Prepared Statements: Hearing on Replacing RD-180 Engines on US Launch Vehicles
Tory Bruno, ULA
Rob Meyerson, Blue Origin
Julie Van Kleeck, Aerojet Rocketdyne
Frank Culbertson, Orbital ATK
Katrina McFarland, DoD
John Hyten, USAF Space Command
Jeffrey Thornburg, SpaceX
Samuel Greaves, USAF Space and Missiles Systems Center
Michael Griffin, himself
While effusive in his praise of ULA, Dr. Mike Griffin couldn’t bring himself to acknowledge SpaceX by name, even though they too have been certified by the DoD and are also present at the hearings.
Instead, he made a passing reference to launch suppliers that couldn’t “remain in business without the pillar of U.S. government demand.”
Wow. Just wow.
Does Dr. Griffin seriously still not know of the multi-billion dollar backlog of commercial (non U.S. government) launch contracts already signed up on the SpaceX brand?
If a private citizen is allowed to testify, then couldn’t we have someone who knows the industry’s time of day?
Morning Mr. G
SpaceX’s Jeff Thornburg also said in his prepared comments “The flexibility of the Raptor design enables the technology to be applied to existing EELV-certified launch vehicles.”
Does he mean Falcon – or Atlas?
Raptor implies methane which needs an insulated and larger tank. Rather than mod F9 or Atlas they could just mount it to Delta IV which already has both for LH2. So the answer is Delta IV Medium without necessarily calling it Vulcan. Raptor would deliver a much higher Isp than BE-4 so its performance should also get a boost.
Other interesting comments were that Raptor is largely 3D printed and “flexible.” This makes me wonder if flexible is being used as a synonym for scaleable. Printing them could imply the ability to make a family of several different size Raptors using mostly the same tooling: the 3D printers.
Good point, but even with a partial fill of methane the lift-off mass of the Delta would be increased considerably. Would the structure be adequate?. How does ISP of Raptor compare to BE-4 if both are LOX/Methane? How does the thrust of the Raptor compare to the RS-68? It seems to me they are similar; would the core stage need two engines to compensate for the additional mass of the methane?
“Michael Griffin, himself” has me in stitches. 🙂
If all ULA need is 5 engines, they could easily have the Delta IV launch 5 payloads early in the next 2 years, for the Atlas V. Inform the Air Force that they have to submit a revised cost estimate because of the law passed by the Congress. After all, they do have that no bid contract. I’m sure Shelby & McCain will support it.
Good point. Let’s not forget that originally the plan was to select Atlas or Delta for all DOD launches. Delta is more expensive to operate but for a cost-reimbursement contract this would have little effect on profits. Alternatively they could ramp up development of the BE-4/Vulcan and have it online in three years or so.
I think a federal court need to force ULA to disband back to its parent companies after they finish the sole source contract. The reason for it’s creation has passed with the certification of SpaceX as an EELV launcher. I’m beginning to think Gass was fired because he wanted to increase production of the Delta IV and make it less expensive. Guess Boeing didn’t like that.
ULA’s Bruno is shameless when it comes to Confuse and Deceive. He says SpaceX is BSing when it posts a $61 million launch cost for a Falcon 9, yet charges NASA $150 million for a dragon cargo flight.
Well, SpX does charge $61 mill for COMMERCIAL launches. For NASA or DoD, due to specialized requirements and involved oversight by gov personnel, there is a $30 mill up charge to cover those extra expenses, but where Bruno’s hypocricy is most glaring is that the cargo flight is NOT just a launch cost! It is for a launch and a SPACECRAFT and its return.
Good news was that USAF had just received the RFP and would award up to four as early as this Sept.