I would assume that there were benefits of going through the block
changes that went beyond reusability, and it would be hard to separate
them out.
On 2019-07-01 14:28, William Claybaugh wrote:
Rand:
So what?
The cost of reuse is—in part—the additive cost of the depreciation
of the asset and the cost of refurbishment. I have previously
reported that the breakeven on depreciation for the F9 Block 5 may (as
compared to the FT) be as low as 1.4 uses. If the cost of
refurbishment were 1.0 times the cost of building a new one then that
breakeven would be infinite...a silly question, in my view.
I have no knowledge as to what refurbishment might cost and no basis
for speculating on this question. I do, however, recognize that this
calculation does not include the development cost associated with
moving from the FT to the Block 5; those real economic costs assure
that the actual breakeven is still higher than whatever we might
conclude if we had any factual insight into actual refurbishment
costs.
Bill
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 3:13 PM Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I am not, but it seems unlikely to me to be more than thehttps://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=
manufacturing
cost, on the margin.
On 2019-07-01 14:02, William Claybaugh wrote:
Rand:of
Yes, people buy on the basis of absolute cost: the absolute cost
putting 10,000 lbsm. In LEO is about $2 million higher using theis
public pricing of the Block 5 as compared to the expendable. What
your point?refurbishment
I am not aware of any public data on the scale of the
cost for the Block 5, are you?<simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bill
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 2:35 PM Rand Simberg
wrote:for
SpaceX's customers neither buy satellites by the pound, or pay
arelaunch by the pound. Launch costs per pounds aren't particularly
relevant to launch economics except for bulk commodities (which
thannot
yet a launch market). For example, CRS payloads tend to be volume
limited, so SpaceX is still better off getting the booster back
for a
not. Do you have some reason to think that refurbishment costs
be
Block 5 first stage are more than manufacturing costs?
On 2019-07-01 11:33, William Claybaugh wrote:
Henry:capabilities
As Philip has observed, others are addressing deep space
the investment in which does make economic sense today. Let’sjust
agree that my requirements for return on investments appear to
isnearer term than yours.
The rest of your comments seem to me simply misleading. There
SpaceX’sno
publicly available evidence known to me to suggest that
cost.reuse of first stages is either profitable to them or lower
poundIndeed, the publicly available evidence is that the cost per
FT;delivered to orbit on the Block 5 is higher than it was on the
reuseSpaceX’s customers would clearly be better off (by severalhundred
dollars per pound) if they could choose the expendable over the
reusable.
I have no knowledge as to whether SpaceX is making money on
costsand
simply keeping the gain for itself or whether refurbishment
orhave
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 stagecould
mean that profitable reuse is yet to be achieved despite a two
that,so
uses breakeven wrt the depreciation charge.refurbishment
In any case, you have no basis for suggesting that my previous
analysis was in error unless you have knowledge of their
cost of which I am not aware. Do you have such knowledge?deep
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
anyspace capabilities does not strike me as dispositive. I might
observe that it wasn't all that long ago that you couldn't see
benefit to SpaceX in reusing first stages either, or before
oncelaunchany benefit in their significantly increasing overall world
thiscapacity. But absent something new either of us might bring to
discussion, perhaps best we agree to disagree until there's
foragain more data.
As for Boeing and Lockmart also failing to see such a market
Mycapabilities ULA still has a considerable lead in developing?
withview is this presents a considerable opportunity for someone
Ifloorresources plus the knowledge and nerve to get in on the ground
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
thatsee any near term market for it that would justify my buying
areiftechnology, which I’m sure the owners would be happy to sell,
you want to buy it.
Companies do not run on technology, they run on sales. Sales
priceentersdeclining and can be expected to continue to so do. Once Blue
talkingthe 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
past each other.
You keep coming back to, ULA has problems with competing on
killedin
the current LEO launch market, and thus clearly should be
onas
profitably as possible.
I keep pointing out that ULA has the option to compete instead
substantialhavetechnology in a new market area where they're much stronger and
a significant lead, but their corporate parents have been too
short-sighted to apply a modestly larger slice of the
justcurrent 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
farhow much of a technological lead ULA might actually have. So
belosesthough, all you've come up with is repeated assertion that ULA
anotheron 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
hi tech field, is that Apple cannot exist, since price trumps
technical superiority every time. Apple's stockholders would
aApple'samused to hear that, I'm sure, because as of a few days ago
market cap is just north of $900 billion, produced entirely by
superiorityconsistent corporate approach of providing technical
price(or
at least the perception thereof) at a significantly higher
missingcompetepoint.
Failing to even acknowledge the possibility that ULA might
on superior technology and that its owners might just be
pricing.ULA’sthat 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,
pension obligations assure they could not match SpaceX's
thanBecause ULA is structurally committed to paying higher wages
sellworkers,SpaceX and because SpaceX requires more hours from it’s
owners.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
Indeed, it is common knowledge that one of the owners would
obviouslyit’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
ithas
no future and that Boeing and Lockmart are correct in treating
chieflyas
a limited-life cash cow and minimizing investment in its future
capabilities. (FWIW, what they are currently investing -
Iin
Vulcan - despite their parents apparently agreeing with you is
withthink 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
inSpaceX in a growing new beyond-LEO market on *performance* - on
superior ability to execute complex high-performance missions
"Hello?thosedeep space. And then to charge what the traffic will bear to
andin 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,
prophecyto SpaceX now working toward eventual (more or less) similar
capability via LEO-repropellanted Starship.
"That kid will never amount to anything" is self-fulfilling
if on that basis you starve them and stunt their growth.
currentCPS?"
Henry
On 6/29/2019 6:03 PM, William Claybaugh wrote:
None of ULA’s investments are likely to beat SpaceX’s
Lprices, much less their future pricing. Company B and Company
bottomare
supportingacting appropriately. Indeed, one wonders why they are
trueany 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
mainspace ship. It'll have electric power, maneuvering jets, and
ablepropulsion for as long as it has LOX and LH2. And once you're
needsto top those up in space, it can keep flying missions until it
rathermaintenance.
Too bad Boeing and Lockmart keep treating ULA as a cash cow
forwardthan letting them plow enough back into development to move
with Vulcan and ACES simultaneously. Padding the current
dominantline at the expense of ULA's near-term chance to be the
reportplayer for beyond-LEO ops, IMHO. "Hello, CPS? I want to
anda
Thatcase of child abuse. Biological parents? No, corporate."
As for ULA and Roush, well, as an ex-XCORian, mixed feelings.
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
atbatterieshopefully replacing the limited and sometimes troublesome
on the Centaur. Which, since turbines aren't the right answer
transferoffersthat scale and ULA knew they needed outside talent for this,
the ineffable coolness of a high-performance deep space
DMARC)vehicle running on a flat-six internal combustion engine out of
NASCAR [1].
One more reason to lament the lack of sound in space...
John Schilling
john.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(661) 718-0955
On 6/28/2019 7:05 AM, Doug Jones (Redacted sender randome for
tankwrote:
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
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=
rocket
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
turbines)forengines 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
structural needs, with boost pumps (driven by peroxide
theat
the
tank exits to deliver adequate pressure to the engines. But
ditchboost
pumps proved unreliable, and for other reasons the performance
demands on
Centaur were relaxed a bit, and they eventually decided to
themthe
walls.boost
pumps and accept somewhat higher pressures and thicker tank
Space junk makes building power satellites in LEO and moving
reactionout
hit
to GEO using electric thrusters close to impossible. (They get
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
stacksmass
chemical
in LEO then push the stack of parts and reaction mass up with
propulsion via Hohmann transfer orbit to 2000 km. That puts the
construction orbit above almost all the junk. Two of these
intoare
needed
enough for a 32,000-ton power satellite plus the reaction mass
to move it out to GEO.
The delta-V for the two impulses is 827 m/s. That translates
anda
reaction mass fraction of slightly less than 20% for hydrogen
toslightly more than 20% for methane. This includes enough fuel
soget
the tug from 2000 km back to LEO. The exhaust velocity is not
andimportant 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
usingoxygen. Methane may be better if ground to LEO rockets are
ofit.
engines
Roger makes a case that we can use lightweight, low-pressure
and still get the same exhaust velocity since there is noatmosphere.
I don't know much about low-pressure engines.tons.
The reaction mass would be around 20% of 21,000, call it 4200
The engines and tanks and structure should come in at about 10%
m.the
would be
reaction mass, roughly estimate the tug at 400 tons.
For the normal ratio of hydrogen to oxygen, the reaction mass
That
3500 tons of LOX and 700 tons of LH2, about 10,000 cubic meters.
gives a radius of 28.7 for a sphere or a diameter of about 57
theIt
would be subject to around 1/10th of a g and the have to carry
entire cargo mass.
Does this make sense?
Keith
Links:
------
[1] https://www.roush.com
