22 thoughts on “National Security Launchers”

  1. Post 124 by Bad Astra:

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34170.msg1168192#new

    final thought from that meeting. At one poing Gass went on about buying RD-180 because the Russians were doing things that “our textbooks said were impossible” and then deriding domestic engine development. Also does not favor fix price competitive contracts that might further improve future editions of whatever textbook he’s been reading.

    The head of ULA complaining about a lack of US rocket engine development is like the CEO of Kentucky Fried Chicken complaining about American fried chicken technology. How can you be that educated and make these statements with a straight face?

    That’s a good analogy. The Colonel wasn’t waiting around for the .gov to pay to develop Kentucky Grilled Chicken either, he(his corporation posthumously) just did it. Like somebody else did when they developed their secret Merlin Herbs and Spices.

  2. I can understand Musk’s comments about not relying on Atlas V for national security reasons. However ULA probably has a lot of those engines in storage and they were cheap considering what they do. So why not just use them. In the long term there should be a requirement to use 100% indigenous technologies for the DoD though. The deal with Russia allowed getting blueprints and know-how about kerolox staged combustion from the Russians so I think it was a good idea to do it. However not producing engines using that technology actually in the US was a failed move.

    The comments from the Senators seemed to be to be split around constituencies. Each one is trying to do the business in their state. This is a big reason why ULA and other DoD suppliers are so expensive to begin with.

    SpaceX still does not have a rocket to compete with the Delta IV Heavy so ULA is safe in that regard. Large NRO payloads will still need to use their rocket. Can Falcon 9 lift X-37 for the USAF? Things will get more dire for ULA once Falcon 9 Heavy becomes available however.

    Merging Boeing and Lockheed Martins operations together was against the core principles of the EELV contest as it eliminated any kind of competition and stuck the government to a single source contract. So they ULA is just getting what they deserve here.

    1. Gass made a point of saying that Lockheed had 2 years worth of engines and there was nothing to worry about.

      Musk responded that the Contract was for 5 years so the Atlas was still vulnerable.

      1. Well yeah. You would have to buy the tools and the US did not design any kerolox engines for a long time. Outside of SpaceX that is.

        I would not be surprised if using more modern machine tool and design technology than whatever the Russians are using the per unit costs ended up being the same. Plus the DoD is not like the commercial sector or NASA. I don’t have issues with requiring the use of 100% US manufactured components. In fact it makes sense to do that. Especially when the supplier is someone who has, erm, a quite different agenda than the US.

      2. Is it even possible to make these engines in the United States? I mean, really possible?

        In the past when we’ve tried to build Russian engines we’ve ended up needing metallurgy we just don’t have.

          1. 13 years for a brassboard test engine? That’s not instilling in me a lot of confidence.

            But thanks for the link.

    1. Well that’s a bummer.

      Given they’re testing landing legs this nxt flight, it’s possible the Falcon 9 will be fully reusable before the FH even becomes available for commercial payloads – and FH goes straight for reusability. That sure would be something.

      1. They still have a backlog they need to knock down if they want the orders to keep rolling in.

        1. Aside from Name Calling, do you have any idea what SpaceX’s production
          capacity for Falcon 9 cores is per year?

          I realize name calling is easy but it might be useful to know if SpaceX can Make 1 core per quarter, per month or even per week.

          I would think they can crank out cores quickly, but, don’t have any information.

          1. In December 2010, the SpaceX production line was manufacturing one new Falcon 9 (and Dragon spacecraft) every three months, with a plan to double to one every six weeks.[22] By September 2013, SpaceX total manufacturing space had increased to nearly 1,000,000 square feet (93,000 m2) and the factory had been configured to achieve a production rate of up to 40 rocket cores per year.[23] The November 2013 production rate for Falcon 9 vehicles was one per month. The company has stated that this will increase to 18 per year in mid-2014, and will be 24 launch vehicles per year by the end of 2014

            Wikipedia

            I guess you would want to compare that with their launch manifest to see when they will have some extras.

            There are also some cool pictures out there of their facilities. They really cram those suckers in there.

          2. wodun

            Thank you.

            ” The company has stated that this will increase to 18 per year in mid-2014, and will be 24 launch vehicles per year by the end of 2014″

            certainly it would seem sometime this year, SpaceX will have the capacity to do the occasional Falcon-heavy launch.

            So the real question is how much of the EELV Capability money do they
            want. It’s a relatively small pie, and it’s not easy to cut it up.

            I have no dog in the fight here, but it seems SpaceX has NASA as a core customer, and ULA has USAF/NRO as a core customer and SpaceX wants a piece of the bigger dogs bowl.

            I’m curious what’s driving this, used to be SpaceX said they could make money on the Falcon 1, then the Falcon 9.

            Does anyone know what the breakeven launch rate is for SpaceX?

  4. “Can Falcon 9 lift X-37 for the USAF?”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-37

    X-37B

    General characteristics

    Crew: None
    Length: 29 ft 3 in (8.9 m)
    Wingspan: 14 ft 11 in (4.5 m)
    Height: 9 ft 6 in (2.9 m)
    Loaded weight: 11,000 lb (4,990 kg)

    These all seem to be within limits already exceeded in Falcon 9 launches.

    1. Hmmmm! That length must be wrong.

      Encyclopedia Astronautica gives a length of 8.38m.

      I think I’ll trust Mark’s numbers.

      However, it’s still inside the current payload fairing, IIRC.

    2. My guess; lifting the X-37 isn’t the problem. Mounting it with the LV horizontal would be.

      1. Seems likely that it should be possible to build a more robust lifting cradle that can support the load. Once it’s vertical it won’t matter.

        1. I have to believe that their existing lifting cradle is strong enough to lift both the empty rocket and the heaviest design payload. They already do horizontal integration with satellites and the Dragon capsule and seem to have no trouble lifting them into position.

      2. From Elon Musk’s prepared statement to the Committee:

        – Agreeing to incorporate the ability to provide vertical integration at both launch sites for NSS payloads that require their space vehicles to be processed in this manner. SpaceX will self-fund this capability;

Comments are closed.