This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

ULA and SpaceX Are Trash Talking Again

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
March 3, 2015
Filed under , , ,
ULA and SpaceX Are Trash Talking Again

ULA ready to compete against Elon Musk’s space startup, CEO says, Washington Post
“Still, [ULA Chief Executive Tory Bruno] also said that ULA is far more reliable in launching on schedule than SpaceX. When asked if he thought it was risky to rely on SpaceX he said, “I do.” “We have a perfect mission success record and our schedule certainty is also substantial,” he said. “Launching on time is huge.” SpaceX took exception to Bruno’s comments. “The Air Force and the taxpayers deserve more from ULA and its latest CEO, whose remarks are purposely misleading, but not unexpected,” SpaceX spokesman John Taylor said in a statement. “In anticipation of having to face real competition for the first time, ULA is distorting the facts in an effort to hide its own shortcomings. This is merely the latest example that ULA is realizing that its long-held monopoly is coming to an end.”
Keith’s note: Then there’s this gem: “Bruno said that since ULA’s inception, the company “has cut the price of launch in half, and I’m going to cut it in half again.” While he declined to provide specific numbers, he vowed to “be competitive with SpaceX’s prices.”
Hmmm … with reusable stages SpaceX may do this too – making their cost even harder to beat. At some point Bruno will not be able to turn a profit if he’s focused only on cutting prices to chase SpaceX down this path.
Marc’s note: Looking at the commercial launch market the last four years, ULA has had 2 launches, both last year for WorldView 3 and NASA’s EFT-1. SpaceX on the other hand has had 11 launches and this is before the coming increase in cadence. (All data from the FAA)

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

116 responses to “ULA and SpaceX Are Trash Talking Again”

  1. Odyssey2020 says:
    0
    0

    It’s just so satisfying to see the other guy blink.

  2. BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
    0
    0

    Starting to get ugly. SpaceX also has a perfect record with their F9 launches. Sure they’ve had some delays however those are coming down and customers aren’t going to be worried about a few days here or there. Evidence the growing SpaceX manifest. ULA’s manifest – where is that. Oh yes, sole source government contract.
    Cheers

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      They still have some short equipment-related launch delays. I don’t recall ULA having those recently. This is the basis for the claim that ULA is more reliable. They will have to come down before Falcon Heavy can replace Delta Heavy as launcher to Mars.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        ULA does indeed have launch delays

        “The Space Coast’s first launch of 2013 has been pushed back a day so technicians can replace a faulty rocket component….
        NASA said United Launch Alliance needed time to swap out a small box on the first stage of an Atlas V rocket that is responsible for sending signals to explosive devices used to separate the booster from the rocket’s Centaur upper stage. …”

        Or

        “NASA’s SMAP Launch Delayed 24 Hours for Rocket Repair – See more at: http://spacenews.com/nasas-… “

        or

        “After Four-Month Delay, 25th Delta IV Primed for Thursday Launch of GPS IIF-5 Satellite”

        And more if you want them.

  3. Todd Austin says:
    0
    0

    Your comment about ULA playing catchup here is spot on. To truly compete, they will have to find a way to get out in front of SpaceX. We will see what they have to offer in April.

    Bruno clearly sees that they will be unable to compete on price for some years, at the very least. That’s why he tried to refocus the debate around schedule reliability. While he certainly has a point that ULA is good at launching on time, it’s also an argument with diminishing returns. As SpaceX becomes more practiced at launching, delays will become smaller and smaller. Witness the launch this week, which went off bang on time and had been delayed only a number of days from the originally-scheduled date.

    Bruno won’t get far with the ‘we launch on time’ approach. It’s going to come down to cost and it will be years, at the least, before he’ll be in a position to compete. By then, the profit margins may be so small that Boeing and LockMart may decide to shut down ULA and look for greener pastures.

    • Dewey Vanderhoff says:
      0
      0

      Todd: I believe those greener pastures are precisely where ULA is grazing now, feeding their cash cows Atlas and Delta on that good government Pentagon – NRO grass. I hear down at the Alexandria and Chantilly VA farm implement and feed stores you can buy a toilet seat for only $ 700.00

    • EtOH says:
      0
      0

      “While he certainly has a point that ULA is good at launching on time, it’s also an argument with diminishing returns.”

      Yes, and while his argument may draw a few nods from air force, it has less application to commercial launches. Yes commercial operators want their satellites launched on time, but their tolerance for delay (so long as it’s cheaper) can be seen in the new all-electric propulsion systems. Even after launch, they take 8 months to arrive on station, yet customers are flocking.

    • SJG_2010 says:
      0
      0

      And another point: ULA has been launching almost EXLUSIVELY MILITARY Payloads from Military bases.
      Lets just speculate: Of the two organizations, which will launch on time with a higher statistical rate – Military payloads or Commercial payloads? Military payloads.
      SO if you launch almost ZERO commercial payloads, your on-time launch numbers will be higher just based on your customer base.
      And of the two options listed above which ones will experience hold-ups due to the RANGE? The commercial launches.
      If the range holds up a commercial launch due to radars catching fire, or facility power going down, no big deal. Hold up a military launch for the same reasons and heads will roll.
      So the statement from ULA is biased

  4. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    “LA Chief Executive Tory Bruno] also said that ULA is far more reliable in launching on schedule than SpaceX. “

    I do not agree, and SpaceX should have challenged them, that ULA is reliably on schedule. They have had delays for months.

  5. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    They never can match SpaceX’s prices ever, unless they change a basic government subsidy that ULA receives and SpaceX does not.
    ULA receives a $1 BILLION/year “EELV Launch Capability and Readiness contract”. It is a payment simply to pay ULAs fixed costs to stay available to launch. With 10 launches per year, that ignored fee adds $100 million to every launch. The launches themselves are a few hundred million dollars each.

    So, each and every ULA launch starts out, before any actual costs occur, costing more than any SpaceX launch.
    So, even if ULA gave away launches for free, they would still cost $100 million.

    As the GAO reported (GAO-13-317R Launch Services New Entrant Certification Guide):

    Advantages to ULA:
    In addition to the challenges noted, new entrants identified perceived
    advantages given to ULA through the EELV program. For example,
    * DOD provides about $1 billion a year to ULA to support its national
    launch infrastructure, and provides funding to ULA for ongoing engine and other technology development.

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      Sounds like, if Falcon Heavy will only cost a straight up $85 million to LEO. With ongoing EELV funding being itemized against ULA launches (did you say $100 million?), they can’t compete with SpaceX on heavy lifts even if they launch for free.

  6. Dewey Vanderhoff says:
    0
    0

    I would add that no less than the Chinese government has said they cannot compete with SpaceX on launch price. Arianespace is taking measures. What say the Russians / ILS ?

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      http://spacenews.com/41480s

      Commercial launch provider International Launch Services on Aug. 4 said it was cutting staff by 25 percent as it lowers its forecasted launch rate of Russian Proton rockets to three to four per year from seven to eight missions previously planned. The layoffs will leave the Reston, Virginia-based company with a 35- to 40-person payroll.

    • Jeff Smith says:
      0
      0

      I think they are betting A LOT on the Angara/Vostochny combo. They are hoping that common cores (like SpaceX/Delta IV) and a switch to Lox/Kerosene (from hypergols) will help lower prices. Both of those are probably true, and combined with a launch site they don’t have to rent/lease (hmmmm, SpaceX doing the same thing?) AND the lower cost of Russian labor, they might be able to lower the costs substantially.
      As with all things “time will tell”.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Hasn’t the REAL cost of russian launches been much less than we have been lead to believe? Didn’t Elon Start Spacex after going to Russia to buy his Mars green house mission. Didn’t he learn there that rocket launch can be done more affordably than it’s done in the USA.

        • Jeff Smith says:
          0
          0

          Cost or price? Since the inputs haven’t changed since… Gagarin, I’d wager the COST to perform the launch is pretty well understood. The PRICE on the other hand includes both currency exchange rates (which were at their worst 1. after the fall, 2. when they defaulted and 3. now), and what the market will bear. Turns out, with this new generation of launchers: SpaceX, ULA, Ariane, China, etc., the market is expected to bear a LOT less. If the inputs remain the same, but the market price goes down, that means Russia has to do something in a hurry.
          I thought Elon was more uncomfortable with the lack of transparency than the outright cost. I think he might have been ok with the price, but knowing exactly what he was getting for his money was hard to pin down. Either way, he saw a disparity in the market and realized there was an opportunity. The entire launch industry has him to thank for the rash of development that’s gone on.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          He saw that the russian way was less expensive than the traditional NASA way .. AND when he started pricing INPUTS he saw that the even the RUSSIAN margins were inflated.
          He stated at MIT it was the input costs that were the real driver for why lower launch costs could be achieved.

  7. John Kavanagh says:
    0
    0

    American launch service competition is great. Trash talking is disappointing; let them settle scores by innovating at a faster pace.

  8. rockofritters says:
    0
    0

    The billion dollars a year is a big reason why Atlas and Delta are always available and nearly always on time for the booster. and don’t think for a moment that if and when Musk gets certification he won’t ask for some similar structure. See all you guys who are observers have never had the experience of having to defend the vehicle against oversight from the Aerospace Corp. and Musk will not do that for free. looking into that abyss is probably a big reason why he decided to accept an agreement and drop his lawsuit especially flush with google money.

    and before you think re-useability will cut his costs further 1) he will never sell a reused core to the gov’t and 2) he will never get to keep a core he sold to the gov’t for one of their flights and re-sell it commercially. once you sell it to the gov’t its theirs, they don’t give them back for your personal economic use/benefit…. and that doesn’t even touch the real power in the launch business: Insurance companies. they will insist on lots of real proof to fly re-used cores… or maybe google will have to insure them….

    • Graham West says:
      0
      0

      Will SpaceX offer, and the govt accept, different contract terms than ULA? Is ULA cost-plus vs SpaceX being fixed price?

      How willing is SpaceX to shrink profits on govt launches, including potentially taking a loss? Do they even care about govt launches to that degree, given they have other business coming in?

      The govt does have experience with partial reusability in the form of Shuttle orbiter and SRBs. Is there a level of confidence building that will get them to agree to reused first stages?

      I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, which is why I’m asking them, but I think your statement presumes certain answers without providing a rationale as to why.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        SpaceX offers their basic profit-making $61 million per flight rate to the Gov with an up-charge of $10-30 million for any extra costs their extra oversight requires. It is still a fraction of the cost of ULA.

      • rockofritters says:
        0
        0

        The core buys are fixed price. SpaceX will either shrink or eliminate profit on EELV launches or it will join ULA in it’s cost structure. or they will focus on their google money and compete on gps size payloads and let it go at that.
        NASA has experience re-using SRB’s. but it made no sense economically. at all. even ATK didn’t argue that in the last 15 years. don’t confuse NASA with AF/Aerospace. they’re associates but they’re different animals.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          Spacex sells launch services at fixed prices (and they print them on their website – the only one to do so), and they make a profit.

        • richard_schumacher says:
          0
          0

          You are quite mistaken if you think that SpaceX’ re-usability model is anything like that of the Shuttle SRBs.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          NASA refurbished the shuttle after each flight. It was a multi-month, fabulously expensive process. Absolutely, totally unlike the Falcon 9. It is modeled after an airliner – diagnostic, restack, refuel, fly. Nothing refurbished or replaced, or rebuilt. That are targeting less than a 10 hour turnaround.

    • EtOH says:
      0
      0

      “1) he will never sell a reused core to the gov’t”

      I don’t doubt it, but likely plenty of commercial customers willing to take them once they are proven.

      “2) he will never get to keep a core he sold to the gov’t for one of their flights and re-sell it commercially. once you sell it to the gov’t its theirs, they don’t give them back for your personal economic use/benefit”

      Is this based on real information? Is the government run by two-year olds? I have trouble imagining that they would insist the stage be destroyed rather than re-used, to the extent of refusing a contract involving some sort of discount.

      “Insurance companies. they will insist on lots of real proof to fly re-used cores…”

      At worst, we might expect re-used cores to be treated similar to an unproven launch vehicle. Higher scrutiny, but not uninsurable, especially for cheaper payloads.

      • rockofritters says:
        0
        0

        it’s not a matter of how old the people running the gov’t are. and it’s not a matter of destroying cores. once it’s sold to the gov’t its theirs. period. to re-use it there would have to be some kind of negotiation and money would change hands or it would be negotiated into their original contract so that when the government buys a core it gets a new one and neither contractor would get an economic advantage by re-selling it to somebody else unless they both could. that’s not supposition that’s flat out fact. all that hardware on display outside ATK’s promontory facility has serial numbers on it. and you can be sure if they tried to monetize it NASA would have a very big problem with it. and so would ATK. Musk isn’t special, the rules are the rules. they have to do with government procurement rules and accountability. it’s all in that abyss Elon looked into. you know the part where you think the “old space” guys are just committing theft…

        as far as your dismissal of insurance companies, well good luck with that… they can be way more powerful than the Aerospace corp.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          Spacex sells launch services, not hardware.
          Spacex sells ISS cargo services, not hardware.
          Spacex will be selling crew delivery services (taxi) – not hardware.

          Show me otherwise.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            EXACTLY .. just like a land based cargo service.. when an 18 wheeler delivers cargo to a NASA center they do not get to keep the truck .. just the cargo and when it is unloaded.. it goes back to base.

        • EtOH says:
          0
          0

          Even if the contract with the Air Force / NRO was for the physical core and not just the service of launch, it couldn’t take much of a monetary incentive to convince them to let SpaceX have a landed stage that they have no use for the first place. I will remind you that the language I was objecting to was:

          “he will never get to keep a core he sold to the gov’t for one of their flights and re-sell it commercially”

          Of the flights SpaceX has tried to recover so far, one was for NASA (CRS-5) and one for the Air Force (Gore-sat). They weren’t successful, but in neither case was there any indication that the customer was laying claim to the landed stage.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Do they sell the rocket? Or sell a transportation service?

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          Kinda silly really. The ‘government’ buys airline seats all the time.

          Future contracts will be different than current contracts, that’s all. Plus, the ‘government’ buys all sorts of rides to space, some with defense implications, some for research. Lots of different tolerances.

      • rockofritters says:
        0
        0

        when you sell hardware to the govt. its theirs. and they audit contractors to document where their hardware is. this not in anyway new info to anybody who has ever worked in the defense business. do you really think that LM and Boeing will just let spacex have that advantage anyway? Obama will be gone in 2 years and their congress people will still be there

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          My argument is that SpaceX isn’t selling the rocket, they’re selling the launch. You are buying a ride to the orbit of your choosing, much like you buy a ride on a taxi or airplane to the destination of your choosing.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            You are correct

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            They are selling a SERVICE .. transport cargo to the station. It is the same as a ground carrier utilizing an 18 wheeler to deliver cargo to a NASA center .. NASA does not get to keep the truck … just the cargo.
            NASA gets the cargo as a service.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Ok, I think I can see where this is coming from. For people who have never run into it before, let’s say I had a contract to build a scientific instrument for NASA. To design it, I need to do some high-end computer simulations, so I include the cost of a good, dedicated workstation in the contract. Most people would think NASA was buying the instrument, and afterwards, the workstation would be mine to use as I like. That’s not the case. Since it’s purchased under government contract, it’s government tagged equipment, which may only be used for that contract, or as authorized by the contracting agency. I wouldn’t even be allowed to throw it away. In fact, I’ve known several people in this, exact situation, with 20-year old computers taking up space in a closet.

          If you assume the same regulations apply to launch services, which wouldn’t be irrational, then the Falcon 9 core would be equipment purchased as part of a government contract (to put something on orbit) and its reuse would be similarly restricted. However, I’d say that’s a good reason for SpaceX to have some good lawyers. I’m sure someone could write a contract which left SpaceX free to reuse the core. Since lawyers cost more per hour than good aerospace engineers, that might impact launch costs. But you can get around these legal restrictions. The most obvious is to charge a huge overhead on the contract and for SpaceX to pay for the core itself off overhead. Then it’s not, technically, purchased off the contract. I’m not sure that works, but something similar could be arranged.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I think a difference (and the point of commercial space vs the other model of cost-plus) is that the customer buys the service, not the hardware. Vlad gives a great analogy with who owns the truck delivering freight to your loading dock?
            An analogy closer to your scenario – NASA is not contracting to buy a scientific instrument and also paying for the whole chain of creation behind it (which has been SOP until now). Lets say this device measures rainfall.
            Instead, in the the commercial model, NASA simply asks for daily rainfall numbers from a vendor for a fee and as to the required hardware, costs to operate the hardware, and the design and production of the instrument, it is no business of NASA’s.
            NASA may subsidize the setting up the vendor’s rain system, and poke its nose in the process for QA/QC purposes, but the “black box” is the property of the vendor.

          • OpenTrackRacer says:
            0
            0

            Your computer argument completely depends on how the contract is structured. SpaceX does not contract in the method you’re describing so your point is moot.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Your statement #1 seems plausible.

      Your statement #2 necessitates a distinction between selling a launch and selling a vehicle. If SpaceX sells a launch, I believe it is unreasonable for the customer to expect to keep the vehicle.

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      I’ll bet that the SpaceX bid for EELV support will still be 20% of what ULA is getting.
      Also, SpaceX current price points do not factor in reusability anyway. Also, once the science of reusabilty is further developed and starts to accumulate a launch history of its own, the situation that you just described will change. The Army flies its troops on reusable aircraft.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        Shotwell said that they plan to drop the cost from the current $60mill to $6mill.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          5-7 million is what she said .. Musk didn’t allude to those numbers though .. more like the 30 – 50% range .. unless I missed a statement he maide.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      “The billion dollars a year is a big reason why Atlas and Delta are always available and nearly always on time for the booster.”
      No evidence offered, and SpaceX says it doesn’t need it.

      “1) he will never sell a reused core to the gov’t”
      No evidence given – unsupported speculation. DOD is actively working on the XS-1 reusable system RIGHT NOW, and previously funded the RBS (Reusable Booster System) until 2012. So you are wrong. BTW – DOD used the reusable shuttle.

      “2) he will never get to keep a core he sold to the gov’t for one of their flights and re-sell it commercially. once you sell it to the gov’t its theirs, they don’t give them back for your personal economic use/benefit.”

      Seriously?? So they will force SpaceX to drop used stages in the ocean and not recover them?? Really? Really, really truly?? So they won’t re-use a stage and they won’t let the vendor re-use it?? Why is NASA allowing them to in fact recover stages purchased by them? Is it a hallucination?

      “… and that doesn’t even touch the real power in the launch business: Insurance companies. they will insist on lots of real proof to fly re-used cores… or maybe google will have to insure them….”

      Guess that’s SpaceX’s problem, not the federal government’s, isn’t it. They seem pretty confident..

      • rockofritters says:
        0
        0

        You’re right Musk doesn’t need the billion. Atlas and Delta keep hitting their launch dates. heck Delta II even did it with a few years off. but since nobody really holds space x to their dates well sure you’re right they don’t need it. you win.

        DoD re-used the shuttle… shuttle engines came in highly protected from heating. and they originally got completely rebuilt every flight until later it became up to 3 flights then complete total rebuild. SRB segments got completely rebuilt so only the cases and nozzle buckets were reused. so yeah they reused the orbiter, which it was designed for…you win…

        you’re right he may sell a reused core eventually to NASA for demonstration. not a chance he’ll ever find it economical to ensure the booster for a re-use EELV flight unless there is some very major change in how they do business. we’ll all be long in a box by then. sorry i was not precise. you win

        yes seriously. if they land it it will go to a hangar or pedestal somewhere. or there will be some sort of contractual agreement that doesn’t give spacex any advantage except maybe on NASA flights. NASA has a bunch of infrastructure from SRB recovery they like to exercise. it’s an interesting idea to them. thats all. so my mistake, you win

        yeah Insurance will be SpaceX’s problem. you win again.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          “Atlas and Delta keep hitting their launch dates. heck Delta II even did it with a few years off. “

          Wrong.:
          WASHINGTON — Launch of NASA’s Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) satellite has again been delayed another 24 hours, this time because of an issue with the satellite’s Delta 2 rocket, launch provider United Launch Alliance announced late Thursday (Jan. 29, 2015)

          “DoD re-used the shuttle…”
          Yes, the shuttle was a horrible mess, but DOD did re-use. You were wrong in stating they would not re-use.

          Beyond that they are actively working on the re-usable XS-1 and until 2012, the RBS – Reusable Booster System. So you are wrong.

          “you’re right he may sell a reused core eventually to NASA …” Where did I say that?

          “not a chance he’ll ever find it economical to ensure the booster for a re-use EELV flight unless there is some very major change in how they do business.”

          Are you basing that on anything beyond staring into a crystal ball?

    • HyperJ says:
      0
      0

      You don’t seem to understand that what ULA and SpaceX sells is a *launch service*. Not the rocket.

      What SpaceX does with a reused core is not up to the customer of the first flight.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      Rockofritters wrote: he will never get to keep a core he sold to the gov’t for one of their flights and re-sell it commercially. once you sell it to the gov’t its theirs, they don’t give them back for your personal economic use/benefit….

      WRONG

      NASA Policy Directive: NPD 8610.23C 2006

      b. Commercial launch service providers own and operate launch vehicles and direct administrative and technical tasks associated with the launch services provided to NASA. Recognizing that the ownership of commercial launch service technical standards resides with each launch service provider, rather than with NASA…

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      The NASA CRS contract is a service contract.. they do not get the capsule or rocket .. just the cargo.

  9. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    Marc commented….
    Marc’s note: Looking at the commercial launch market the last four years, ULA has had 2 launches, both last year for WorldView 3 and NASA’s EFT-1..

    I hesitate calling them “commercial” launches.

    Worldview-3
    The satellite and launch are primarily NGA financed.
    …DigitalGlobe to meet the conditions of a 10-year, $3.55-billion contract to provide imagery and services to the U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)….
    …NGA will have access to up to 60 percent of DigitalGlobe’s entire satellite capacity…

    NASA’s EFT-1 is just regular government launch business, not commercial.

    The only commercial launch contracted to ULA that I can see either past, present or future is MexSat-2 coming later this year. And the program manager for the Mexsat project is … wait for it… Boeing.

    • Marc Boucher says:
      0
      0

      They are classified as commercial as they received commercial licenses to launch from the FAA.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        I don’t disagree. But it is a technical distinction and not any indication that ULA can actually survive in a true commercial environment.
        We’re on the same page. I was only emphasizing your point that ULA simply can’t cut it without taxpayer infusions.

  10. Tritium3H says:
    0
    0

    Just throwing the question out there for others who may have detailed information…
    What is the historical evolution of ULA’s launch pricing…specifically, their reduction in launch pricing to customers? The reason I ask, is that I wouldn’t be surprised if any dramatic reduction in launch pricing/costs has occurred as a direct result of competition from SpaceX. If that is the case, then it begs the question as to how much ULA was screwing the US taxpayer in the past, when they didn’t have such irritating distractions.

    • Jeff Smith says:
      0
      0

      I’m not certain, but I think Bruno’s “we’ve cut it in half” mantra is in reference to switching away from Titan IV. Those big ATK boosters and particularly the hypergolic core weren’t cheap by the end. Having 3 different propellant types with 3 different handling procedures is NOT easy or cheap: solids, hypergolics, Lox/H2. They’ve gotten rid of the hypergolics for everything but manuevering thrusters, the solids DON’T have to be assembled on site (strap on boosters are easier to deal with), and Lox/H2/Kerosene simplifies procedures. When you remove the complications, you also remove the engineers and techs who have to understand those complications and the DCMA guys who have to inspect those complications.

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      This might be a little bit harsh. ULA is more expensive for a variety of reasons related to their cost of doing business in the way that they are doing it. The engines they fly cost close to the cost of of a Falcon 9 launch (I don’t have the numbers in front of me). They probably pay more to politician war-chests and to lobbiests than SpaceX does…a remanant of an earlier time. They need to start a new, commercial space subsidary that leverages their experience but builds and launches rockets using modern processes similar to what SpaceX uses so that they can compete with them on a more even-footing.

      • EtOH says:
        0
        0

        ” The engines they fly cost close to the cost of of a Falcon 9 launch (I don’t have the numbers in front of me).”

        Don’t know how much they are buying them for, but middle-man RD Amaross has apparently been selling the main engines onward at $23.4M a piece; ouch.
        http://www.reuters.com/arti

        The projected cost of the domestic replacement AR-1 is supposedly $12.5M

        • Bill Housley says:
          0
          0

          I just now took a minute to look this up in the Falcon 9 Wiki…
          “Cost per launchv1.1: $61.2M”

          So my earlier comment was an overstatement.
          Still, like you said, ouch. Especially since the Merlin 1Ds might be better engines.
          “The engine’s 150:1 thrust-to-weight ratio would be the highest ever achieved for a rocket engine.”
          “…a sea level specific impulse (Isp) of 282 s and a vacuum specific impulse (Isp) of 311 s.[4] The engine has the highest specific impulse ever achieved for a gas-generator cycle kerosene rocket engine.”
          Probably why the Falcon Heavy will be such a small rocket compared to the Delta Haevy, but with double the throw weight.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            The engines are even getting better. Starting this summer the Merlins (when required) can be up-rated by about 20% more thrust.

            The 27 engines in the FH has almost twice the thrust of the 3 Delta IV Heavy engines.

            http://www.spacex.com/sites

          • hikingmike says:
            0
            0

            Wow I figured Ariane 5 was more than that.

          • EtOH says:
            0
            0

            Actually I think your estimate was pretty spot on, 2 RD-180’s + the upper stage + solid boosters is likely more than $60M. The Merlin’s a good engine, but the RD-180 has better Isp (338 s vac).
            As for the non-intuitive comparison of Falcon Heavy vs. Delta IV Heavy, looks can be deceiving. The Delta IV Heavy is the bigger of the two by far, but it’s only half the mass: LH2/LOX is much less dense than RP1/LOX.

          • Neowolf says:
            0
            0

            Delta is large because of all that fluffy LH2. Kerosene/LOX is much denser.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      Forming ULA and allowing the creation of a freakin’ monopoly was supposed to dramatically lower prices.. LOL ya right on what planet..
      Prices immediately started rising with each new contract until the Air force and congress finally did something to create competititon

  11. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    First they ignore you,
    then they ridicule you,
    then they fight you,
    and then you win
    Mahatma Gandhi

  12. Bill Housley says:
    0
    0

    Companies like ULA can only keep up these claims for a short time before the lower price point allows SpaceX and Arianespace to pass them up on launch history. Lack of launch frequency can damage reliability on the long-term as well and also make it flat impossible to compete on price.
    This might already be happening with the engines since SpaceX flies nine engines per launch.
    ULA and others need to just stop whining and optimize their businesses and production processes to match what SpaceX is doing. If they don’t start soon we won’t have to listen to their whining for much longer.

  13. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    http://www.washingtonpost.c
    @torybruno and Jeff in their little paper 🙂

    Shouldn’t Uncle Sam help Spacex with Raptor with the same amount of money as they help ULA??
    To protect against monopolies and all that.

    Any chance Spacex might use Raptor for smaller LVs as well as MCT??

    • Zed_WEASEL says:
      0
      0

      It is doubtful that SpaceX will take the government money. They really don’t want the oversight red tape to go with it.

      The latest specs on the Raptor is about the same as the Blue United BE-4 with higher ISP at 500m lbf at sea lecel. In theory you could swap the BE-4s to Raptors in the ULA NGLV (aka Blue Atlas).

      However it is more likely you will see Unicorns dancing in the flame trench before SpaceX sells engines to ULA or anyone else.

    • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
      0
      0

      I think Elon once stated that they’d discontinued efforts for 2nd stage reuse since it detracted from their Mars objectives. Same for Using Raptor on F9 and FH although, that said, SpaceX is not a company where plans don’t change quickly if required. Evidence parachutes to rocket engine 1st stage reuse.
      Cheers

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        He stated that during the MIT visit he did recently. He said that the margins with the 2nd stage were just to tight and they were not going to bother .. the MCT would be fully reusable though he said.

  14. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    http://spacenews.com/ula-ta

    Give me just a little more time and ………

  15. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    Cut costs in half…LOL…wish I could put a laugh track in here somehow…LOL…LOL… LOL…LOLLOL… LOLLOL…LOLLOL… LOLLOL…LOL

  16. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    How can ULA ever hope to have cheaper prices when they sub so much out to other companies.

    Booster engine here?? Second stage engine there??

  17. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    SpaceX has been around for more than 10 years and employs over 3,500 people. I’m not sure I consider them a startup, Washington Post.

  18. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    It matters not a smidge (except to the taxpayer) if DoD or NASA ever re-use a rocket. They would pay full retail for virgin hardware and then it goes into multi-year commercial service. A total win-win for SpaceX. The rocket is paid in full and they have a free cash-cow..

  19. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    I would like to ask Tony if the billion dollar a year “assured access” will be cut in half also … or ELIMINATED…

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      That whole assured access is a sign of ultimate failure.
      Boeing and Lock-Mart were supposed to support themselves with commercial and gov flights. They could not get enough business to survive so they were allowed to create a monopoly and not compete. Even that was not enough to insure their survival.
      So, We The People are paying them $1 billion dollars per year, launches or no launches, just to not shut down because they are not a viable business.

      Well, SpaceX makes the big bucks selling commercial flights and does not need life-support to survive, and will even then make a profit undercutting ULA prices.

    • Lewis says:
      0
      0

      If you start pulling the money, spacex will fold while ULA would survive, if they wanted to. This is what Griffin said at the start of 2013 while contributing to the history of what is going on right now:

      “Substantial amounts of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, are being provided to the private companies. If SpaceX continues on along its current path, it will have received approximately $1.2 billion in government money from the collective programs. I’m rounding, but with this recent $400-plus million award under CCiCap [Commercial Crew integrated Capability], that brings the total SpaceX funding to something around $1.2 billion, maybe a little more.”

      That’s from here: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/his

      The context from which that quote came revolves around what commercial space began as. Griffin was trying to apply a concept that the CIA uses in developing services and products for the intelligence community. There, they would juice a new company with 5% of what would be spent. Here, space X has gotten 95%, and that’s from Griffin’s own mouth, the administrator that gave birth to spacex.

      What is happening here is very strange. Why you all think that it’s Elon funding this, creating something that costs a quarter of what other rockets everywhere else cost, because he’s smart or something… I’m not sure what’s happening.

      The irony is that Musk, and probably a lot of other people around him that are helping with the mess, are interested in collecting billions from the Air Force in the same way that ULA does now.

      The interesting thing is that it will cost spacex the same thing it costs everyone else once it’s all said and done.

      Oh, and nobody will go to Mars, or the Moon, or anywhere interesting. We’ll just have an upgraded satellite network for boat world and the usual secret NRO launches. And the X-37 will go up to do whatever it does.

      Then we’ll be dead of old age.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        No, SpaceX would not fold. Only ula would fold. Spacex is profitable on its commercial launch business. Essentially the only income ula has is us gov non-competitive launches.
        It is ula that is in a massive contraction. Spacex is expanding.
        You are missing the essential point. It is not that spacex or ula or anyone gets government money, it is that the playing field is not level. To provide the same taxi service to ISS Boeing is getting 1 1/2 billion dollars more. Just to launch the same payloads ula gets a freebie $1 billion retainer fee that others do not get. Ula only exists because of excessive taxpayer largess.
        As to traveling into deep space with people, why is spacex working on the Raptor?

        • Lewis says:
          0
          0

          I am not missing the point, and I’m glad you see that SpaceX is sucking at the trough like any other entity that works for the government.

          ULA would not go under because ULA is Boeing and Lockheed. They’re doing well within trillions in long-term business with other stuff that the government needs, most notably weapon systems. Take away the billion in seed money for SpaceX that Griffin is saddened by… and they would not exist. Elon only put a hundred million in. That’s not much, and not a sacrifice. He makes 70 million a year just with the car company. Or in other words, he is a greedy CEO type, worse than bankers in a lot of cases.

          Anyway, SpaceX doesn’t have any weapon money that ULA has access to. They will go under without “commercial” development money from NASA. In fact, I think that’s the primary goal of SpaceX, to get the NRO, Air Force, and Navy money to develop their satellite launch business. After all, commercial space is going to be gone once the station is gone.

          I don’t know much about the spacecraft development of SpaceX or Boeing. I don’t know why SpaceX would be developing that knowing that the ISS will be gone soon. Maybe there’s a few billion in that before the ISS swims with the fishes.

          I know what went into going to the moon. All industry and academia participated in the United States. SpaceX isn’t duplicating that.

          So far as the money that ULA gets, the elevated rates for Boeing’s vehicle as compared to the SpaceX vehicle… I don’t know. It’s probably a combination of many things like pensions, R&D expenses being moved around, accounting creatively to cover black projects, and stuff like James Webb’s famous “administrator’s discount”.

          I’m just saying that I’m older and I want to see something happen with the moon again. I’m very angry that people think that SpaceX is going provide that because they’re aren’t going to and that sucks. It sucks and I’m saying it sucks. I’m right and the rest of you are wrong.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            “I’m right and the rest of you are wrong.”
            And until everyone agrees you’ll just hold your breath until you turn blue!

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Give it up, Yale. Facts aren’t relevant here,apparently.

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            The facts, from where I sit, show that NASA has become a money trough for con artists (the Harvard boys are in on it too) so they can make money launching spy, navigation, and communication satellites at the expense of manned space flight for the United States of America.

            This is happening because the most important consideration when traveling to and landing on another body in the solar system is, apparently by today’s standards, cost.

            Too bad Spacex isn’t public. Guess Elon doesn’t want you to have a piece of it. Sitting around clapping your hands together in glee will have to cut it for your reward in supporting the program.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            I agree with you about the money trough.
            As I have said many times our future depends largely on one Person Mr. Musk. You believe he is just another scammer like the rest, I do not. He is for real.
            10 years from now he will have a fleet of Reusable BFRs and so will likely Boeing/ULA
            As much as it would be nice to have big government do it alone they can not. If you want to live and work in space soonest watch Musk, watch ULA finally transform there companies to compete. This new lifter will be the first solid stepping stones to where you and I want go.

            Is there time for you and I to see it? Probably not, those possible futures were stolen from us years ago.

            With out an affordable transportion system, we are going no where.

          • PsiSquared says:
            0
            0

            If by BFR you mean MCT, there will not be a “fleet” of such rockets in 10 years.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            What does NASA have to do with launching those military or civilian payloads you list?? What are you talking about? NASA doesn’t pay for them.
            Go complain to the Pentagon, not NASA or SpaceX about the defense budget.

            Show me where NASA pays for those launches.

          • PsiSquared says:
            0
            0

            The interesting thing about facts is that they’re not dependent on the frame of reference. So, if they’re only facts as they appear from where you sit, they might not be facts at all.

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            No seriously, where is the lunar program? Why are people talking about going to Mars?

            I don’t have to hold my breath because it’s absolutely obvious that we have not even the first component of any mission beyond docking with the ISS, a couple years from now, maybe.

            And then we dock with the ISS for eight or twelve years, and then that’s it. The whole thing is over. There’s some toxin in the water or something allowing people to see some alternate reality and celebrate it.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Altho I think the program is misguided the whole SLS/Orion program is totally about going beyond earth orbit. The first 2 crewed missions at least are targeted for lunar space.
            What are you talking about??

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        This would be an example of the horse refusing to drink.

        • Lewis says:
          0
          0

          I’m just pointing out that Griffin, the NASA administrator that started all this, has stated that space exploration has collected over a billion dollars to develop what you guys are all saying was done with private funds.

          Like I said, I’m not sure what’s going on, but what you are cheering is not what is actually happening.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Who said commercial crew or cargo was (exclusively) privately funded? Please, where do you see anyone claim that? Both programs were competitions for government money to subsidize the service.

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            You’re all (new space) going on and on about competition, low cost, space exploration doing that, etc. But spacex is sucking money like any of the other black hole aerospace companies, just on a scale appropriate for their fresh size.

            And ULA was never part of any commercial space program. In fact (read Griffin) Boeing and ULA both said that they would not operate that way, by developing their hardware to be later purchased “off the shelf”.

            The companies that got into commercial cargo were spacex and Kistler. Kistler didn’t make any of the milestones and was replaced by Orbital.

            ULA, and the billion dollar access to space contract “new space” howls about, is the result of the 1990’s and the failures in that time. They started with astronomical costs to cover heavily redundant processes so that rockets would stop blowing up with incredibly expensive payloads on board. This is why ULA says that they will cut costs: they were going to remove some of the overkill controls now that they have gotten past blowing stuff up.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            ULA was set up because Boeing and LM were (and are) unable to function as commercial space launch operations. Neither could support themselves separately and have shown they cannot support themselves together.
            The billion dollar access is there simply so that ULA doesn’t shut themselves down because there is insufficient business to keep them open. With new entrants capable of supporting themselves this anti-competitive give-away can be ended. For example, spacex has 35+ private launches contracted. ULA has one.
            The government launches scheduled are very profitable icing on the cake for SpaceX, but existential for ULA.

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            So you want to shut down Atlas and Delta, turn that over to Space Exploration?

          • EtOH says:
            0
            0

            Myself, I would rather ULA find a way to stay in business. I think, and ULA seems to think also, that this means shutting down the Atlas and Delta so that they can field a competitive launch vehicle. Ultimately, competitive means commercially competitive, or perhaps capable of providing some unique and valuable capability for government launches. Otherwise, yes, it should be handled all by SpaceX.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            It sounds to me that @torybruno attempting to build a rocket now/first that will compete with Spacex reusable BFR/MCT.

            Isn’t the only way ULA can compete with Spacex Is to develop a methane single core two stage reusable vehicle that lifts about as much as falcon H but can be reused about a hundred times.

            How else could ULA possibility compete???

            ULA has lots of money to work with. I think we will all be surprised at Mr. Brunos Plan it will be very aggressive! They have no choice.

            Plan on seeing fleets of big reusable rockets in five plus years Spacex and ULA

          • EtOH says:
            0
            0

            Depends on what they are trying to compete for. A partially re-usable Atlas V replacement, hinted at in recent statements, http://thespacereview.com/a… might lower prices enough to let them stay on as one of the two vehicles the air force likes to have on hand, together with the F9 (the FH replacing the Delta IV heavy). If they can lift more than a F9, for less than the cost of a FH, there might even be a commercial niche for them. I look forward to seeing their plans.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I want them to operate on a level playing field.
            But..
            Both rockets are planned for elimination. A replacement, to be tested in 2019 and certified for DoD launches 3 years later is in process.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Isn’t @torybruno trying to turn ULA in to a commercially competive model? Seems ULA has a plan we will learn a lot more about next month. Mr. Bruno suggests that his goal is to make their new rocket so cost efficient that it makes falcon 9 R and falcon H R Obsolete. Seems to me USA will have 2 competing fleets of reusable methane launch vehicles pretty soon.

          • PsiSquared says:
            0
            0

            While they may be good rockets, in their current form they’re not suitable rockets for the future given the ever tightening budgets.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Plus in the case of the Atlas, it uses an engine from an unstable partner. If the methane BE-4 pans out for an Atlas:The Next Generation, I will be more at ease (and a little prouder).

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            What are you saying?

            “And ULA was never part of any commercial space program. In fact (read Griffin) Boeing and ULA both said that they would not operate that way, by developing their hardware to be later purchased “off the shelf”.”

            Boeing is one of the 2 participants in the Commercial Crew program.

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            Commercial crew is a bastard of CTOS (Commercial Transportation Orbital Services), the origin of the mess. Its initial funding was 500 million. This is when Constellation was going on and Griffin, the person that started it, thought that commercial would translate to an off the shelf means of generic lifting.

            So he offered 5% startup, then money beyond that as “milestones” were met. SpaceX got in at that point. Boeing, LockheedM, and everyone else with a real background looked at the proposal and said “no, we don’t want to do that”. Boeing and friends like the way it’s already done now.

            I don’t know where CST100 comes from, but it is not the 5% and then more on milestone things. It’s probably just a bucket of money to build a capsule, service module, etc.

            So, it’s not that Boeing is involved with “commercial crew”, it’s that Boeing is just doing what it always did.

            SpaceX is not involved with “commercial crew” either; SpaceX is getting a bucket of money to develop what they’re doing as well.

            This is what Griffin is saying: commercial crew never happened and he did not intend it to simply spawn a new aerospace company. Yes, there’s the word commercial in documents and on artwork, but CTOS didn’t happen. There is no off the shelf product that was developed cheaper, faster, blah blah blah, and ready to go off the shelf.

            So, this is what I see: “new space” camp people are sounding like these weird hybrid libertarian people celebrating something that is not actually happening.

            Meanwhile, we’re not going to the moon. We’re launching for the Air Force, Navy, robots, upgrading communication and navigation satellites, etc.

            Do you understand?

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Yeah If we go back to the moon on SLS Orion, once there congress cuts it. We have repeated the 60s and accomplish nothing. I understand

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            “Do you understand?”
            No, you are almost incomprehensible.
            Why are you perseverating on what griffen thought and did during his less than 4 years last decade? It seem like you are creating an arbitrary set of standards and bewailing the fact that reality is not in sync.

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            “Why are you perseverating on what griffen thought and did during his less than 4 years last decade?”

            Because if it weren’t for Griffin Musk would be installing AA batteries in his cars, ripping off that crowd of suckers.

            The standards are not arbitrary. Time will tell.

          • PsiSquared says:
            0
            0

            How exactly is Musk ripping anyone off? By providing launch services for significantly lower costs? By charging less than anyone else for commercial crew service to the ISS? By producing critically acclaimed electric cars? By innovating and doing what others to date haven’t done? You need to provide facts to back up your accusations. Just being angry doesn’t in any way support your arguments.

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            Oh, maybe he’s not. But it looks like it. “Let’s go to Mars. Let’s protect humanity from global disaster. I’m going to retire on Mars”. Meanwhile, the guy’s suing the Air Force and what not. That looks like bullshit to me, for lack of a better word. And it is. No individual is building a company with silicon valley money and doing something twenty times harder than going to the moon. Only an idiot would entertain such a possibility.

            That and the whole commercial lift thing was started to build an off the shelf product for heavy lifting into orbit for Constellation. Now it’s for the last ten years of ISS.

            Why care? I certainly don’t care if he blows up an NRO payload; maybe we would do less damage to the rest of the world. Though in the mean time we have a horrible problem with manned spaceflight. Now we have three capsules in development for what? Competition?

            He’s costing time. Over the years, as his workforce grays, a few launches explode, and corruption gains in power, Falcon will cost the same as any other system.

            Maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps I should just be neutral.

            Oh, the car company will never make a profit and the value of the stock, it’ll eventually tank. He’ll get out before the collapse and take the money from his investors. It’s been done a thousand times.

  20. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    I think that this whole thing comes from the sudden realisation on ULA’s part that they can’t be certain that Uncle Sugar will keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed indefinitely. The political problems with RD-180 have ripped the blinders from their eyes and made them realise that they are in no way a special case.

    As for the price thing? Well, talk is cheap. Let ULA cut their prices rather than talk about it. Something tells me that they’ll only cut their prices if they get a lot of interest, hence the trash talk about SpaceX’s non-existent reliability issues (schedule issues is another matter altogether and seem to be in the process of resolving themselves).

  21. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Jim
    If @torybruno or Musk can build a reusable single core rocket that lifts about as much as a falcon H that can be flown cheap enough. It will make falcon obsolete and falcon heavy obsolete.