SpaceX's customers neither buy satellites by the pound, or pay for
launch by the pound. Launch costs per pounds aren't particularly
relevant to launch economics except for bulk commodities (which are not
yet a launch market). For example, CRS payloads tend to be volume
limited, so SpaceX is still better off getting the booster back than
not. Do you have some reason to think that refurbishment costs for a
Block 5 first stage are more than manufacturing costs?
On 2019-07-01 11:33, William Claybaugh wrote:
Henry:
As Philip has observed, others are addressing deep space capabilities
the investment in which does make economic sense today. Let’s just
agree that my requirements for return on investments appear to be
nearer term than yours.
The rest of your comments seem to me simply misleading. There is no
publicly available evidence known to me to suggest that SpaceX’s
reuse of first stages is either profitable to them or lower cost.
Indeed, the publicly available evidence is that the cost per pound
delivered to orbit on the Block 5 is higher than it was on the FT;
SpaceX’s customers would clearly be better off (by several hundred
dollars per pound) if they could choose the expendable over the
reusable.
I have no knowledge as to whether SpaceX is making money on reuse and
simply keeping the gain for itself or whether refurbishment costs have
proven to be so high that they are losing money on each launch. The
fact that they are looking to demonstrate five uses of a stage could
mean that profitable reuse is yet to be achieved despite a two or so
uses breakeven wrt the depreciation charge.
In any case, you have no basis for suggesting that my previous
analysis was in error unless you have knowledge of their refurbishment
cost of which I am not aware. Do you have such knowledge?
Bill
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 11:20 AM Henry Vanderbilt
<hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bill,
All due respect, but your failing to see a market for superior deep
space capabilities does not strike me as dispositive. I might
observe that it wasn't all that long ago that you couldn't see any
benefit to SpaceX in reusing first stages either, or before that,
any benefit in their significantly increasing overall world launch
capacity. But absent something new either of us might bring to this
discussion, perhaps best we agree to disagree until there's once
again more data.
As for Boeing and Lockmart also failing to see such a market for
capabilities ULA still has a considerable lead in developing? My
view is this presents a considerable opportunity for someone with
resources plus the knowledge and nerve to get in on the ground floor
of the next significant space transport market.
Your mileage may, of course, vary.
Henry
On 6/30/2019 9:41 AM, William Claybaugh wrote:
Henry:
Fair enough on knotholes.
I do not see the superior technology to which you refer; nor do I
see any near term market for it that would justify my buying that
technology, which I’m sure the owners would be happy to sell, if
you want to buy it.
Companies do not run on technology, they run on sales. Sales are
declining and can be expected to continue to so do. Once Blue enters
the market there will be no national security justification for
continuing to overpay to ULA and that’s that.
Bill
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 10:19 AM Henry Vanderbilt
<hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bill:
Rude personal remarks about knotholes aside, we seem to be talking
past each other.
You keep coming back to, ULA has problems with competing on price in
the current LEO launch market, and thus clearly should be killed as
profitably as possible.
I keep pointing out that ULA has the option to compete instead on
technology in a new market area where they're much stronger and have
a significant lead, but their corporate parents have been too
short-sighted to apply a modestly larger slice of the substantial
current ULA operating profits to developing that technology.
Now, I'd listen to arguments as to how soon that new deep-space
market might arrive and how large it might become. Or as to just
how much of a technological lead ULA might actually have. So far
though, all you've come up with is repeated assertion that ULA loses
on price and, implicitly, that price is the only thing.
I know you can do better than that.
Because fundamentally, your argument so far, translated to another
hi tech field, is that Apple cannot exist, since price trumps
technical superiority every time. Apple's stockholders would be
amused to hear that, I'm sure, because as of a few days ago Apple's
market cap is just north of $900 billion, produced entirely by a
consistent corporate approach of providing technical superiority (or
at least the perception thereof) at a significantly higher price
point.
Failing to even acknowledge the possibility that ULA might compete
on superior technology and that its owners might just be missing
that betrays, dare I say it, a view through a bit too narrow a
knothole.
Henry
On 6/30/2019 4:32 AM, William Claybaugh wrote:
Henry:
You might want to find a bigger knothole from which to view the
problem: even if ULA were able to match SpaceX’s costs, ULA’s
pension obligations assure they could not match SpaceX's pricing.
Because ULA is structurally committed to paying higher wages than
SpaceX and because SpaceX requires more hours from it’s workers,
there is no plausible investment in ULA that makes it a viable
competitor. Then there is Blue Origin.
Given that the owners have many other and better alternative
investments, liquidating ULA is the correct strategy for the owners.
Indeed, it is common knowledge that one of the owners would sell
it’s share if they could, in order to put that money to more
profitable use.
Bill
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:27 PM Henry Vanderbilt
<hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I agree with part of what you imply, that ULA shouldn't try to
compete with SpaceX on price.
I disagree strongly with your main assertion, that ULA obviously has
no future and that Boeing and Lockmart are correct in treating it as
a limited-life cash cow and minimizing investment in its future
capabilities. (FWIW, what they are currently investing - chiefly in
Vulcan - despite their parents apparently agreeing with you is I
think explainable in terms of their main government customer
insisting on a US-engined Atlas 5 replacement.)
My point is that ULA has a window of opportunity to compete with
SpaceX in a growing new beyond-LEO market on *performance* - on
superior ability to execute complex high-performance missions in
deep space. And then to charge what the traffic will bear to those
in need of those unique capabilities - a sweet spot to be in.
But they're in growing danger of missing the window, due to
deliberate underinvestment in that specific (ACES) capability, and
to SpaceX now working toward eventual (more or less) similar
capability via LEO-repropellanted Starship.
"That kid will never amount to anything" is self-fulfilling prophecy
if on that basis you starve them and stunt their growth. "Hello?
CPS?"
Henry
On 6/29/2019 6:03 PM, William Claybaugh wrote:
None of ULA’s investments are likely to beat SpaceX’s current
prices, much less their future pricing. Company B and Company L are
acting appropriately. Indeed, one wonders why they are supporting
any future investment in ULA....
Bill
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 4:36 PM Henry Vanderbilt
<hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, ACES. Which, when you get down to it, could be the first true
space ship. It'll have electric power, maneuvering jets, and main
propulsion for as long as it has LOX and LH2. And once you're able
to top those up in space, it can keep flying missions until it needs
maintenance.
Too bad Boeing and Lockmart keep treating ULA as a cash cow rather
than letting them plow enough back into development to move forward
with Vulcan and ACES simultaneously. Padding the current bottom
line at the expense of ULA's near-term chance to be the dominant
player for beyond-LEO ops, IMHO. "Hello, CPS? I want to report a
case of child abuse. Biological parents? No, corporate."
As for ULA and Roush, well, as an ex-XCORian, mixed feelings. That
wasn't entirely the match we were trying to make...
Henry
On 6/29/2019 10:26 AM, John Schilling wrote:
Also a GH2-GOX auxiliary power unit running at tank pressure and
hopefully replacing the limited and sometimes troublesome batteries
on the Centaur. Which, since turbines aren't the right answer at
that scale and ULA knew they needed outside talent for this, offers
the ineffable coolness of a high-performance deep space transfer
vehicle running on a flat-six internal combustion engine out of
NASCAR [1].
One more reason to lament the lack of sound in space...https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.nasaspaceflight.com_index.php-3Ftopic-3D37206.160&d=DwICaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=rPTfWqtJdrL0Ber-yr0E_hSjRXuvJH6ZmQx03u8-2as&m=oyeKvE-Ctx7THbIwvpFEy8V9Qi_PwAXdFqkzOjSG1NI&s=Xm5pQ5-eerXNuSNwzL7d3s5aZfQN6nMy2-qP9udRUmw&e=
John Schilling
john.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(661) 718-0955
On 6/28/2019 7:05 AM, Doug Jones (Redacted sender randome for DMARC)
wrote:
Frank Zegler has lead a lot of interesting work on low pressure
RCS/ullage thrusters at ULA under the integrated vehicle fluids
project. They've demonstrated GH2-GOX motors running at Centaur tank
pressure.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ulalaunch.com_docs_default-2Dsource_extended-2Dduration_integrated-2Dvehicle-2Dpropulsion-2Dand-2Dpower-2Dsystem-2D2011.pdf&d=DwICaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=rPTfWqtJdrL0Ber-yr0E_hSjRXuvJH6ZmQx03u8-2as&m=oyeKvE-Ctx7THbIwvpFEy8V9Qi_PwAXdFqkzOjSG1NI&s=YXKfS5zGfRnKBL8_xSyDppfRB3mScZlu__EOKUWk5Z0&e=
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ulalaunch.com_docs_default-2Dsource_supporting-2Dtechnologies_space-2Daccess-2Dsociety-2D2012.pdf&d=DwICaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=rPTfWqtJdrL0Ber-yr0E_hSjRXuvJH6ZmQx03u8-2as&m=oyeKvE-Ctx7THbIwvpFEy8V9Qi_PwAXdFqkzOjSG1NI&s=FREtyHVwAizwv3nQBzAodMoGAWiBiwX4sH9P44Udvgw&e=
Space junk makes building power satellites in LEO and moving them out
On 2019-06-27 6:17 PM, Keith Henson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:07 PM Henry Spencer
<hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Doug Jones wrote:
Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) required for most LH2 rocket
engines is in excess of 50 psia. Gossamer tanks are an accident
looking
for a time to happen.
The original Centaur had quite low tank pressures, just enough for
structural needs, with boost pumps (driven by peroxide turbines) at
the
tank exits to deliver adequate pressure to the engines. But the
boost
pumps proved unreliable, and for other reasons the performance
demands on
Centaur were relaxed a bit, and they eventually decided to ditch the
boost
pumps and accept somewhat higher pressures and thicker tank walls.
to GEO using electric thrusters close to impossible. (They get hit
too many times which is bad, the hits make more debris which is
worse).
The current proposal (credit to Roger Arnold) is to accumulate
15-16,000 tons of power satellite parts and 5000 tons of reaction mass
in LEO then push the stack of parts and reaction mass up with chemical
propulsion via Hohmann transfer orbit to 2000 km. That puts the
construction orbit above almost all the junk. Two of these stacks are
enough for a 32,000-ton power satellite plus the reaction mass needed
to move it out to GEO.
The delta-V for the two impulses is 827 m/s. That translates into a
reaction mass fraction of slightly less than 20% for hydrogen and
slightly more than 20% for methane. This includes enough fuel to get
the tug from 2000 km back to LEO. The exhaust velocity is not so
important when the delta-V you need is small compared to Ve.
If the ground to LEO is Skylon, then hydrogen may be the least
complicated since we can pump out any leftover Skylon hydrogen and
oxygen. Methane may be better if ground to LEO rockets are using it.
Roger makes a case that we can use lightweight, low-pressure engines
and still get the same exhaust velocity since there is no atmosphere.
I don't know much about low-pressure engines.
The reaction mass would be around 20% of 21,000, call it 4200 tons.
The engines and tanks and structure should come in at about 10% of the
reaction mass, roughly estimate the tug at 400 tons.
For the normal ratio of hydrogen to oxygen, the reaction mass would be
3500 tons of LOX and 700 tons of LH2, about 10,000 cubic meters. That
gives a radius of 28.7 for a sphere or a diameter of about 57 m. It
would be subject to around 1/10th of a g and the have to carry the
entire cargo mass.
Does this make sense?
Keith
Links:
------
[1] https://www.roush.com
