Bill,
RE the current topic, the trick to survivingin style the commodification
of today's markets is to anticipate and invest in tomorrow's. (Yes,
that's well beyond your "nearer term".) An understanding common in other
tech industries, but apparently still rare among the long-time space
transport establishment.
That said, I have plenty of basis for disputing your previous analysis
of SpaceX reuse, with no need to know confidential and still early-days
moving-target SpaceX refurbishment cost numbers. You persist in both
implying that you know those per-refurbishment costs are currently
higher than building a new booster (possibly true, possibly not - unless
you'll produce some actual data), and, /critically misleadingly/,
implying that those early-days refurbishment costs (however high) will
not come down significantly with additional experience.
Speaking of critically misleading: Your previous analysis omits
entirely an essential factor: That booster reuse has already saved
SpaceX paying several times their actual production plant investment for
the much larger booster production capacity that would have been
required to support their planned launch numbers on an entirely
expendable basis. IE, even in the highly unlikely case a refurb flight
always this-quarter costs somewhat more than a new, SpaceX still could
plausibly come out ahead over some given overall number of flights. Not
at all a likely case - but illustrative of the magnitude of the omission.
Now, given that SpaceX has had to meet, among other requirements for
Block 5, both more robust reusability *and* NASA crew rating, I'll
certainly concede that Block 5 costing SpaceX more than its predecessor
/to initially produce/ is plausible. (That of course ignores the
/potential/ per-flight cost reduction of reusability, which you've tried
to handwave away,unsuccessfully so far.) But, also quite misleading:
Attributing these (stipulated, but still unquantified) higher costs
entirely to reusability when the NASA human-rating elephant is also
conspicuously in the room.
And speaking of misleading, citing increased SpaceX *price* for Block 5
flights as increased "costs" qualifies, I'd say. Production and ops
costs are the matter under discussion. Customer /price/ is what the
traffic will bear, and SpaceX increasing prices somewhat now that
they're established in the market need have nothing to do with any of
your speculations.
Henry
On 7/1/2019 11:33 AM, 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 <https://www.roush.com>.
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:Space junk makes building power satellites in
Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) requiredThe original Centaur had quite low tank
for most LH2 rocket
engines is in excess of 50 psia. Gossamer
tanks are an accident looking
for a time to happen.
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.
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
