When A Monopoly Warns About Monopolies
Senate Passes FY2016 Defense Authorization, But Blocked on Defense Appropriations, Space Policy Online
“The Air Force is trying to convince Congress to give it a few more years to make the transition, arguing that it needs more time to develop, test and certify a new launch system (of which an engine is part). It wants an extension to 2022. The House-passed FY2016 NDAA provides that flexibility, but the Senate bill insists on 2019. The RD-180 and launch competition issues have become entwined. ULA has been a monopoly provider of launch services to the Air Force and intelligence community since it was created in 2006, but now a competitor, SpaceX, has emerged. DOD, the Air Force and ULA assert that they embrace the drive for competition, but want to make certain SpaceX does not itself become a monopoly provider in the 2019-2022 time frame when Atlas V’s no longer can be launched (because RD-180s are prohibited), but a ULA alternative is not ready. These issues not only split the House and Senate authorizing committees, but the Senate authorizing and appropriations committees. McCain’s Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) is the one holding DOD’s feet to the fire on 2019, while the other three are siding with DOD.”
Knights Templar Inspired Business Moves at ULA, earlier post
When will Blue Origin be ready to launch satelites?
About 2019 for Vulcan’s first launch. Maybe. Boeing etc. are only funding.it quarter to quarter, which doesn’t exactly sound like a high degree of confidence.
It seems incredibly unlikely they could be ready before Vulcan is.
Blue Origin is the top candidate to supply Vulcan’s first stage engines, though their other avionics designs seem lacking.
BO does not currently have a timeline for orbital vehicles, the Shepard vehicle barely breaks atmosphere.
I wonder how long SpaceX required to develop Merlin? I recall it went through a couple of iterations, but how long from idea to fire?
SpaceX was founded in June 2002. The Merlin 1A first flew on a Falcon 1 launch attempt on 24 March 2006. Since then there has been the 1B, 1C, and 1D revisions.
Merlin goes back farther than that. Tom Mueller began work in 2001 on the design that would become Merlin as a spare-time project in his home’s garage while he was still working for TRW.
Merlin was a clean sheet design that I started in about April 2002
Merlin descends from FASTRAC for the X-34 program of the 1990s, if memory serves.
In a pinch, Delta works. The problem is that they are very expensive to make and buyers (e.g., USAF, NRO, …) would not want to buy them routinely if they didn’t have to.
The problem is that they are very expensive to make
There we go.
It’s not a monopoly if there are alternatives. If it costs more, so what? Just take the difference out of the billion dollar subsidy that ULA is getting.
Delta 4’s gotta be cheaper than rushing to a new engine or a new rocket. McCain is right on this one.
DoD/USAF/NRO won’t send their extremely classified satellites to another country to launch them, so definitely no to Ariane.
Also, the French would not permit the launch of another country’s military assets from their soil.
The big question is cost. Does the AF want to pay the higher cost of having the Delta IV as a backup vs the Atlas V?
The real question, ULA wondering if they are stopped till 2022 will they even be competitive when they do come back..
They can be competitive, but the real question is are they willing to do what it takes to be competitive?
As Jeff and Todd point out (thanks), Merlin was developed basically in five years or so.
I wondered what the next seven years of iteration to Merlin will yield as well, Vlad. In the intervening 7 years an awful lot can happen, including reuse schemes.
Perhaps ULA might purchase SpaceX boat tails with Merlin 1d’s & adapt their boosters to fit? Sure would be humbling, wouldn’t it?
SpaceX will only sell rides not components.
The only KeroLox tankage that ULA have is the Atlas V. Adapting that with Merlin engines is basically building a more expensive new clone of the Falcon 9 first stage and might be ready by 2019 if you start right now..
It would be interesting if you could combine a Falcon 9 core with a Centaur upper stage. alas, wishful thinking.
From an objective point of view, it doesn’t make any sense to preclude using Russian engines for defense and national security launches and then using another foreign source for launches. Additionally, I’m not sure the French would be okay with such launches.
Russian is a potential enemy, France is a member of NATO and historic friend. Regardless of contracts and promises, Russia might easily decide to invent a reason for abrogating any agreement with national security connections if there were a crisis or serious worsening of relations with the west, which would be just when we would need a reliable partner the most. I think it’s nuts to rely on Russia for anything now with serious security considerations.
It is nuts to rely on Russia for anything right now. It’s nuts to depend on any country for for our defense or intelligence launches.
I would go as far as creating a mounting and electronics adapter for Ariane to DoD payloads.
So in absolute extreme situation we could potentially fly with our ally’s booster. Just for insurance.
Seems more important
http://m.huffpost.com/us/en…
They’d probably need two launch sites, one East Coast and one West Coast, so we’re talking a substantial investment in time and treasure for a stop-gap solution until Falcon Heavy is certified and Vulcan enters service. I just don’t see the economic case for that plan ever closing. And remember this is for Ariane 5, a rocket that will probably be phased out around the end of this decade anyway. And all this to avoid paying the higher costs of Delta IV?
I never stated that. My point was clear in my last post, so I’ll repeat it. It’s nuts to depend on any other country for our defense or intelligence launches.
Right now there is zero need to even consider something like launching such missions on French rockets.