Frediiiie - 4/1/2008 8:59 PMWhat I'm saying is that something needs to be done in the interests of keeping ANY sort of US launch industry going.What is being done?
Frediiiie - 5/1/2008 7:19 PMSpace launch is a hi tec business. Labour costs are not that critical a factor.
Frediiiie - 5/1/2008 7:19 PMThere is the non commercial NASA market where govt contractors bid for monumental projects like Ares 1 & V. (or parts thereof.)Implicit in the contracts is the assumption that the designs will be world leading and cutting edge, and it doesn't matter much if the costs blow out as the government is picking up the tab. The important thing is that the work be elegant.
Frediiiie - 5/1/2008 7:19 PMI see several ways ahead for the majors.1/ either or both of the majors could select and fund their own lean in house teams to build their own "Mac Truck" launcher to compete directly with SpaceX Sealaunch the Russians et al in the commercial market.2/ Do system wide reviews of everything to do with Atlas & Delta to find ways to reduce costs, and improve the programs to the point where they can compete.
Jim - 6/1/2008 1:39 AMQuoteFrediiiie - 5/1/2008 7:19 PMI see several ways ahead for the majors.1/ either or both of the majors could select and fund their own lean in house teams to build their own "Mac Truck" launcher to compete directly with SpaceX Sealaunch the Russians et al in the commercial market.2/ Do system wide reviews of everything to do with Atlas & Delta to find ways to reduce costs, and improve the programs to the point where they can compete.1. They already exist. They are the EELV's2. US wages and unions drive up the labor costs. So does the mission assurance requirements of the main customer, the US gov't. Since the US Gov't self insures, it has the contractors do extra work.
edkyle99 - 4/1/2008 11:15 PMThe U.S. Government is planning on spending $31.8 billion for 137 EELV launches by 2020, an average of $232.12 million per launch. That's a lot of subsidy propping up ULA. - Ed Kyle
WHAP - 6/1/2008 10:56 AM If anyone has insight into the value of Aerospace's contracts relative to EELV, I'd love to see it, but I was not successful with a quick Google search.
quark - 5/1/2008 11:12 PMFor example, Proton is made by Energia.Proton isnīt made by Energia, but it is made by Khrunichev.
quark - 5/1/2008 11:12 PMEveryone on this thread is completely missing the boat. The international "market" for satellite launch is very far from a free market in the Freidman sense. ...For example, Proton is made by Energia, a GOR owned entity. I doubt anyone (even in Russia) knows what the total unit cost is (including development, fixed and marginal). They simply price it so as to keep the manifest full and cash coming in. Profit has no meaning.
Ariane is in a similar state although slightly closer to a capitalist model. It has all development and fixed cost completely covered, but it is not really required to be profitable. For most of its existence, the majority owner was the french government although I believe that has recently changed.
On the other hand, the US systems are owned by private corporations which are required (by shareholders) to deliver reasonable returns. Therefore selling at a loss is not really an option. Right now, since price will always favor those who don't don't have to cover costs, the only way US vehicles get commercial launches is based on technical superiority (reliability). Both DII and Atlas V can command a reliability premium in the marketplace.
If the US wants domestic launchers to gain market share there are 2 options:1) cover US companies for losses so they can price-to-win. This is the approach used by Ariane and Proton2) Pressure the rest of the world to privatize their launch businessesIn the meantime, we can have the GOR and ESA subsidize the launching of the world's satellites.
2) What if SpaceX actually get's their act together?3) Space launch is a hi tec business. Labour costs are not that critical a factor.4) does the industry want to compete or not.5) when you're one of only two people in the market and there's a good chance the govt might tap one of you and say "You're out of the game",6) so labour costs are only a problem if you've got 10 people trying to do a job that can be done by one.I've changed my mind. Perhaps labour costs are a problem.7) Why should Boeing or LM work to lower costs? All that would do would be to reduce their government subside (horror) A business chooses to change their management and starts pushing for efficiencies and cost reductions.9) Government could force competition.
Jim - 6/1/2008 10:56 AMQuoteWHAP - 6/1/2008 10:56 AM If anyone has insight into the value of Aerospace's contracts relative to EELV, I'd love to see it, but I was not successful with a quick Google search.Aerospace has only one contract with SMC. It cover GSE&I for USAF space systems and not just EELV.
Frediiiie - 6/1/2008 10:33 PMClose 1 launch centre.Close 3 pads.and that's a good start.The question is, does the industry want to compete or not.