Ahhh yes, I should have been more clear on that. It's Everclear being 96%
ethanol with 4% water.
Tony S. Colette
Director of Engineering
Motordyne Engineering
Sales (470) 767-8350
Tech (661) 993-5111
www.motordyneengineering.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission, including any attachments, contains
confidential information belonging to the sender. It may also be privileged or
otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. This
information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on
the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this transmission in error, please immediately notify us and then destroy this
transmission immediately.
-----Original Message-----
From: FreeLists Mailing List Manager <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 1:09 AM
To: arocket digest users <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: arocket Digest V7 #141
arocket Digest Mon, 01 Jul 2019 Volume: 07 Issue: 141
In This Issue:
[AR] Re: Propep Chemicals
[AR] Re: Propep Chemicals
[AR] Re: Propep Chemicals
[AR] Re: Propep Chemicals
[AR] Re: Propep Chemicals
[AR] Re: Propep Chemicals
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] recovery and Falcon 9 (was Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tan
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: recovery and Falcon 9 (was Re: Human Rated Hydrogen
[AR] Centaur (was Re: Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks...)
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Centaur (was Re: Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks...)
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
[AR] Re: Centaur (was Re: Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks...)
[AR] Re: Centaur (was Re: Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks...)
[AR] Re: Centaur (was Re: Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks...)
[AR] Re: Centaur (was Re: Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Anthony Cesaroni" <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: Propep Chemicals
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 09:29:13 -0400
Everclear 96%?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf
Of Troy Prideaux
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 12:31 AM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Propep Chemicals
Hi Tony,
Thanks for sharing the list. This might not be useful, but I've
restructured the list you sent through so it's in the correct format for PEP
programs to read (both text and excel SS).
Again, this also might not be useful, but my JeffPEP excel SS holds PEPcoded
and JANAF data in spreadsheet format for its thermo reference (instead of
independent files). There currently is no automatic function to *amend* the
Pepcoded listing by loading a partial listing - you can only reload the
entire listing from a separate PEPcoded file, but I can add such
functionality if requested. Or you can manually add new ingredient records
and export the database to a text file by updating the PEPcoded SS and
clicking on the "Load PEPcoded File" button which will create a text file
backup of the existing sheet's contents in (what I vaguely recall) is a
format compatible with the PEPcoded file before loading up new file
contents. This backup file will be named with a .old extension.
http://www.propulsionlabs.com.au/Software/Jeff%20PEP_B3f.xls
Regards,
Troy
-----Original Message-----If
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 1 July 2019 2:26 AM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Propep Chemicals
Hello Everyone,
Here are some of the propep chemical additions I've made over the years.
you have others, please share them!an
1155 METHYL AMMONIUM NITRATE 1C 6H 2N 3O 0 0 -1060
.0633]
1156 METHYL AMMONIUM PERCHLORATE 1C 6H 1N 4O 1CL 0 -
831
.0743]
1157 DIMETHYL AMMONIUM NITRATE 2C 7H 2N 3O 0 0 -1040
.0633]
1158 DIMETHYL AMMONIUM PERCHLORATE 2C 7H 1N 4O 1CL 0 -
811
.0743]
1159 TRIMETHYL AMMONIUM NITRATE 3C 9H 2N 3O 0 0 -1050
.0633]
1160 TRIMETHYL AMMONIUM PERCHLORATE 3C 9H 1N 4O 1CL 0 -
821
.0743]
1161 Copper(II) nitrate 2N 6O 1CU 0 0 0 -303
.0735]
1162 100 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 0.0g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0 29190
.0000]
1163 10.0 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 0.0g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0 2919
.0000]
1164 1.0 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 0.0g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0 769
.0000]
1165 0.0 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 0.0g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0 530
.0000] <-- This Neon entry represents a somewhat neutral participant in
existing chemical combustion system. Similar gamma. Similar mol. Wt..allows
Similar temperature. By selecting the above or below Neon entries it
you to experiment and see the effect of energy content (enthalpy) as athem
standalone variable.
1166 -1.0 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 0.0g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0 291
.0000]
1167 -10.0Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 0.0g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0 -1859
.0000]
1168 10.0 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 1.5g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0 2919
.0542]
1169 1.0 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 1.5g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0 769
.0542]
1170 0.0 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 1.5g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0 530
.0542]
1171 -1.0 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 1.5g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0 291
.0542]
1172 -10.0Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 1.5g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0 -1859
.0542]
1173 DIETHYL ETHER 4C 10H 1O 0 0 0 -901
.0257]
1174 ETHYLENE 2C 4H 0 0 0 0 289
.0205]
1175 PRISMANE 6C 6H 0 0 0 0 1600
.0257]
1176 ACETYLENE 2C 2H 0 0 0 0 2091
.0136]
1177 MONO-NITROETHYNE 2C 1H 1N 2O 0 0 780
.0000] <-- Approximation extrapolated from mono-nitroethylene
1178 DI-NITROETHYNE 2C 2N 4O 0 0 0 477
.0000] <-- Approximation extrapolated from di-nitroethylene
1179 CUBANE 8C 8H 0 0 0 0 1243
.0466]
1180 TETRANITROCUBANE 8C 4N 8O 4H 0 0 778
.0867]
1181 OCTANITROCUBANE 8C 8N 16O 0 0 0 416
.0715]
1182 COBALT CHLORIDE 1CO 2CL 0 0 0 0 -578
.0782]
1183 TETRAHYDROFURAN 8H 4C 1O 0 0 0 -716
.0321]
1184 HYDROGEN IODIDE 1H 1I 0 0 0 0 -106
.1030]
1185 COBALT IODIDE 1CO 2I 0 0 0 0 -67
.1297]
1186 MAGNESIUM IODIDE 1MG 2I 0 0 0 0 -321
.0000]
1187 NITRIC ACID (70%) 3H 1N 4O 0 0 0 -1368
.0509]
1188 HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (98 PC) 200H 197O 0 0 0 0 -1369
.0504]
1189 HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (50 PC) 850H 572O 0 0 0 0 -2555
.0430]
1190 HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (35 PC) 696H 424O 0 0 0 0 -2945
.0410]
1191 HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (30 PC) 953H 565O 0 0 0 0 -3075
.0403]
1192 ALUMINUM TRICHLORIDE 1AL 3CL 0 0 0 0 -1274
.0975]
1193 FERRIC CHLORIDE 1FE 3CL 0 0 0 0 -592
.0657]
1194 COPPER(II) CHLORIDE 2CL 1CU 0 0 0 0 -333
.1102]
1195 ETHYLENEOXIDE 3C 6H 1O 0 0 0 -502
.0296]
1196 TETRAHYDRO NAPTHLENE 10C 12H 0 0 0 0 -52
.0350]
1197 NAPTHLENE CRYSTALINE 10C 8H 0 0 0 0 143
.0419]
1198 NAPTHLENE LIQUID (D=1.08) 10C 8H 0 0 0 0 143
.0390]
1199 DICYCLOPENTADIENE DIMER 10C 12H 0 0 0 0 83
.0356]
1200 80/20 DIETHYL ETHER/LIALH4 431C 130H 107O 37AL111LI 0 -914
.0329]
1201 DCPDD/ACETYLENE 80/20 W/W 760C 866H 0 0 0 0 482
.0326]
1202 BUTADIENE 4C 6H 0 0 0 0 389
.0224]
1203 DICYANOBUTANE(ADIPONITRILE) 6C 8H 2N 0 0 0 128
.0343]
1204 ACETONITRILE 2C 3H 1N 0 0 0 183
.0271]
1205 MAPP GAS 62H 30C 0 0 0 0 172
.0197]
1206 INDENE 9C 8H 0 0 0 0 226
.0360]
1207 CYCLOPROPANE 3C 6H 0 0 0 0 303
.0224]
1208 PROPYNE/PROPYLOXIDE (75/25) 276C 400H 17O 0 0 0 704
.0240]
1209 PROPYNE/PROPYLENEOXIDE(50/50) 127C 203H 17O 0 0 0 302
.0260]
1210 MAPP/PROPYLENEOXIDE (75/25) 264C 543H 17O 0 0 0 4
.0223]
1211 MAPP/PROPYLENEOXIDE (50/50) 122C 250H 17O 0 0 0 -165
.0248]
1212 DIETHYLHYDROXYLAMINE 4C 11H 1O 1N 0 0 -459
.0248]
1213 ETHANE 2C 6H 0 0 0 0 -667
.0000]
1214 NITRIC OXIDE 1N 1O 0 0 0 0 491
.0361]
1215 2NITRIC 3OXIDE 2N 3O 0 0 0 0 107
.0488]
1216 NITRO64 794H 223C 321O 98N 0 0 -978
.0347] <-- Glow plug fuel. 60% nitromethane / 40% methanol
1219 Bacardi 151 32C 125H 30O 0 0 0 -2028
.0287]
1220 Everclear 96% 42C 129H 23O 0 0 0 -1534
.0287]
1221 Hexamine 12H 6C 4N 0 0 0 225
.0480]
1222 AMMONIUM FERRICYNANIDE 4H 1FE 6C 7N 0 0 -49
.0684]
1223 1,4 Butylene glycol 10H 4C 2O 0 0 0 -1337
.0367] <-- Same boiling point as Ammonium Nitrate
\
We need more chemicals for Rocket Fuel!
Many of you have probably already seen this but it has some
interesting
entries:
https://engineering.purdue.edu/~propulsi/propulsion/comb/propellants.h
tml
BTW, I have tried to import the various lists into excel so I could
sort
and re-number them but havn't had any luck getting it imported in aand
useful format.
Would you know how the chemical files could be imported into excel for
sorting and converted back into regular text again?
There are soooo many entries in the list there is almost no way to
sort
renumber them without the help of Excel.
Thank you,
Tony S. Colette
Director of Engineering
Everclear 96%?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf
Of Troy Prideaux
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 12:31 AM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Propep Chemicals
Hi Tony,
Thanks for sharing the list. This might not be useful, but I've
restructured the list you sent through so it's in the correct format for
PEP
programs to read (both text and excel SS).
Again, this also might not be useful, but my JeffPEP excel SS holds
PEPcoded
and JANAF data in spreadsheet format for its thermo reference (instead of
independent files). There currently is no automatic function to *amend* the
Pepcoded listing by loading a partial listing - you can only reload the
entire listing from a separate PEPcoded file, but I can add such
functionality if requested. Or you can manually add new ingredient records
and export the database to a text file by updating the PEPcoded SS and
clicking on the "Load PEPcoded File" button which will create a text file
backup of the existing sheet's contents in (what I vaguely recall) is a
format compatible with the PEPcoded file before loading up new file
contents. This backup file will be named with a .old extension.
http://www.propulsionlabs.com.au/Software/Jeff%20PEP_B3f.xls
Regards,
Troy
-----Original Message-----If
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 1 July 2019 2:26 AM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Propep Chemicals
Hello Everyone,
Here are some of the propep chemical additions I've made over the years.
you have others, please share them!-1060
1155 METHYL AMMONIUM NITRATE 1C 6H 2N 3O 0 0
.0633]-1040
1156 METHYL AMMONIUM PERCHLORATE 1C 6H 1N 4O 1CL 0 -
831
.0743]
1157 DIMETHYL AMMONIUM NITRATE 2C 7H 2N 3O 0 0
.0633]-1050
1158 DIMETHYL AMMONIUM PERCHLORATE 2C 7H 1N 4O 1CL 0 -
811
.0743]
1159 TRIMETHYL AMMONIUM NITRATE 3C 9H 2N 3O 0 0
.0633]-303
1160 TRIMETHYL AMMONIUM PERCHLORATE 3C 9H 1N 4O 1CL 0 -
821
.0743]
1161 Copper(II) nitrate 2N 6O 1CU 0 0 0
.0735]29190
1162 100 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 0.0g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0
.0000]2919
1163 10.0 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 0.0g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0
.0000]769
1164 1.0 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 0.0g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0
.0000]530
1165 0.0 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 0.0g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0
.0000] <-- This Neon entry represents a somewhat neutral participant inan
existing chemical combustion system. Similar gamma. Similar mol. Wt..allows
Similar temperature. By selecting the above or below Neon entries it
you to experiment and see the effect of energy content (enthalpy) as a291
standalone variable.
1166 -1.0 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 0.0g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0
.0000]-1859
1167 -10.0Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 0.0g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0
.0000]2919
1168 10.0 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 1.5g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0
.0542]769
1169 1.0 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 1.5g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0
.0542]530
1170 0.0 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 1.5g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0
.0542]291
1171 -1.0 Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 1.5g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0
.0542]-1859
1172 -10.0Kj HEAT (as Ne) @ 1.5g/CC 1NE 0 0 0 0 0
.0542]-901
1173 DIETHYL ETHER 4C 10H 1O 0 0 0
.0257]289
1174 ETHYLENE 2C 4H 0 0 0 0
.0205]1600
1175 PRISMANE 6C 6H 0 0 0 0
.0257]2091
1176 ACETYLENE 2C 2H 0 0 0 0
.0136]780
1177 MONO-NITROETHYNE 2C 1H 1N 2O 0 0
.0000] <-- Approximation extrapolated from mono-nitroethylene477
1178 DI-NITROETHYNE 2C 2N 4O 0 0 0
.0000] <-- Approximation extrapolated from di-nitroethylene1243
1179 CUBANE 8C 8H 0 0 0 0
.0466]778
1180 TETRANITROCUBANE 8C 4N 8O 4H 0 0
.0867]416
1181 OCTANITROCUBANE 8C 8N 16O 0 0 0
.0715]-578
1182 COBALT CHLORIDE 1CO 2CL 0 0 0 0
.0782]-716
1183 TETRAHYDROFURAN 8H 4C 1O 0 0 0
.0321]-106
1184 HYDROGEN IODIDE 1H 1I 0 0 0 0
.1030]-67
1185 COBALT IODIDE 1CO 2I 0 0 0 0
.1297]-321
1186 MAGNESIUM IODIDE 1MG 2I 0 0 0 0
.0000]-1368
1187 NITRIC ACID (70%) 3H 1N 4O 0 0 0
.0509]-1369
1188 HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (98 PC) 200H 197O 0 0 0 0
.0504]-2555
1189 HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (50 PC) 850H 572O 0 0 0 0
.0430]-2945
1190 HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (35 PC) 696H 424O 0 0 0 0
.0410]-3075
1191 HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (30 PC) 953H 565O 0 0 0 0
.0403]-1274
1192 ALUMINUM TRICHLORIDE 1AL 3CL 0 0 0 0
.0975]-592
1193 FERRIC CHLORIDE 1FE 3CL 0 0 0 0
.0657]-333
1194 COPPER(II) CHLORIDE 2CL 1CU 0 0 0 0
.1102]-502
1195 ETHYLENEOXIDE 3C 6H 1O 0 0 0
.0296]-52
1196 TETRAHYDRO NAPTHLENE 10C 12H 0 0 0 0
.0350]143
1197 NAPTHLENE CRYSTALINE 10C 8H 0 0 0 0
.0419]143
1198 NAPTHLENE LIQUID (D=1.08) 10C 8H 0 0 0 0
.0390]83
1199 DICYCLOPENTADIENE DIMER 10C 12H 0 0 0 0
.0356]-914
1200 80/20 DIETHYL ETHER/LIALH4 431C 130H 107O 37AL111LI 0
.0329]482
1201 DCPDD/ACETYLENE 80/20 W/W 760C 866H 0 0 0 0
.0326]389
1202 BUTADIENE 4C 6H 0 0 0 0
.0224]128
1203 DICYANOBUTANE(ADIPONITRILE) 6C 8H 2N 0 0 0
.0343]183
1204 ACETONITRILE 2C 3H 1N 0 0 0
.0271]172
1205 MAPP GAS 62H 30C 0 0 0 0
.0197]226
1206 INDENE 9C 8H 0 0 0 0
.0360]303
1207 CYCLOPROPANE 3C 6H 0 0 0 0
.0224]704
1208 PROPYNE/PROPYLOXIDE (75/25) 276C 400H 17O 0 0 0
.0240]302
1209 PROPYNE/PROPYLENEOXIDE(50/50) 127C 203H 17O 0 0 0
.0260]4
1210 MAPP/PROPYLENEOXIDE (75/25) 264C 543H 17O 0 0 0
.0223]-165
1211 MAPP/PROPYLENEOXIDE (50/50) 122C 250H 17O 0 0 0
.0248]-459
1212 DIETHYLHYDROXYLAMINE 4C 11H 1O 1N 0 0
.0248]-667
1213 ETHANE 2C 6H 0 0 0 0
.0000]491
1214 NITRIC OXIDE 1N 1O 0 0 0 0
.0361]107
1215 2NITRIC 3OXIDE 2N 3O 0 0 0 0
.0488]-978
1216 NITRO64 794H 223C 321O 98N 0 0
.0347] <-- Glow plug fuel. 60% nitromethane / 40% methanol-2028
1219 Bacardi 151 32C 125H 30O 0 0 0
.0287]-1534
1220 Everclear 96% 42C 129H 23O 0 0 0
.0287]225
1221 Hexamine 12H 6C 4N 0 0 0
.0480]-49
1222 AMMONIUM FERRICYNANIDE 4H 1FE 6C 7N 0 0
.0684]-1337
1223 1,4 Butylene glycol 10H 4C 2O 0 0 0
.0367] <-- Same boiling point as Ammonium Nitratethem
\
We need more chemicals for Rocket Fuel!
Many of you have probably already seen this but it has some
interesting
entries:
https://engineering.purdue.edu/~propulsi/propulsion/comb/propellants.h
tml
BTW, I have tried to import the various lists into excel so I could
sort
and re-number them but havn't had any luck getting it imported in aand
useful format.
Would you know how the chemical files could be imported into excel for
sorting and converted back into regular text again?
There are soooo many entries in the list there is almost no way to
sort
renumber them without the help of Excel.
Thank you,
Tony S. Colette
Director of Engineering
So, is it 95% or 96%? Do they sell oxidizers there as well?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *Edward Wranosky
*Sent:* Monday, July 1, 2019 9:50 AM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: Propep Chemicals
I can buy Everclear at 190 Proof (95%) at my local liquor store.
Edward
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:29 AM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Everclear 96%?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
Maybe where Tony buys his Everclear they bump it up by 1 horsepower.....
Edward
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:59 AM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
So, is it 95% or 96%? Do they sell oxidizers there as well?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *Edward Wranosky
*Sent:* Monday, July 1, 2019 9:50 AM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: Propep Chemicals
I can buy Everclear at 190 Proof (95%) at my local liquor store.
Edward
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:29 AM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Everclear 96%?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
Everclear varies by state according to state law. Here in NC it is 151
proof (75.5%)
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 10:05 AM Edward Wranosky <edwardcw@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Maybe where Tony buys his Everclear they bump it up by 1 horsepower.....
Edward
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:59 AM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
So, is it 95% or 96%? Do they sell oxidizers there as well?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *Edward Wranosky
*Sent:* Monday, July 1, 2019 9:50 AM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: Propep Chemicals
I can buy Everclear at 190 Proof (95%) at my local liquor store.
Edward
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:29 AM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Everclear 96%?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
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 LEO and
Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) required forThe original Centaur had quite low tank pressures,
most LH2 rocket
engines is in excess of 50 psia. Gossamer tanks are
an accident looking
for a time to happen.
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.
moving them out
to GEO using electric thrusters close to impossible.Â
(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.Â
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
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 <https://www.roush.com>.
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 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>
<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
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 <https://www.roush.com>.
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 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>
<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
Bill,
Are you suggesting that because it’s reusable, doesn’t automatically mean
that it will cost less?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *William Claybaugh
*Sent:* Monday, July 1, 2019 2:33 PM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
(was >
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
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
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: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>
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...
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>
>>
On 2019-06-27 6:17 PM, Keith Henson wrote:Space junk makes building power satellites in LEO and moving them out
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
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>
wrote:
SpaceX's customers neither buy satellites by the pound, or pay forhttps://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=
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: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 beno
nearer term than yours.
The rest of your comments seem to me simply misleading. There is
publicly available evidence known to me to suggest that SpaceX’shundred
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
dollars per pound) if they could choose the expendable over theand
reusable.
I have no knowledge as to whether SpaceX is making money on reuse
simply keeping the gain for itself or whether refurbishment costshave
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 orso
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
launchbenefit to SpaceX in reusing first stages either, or before that,
any benefit in their significantly increasing overall world
thiscapacity. But absent something new either of us might bring to
floordiscussion, 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
ifof 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,
entersyou 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
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
inpast each other.
You keep coming back to, ULA has problems with competing on price
asthe current LEO launch market, and thus clearly should be killed
haveprofitably 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
losesa 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
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
Apple'shi 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
(ormarket cap is just north of $900 billion, produced entirely by a
consistent corporate approach of providing technical superiority
competeat least the perception thereof) at a significantly higher price
point.
Failing to even acknowledge the possibility that ULA might
ULA’son 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,
workers,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
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
hasIndeed, 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
asno future and that Boeing and Lockmart are correct in treating it
ina limited-life cash cow and minimizing investment in its future
capabilities. (FWIW, what they are currently investing - chiefly
thoseVulcan - 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
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
areif 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
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
awith 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
Thatcase of child abuse. Biological parents? No, corporate."
As for ULA and Roush, well, as an ex-XCORian, mixed feelings.
batterieswasn'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
offerson the Centaur. Which, since turbines aren't the right answer at
that scale and ULA knew they needed outside talent for this,
DMARC)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
(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=
for
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
atstructural needs, with boost pumps (driven by peroxide turbines)
thethe
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
walls.boost
pumps and accept somewhat higher pressures and thicker tank
Space junk makes building power satellites in LEO and moving themout
hit
to GEO using electric thrusters close to impossible. (They get
too many times which is bad, the hits make more debris which ismass
worse).
The current proposal (credit to Roger Arnold) is to accumulate
15-16,000 tons of power satellite parts and 5000 tons of reaction
chemical
in LEO then push the stack of parts and reaction mass up with
are
propulsion via Hohmann transfer orbit to 2000 km. That puts the
construction orbit above almost all the junk. Two of these stacks
needed
enough for a 32,000-ton power satellite plus the reaction mass
to move it out to GEO.a
The delta-V for the two impulses is 827 m/s. That translates into
reaction mass fraction of slightly less than 20% for hydrogen andget
slightly more than 20% for methane. This includes enough fuel to
the tug from 2000 km back to LEO. The exhaust velocity is not soit.
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
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% ofthe
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.
It
gives a radius of 28.7 for a sphere or a diameter of about 57 m.
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
I am not, but it seems unlikely to me to be more than the manufacturing
cost, on the margin.
On 2019-07-01 14:02, William Claybaugh wrote:
Rand: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>
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>
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: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 beno
nearer term than yours.
The rest of your comments seem to me simply misleading. There is
publicly available evidence known to me to suggest that SpaceX’shundred
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
dollars per pound) if they could choose the expendable over theand
reusable.
I have no knowledge as to whether SpaceX is making money on reuse
simply keeping the gain for itself or whether refurbishment costshave
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 orso
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
launchbenefit to SpaceX in reusing first stages either, or before that,
any benefit in their significantly increasing overall world
thiscapacity. But absent something new either of us might bring to
floordiscussion, 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
ifof 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,
entersyou 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
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
inpast each other.
You keep coming back to, ULA has problems with competing on price
asthe current LEO launch market, and thus clearly should be killed
haveprofitably 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
losesa 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
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
Apple'shi 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
(ormarket cap is just north of $900 billion, produced entirely by a
consistent corporate approach of providing technical superiority
competeat least the perception thereof) at a significantly higher price
point.
Failing to even acknowledge the possibility that ULA might
ULA’son 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,
workers,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
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
hasIndeed, 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
asno future and that Boeing and Lockmart are correct in treating it
ina limited-life cash cow and minimizing investment in its future
capabilities. (FWIW, what they are currently investing - chiefly
thoseVulcan - 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
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
areif 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
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
awith 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
Thatcase of child abuse. Biological parents? No, corporate."
As for ULA and Roush, well, as an ex-XCORian, mixed feelings.
batterieswasn'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
offerson the Centaur. Which, since turbines aren't the right answer at
that scale and ULA knew they needed outside talent for this,
DMARC)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
(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>
>>>>
forOn 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
atstructural needs, with boost pumps (driven by peroxide turbines)
thethe
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
walls.boost
pumps and accept somewhat higher pressures and thicker tank
Space junk makes building power satellites in LEO and moving themout
hit
to GEO using electric thrusters close to impossible. (They get
too many times which is bad, the hits make more debris which ismass
worse).
The current proposal (credit to Roger Arnold) is to accumulate
15-16,000 tons of power satellite parts and 5000 tons of reaction
chemical
in LEO then push the stack of parts and reaction mass up with
are
propulsion via Hohmann transfer orbit to 2000 km. That puts the
construction orbit above almost all the junk. Two of these stacks
needed
enough for a 32,000-ton power satellite plus the reaction mass
to move it out to GEO.a
The delta-V for the two impulses is 827 m/s. That translates into
reaction mass fraction of slightly less than 20% for hydrogen andget
slightly more than 20% for methane. This includes enough fuel to
the tug from 2000 km back to LEO. The exhaust velocity is not soit.
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
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% ofthe
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.
It
gives a radius of 28.7 for a sphere or a diameter of about 57 m.
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
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
We worked on a very detailed design, manufacturing and ConOps exercise
for one of the major players in 2014. The vehicle had a lot of
similarities to Falcon at the time. The first and second stage
propulsion system in particular. It's a long story including a prior
court challenge over certain aspects of propulsion IP.
At the time, recycling of the first stage system was discounted very
early. The refurbishing cost was not any less than building a new
booster, primarily due the analysis indicating less than 12% of the
system component cost was cleanly reusable for lack of a better term.
It was difficult to merge the recovered booster back into the
production cycle without complicating what was believed to be a simple
and cost-effective production plan. It really required a whole
separate recovery and production line right down to delivery of the
finished booster otherwise it killed the cost efficiencies of the
proposed line. This also increased the plant NRE as well as field
operations cost significantly. The planned approach was KISS.
The current SpaceX recovery method would at first glance be a lot
gentler on the hardware than the recovery method that we reviewed at
the time, but we didn’t have to carry a lot of extra fuel and
additional systems to accomplish the task, just a measurably higher
amount of thermal protection, payload and structure. Taking all this
into consideration, my question is what reason is there to think that
refurbishment costs for a Block 5 first stage are *less* than
manufacturing costs. I've been involved in four orbital system
propulsion projects since 2000 and I'm currently working at the flight
hardware level of my fifth. I'm not convinced of the claimed economics
of recovery and re-use in a cost effective launch system given the
utilization rates, current state of the art manufacturing methods and
performance limits of available propellants. Maybe Mr. Musk will share
his secret someday.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf Of Rand Simberg
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 4:35 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
(was >
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?
We worked on a very detailed design, manufacturing and ConOps exercise for
one of the major players in 2014. The vehicle had a lot of similarities to
Falcon at the time. The first and second stage propulsion system in
particular. It's a long story including a prior court challenge over
certain aspects of propulsion IP.
At the time, recycling of the first stage system was discounted very
early. The refurbishing cost was not any less than building a new booster,
primarily due the analysis indicating less than 12% of the system component
cost was cleanly reusable for lack of a better term. It was difficult to
merge the recovered booster back into the production cycle without
complicating what was believed to be a simple and cost-effective production
plan. It really required a whole separate recovery and production line
right down to delivery of the finished booster otherwise it killed the cost
efficiencies of the proposed line. This also increased the plant NRE as
well as field operations cost significantly. The planned approach was KISS.
The current SpaceX recovery method would at first glance be a lot gentler
on the hardware than the recovery method that we reviewed at the time, but
we didn’t have to carry a lot of extra fuel and additional systems to
accomplish the task, just a measurably higher amount of thermal protection,
payload and structure. Taking all this into consideration, my question is
what reason is there to think that refurbishment costs for a Block 5 first
stage are *less* than manufacturing costs. I've been involved in four
orbital system propulsion projects since 2000 and I'm currently working at
the flight hardware level of my fifth. I'm not convinced of the claimed
economics of recovery and re-use in a cost effective launch system given
the utilization rates, current state of the art manufacturing methods and
performance limits of available propellants. Maybe Mr. Musk will share his
secret someday.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf Of Rand Simberg
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 4:35 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost (was >
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?
... I'm not convinced of the claimed economics of recovery and re-use in
a cost effective launch system given the utilization rates, current
state of the art manufacturing methods and performance limits of
available propellants. Maybe Mr. Musk will share his secret someday.
Blue Origin will have a relatively high performance hydrogen upper
stage from flight #1. Once they get past the early flight learning
curve they should eclipse Vulcan's deep space capability, significantly.
philip
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 12:20 PM 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.Â
(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.Â
Company B and Company L are acting appropriately.Â
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.Â
"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
... I'm not convinced of the claimed economics of recovery and re-use
in a cost effective launch system given the utilization rates, current
state of the art manufacturing methods and performance limits of
available propellants. Maybe Mr. Musk will share his secret someday.
Frank once said that he'd really like to get back to the original
Centaur tank sidewall thickness instead of the heavier modern one...
What was the justification for increasing the wall thickness again?
IIRC, the wall thickness was reduced during the development of the
original vehicle design. It was thicker in the very first flight
vehicle(s) from what I understand.
Bill,
Are you suggesting that because it’s reusable, doesn’t automatically
mean that it will cost less?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*On Behalf Of *William Claybaugh
*Sent:* Monday, July 1, 2019 2:33 PM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
(was >
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
Anthony:
I think we both understand this to be a leading question....
Mike Griffin and I showed in a 1994 article in JBIS that reuse would
eventually be lower cost than expending. But the trip from here to
there is fraught: the breakeven between fully reusable and expendable
space launch assets is typically north of 100 launches per year.
For partial reuse it depends on whether one is modifying an existing
expendable to be a little bit reusable or building from scratch. The
former—based on SpaceX’s example—might be as low as three to five uses
if refurbishment is very low cost. The latter is calculably somewhere
north of 20 launches (possibly well north) again depending largely on
refurbishment costs.
So no, just because it is reusable does not mean—in the space launch
business—that it will be cheaper. Until individual launch vehicles are
flying more than 100 times per year, the calculation suggests that
expending is more likely to be lower cost.
Bill
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:29 PM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Bill,
Are you suggesting that because it’s reusable, doesn’t
automatically mean that it will cost less?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> *On Behalf Of *William
Claybaugh
*Sent:* Monday, July 1, 2019 2:33 PM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* [AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank
frost (was >
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
Frank once said that he'd really like to get back to the original
Centaur tank sidewall thickness instead of the heavier modern one...
What was the justification for increasing the wall thickness again?
IIRC, the wall thickness was reduced during the development of the
original vehicle design. It was thicker in the very first flight
vehicle(s) from what I understand.
Rand:
Yes, people buy on the basis of absolute cost: the absolute cost of
putting 10,000 Â 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.
>Â 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
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.Â
(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.Â
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.Â
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
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>
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> 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].
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>>
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 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>>
>>
On 2019-06-27 6:17 PM, Keith Henson wrote:Space junk makes building power satellites in LEO and moving them out
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
An argument from authority that cites the father of "The Stick"
astronaut-osterizer, no offense, is a bit less convincing than it might
have been at the time...
Seriously, is that article available online? It could be interesting to
see how well the assumptions those conclusions were based on have stood
up. Times change, organizational and technological givens fade and give
way.
Henry
On 7/1/2019 1:12 PM, William Claybaugh wrote:
Anthony:
I think we both understand this to be a leading question....
Mike Griffin and I showed in a 1994 article in JBIS that reuse would
eventually be lower cost than expending. But the trip from here to there
is fraught: the breakeven between fully reusable and expendable space
launch assets is typically north of 100 launches per year.
For partial reuse it depends on whether one is modifying an existing
expendable to be a little bit reusable or building from scratch. The
former—based on SpaceX’s example—might be as low as three to five uses
if
refurbishment is very low cost. The latter is calculably somewhere north
of 20 launches (possibly well north) again depending largely on
refurbishment costs.
So no, just because it is reusable does not mean—in the space launch
business—that it will be cheaper. Until individual launch vehicles are
flying more than 100 times per year, the calculation suggests that
expending is more likely to be lower cost.
Bill
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:29 PM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Bill,
Are you suggesting that because it’s reusable, doesn’t automatically mean
that it will cost less?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *William Claybaugh
*Sent:* Monday, July 1, 2019 2:33 PM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
(was >
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 Fri, 28 Jun 2019, Anthony Cesaroni wrote:
Frank once said that he'd really like to get back to the original
Centaur tank sidewall thickness instead of the heavier modern one...
What was the justification for increasing the wall thickness again?
IIRC, the wall thickness was reduced during the development of the
original vehicle design. It was thicker in the very first flight
vehicle(s) from what I understand.
If I've understood correctly (a quick look doesn't find a single reference
with all the details, so this is an attempt to pull the bits together, but
it may not be entirely right)...
The very first flight Centaur had 10-mil (10/1000in) sidewalls... but the
LH2 tank split open near max q, a very embarrassing failure eventually
traced to differential-thermal-contraction problems.
The ensuing design scrub increased the thickness to 14 mil temporarily to
increase the margins.
The ensuing design scrub increased the thickness to 14 milThe second test flight was fully successful, to everyone's great relief.
temporarily to increase the margins.Â
...Did they fix the Tank Tearing problem?
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Craig Fink wrote:
The ensuing design scrub increased the thickness to 14 mil
temporarily to increase the margins.
...Did they fix the Tank Tearing problem?
The second test flight was fully successful, to everyone's great relief.
Not all the subsequent test flights were successes (that was a time when
people believed in testing rockets at least a few times *before* putting
valuable payloads on them), but that particular problem was understood
well enough that it didn't recur.
Henry
...that particular problem was understood well enough that it didn't
recur.
