It'll be interesting to see if Vulcan can also achieve 100% success rate, or whether they'll have the same toothing issues SpaceX and others have had.
- valuearb 6y agoWhat does this track record have to do with the untested Vulcan launch system?
- vikramkr 6y agoHere's a pretty good video with some technical details on why spacex isn't always the best option: https://youtu.be/QoUtgWQk-Y0 https://youtu.be/QoUtgWQk-Y0 The government also wants to maintain redundant capabilities, and ULA, which has an incredible success rate and is an incredibly reliable company, is a pretty damn good option for one of the two.
- bryanlarsen 6y agoLike most Scott Manley videos, it's a great video, but it's out of date. That video basically mentions three things: fairing size, vertical integration and the fact that SpaceX's rockets in reusable mode don't lift as much as competitors. This contract pays SpaceX to fix the first two issues and the third can be solved by using the SpaceX rocket in expendable mode.
- simonh 6y agoAnd of course even reusable rockets are eventually EOL, so that rocket in ‘expendable mode’ might have actually flown half a dozen missions beforehand.
- jccooper 6y agoULA maintains a couple of technological advantages; they have some unique insertion steering and their hydrogen upper stage is particularly well-suited for Earth-escape missions. However, SpaceX insertion is good enough for nearly every mission and they can make up for upper stage efficiency with brute force via Falcon Heavy--at a similar or better price point. They also have a few paperwork advantages. Their vehicles have nuclear ratings, though SpaceX can certainly get that any time they want now. And they have demonstrated high reliability, which is important for uninsured billion-dollar payloads. Though it's getting harder to argue against F9. An of course, they're owned by two major defense contractors with plenty of political clout. But: their main advantage now is that they exist and are in the US and The Customer wants to maintain multiple options. Once Blue Origin comes online ULA's going to lose that one too, and will have to either figure out a way to make Vulcan price competitive, go on a crash course to develop a new competitive rocket (for which they're already too late), or lean on their relationship advantages and existing contracts to hang on for a while until at some point reality finally overcomes politics. There's a lot of moving parts but they're not moving in a direction favorable to ULA, and given how hamstrung they are by their ownership structure I'd lean towards that last one.
- garmaine 6y agoBetter launch reliability, larger payload fairing (needed for some NRO payloads).
- valuearb 6y agoLarger fairing is easy, and if launch reliability is truly important you don’t pick a paper rocket (Vulkan) being built by two companies that have never designed an orbital launch system before (ULA and BO).
- inamberclad 6y agoDon't think Falcon Heavy launches from Vandenberg yet. Delta IV Heavy does.
- GoOnThenDoTell 6y agoIf the DoD wants it, they will pay well for the changes and it will simply happen
- jccooper 6y agoIt's not far off. Vandy's built for Falcon Heavy, and was at one time slated to host its debut flight. That got changed to the Cape during development, so it may at this point be a few hardware revisions behind, but that's not a big deal, and can certainly be done in the timeframe of a FH order.
- peteretep 6y agoI wonder to what degree you need to hedge against Elon being a crazy person? 3% chance he one day decides he’s out? Wonder how quickly and easily they can eminent-domain the company in the interests of national security if Musk bugs out
- nitrogen 6y agoI don't pay that much attention, but I get the impression that the established parts of SpaceX are run by Gwynne Shotwell, and Musk focuses on new tech.
- peteretep 6y agoFor sure, but he’s still the owner and could still presumably have a melt-down and halt operations while mounting Quixotic legal challenges
- jmknoll 6y agoTotally off-topic, but Shotwell is a great name, even more so for someone who works at a Rocketry company.
- kazagistar 6y agoTalk about nominative determinism.
- vardump 6y agoTalking about names, just guess what Andrej Karpathy is working on for Tesla. :-) https://karpathy.ai/ https://karpathy.ai/
- m0zg 6y agoFrom what I've heard from SpaceX employees, Musk is extremely committed to SpaceX in general, and to putting people on the surface of Mars in particular. It's most definitely not a joke for him and I don't see him "bugging out" of something that to a large extent gives his life a higher purpose.
- irjustin 6y agoLate to the party, but Pentagon/Gov/Military always hedges its bets by running minimum 2 different launch providers almost regardless of cost. Orbital ATK, the only other active US based provider would have been another contender but they don't have a heavy launch system yet. So, all in all, this awarding is quite expected.
- jessriedel 6y agoBlue Origin was also competing.
- GoOnThenDoTell 6y agoPaper rockets though, they have to actually launch something to orbit first
- irjustin 6y agoYeah, that's why I mentioned 'active' specifically to mean having currently flying heavy launch vehicles.
- walkingolof 6y agoThey did, but more important, you do not want to get stuck again with one service provider....
- Rebelgecko 6y ago>Did ULA actually do anything to deserve this Yes, they put in a winning bid on the contract. I imagine some of the things that put them ahead of the competition would be- Vertical integration. I don't think oMeGa or BO are capable of doing this. Neither is SpaceX. Horizontal integration complicates certain missions More complicated orbits. ULA has demonstrated in the past that they can inject direct to GEO. I don't think any of the other bidders have, and I'm not sure if they claimed they'll be capable of doing so. Precision. Depending on who you ask, ULA is the best when it comes to actually hitting their desired orbits. This can add life to the payload. For a billion dollar satellite, an extra year of fuel can totally justify $20 million more in launch costs (or whatever the difference happens to be) Other than SpaceX (since F9 and F9H already exist) I think they're the closest to actually building the rockets that they put in their bid. The second stage draws heavily from existing designs.
- valuearb 6y agoSpaceX now offers vertical integration. And the difference in launch costs is closer to $100M, not $20M. That should obviate the other minor differences.
- Rebelgecko 6y agoWould you mind sharing concrete numbers? I can't imagine that Vulcan is going to cost that much more than an Atlas V. Even if SpaceX reduces their prices by 80% compared to what they charged during EELV, a $100 million difference seems unlikely to me.
- valuearb 6y agoThere is little evidence the Vulkan will cost less than the Atlas V, since it’s a higher capacity launch system with a highly capable but expensive second stage. It’s going to be about the same as an Atlas V & Falcon Heavy, but much cheaper than a Delta IV Heavy. It’s payload to LEO are about 20% higher than a Falcon 9 and about half that of a Falcon Heavy, but it’s payload to GTO/GEO are close to the Falcon Heavy. A commercial contract Atlas V is roughly $50M more than a Falcon 9, but government contracts have a lot of more expensive handling/launch requirements that can easily double the cost. It’s likely the difference is not $100M more, but it’s still going to be easy more than $20M.
- juped 6y agoDid ULA actually do anything to deserve your scorn?
- valuearb 6y agoULA was created to make a semi-monopoly to suck at the teats of the US governments pork farm. They’ve never created a new rocket or launch system, or advanced space exploration in any meaningful way. Instead they just kept flying the same old tired designs until they became utterly obsolete. Fortunately another company came along and dramatically undercut their monopolistic pricing while providing the most valuable technological innovations space launch has seen since the 1960s. And now ULA is irrelevant and on a long term path to dissolution. Bailing them out with this contract is a near criminal act by the Air Force that shows nothing but favoritism.
- juped 6y agoWell, I like to think of myself as an engineer (on a good day), and I think 100% successful launches with "old tired designs" is bragworthy.
- valuearb 6y agoIt’s not bragworthy if you achieve zero forward progress in creating new capabilities. The Atlas, Titan and Delta series of rockets were great 50 years ago, but rapidly aging twenty years ago and so expensive they were holding back progress in space. It’s like Henry Ford focusing on making the original Model T higher quality, but not cheaper. It would be a great accomplishment if he doubled the number of miles between servicing and halved the rate at which key components broke. But if he’s not also reducing its costs dramatically, it robs the world of the worst affordable car for the masses, a far higher achievement.
- juped 6y agoSome people need payloads put into space.
- 6y ago