Bill,
And SpaceX's cost to maintain multiple F9 versions in production for
different markets was apparently higher than they cared to pay. (Can't
say as I blame them.) So, everyone ends up buying some mix of NASA's
crew requirements and SpaceX's reusability goals in Block 5. SpaceX
still seems able to sell plenty of launches at the new price. Did you
have a point?
Henry
On 7/1/2019 2:02 PM, William Claybaugh wrote:
Rand:
Yes, people buy on the basis of absolute cost: the absolute cost of putting 10,000 lbsm. In LEO is about $2 million higher using the public pricing of the Block 5 as compared to the expendable. What is your point?
I am not aware of any public data on the scale of the refurbishment cost for the Block 5, are you?
Bill
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 2:35 PM Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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...
>>
>> John Schilling
>> john.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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__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=
>>
>>
>
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=
>>
>> On 2019-06-27 6:17 PM, Keith Henson wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:07 PM Henry Spencer
>> <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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.
> Space junk makes building power satellites in LEO and moving
them out
>
> 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
