Discussion
Beati Dogu said:
The company is basically up for sale, so presentation certainly matters.
I recently read an editorial ( sorry, can't remember where ) which made an interesting point. The 'traditional' launch vehicle manufacturers ( Boeing, LM, etc. ) , which grew on a steady diet of 'cost plus' contracts, primarily exist to make a profit for their shareholders.
In order for them to compete with the likes of SpaceX and RocketLab they would need to invest heavily in reusable vehicles, which would be very difficult to do with the way their businesses are structured, using subcontractors spread around many constituencies to gain political leverage. They simply aren't built in a way to encourage the rapid low cost development processes the newer companies use.
As a business it may simply make more sense for them to shut up shop rather than sink $billions into development of vehicles which would then still have to compete for contracts.
ULA don't really have to compete too hard yet. At least, not until Rocket Lab have something larger and Blue Origin actually do something. They can survive for now on being the second source US government launch provider.
Case in point: The US Space Force have just handed out 21 launches for their NSSL Phase 2 mission assignments. These are worth around $2.5 billion in total.
ULA have been awarded 11 missions, valued at $1.3 billion. All will require the Vulcan rocket.
SpaceX will have 10 missions, valued at $1.23 billion. 3 will require Falcon Heavy, 7 can be done with Falcon 9.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/01/space-force-awards...
ULA were going to get more than that originally, but Vulcan delays meant some were assigned to SpaceX instead. That’s why ULA need to show progress with the Christmas launch.
Now of course there are certain missions that only ULA can do, due to their longer payload fairings and 100% vertical launch integration. Provided it works, their Vulcan rocket will be a pretty flexible platform and cheaper to operate. Apparently, with a full set of solid boosters it has more lift capacity than Blue Origin's physically larger New Glenn. They're also working on bringing back the engines for reuse, so we'll see how that works out for them.
Case in point: The US Space Force have just handed out 21 launches for their NSSL Phase 2 mission assignments. These are worth around $2.5 billion in total.
ULA have been awarded 11 missions, valued at $1.3 billion. All will require the Vulcan rocket.
SpaceX will have 10 missions, valued at $1.23 billion. 3 will require Falcon Heavy, 7 can be done with Falcon 9.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/01/space-force-awards...
ULA were going to get more than that originally, but Vulcan delays meant some were assigned to SpaceX instead. That’s why ULA need to show progress with the Christmas launch.
Now of course there are certain missions that only ULA can do, due to their longer payload fairings and 100% vertical launch integration. Provided it works, their Vulcan rocket will be a pretty flexible platform and cheaper to operate. Apparently, with a full set of solid boosters it has more lift capacity than Blue Origin's physically larger New Glenn. They're also working on bringing back the engines for reuse, so we'll see how that works out for them.
Edited by Beati Dogu on Friday 3rd November 22:12
Vulcan is now ready for its maiden flight "Cert-1" on Monday 8th Jan.
Launch is set for 7.18 am UK time from SLC-41 at Cape Canaveral. That's 2.18 am local time.
This particular launch config will have two GEM-63XL solid rocket boosters strapped to the side.
They're not just launching some boiler plate either. On board will be two prototype satellites for Amazon’s Kuiper system and the Peregrine commercial lunar lander for Astrobotic.
Launch is set for 7.18 am UK time from SLC-41 at Cape Canaveral. That's 2.18 am local time.
This particular launch config will have two GEM-63XL solid rocket boosters strapped to the side.
They're not just launching some boiler plate either. On board will be two prototype satellites for Amazon’s Kuiper system and the Peregrine commercial lunar lander for Astrobotic.
We’ll much to a lot of people’s relief it went up without a problem:
The Centaur V upper stage later completed 3 separate burns to send its various payloads on their way.
The Peregrine lander should attempt to touch down on the Moon at the end of February.
The Centaur V upper stage later completed 3 separate burns to send its various payloads on their way.
The Peregrine lander should attempt to touch down on the Moon at the end of February.
Edited by Beati Dogu on Monday 8th January 12:11
carl_w said:
Peregrine lander has experienced an anomaly
Source?Found something here -
https://spacenews.com/peregrine-lander-suffers-ano...
Looks like it experienced difficulty in placing itself in the right attitude.
Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 8th January 16:17
'Peregrine is scheduled to land on Feb. 23'
Vasty slower than Apollo then. Is this machine ever going to carry astronauts to the Moon, and if not what is it for?
On the plus side, Radio 4 did manage to take 60 seconds off from its ceaseless blather of politics and Gaza so you could hear it take off. Which was nice of them.
Vasty slower than Apollo then. Is this machine ever going to carry astronauts to the Moon, and if not what is it for?
On the plus side, Radio 4 did manage to take 60 seconds off from its ceaseless blather of politics and Gaza so you could hear it take off. Which was nice of them.
It’s not for taking men to the Moon, so the transit time really isn’t an issue.
Sky News were way more interested in the lander than the rocket. I can’t say I gave it a second thought personally.
Anyway they now appear to have got it under control and oriented the right way round. This from Astrobotic, the company behind the lander at about 5.40 pm:
Doesn’t sound too hopeful though since they’ve lost a lot of fuel getting to that state. It was probably whirling around burning all the thruster fuel like the first Starliner capsule did.
Sky News were way more interested in the lander than the rocket. I can’t say I gave it a second thought personally.
Anyway they now appear to have got it under control and oriented the right way round. This from Astrobotic, the company behind the lander at about 5.40 pm:
Doesn’t sound too hopeful though since they’ve lost a lot of fuel getting to that state. It was probably whirling around burning all the thruster fuel like the first Starliner capsule did.
Edited by Beati Dogu on Monday 8th January 18:20
Simpo Two said:
'Peregrine is scheduled to land on Feb. 23'
Vasty slower than Apollo then. Is this machine ever going to carry astronauts to the Moon, and if not what is it for?
On the plus side, Radio 4 did manage to take 60 seconds off from its ceaseless blather of politics and Gaza so you could hear it take off. Which was nice of them.
Presumably as it is not manned, it does not need to rush to the Moon and back, and timings can be optimised for launch and landing conditions.Vasty slower than Apollo then. Is this machine ever going to carry astronauts to the Moon, and if not what is it for?
On the plus side, Radio 4 did manage to take 60 seconds off from its ceaseless blather of politics and Gaza so you could hear it take off. Which was nice of them.
Burrow01 said:
Presumably as it is not manned, it does not need to rush to the Moon and back, and timings can be optimised for launch and landing conditions.
Well yes, this one isn't manned so it can take a year if it likes - but what's it for? If it's for carting materials to a future moonbase in conjunction with another rocket system that can do it in three days then it makes sense.
)Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff