Планов громадье в ULA

Автор Петр Зайцев, 11.08.2009 16:17:18

« предыдущая - следующая »

0 Пользователей и 4 гостей просматривают эту тему.

napalm

Цитатаand whether members of the elite in President Vladimir Putin's Russia are secretly profiting by inflating the price
Бугога.. На такую-то мелочь размениваться :D

Grus

20.11.2014 19:16:28 #41 Последнее редактирование: 20.11.2014 18:22:45 от Grus
Очень серьезные обвинения.

Насколько же предыдущая оценка цены РД180 "$11-15 млн" не совпадает с новой "$23,4 млн". Видимо, это изменения цены несколько лет назад.

Alex D

Только вопрос - эта "добавленная стоимость" в $3 млн это чисто профит, или всё-таки Амросс занимается непосредственно логистикой двигателей с Энергомаша, где ~$20 млн - стоимость РД-180 на выходе с завода? Перевозка такого груза тоже весьма недёшева, хоть конечно и не $3 млн.

che wi

ЦитатаAlex D пишет:
Только вопрос - эта "добавленная стоимость" в $3 млн это чисто профит, или всё-таки Амросс занимается непосредственно логистикой двигателей с Энергомаша, где ~$20 млн - стоимость РД-180 на выходе с завода? Перевозка такого груза тоже весьма недёшева, хоть конечно и не $3 млн.

http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/36172201/na-prodazhe-rossijskih-raketnyh-dvigatelej-rd-180-pentagonu
ЦитатаReuters ссылается на конфиденциальный отчет аудиторов за 2011 г., из которого следует, что Amross была посредником при поставке двигателей и если и выполняла некоторые работы, то «незначительные».

rain

Ну логично, что компашка в 5 человек с офисом в одном маленьком здании напополам с массажистами и стоматолагами (это из отчета  :) ) врят-ли может заниматся какой-нибудь серьезной поддержкой. Максимум - оформление растаможки. Стоит ли это 3 ляма - вопрос риторический.

Salo

"Были когда-то и мы рысаками!!!"

max_schmurz

Достижения и ближайшие планы ULA:


p.s. Подписи к фотографиям и картинкам - из Wikipedia.
p.p.s. Относительно NROL-55, в Вики и у Г.Кребса указана РН Atlas V 401, но на фото видны 2 ТТУ.

Salo

30.01.2015 21:38:10 #47 Последнее редактирование: 30.01.2015 21:38:45 от Salo
http://spacenews.com/the-competition-that-wasnt-nro-launch-added-to-existing-ula-contract/
ЦитатаThe Competition that Wasn't: NRO Launch Swept into ULA Block Buy
by Mike Gruss -- January 29, 2015

Launch of NROL-35 from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Credit: ULA
 
WASHINGTON - A highly anticipated U.S. Air Force launch contract - once thought to be SpaceX's first chance to break into the national security launch market - has instead been added to the service's existing $11 billion deal with United Launch Alliance.
The Air Force on Jan. 28 formally canceled a six-month-old competition to launch a payload for the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office, operator of the nation's spy satellites, according to the Federal Business Opportunities website. Bids for that mission, known as NROL-79, were due in August, and the contest was widely viewed as a two-horse race between longtime incumbent ULA and relative newcomer SpaceX.
About an hour after canceling the bid solicitation, the Pentagon announced a $382 million modification to ULA's block buy contract. The modification covered three national security launches and included an Atlas 5 rocket for the NRO.
"Canceling the [request for proposal] was determined to be in the best interest of the Government," said Capt. Chris Hoyler, an Air Force spokesman.
Hoyler confirmed the newly assigned launches were subsumed under ULA's block buy contract and do not add to the Air Force's original order of 36 Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rocket cores.
 
SpaceX, whose Falcon 9 rocket has yet to earn the necessary certification to launch U.S. national security missions, had given strong indications of interest in launching the NRO mission but never confirmed that it actually bid. Credit: SpaceX

The Air Force awarded the sole-source contract to its longtime monopoly launch provider, a Boeing-Lockheed Martin joint venture, in 2013 as part of a plan bring down its soaring launch costs, which had become a lightning rod for criticism. The idea was to benefit from economies of scale even as the Air Force introduced competition into its Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle by putting seven or eight missions up for bid, beginning with the NRO payload.
Industry sources said earlier in January that the NRO contract award was imminent, but there had been indications of late that it might be delayed.
Hawthorne, California-based SpaceX, whose Falcon 9 rocket has yet to earn the necessary certification to launch U.S. national security missions, had given strong indications of interest in launching the NRO mission but never confirmed that it actually bid.  The Air Force had expected to certify the vehicle before the end of 2014 but recently conceded that the certification might take until as late as mid-2015, a delay that triggered an independent review of the service's processes.
Denver-based ULA thus remains the only company authorized to launch operational U.S. national security satellites, at least for now.
SpaceX in January dropped its lawsuit, filed in April, challenging ULA's block buy contract after the Air Force apparently agreed to put more launch contracts up for bid. The details of the settlement have not been made public and it is not clear whether the NRO mission was involved.
Although it did not confirm bidding on the NRO mission, SpaceX did submit questions about the competition to the Air Force, including one asking whether ULA would reimburse the government for some costs if it won the contract. ULA receives two EELV funding streams, including one that covers certain overhead costs, a portion of which the company repays the government for missions conducted outside the EELV contract structure.
SpaceX has long argued that the Air Force's so-called EELV Launch Capability payments to ULA, amounting to nearly $1 billion annually, are a subsidy that could allow the company to offer artifically low prices for competitively awarded missions.
In its response, the Air Force said NROL-79 launch contract would be a stand-alone contract with no "interdependency" with other Defense Department missions, according to acquisition documents.
"Были когда-то и мы рысаками!!!"

Salo

http://spacenews.com/timing-of-russian-engine-ban-puts-ula-air-force-in-a-bind/
ЦитатаTiming of Russian Engine Ban Puts ULA, Air Force, in a Bind
by Mike Gruss -- February 27, 2015
"You're looking at six years, maybe seven years to develop an engine and another year or two beyond that to integrate," Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said in response to questioning from Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). Credit: U.S. Air Force/Jim Varhegyi
 
WASHINGTON -- The new U.S. law barring the Air Force from using Russian-made rocket engines starting in 2019 could force the Defense Department's primary launch services provider to battle for future military business with its least competitive product.
Although Congress provided money for the Air Force to start work on a new U.S.-built main engine this year, service officials are doubtful that it will be ready by 2019. Even if it is, which industry officials argue is possible, the engine would still have to be certified by the Air Force to carry national security payloads, a process that one executive said could take more than two years.
That scenario would leave United Launch Alliance, which since its 2006 formation has had a monopoly in the national security market, in a weak competitive position relative to its rising nemesis, SpaceX. The Hawthorne, California-based company is on the verge of earning certification for its low-cost Falcon 9 rocket and also hopes to demonstrate a heavy-lift launcher this year.
 
ULA's other main rocket, the Delta 4, uses an American-made engine, unlike the Atlas 5, which uses the Russian-made RD-180. Credit: Lockheed Martin

The problem for ULA, a Boeing-Lockheed Martin joint venture, is that its lowest-cost rocket, the Atlas 5, is powered by the Russian-built RD-180 engine that is the primary target of the congressionally imposed ban. ULA's other main rocket, the Delta 4, is powered by an American-made engine and is technically capable of launching all of the satellites on the Defense Department manifest. But in addition to being far more expensive than the Atlas 5, the Delta 4 is often viewed as an inferior rocket.
"There may not be much of a competition if [the Atlas 5] is not available to be a part of it," Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James told reporters Feb. 25 after testifying before Congress. "The question is, would [Delta 4] be cost effective? If it's not, then I fear that we would inadvertently be trading one monopoly ... for a new monopoly -- and I don't think anybody wants that to happen."
The issue is a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2015 mandating that the Air Force stop using Russian-made rocket engines by 2019. The language is rooted in escalating tensions between the United States and Russia over the crisis in Ukraine.
Concern about the law's implications were at the forefront of the hearing of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, during which James said the presumed 2019 delivery date for a new engine was probably not feasible.
"You're looking at six years, maybe seven years to develop an engine and another year or two beyond that to integrate," James said in response to questioning from Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). "This truly is rocket science. These are hard technical problems and so to have that 2019 date there is pretty aggressive and I'm not sure we can make it. I turn to my technical experts. That's what they tell us."
James' comments echoed similar assessments by Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of Air Force Space Command, who has alternately called the timetable "challenging" and "aggressive."
Congress provided $220 million to begin work on a new main engine this year, and the Air Force has budgeted more than $500 million for the effort over six years. However, experts have said developing a new main rocket engine will cost at least $1 billion.
For their part, senior industry officials are more confident in their ability to deliver a new main engine by 2019. Two engine candidates under consideration by Denver-based ULA are the BE-4, which is being developed by Blue Origin of Kent, Washington, in partnership with ULA, and the AR-1 proposed by Aerojet Rocketdyne.
Tory Bruno, ULA's president and chief executive, said via Twitter Feb. 25 that the BE-4, ULA's primary choice of RD-180 replacement, is on schedule for a 2019 first flight, but acknowledged certification of a new rocket would take until 2022 or 2023. Unlike the kerosene-fueled RD-180, the BE-4 is fueled by liquid-natural gas, which means it cannot be readily integrated into the existing Atlas 5 core structure.
ЦитатаAvron Perlmann @Avron_p

@torybruno @John_Gardi @LAUNCHULA @OrbitalATK when will we see hardware?

Tory Bruno @torybruno

@Avron_p @John_Gardi @LAUNCHULA @OrbitalATK Our Next Gen rocket makes her maiden flight in 2019
3:27 PM - 25 Feb 2015
Bruno said that the kerosene-fueled AR-1, which ULA views as a backup option, is about one to two years behind the BE-4. ULA expects to make a final decision on which of the two engines to pursue in 2016 or 2017, Bruno said.
"The existing law leaves us no flexibility," Bruno said in a separate tweet.
Linda Cova, executive director of hydrocarbon engine programs at Sacramento, California-based Aerojet Rocketdyne, said "2019 is a feasible date" for delivering the AR-1, whose development to date has been funded by a combination of company and government programs. However, Aerojet Rocketdyne officials have said the engine would cost in the neighborhood of $1 billion to field.
What the AR-1 has going for it is its similarity to the RD-180, including common interfaces, which means its engineers might be able to plug it into the back end of the existing Atlas 5 core structure, Cova said in a Feb. 26 interview. That, in turn, could simplify the certification process.
The Air Force in 2013 awarded ULA an $11 billion sole-source contract for Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rockets that runs through 2019. The RD-180s ordered as part of this contract are exempt from the authorization legislation.
Nonetheless, there appears to be some confusion over the reach of the congressionally imposed RD-180 ban. During the hearing, Shelby raised questions about exactly which engines would be grandfathered under the new law.
James said she would welcome a clarification from Congress on the law's scope and well as an "adjustment" to its 2019 deadline.
Mark Wright, a Pentagon spokesman, said a legal review of the provision is underway.
The legislation does allow for a waiver process for national security missions "if space launch services cannot be obtained at a fair and reasonable price without the use of the Russian RD-180 engines."
ULA says it is evaluating a proposal to purchase as many as 30 more RD-180 engines -- beyond what it needs to fulfill the needs of the block buy contract -- that the company says will be used in part for future commercial missions.
SpaceX, meanwhile, builds its Merlin engine -- nine of which power the first stage of the Falcon 9 -- in house. "These engines are made by American workers here in the U.S.," SpaceX spokesman John Taylor said via email Feb. 26. "SpaceX stands ready today to solve the problem of continued reliance on Russian-made engines."
SpaceX is developing a more-powerful engine dubbed Raptor that is designed to generate more than 661,000 pounds of thrust in a vacuum. That engine began testing at NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi last year.
"Были когда-то и мы рысаками!!!"

Salo

28.02.2015 18:54:05 #49 Последнее редактирование: 28.02.2015 22:57:42 от Salo
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/570941890792722432
ЦитатаAaron Mehta ‏@AaronMehta 25 февр.
@torybruno Tory, any comment on Sec James concern that an RD180 replacement will not be ready by 2019? Can ULA/Blue meet that target?

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno
.@AaronMehta Not sure I did your question justice now that I have read the Sen Shelby/Sec James transcript. I'll give a more complete ans

5:42 - 26 февр. 2015 г.

 Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 26 февр.
.@AaronMehta We need AT LEAST 29 engines to make it to the BE4 American Engine, if nothing goes wrong. More to make it to AR1.

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 26 февр.
.@AaronMehta 1608's intent is 29 RD180s. Legal debate has emerged on language. Some argue the number is only 5. Hence Shelby's question

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 26 февр.
.@AaronMehta Limit of less than 29 leaves both a gap in NSS capability and a period with only one provider (not ULA). Hence the Sec's resp.

Aaron Mehta ‏@AaronMehta 26 февр.
@torybruno interesting. Thanks for the follow up. Who is arguing the "only 5" case? Hadn't heard that before.

"Были когда-то и мы рысаками!!!"

Salo

28.02.2015 19:01:03 #50 Последнее редактирование: 28.02.2015 22:57:03 от Salo
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/570942341361459200
ЦитатаAaron Mehta ‏@AaronMehta 25 февр.
@torybruno Tory, any comment on Sec James concern that an RD180 replacement will not be ready by 2019? Can ULA/Blue meet that target?

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 26 февр.
.@AaronMehta Not sure I did your question justice now that I have read the Sen Shelby/Sec James transcript. I'll give a more complete ans

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno
.@AaronMehta We need AT LEAST 29 engines to make it to the BE4 American Engine, if nothing goes wrong. More to make it to AR1.

 5:43 - 26 февр. 2015 г.


 Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 26 февр.
.@AaronMehta 1608's intent is 29 RD180s. Legal debate has emerged on language. Some argue the number is only 5. Hence Shelby's question

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 26 февр.
.@AaronMehta Limit of less than 29 leaves both a gap in NSS capability and a period with only one provider (not ULA). Hence the Sec's resp.

Aaron Mehta ‏@AaronMehta 26 февр.
@torybruno interesting. Thanks for the follow up. Who is arguing the "only 5" case? Hadn't heard that before.
"Были когда-то и мы рысаками!!!"

Salo

28.02.2015 19:03:21 #51 Последнее редактирование: 28.02.2015 22:56:24 от Salo
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/570946962863706112
ЦитатаAvron Perlmann ‏@Avron_p 26 февр.
@torybruno why not look at an engine from India, they ain't invading anyone right now?

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 26 февр.
@Avron_p We looked at every existing and imagined Engine, including an all solids solution. BE4 and AR1 the fastest that are suitable

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno
.@Avron_p Both the Sen and the Sec are correct in their understanding. The issue is in work. I am confident a solution will emerge soon
"Были когда-то и мы рысаками!!!"

Salo

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/571000704325677056
ЦитатаTory Bruno ‏@torybruno
Several questions about American Engine schedule. BE4 First flight in 2019. Certified for NSS in 2022-2023
9:35 - 26 февр. 2015 г.


    Lars Osborne ‏@lars_0 26 февр.
@torybruno @jeff_foust Will this new rocket use an RL-10?

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 26 февр.
@torybruno If we end up on the back engine, AR1, 1 to 2 years later

Michal Scienski ‏@mscienski 26 февр.
@torybruno Will ULA continue to support work on AR1 if BE4 is ready on time?

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 26 февр.
@mscienski No. I expect to downselect NLT 2016 or 2017. Can't afford to carry both all the way

Mike Gruss ‏@Gruss_SN 26 февр.
@torybruno Where does Delta4 fit into the discussion? Wouldn't it still be available for missions in 2019-2022 and meet reqts?

Doug Mohney ‏@DougonTech 26 февр.
@torybruno When do you provision pads for methane fueling under that timeline? Some infrastructure change/add for BE4, yes?

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 26 февр.
@DougonTech Don't know timing yet because pad trades not done. Yes, Infrastructure and booster mods required for methane.
"Были когда-то и мы рысаками!!!"

Salo

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/571009932100706305
ЦитатаTory Bruno ‏@torybruno
.@AaronMehta Just read your story. Clarification: BE4 flight in 2019, if all goes well. Certified for NSS 2022-2023. AR1 1 - 2 yrs later

10:12 - 26 февр. 2015 г.

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 26 февр.
.@AaronMehta and, the Sec is correct, Rocket development is hard and does not always go as planned.

Aaron Mehta ‏@AaronMehta 26 февр.
@torybruno thanks Tory. Will update later today. Appreciate the clarification.

Lukas ‏@lukealization 26 февр.
@torybruno your stance on solids as part of the NGLS design? BE4 engine(s) only or augmented by SRBs?

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 26 февр.
@lukealization No spoilers. Will show the architecture at Space Symposium
"Были когда-то и мы рысаками!!!"

Salo

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/571021767092805634
ЦитатаTory Bruno ‏@torybruno
More questions about American Engine schedule: No, we cannot realistically accelerate certification to 2019. 2022-23 already has risk
10:59 - 26 февр. 2015 г.

Pat Host ‏@Pat_DefDaily 26 февр.
@torybruno are you talking about BE-1?

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 26 февр.
@Pat_DefDaily BE4

Pat Host ‏@Pat_DefDaily 26 февр.
@torybruno thanks

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 26 февр.
@Pat_DefDaily Blue Origin's BE4 is our baseline. Aerojet Rocketdyne's AR1 is our back-up

Znapel ‏@Znapel 26 февр.
@torybruno What connection is there (if any) between ULA and USAF engine plans? They pay for an AV engine, whilst you work on NGLS?

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 26 февр.
@Znapel ULA and our partners are currently funding BE4 and AR1. Cong provided funds for Amer Eng. USAF studying how to best use the $s
"Были когда-то и мы рысаками!!!"

Salo

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/571065308108103680
ЦитатаTory Bruno ‏@torybruno
Developing an American engine by 2019, cert in 2022-23, is an aggressive schedule. The existing law leaves us no flexibility

13:52 - 26 февр. 2015 г.


Richard Penn ‏@RichardFPenn 26 февр.
@torybruno Musk has a design. Licence it.

Sergei Korolev ‏@ClassAware 26 февр.
@RichardFPenn @torybruno Why would Musk help his competition? :P

Richard Penn ‏@RichardFPenn 26 февр.
@ClassAware @torybruno For the sake of the Western World? So we're not handing cash and credence to Putin?

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 26 февр.
@RichardFPenn Major mods to accept any new engine, even if it was suitable

Dean Ripley ‏@deanMACHINE65 26 февр.
@RichardFPenn @torybruno IIRC, SpaceX doesn't patent technology ("trade secret"). License probably wouldn't happen.

Richard Penn ‏@RichardFPenn 26 февр
@torybruno Eight years worth of them? Eight whole years?

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 27 февр.
@RichardFPenn 7 to 10 years is pretty common for a new engine development. Once developed, it must be integrated, flown and certified

Stephen Basile ‏@stephenb 20 ч 20 часов назад
@torybruno @RichardFPenn Could the SpaceX Merlin act as a stopgap until the new American Engine is done? Assuming they are willing of course

Tory Bruno ‏@torybruno 6 ч 6 часов назад
@stephenb @RichardFPenn No, the configuration and thrust level are not compatible with Atlas V
"Были когда-то и мы рысаками!!!"

Безумный Шляпник

ULA планирует с 2018 года отказаться от РН "Дельта-4" (кроме тяжелого варианта ХевиДельта).

http://spacenews.com/ula-targets-2018-for-delta-4-phase-out-seeks-relaxation-of-rd-180-ban/

Sam Grey

ЦитатаБезумный Шляпник пишет:
ULA планирует с 2018 года отказаться от РН "Дельта-4" (кроме тяжелого варианта ХевиДельта).

 http://spacenews.com/ula-targets-2018-for-delta-4-phase-out-seeks-relaxation-of-rd-180-ban/
А ничего им будет поддерживать все тех. цепочки производства и инфраструктуру Дельты ради пуска одной "хэви" в год?  Мне кажется, по цене это будет как SLS запускать.

Настоящий Искандер

это невидимая рука рынка расставляет всех по местам

Apollo13

ЦитатаSam Grey пишет:
ЦитатаБезумный Шляпник пишет:
ULA планирует с 2018 года отказаться от РН "Дельта-4" (кроме тяжелого варианта ХевиДельта).

 http://spacenews.com/ula-targets-2018-for-delta-4-phase-out-seeks-relaxation-of-rd-180-ban/
А ничего им будет поддерживать все тех. цепочки производства и инфраструктуру Дельты ради пуска одной "хэви" в год? Мне кажется, по цене это будет как SLS запускать.
Возможно они заранее сделают какое-то количество хэви дельт лет на 5 вперед, а потом все это производство и тд переведут на NGLS.