Posts Tagged ‘ula’

Putin: “I Fucking Hate Science”

Thursday, May 21st, 2015

Chalk up another loss for space/launch insurance underwriters. A Proton/Briz M launch’s 3rd stage failed and lost MexSat-1 (a.k.a. Centenario) — a huge Boeing 702 intended for mobile and fixed services (L- and Ku-band).

What happened? Anatoly Zak gives the best, most-qualified explanation. Probably fuel line problems.

Add this to a Soyuz launch anomaly earlier this month and you would think this may be a pattern. Is it technical or is it systemic? Probably both.

One could argue there’s a lack of enthusiasm and a brain-drain of top Ukrainian engineering talent in the Russian space business. Or it could be the return of the “old Soviet work ethic,” where nobody really cares. People get promoted to positions of authority without really being qualified, just so they can be “controlled” by others at the Kremlin. That’s what I think is happening.

It goes back more than 10 years, around the time Putin started going after complete control of Russia. In 2006, Mario Lemme’s Space Transport Inc. was created to take control of International Launch Services, the joint venture created to market Proton and Atlas launches. Since then, the market for commercial launches has changed (thank you, SpaceX), but the prices for launch services has gone up. But the technical success helps further development of non-commercial and space-exploration systems. With the world still dependent on getting humans to/from the ISS using the Soyuz launcher, we’re in a spot of trouble.

Meanwhile, how are we to substitute our supply source for RD-180 engines? We need to make this a priority. Rather, the big boys in the U.S. are more concerned about corporate headcount (read about the “mothers day massacre”).

Science likes to explain things with facts. Political views tend to use some facts. But outright liars and social manipulators such as Putin and his fellow KGB remnants don’t get along with any facts they don’t like. They just want control. Control of people, money and probably access to space from Russian territory (hence the pressure to build Vostochny).

Succeeding in space will further popularize Putin in Russia and that’s what he’s after. Fuck science: Russia’s space industry is failing due to “moral issues,” according to Rogozin.


Peeved EELV

Thursday, May 22nd, 2014

Now we’re getting somewhere.

Filing suit in the Court of Federal Claims was the first step, then came the response from United Launch Alliance. And now, at the National Space Symposium in Colorado, they start swinging at each other.

The leadership at ULA may not read what’s happening with the Russian Federation’s attempts at global domination, but they do read Stars & Stripes

In the most recent court filing, the California-based Space Exploration Technologies, which is in the process of developing a launch site here on Boca Chica Beach, said its amended complaint is the result of four recent developments:

  • SpaceX has submitted all required flight data for its third qualifying certification launch, and SpaceX is therefore eligible to compete for the Air Force’s business.
  • Recent Air Force statements indicate that it will purchase some or all of its future launch vehicles on a sole-source basis from ULA, even though SpaceX is eligible to compete.
  • The Air Force recently indicated that, during the first quarter of fiscal year 2015, it will purchase a number of launch vehicles for which SpaceX is qualified to compete.
  • SpaceX learned on April 17 that the Air Force decided not to open the purchase to competition because the Air Force has an “existing 36-core contractual requirement” with ULA.

This is among the most recent developments in the complaint that SpaceX brought against the Air Force April 28 in the federal claims court in Washington D.C. ULA intervened in the litigation.

Lawyered-up ULA comes back with a 5-page press release, nicely distilled and summarized in the Denver Post

ULA CEO Michael Gass said the cost per launch averages $225 million, not the erroneously computed figure of more than $460 million that SpaceX founder Elon Musk frequently cites.

“SpaceX is very aggressive in their public relations and how they diffuse or obfuscate the issue is by not ever talking about apples and apples, it’s apples and oranges,” Gass said.

ULA’s simpler rockets cost $164 million and its most powerful rockets hit $350 million, he said.

At the heart of the debate is a $11 billion block-buy contract for 36 rockets awarded to ULA by the U.S. Air Force last year.

SpaceX sued the Air Force last month for what it claimed was illegal actions blocking competition by effectively giving ULA — a joint venture between Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. — a monopoly on launch services.

“People use a pejorative term like monopoly. Those are incongruent when you talk about national security. It’s not a commercial market, it’s not consumerism,” Gass said. “I like to think of it as a sole-source provider.

“The nation made a decision to meet its military needs. They wanted assured access and two systems. ULA was formed to solve that problem. Consolidate the infrastructure, deliver two systems as one team, more cost effectively to meet the end-mission needs.”

Gass also said the U.S. space industry is currently at the all-time peak for the number of launches but said that will drop off by 20 to 30 percent in the next five years.

“There was a thing called sequestration,” he said. “Satellites aren’t being ordered.”

When asked how this will impact ULA’s large operations, Gass said “we will right-size to the demand that can flourish again.” This likely means a 20- to 30-percent reduction in workforce, he said.

About 1,700 of ULA’s 3,600 employees are in Colorado.

ULA also released its add-on launch costs if the government decides to grant the company up to 14 more launches. Much to the surprise of observers, each additional launch would cost less than $100 million for the lower-capability rockets.

But SpaceX refutes these figures.

“The Air Force budget for 2015 speaks for itself — in the budget, three single core vehicles add up to $1.212B, or $404M per vehicle. Mr. Gass’ statements run counter to budget reality,” SpaceX president and chief operating officer Gwynne Shotwell said in a statement Wednesday.

“ULA has the most expensive launch services in the world — nearly double that of the next most expensive competitor. When you don’t have to compete, there’s little incentive to control costs or innovate.”

A recent GAO report on annual assessments of major weapons programs puts the program unit cost at $420 million per launch, but that number looks at the whole life of the program not just this block buy.

And that’s how to get members of Congress to pay attention. Mess with us and there will be layoffs.

Give them a chance to compete. The launch market is looking good for SpaceX, so let them have a go at some EELV business. And their rocket engines are MADE IN THE U.S.A.


Atlas & Armadillo?

Monday, September 23rd, 2013

We get the frog photobomb from Wallops, but I can’t seem to find the armadillo getting toasted at The Cape (at 0:23)…


Delta IV Heavy: NROL-65

Wednesday, August 28th, 2013

Always nice to see a Delta launcher go. Extra nice to see a heavy go!

The payload is for the NRO, so we can only speculate as to what it was for. As reported by the L.A. Times

Although little is publicly known about what exactly the rocket will be carrying into space, analysts say it is probably a $1-billion high-powered spy satellite capable of snapping pictures detailed enough to distinguish the make and model of an automobile hundreds of miles below.

If this is a LEO spacecraft, it’s probably on the big side, given the Delta IV Heavy’s capability.


Rocket de l’Europe répond

Thursday, June 20th, 2013

Naturally, Arianespace participates in the Paris Air Show and the swirling questions are related to a competitor who isn’t there: SpaceX. Their response is predictable and defensive, and with a billion euros at stake, can you blame them?

There’s a real need for commercial launch services and well-run commercial satellite operators want to make sure there’s viable set of competitors out there. Spreading business around to Sea-Launch, Arianespace and ILS (Proton) helps keep them in business and assures the operators a way into space when needed. Commercial launches from Cape Canaveral were always preferred — both for location and reliability. The cost, however, made the bean-counters squirm.

Reading the Reuters report by Irene Klotz about how there were no commercial launches struck me as naive. The U.S. Air Force reserved all the available launch vehicle manifests for Atlas and Delta in the U.S. for their payloads — not because of competition from foreign-based companies. Yes, there’s the cost factor. If you could save $20 million on a single launch by going to Kazakhstan or French Guiana, why not?

And that’s why SpaceX is set to grab a bunch of business by launching from the Cape at a lower cost. If you factor in the prospect of all-electric spacecraft, then you could see a seismic shift in the market dynamics of launch services. So you shouldn’t wonder why Arianespace is being defensive, as cited by Space News

One of the Falcon 9’s most potent arguments is that it is capable of carrying two all-electric-propulsion satellites at a time into geostationary transfer orbit. But according to the first customer of Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems’ all-electric 702SP platform, Satmex of Mexico, it will take the Satmex satellite about eight months to reach its final orbital position and begin generating revenue.

Factoring in a longer orbit-raising into the overall spacecraft replacement cycle is certainly possible. Now, if only satellite operators start passing along these savings from simplified spacecraft design, lower-cost launch and cost-effective propulsion systems to lowering the cost of leasing bandwidth to customers remains to be seen.


Heavy Lifting

Wednesday, April 6th, 2011

Awesome: Falcon 9 Heavy, announced yesterday, is after the ULA business…

The Falcon Heavy could put 117,000 pounds into the same orbit as the International Space Station. The space shuttle hauls about 54,000 pounds into orbit. The old Saturn V could carry more than 400,000 pounds of cargo.

The old Soviet Union had a giant moon rocket bigger than the Falcon Heavy, but it failed in all four launch attempts. Another Soviet rocket, also bigger than Falcon Heavy and designed to launch its version of the space shuttle, had one successful flight more than 20 years ago.

While the new Space X rocket is designed initially for cargo, it satisfies NASA’s current safety requirements for carrying humans and after several launches could carry people too, Musk said. He has said that if NASA does buy rides on commercial rockets, he would be able to fly astronauts to the space station in his smaller Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule within three years.
Potential customers for the new larger rocket are NASA, the military, other governments and satellite makers.

Musk said Falcon Heavy will be far cheaper than government or private rockets. Launches are about $100 million each. He said the Air Force pays two older more established aerospace firms about $435 million for each of its launches. Over its 40 year design history, the space shuttle program has cost about $1.5 billion per launch, according to a study by the University of Colorado and an Associated Press analysis of NASA budgets.

Musk, who has a contract to supply the space station with cargo using the smaller Falcon 9, said his pricing is more fixed than traditional aerospace firms. He joked: “We believe in everyday low prices.”

To get costs that low, Musk said he needs to launch about four Falcon Heavy rockets a year but plans on launching about 10. He doesn’t have a paying customer for his first launch, but is in negotiations with NASA and other customers for flights after his company proves the new rocket flies.

“It would be great if it works, if it’s safe,” said Henry Lambright, a professor of public policy and space scholar at Syracuse University. “I don’t want to come across as skeptical, but I am.”
Lambright said companies have often made big claims about private space without doing much. But, he added, Musk has some credibility because of his successful Falcon 9.

If Musk’s plans work, it will give President Barack Obama’s space policy a needed boost, Lambright said. Obama has been battling some in Congress over his plans to use more private space companies, like Space X, for getting people to orbit with NASA concentrating on missions to send astronauts to new places, such as nearby asteroids.

Several companies are vying to launch private rockets that could replace the shuttle. NASA is now paying Russia to send astronauts to and from the space station on Soyuz spacecraft.
Howard McCurdy, a space policy expert at American University, said of Musk: “If he’s not in the lead, he’s well positioned for the finish.”

McCurdy said NASA’s space shuttle was a technological marvel, but had a bad business model and wasn’t cost effective. He said Musk, who is using his own money in his privately held firm, has incentive to be more financially savvy.