These might help in the comparisons, as I've tried to document what the existing EELVs have actually done in terms of orbits and payload masses (when available).http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html#atlas5loghttp://www.spacelaunchreport.com/delta4.html#delta4log - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/08/2015 09:22 pmThese might help in the comparisons, as I've tried to document what the existing EELVs have actually done in terms of orbits and payload masses (when available).http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html#atlas5loghttp://www.spacelaunchreport.com/delta4.html#delta4log - Ed KyleExcellent work. I estimated that of 80 launches, F9R (recoverable booster i.e 3.5mt to GTO) could do 37 of them. Where there was no payload weight I used LV configuration eg AV401 to decide if F9R could do it.
Can you define blind reuse?Edit: Damn auto-correct...
I would think that one big difference between the Falcon 9 family and the EELVs is the variable use of solids. For example, Atlas has between zero and five solid strap-ons available. SpaceX avoided the use of solids in favor of a one-rocket-fits-all approach (at least until the Heavy is in service). Off the top of my head, this represents a big gamble that will only pay off if routine re-use of the first stage (without a lot of expensive servicing), becomes reality. Yes, Atlas is more expensive NOW, but if ULA is pushed, could the price come down? Again, this is just off the top of my head, but I think these choices regarding the solids is a good look inside the thinking at both providers. Of course, the decisions for Atlas and Delta were made before SpaceX was even a gleam in Musk's eye. The next generation follow-on from ULA will be interesting.
I would think that one big difference between the Falcon 9 family and the EELVs is the variable use of solids. For example, Atlas has between zero and five solid strap-ons available. SpaceX avoided the use of solids in favor of a one-rocket-fits-all approach (at least until the Heavy is in service). Off the top of my head, this represents a big gamble that will only pay off if routine re-use of the first stage (without a lot of expensive servicing), becomes reality. Yes, Atlas is more expensive NOW, but if ULA is pushed, could the price come down?
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/08/2015 11:35 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 03/08/2015 09:22 pmThese might help in the comparisons, as I've tried to document what the existing EELVs have actually done in terms of orbits and payload masses (when available).http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html#atlas5loghttp://www.spacelaunchreport.com/delta4.html#delta4log - Ed KyleExcellent work. I estimated that of 80 launches, F9R (recoverable booster i.e 3.5mt to GTO) could do 37 of them. Where there was no payload weight I used LV configuration eg AV401 to decide if F9R could do it.Assuming just a LV configuration will /slightly/ bias the estimation of 37 flights pessimistically. For instance, AV401 often is flying older Delta II class payloads (or was in the past).
People are motivated by extrinsic factors such as pay and intrinsic factors such as pride in a job well done and doing good in the world. SpaceX's Mars plans give it a major competitive advantage in intrinsic motivation so it can probably attract better employees even if its extrinsic motivations such as pay, hours and working conditions aren't quite as good as ULA's. Also once hired employees are likely to work harder and smarter if they're intrinsically motivated.Another reason to expect ULA's labor costs to be a bit higher is IIRC they're a union shop and on average unions raise wages by on the order of 10%. This may be caused simply by Boeing and Lockheed's age, but I suspect part of the explanation is SpaceX employees believe in the company goals and hence don't develop the adversarial attitude that would lead to unionization.TL;DR: SpaceX probably has lower labor costs because of SpaceX's Mars colonization goal and ULA's unions. Cheaper labor allows them to charge less and still make a profit.
I'm not sure that a discussion of company employment/business methods is appropriate to this thread; it would seem to be limited to vehicle design, characteristics or performance. That being said, attributing a difference in price due to the cost of labor would need to include the number of employees/sub-contractors paid by each side to be of much use. The varying costs of labor (for whatever reasons) could easily be subsumed simply by a difference in the total amount of persons employed, or by the amount/types of work that they are asked to accomplish.SpaceX employs on the order of 4k employees (G. Shotwell).ULA employs 3400 (per their website). It's up to Space Ghost, but I don't think that this is the thread for a personnel discussion.
That's not the only way it will pay off. Mass production of a single core and a single fairing is actually what helps the LOWER costs. Even without re-usability their costs are below ULA, so I'd say it is already paying off.
In short: aircraft like operations reflight.Longer - built-in evaluative instrumentation (and designed-in multiple flight capacity) for go/nogo assessment without tear down or exhaustive or destructive inspection/evaluation. Reflight in days/weeks with as little crew/GSE as can fit on a barge.I'm trying to draw a distinction between costly/invasive inspection of a more exotic LV like EELVs are, to that of a purpose driven, less optimal but more resilient LV intended for reuse.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/08/2015 09:22 pmThese might help in the comparisons, as I've tried to document what the existing EELVs have actually done in terms of orbits and payload masses (when available).Excellent work. I estimated that of 80 launches, F9R (recoverable booster i.e 3.5mt to GTO) could do 37 of them. Where there was no payload weight I used LV configuration eg AV401 to decide if F9R could do it.
These might help in the comparisons, as I've tried to document what the existing EELVs have actually done in terms of orbits and payload masses (when available).
I'll also note that is (roughly) 1700 staff per Atlas and 1700 for Delta.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 03/09/2015 09:38 pmI'll also note that is (roughly) 1700 staff per Atlas and 1700 for Delta. They are not separated. Most people work on both systems.