Author Topic: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach  (Read 18798 times)

Offline Halidon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • whereabouts unknown
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 535
EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« on: 04/18/2012 07:43 am »
As reported by Amy Butler over at AvWeek.
Quote
The Pentagon has declared that the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) project has exceeded its original projected per-unit cost by 58.4%, triggering a rigorous review under the Nunn-McCurdy program oversight law.
This is not meant to be a "the house is on fire!" post but rather a place to intelligently discuss the causes, effects, and potential solutions to this cost spike.

Edit: sorry about the URL, was too tired last night and couldn't check NSF from work to discover my error.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2012 10:26 pm by Halidon »

Offline MP99

Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #1 on: 04/18/2012 07:54 am »
URL seems to be broken.

cheers, Martin

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8661
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3881
  • Likes Given: 807
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #2 on: 04/18/2012 08:07 am »
It's not if you copy-paste the address into the browser.

article

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #3 on: 04/18/2012 08:16 am »
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/awx/2012/04/17/awx_04_17_2012_p0-448599.xml&headline=Massive%20EELV%20Cost%20Growth%20Reported%20To%20Congress.
Quote
The Pentagon has declared that the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) project has exceeded its original projected per-unit cost by 58.4%, triggering a rigorous review under the Nunn-McCurdy program oversight law.
This is not meant to be a "the house is on fire!" post but rather a place to intelligently discuss the causes, effects, and potential solutions to this cost spike.

Causes - not enough paylaods

Effect - Uncompetitive launch market

Solution - Split ULA up and force Delta IV and Atlas V to compete for the payloads. Who cares if they lose a bit of profit doing it like that. It's not just these 2 in the launch market anymore. Having this silly little government contract monopoly has to end somewhere.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38171
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22651
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #4 on: 04/18/2012 10:54 am »
Solution - Split ULA up a

Not feasible

Offline MP99

Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #5 on: 04/18/2012 11:49 am »
It's not if you copy-paste the address into the browser.

article

Thanks.

Cheers, Martin

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9275
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4498
  • Likes Given: 1133
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #6 on: 04/18/2012 01:32 pm »
Yep. "Competition" isn't something you can make with a government program.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38171
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22651
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #7 on: 04/18/2012 01:39 pm »
Also, it has always been monopolies.
There was no competition for each class.
Delta, Atlas and Titan had no competitors.

Offline DARPA-86

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 137
  • Pig farmer from Ryan, Iowa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #8 on: 04/18/2012 02:01 pm »
A significant "cause" is that the original EELV plan was for down select to only one launch provider.  The Pentagon is living with the cost of its decision to award two "winners". 

This should be a lesson to those who think there should be two Commercial Crew providers, etc.

 - Ed Kyle
Yes, but if it is a national policy directive to maintain an industrial base capacity then you are willing to pay the freight (with OPM of course) to maintain two or more providers.  And it has been exactly that; senior agency people from both NASA & DoD have both previously testified before Congress regarding the necessity to do this and the perils of a shrinking aerospace sector industrial base.  If it requires a "subsidy" on the per unit acquisition cost in order to maintain at least the facade of multiple providers, Congress has been fully involved and briefed on the matter and a party to the decision making.

It is the Catch-22 decision loop.

As an aside, I would be curious on your thoughts regarding the low launch rate to estimates - approx. two-thirds actual of the estimated 135 plus launches since 2007?  To what extent has escalted costs for payloads contributed to the low launch rate?

In other words, another vicious circle; we are told repeadtly on this board that increased volume of launches will bring the LV cost down, yet we need to launch (and pay for) something on those Atlas & Delta's, which gobbles up annual budgets - which in turn leaves less money for additional missions which require a LV.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #9 on: 04/18/2012 05:36 pm »
I'd heard ITAR hassles kept international customers away.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39463
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25589
  • Likes Given: 12245
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #10 on: 04/19/2012 08:06 pm »
Launch rate.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12432
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 19537
  • Likes Given: 13638
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #11 on: 04/20/2012 06:56 am »

The government payload problem (disaster? fiasco? etc.) has contributed.  The non-downselect and the lowered government launch rate pushed launch prices up, which helped press the EELVs out of the commercial launch business. 

Question: Where the EELV's ever really in the commercial launch business? Did they ever stand a chance in the commercial launch business? After all, they basically are DOD rockets.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38171
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22651
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #12 on: 04/20/2012 10:35 am »

Question: Where the EELV's ever really in the commercial launch business? Did they ever stand a chance in the commercial launch business? After all, they basically are DOD rockets.

No, they are not DOD rockets.
a.  Atlas had/has commercial payloads
b.  The intermediate versions (any vehicle with a solid) exist because of commercial requirements and not DOD requirements. The DOD only had requirements for the medium and heavy class vehicles.  The versions with SRMs came about when comsats started getting heavier.  That is why Atlas can only carry 5 and Delta only 4 solids because the vehicle and GSE designs were too far along to properly accommodate them

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12432
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 19537
  • Likes Given: 13638
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #13 on: 04/20/2012 10:40 am »

Question: Where the EELV's ever really in the commercial launch business? Did they ever stand a chance in the commercial launch business? After all, they basically are DOD rockets.

No, they are not DOD rockets.
a.  Atlas had/has commercial payloads
b.  The intermediate versions (any vehicle with a solid) exist because of commercial requirements and not DOD requirements. The DOD only had requirements for the medium and heavy class vehicles.  The versions with SRMs came about when comsats started getting heavier.  That is why Atlas can only carry 5 and Delta only 4 solids because the vehicle and GSE designs were too far along to properly accommodate them

Thanks for clearing that up Jim.

However, my first two questions are still open. Any takers?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38171
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22651
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #14 on: 04/20/2012 01:18 pm »
  But the fact that Lockheed was involved in ILS Proton, and Boeing in Sea Launch, even as they were  developing EELVs tells me that the companies were never really serious about EELV commercial launch.


Lockheed's involvement in ILS and Boeing's in Sealaunch predates their mergers with Martin Marietta (Atlas) and McDonnell Douglas (Delta) respectively.

And McDonnell Douglas won the EELV competition before Boeing took them over.



« Last Edit: 04/20/2012 01:20 pm by Jim »

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #15 on: 04/20/2012 01:34 pm »
Launch rate.

How much cheaper would Atlas/Delta be if they were building and launching rockets at the same pace as Soyuz / Progress ?

Offline HIPAR

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 585
  • NE Pa (USA)
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #16 on: 04/20/2012 04:35 pm »
How can a long term price ceiling be imposed upon anything during these volatile economic times?  the price of everything is going up.

---  CHAS

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38171
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22651
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #17 on: 04/20/2012 06:13 pm »
  But the fact that Lockheed was involved in ILS Proton, and Boeing in Sea Launch, even as they were  developing EELVs tells me that the companies were never really serious about EELV commercial launch.


Lockheed's involvement in ILS and Boeing's in Sealaunch predates their mergers with Martin Marietta (Atlas) and McDonnell Douglas (Delta) respectively.

And McDonnell Douglas won the EELV competition before Boeing took them over.

True, but a lot of years passed between the mergers/EELV awards and the company's dis-connections from their respective international affiliations.  In each case, the merging partner promoting non-U.S.  commercial satellite launch collaboration seemed to win the internal corporate argument, if there ever was an argument. 


Because that is all they (Sealaunch and ILS Proton) couldn't compete for is commercial contracts, they weren't allowed US Gov't contracts.

Boeing (Seattle) put a lot of money into Sealaunch and wanted to try to get its money back and couldn't just drop it.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2384
  • USA
  • Liked: 2031
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #18 on: 04/20/2012 06:49 pm »
So, you are ULA sitting around a boardroom. The Gov't is questioning your costs and SpaceX is building the F9 Heavy that is claimed to be twice as powerful and 1/3 the cost. What do you do?

I am hearing / reading many posts from those who have an understanding as to the historical issues, but I am interested in the "What Now"? scenario.

What concrete steps do they take to address current costs issues and future competitive cost/performance issues. Because F9H is coming and if performance and costs are actualized, ULA has some serious re-evaluation to do...
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: EELV Nunn-McCurdy breach
« Reply #19 on: 04/20/2012 06:59 pm »
Decisions made about how to deal with fixed launch costs helped make the EELVs commercially uncompetitive.  The government requires commercial users of the EELVs to pay a proportional amount of the fixed costs, and there may also be something about not charging commercial customers less than the government.  The US government is willing to pay way more for launches than anyone else, so if you can get them to buy from you you're better off ignoring the commercial market.

This is different from the Delta II where the USAF paid to keep the system available to launch a GPS satellite on 30 days notice and then let McDonnell Douglas sell flights to other people for something closer to marginal cost.

I think it's clear that these policies do not save the US government anything and only serve to funnel money from taxpayers to ULA, but I'm sure that's exactly why they were put into place.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0