ULA RD-180 Update

1. Love the McCain’s letter. Lift the rock and watch the centipedes scuttle 🙂

2. Of course Falcon Heavy will be flying years earlier. Hurry, ULA, your pork is getting cold.

   1. And how is that comment relevant. The ULA is looking to replace the RD-180 for the Atlas V. The Atlas V does not compete with the Falcon Heavy.

      1. Falcon Heavy will lift more at a lower price. That’s competition.

         1. It is not competition if I do not need that payload. You are back at square one where SpaceX will be grouping launches together. The point is that the Atlas V does not really compete with the Falcon 9 heavy… its competion is the existing Falcon 9.

            1. First, unless ULA actually gets more RD-180’s, the future of the Atlas V is 15 more launches – one for each engine currently in ULA’s inventory. If, as I believe, no more RD-180’s are forthcoming, Atlas V is a dead rocket walking so discussing its “competition” quickly becomes moot.

               Assuming at least a few more RD-180’s show up on ULA’s doorstep, both Falcon 9 and – when it enters operation – Falcon Heavy are competiton for Atlas V. Falcon 9 competes with the 401 through 421 and 501 through 521 configurations of Atlas V. Falcon Heavy competes with the 431 and 522 through 552 configurations. Sure Falcon Heavy has more lift capacity than needed for Atlas V-compatible payloads, but it costs vastly less per launch. Also, boosting an undersized payload, Falcon Heavy has ample margin to allow recovery of all three booster stages and, eventually, even the second stage.

            2. I question your assertion that Falcon Heavy will be less than an Atlas V in its 522 through 552 configurations. Elon’s own advertised number for an EELV mission, which is all that we are talking about, would put the F9H at around $250M. The ULA has claimed that an Atlas V launch will run approx. $150M ( I understand we will need to see this in a real competition so I am just using the stated price). I believe SpaceX is a great competitor and will be a provider under EELV soon, but that is not my point.
               Additionally, the Atlas V will be a viable platform going forward, under the assumption that the ULA puts up the required funds to develop the RD-180 replacement (AR1?). If they do not, then they deserve to lose to SpaceX

            3. I have no idea where you imagine you saw an “advertised price” for an FH EELV mission of $250 million. The price quoted for an FH launch on SpaceX’s web site is $85 million. Elon has said that special government EELV requirements and paperwork add about 50% to the commercial prices for both F9 and FH. That still doesn’t get you to $150 million, let alone $250 million.

               Also, while the price of individual Atlas V configurations is by no means especially clear – something ULA has gone to considerable lengths to keep obsure, by the way – the higher-end Atlas V configurations are widely estimated to be a lot closer to $250 million a pop than to $150 million. Maybe you could get a 401 for $150 million, but even that looks iffy to me.

               As to the future viability of the Atlas V, I’m dubious. If ULA doesn’t take delivery on any more RD-180’s during the remainder of 2014, I think we can safely assume they won’t be getting any after that either. The current known stock of engines is only good for, at most, two more years unless the Air Force or NRO step in and start rationing them for strictly high-end Atlas V configurations needed for the biggest, heaviest birds and move all small and medium birds needing launches over to Delta IV and F9 – as soon as the F9 is certified. That might stretch the Atlas V’s useful life out by maybe another year. But if 15 engines is all ULA is ever going to have to play with, I don’t see how a production and launch rate of three missions per year is going to keep the Atlas V workforce adequately sharp over the minimum of five years it’ll take to get a new engine ginned up. Keeping the same standing army employed at a much lower production rate also raises the costs of each Atlas V by 100% or more. That isn”t sustainable. It’d make more sense just to abandon the Atlas V and spend the next five years – or more – designing a whole new vehicle to go with the new booster engine. That’s assuming the engine project is even pursued.

            4. So if U-Haul offered you a pickup for $100 and a van for $50, you’d take the pickup?

      2. I believe some variants of the Atlas 5 can launch more than the Falcon 9 which would make it similar to the Falcon heavy.

         1. Not really. While the Atlas V can launch more than the Flacon 9, it may be overkill to use a Falcon 9 Heavy to launch something a DIV Medium of Atlas V can launch. My point is that I do not think that the Falcon 9 heavy is really trying to compete against the Atlas V. Its target has to be larger payloads that the DIV heavy covers, or it is their Mars enabler.

            1. Sure Falcon Heavy will compete with Delta IV Heavy, but, as I point out in a previous comment above, it also competes with the top end of the Atlas V line. As Falcon Heavy vastly out-muscles both Atlas V (any configuration) and Delta IV Heavy, the competition will be mainly on price. Even at double it’s base price of $85 million a launch, Falcon Heavy is half as expensive as a Delta IV Heavy.

               As for Mars, I think SpaceX intends to build a Raptor engine-based super heavy lifter to do most of that job, though Falcon Heavy might have some supporting role to play – mass passenger transport to LEO perhaps.

            2. Its target has to be larger payloads that the DIV heavy covers

               Why?

               If I can buy a launch for less than $100m, why do I care if there’s a $250m launcher or a $650m launcher that is a better mass fit? Even if I’m only launching 15 tonnes, FH is still the best value for money.

               If I have one and a half tons of cargo to take across town and the transport company sends me a 10 ton truck for less than half the price of a 2 ton truck, am I going to say “No sir, I only need 1-2 ton vehicle, and I shall pay extra for it!”? Of course not.

            3. Paul – The facts do not back up your statement. The Falcon 9 for use on an EELV mission is estimated to run $90M per a quote from Elon. This is in comparison to approx. $150M for an Atlas V mission for EELV per ULA. A Falcon Heavy would therefore run approx. 250M to 270M for an EELV mission. Again, as I have stated already, the Falcon Heavy will not compete with an Artlas V

            4. The Falcon 9 for use on an EELV mission is estimated to run $90M per a quote from Elon. […] A Falcon Heavy would therefore run approx. 250M to 270M for an EELV mission.

               A commercial F9 launch runs about $60m, so if $90m is a “paperwork tax” for govt payloads, that’s either $30m flat or 50% depending on which way you want to work it.

               SpaceX is commercially pricing FH at less than $100m. So FH-for-EELV would run either $130m or $150m depending on you you add the “paperwork tax”. There’s no reason it would run 250-270% of the commercial price.

               Typical costs for Atlas V are given at $250-450m depending on configuration. For Delta IVH, prices seem to start at $650 and ascend rapidly once you start adding in the additional costs like “assured access” and other indirect funding.

            5. Okay, now I get it. You multiplied an F9 price by three to get your notional FH price. Problem is, the SpaceX web site quotes $61.2 million for an F9 commercial mission and $85 million for an FH – not the $183.6 million we’d get by using your bogus pricing algorithm. As I noted above, Elon quotes the EELV markup from commercial pricing at approximately 50% so your $90 million number for F9 in EELV trim is about right. But if you do the same with the FH’s $85 million commercial number, you get $127.5 million for an EELV FH mission. It’s the Atlas V that won’t be competitive with FH, not the other way around.

            6. I will admit the FH heavy price was an extrapolation. The key is that I do not believe the marketing price until such time that one is built and flown. If the F9 EELV price is 90M per Elon, than I put the EELV FH at over $200M. The ULA knows their competition. Prior to this, I feel there was some ‘price inflation’ since there was no competition. Now that the ULA needs to compete I am hoping for some transparency, but either way they will compete with better pricing since they know they will lose otherwise. The ULA has been talking about getting launch prices to less than $100M (Atlas 5-401) since they know what Elon is offering.
               My original point is that the ULA will need to compete but I do not believe the FH will compete against the Atlas V-400 or V-500 series. We will not be able to answer that here – but time will tell

   2. But at what rate? So far SpaceX hasn’t been able to launch more than 2 Falcon 9’s a year.

      1. Neither did Atlas 5 or Delta IV in their first four years.

         1. But SpaceX is wanting to jump in like they are where Atlas and Delta are now. Essentially those slow years were when those vehicles were being certified. It was several years later before they really got going.

            1. Delta IV launched a military payload on its second flight. This despite the Delta III experience (not exactly confidence-inspiring) a few years earlier. Atlas 5 did so on its ninth flight. Falcon 9 won’t launch a military payload until somewhere in its teens, assuming they are allowed to compete.

      2. They’ve launched four in the last eight months.

         1. That’s correct. What I was trying to say is their average since starting the Falcon 9 is around 2 per year.

            1. Averages can be very misleading particularly with startup operations.
               Cheers.

3. Russia says don’t do anything to hurt our aero-space companies. It looks like they are the ones doing the hurting. Sales are sales.

4. Well, it seems that, at last, ULA has bowed to the inevitable and grabbed the inconvenient nettle.

   It also means that the wise men of Washington (the real wise men, not the politicians or policy ‘experts’) are predicting a long, cold period between the US and Russia. This would make an RD-180 replacement unavoidable because the supply is no longer secure.

5. Oh, our brave captains of industry….

6. We’ll see if ULA meets their deadline of 2019. Given the lethargy shown so far, I won’t hold my breath.

   1. As long as NASA, the Air Force or some other government body isn’t controlling it they stand a chance.

   2. I think that this should go quicker and more smoothly than most large aerospace procurements. A real-world supply crisis with a hard deadline will likely mean the DoD likely being willing to pour money into the project by the KC-135-full to ensure assured space access. It will also mean that the DoD will be far less tolerant of delays, slips and budget overruns.

   3. Given the lethargy shown so far

      They wanted someone else to foot the bill in advance, now they have it. The USAF was trying to get them to develop it on their own dime, as they promised when the USAF first approved the Russian engines, but ULA won the staring contest, Congress blinked first. Once again a major contractor gets rewarded for under-delivering.

7. SpaceX has been getting money to develop a crew capsule. What’s your point? I suspect that this engine, if paid for by the govt, would be under govt control.

   1. SpaceX is getting money in a competition with clear milestones for payment. ULA is getting money.

      I suspect an open multi-vendor SAA-based contest would deliver multiple engines before ULA could.

      [In fact, why is ULA getting the funding at all? They aren’t an engine company. If you’re going to give a no-compete slush fund contract, at least give it to Aerojet directly.]

8. “multiple” engine companies? elon isn’t selling engines. blue origin has something, but no one knows what it is. dynetics has the F1, but no one to build it. that leaves aerojet rocketdyne. rocketdyne designed basically all of manned and unmanned engines up until recently, and has a lox rich kerosene design started, but has been gutted by multiple layoffs. even more significantly, the aerojet portion is in command and will most likely do the design work. not a good scenario.

9. There is something I am not comprehending, so help me out on this. Back when it was cool to have the RD-180, one of the “features” of having this engine was that the license was in hand to produce these engines ourselves. Did that license turn out to be vapor-ware, or is it just un-cool to say that and pursue that course of action?

   One nagging paranoia I have is that the new engine produced is going to get alcolades and fanfare, and it will turn out to be an RD-180 that has been reversed-engineered and slapped with a “made in USA” sticker, but contracted and charged as if it was conceived from a sheet of paper. I think we are better than that, but this is taxpayer dollars we are talking about.

   1. rocket engine companies are stubborn. They want to design new engines not build old designs. The J2X didnt turn out to be a mildly upgraded J2, and the new technology is way more expensive than if they kept things simple. But that’s what happens when the customer likes shiny new things.

10. Someone correct me if I’m wrong; my aerospace experience is way out of date. But I have to question this bit:

    Working at a breakneck pace, ULA said it expects to select a new design before the end of this year. Then, pushing the envelope on the usual five- to eight-year timeline usually needed to develop such engines, ULA said it will have a new rocket ready to fly by 2019.

    Six months (or more, since I presume the selection process has already started) to specify an engine, issue RFPs and select a contractor is not what I would consider a breakneck pace. As for developing the engine, how does ULA’s timeline compare with what SpaceX took to develop its current engines? Is this public information? Wikipedia mentions a statement by Tom Markusic to the effect that the Merlin 2 engine (comparable to F-1) could be qualified in 3 years for $1 billion.

11. Interesting what one finds using Corporate Wiki…perhaps the Senators Staff should try it sometime. 🙂

12. The RD-180 is a staged combustion engine, which is tricky to start up and tune, and requires special alloys and/or coatings to deal with hot oxygen at thousands of pounds of pressure. The last time we built a staged combustion engine (space shuttle main engine) it took 9 years. I doubt that it can be done in less time in the current political climate.

Comments are closed.