NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => ULA - Delta, Atlas, Vulcan => Topic started by: Skyrocket on 07/02/2013 02:15 pm
-
USAF ordered 2 Atlas-V and 2 Delta-IV and NRO ordered 2 Atlas-V and one Delta-IV from ULA.
USAF:
* Atlas V 401
* Atlas V 501
* Delta IVM 4,2
* Delta IVM 5,4
NRO:
* Atlas 401
* Atlas 541
* Delta IVM 5,2
Source: http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=5073
-
Wasn't there a recent agreement for a block buy of ULA cores?
Would these come out of that block buy?
cheers, Martin
-
No press release from ULA or USAF?
-
...
USAF:
* Atlas V 401
* Atlas V 501
* Delta IVM 4,2
* Delta IVM 5,4
Fourth X-37B flight? I only see the 501 used for X-37B and FIA radar, which would have been NRO. And the fist bird flew twice, so it would be fitting to give the second one a chance of reuse.
-
I believe the complete text of the announcement is:
United Launch Services LLC, Littleton, Colo., has been awarded a $1,088,000,000 Not-To-Exceed letter contract for Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) production services in support of the following Air Force and National Reconnaissance Organization (NRO) launch vehicle configurations: AF Atlas V 401, AF Atlas V 501, AF Delta IV 4,2, AF Delta IV 5,4 NRO Atlas 401, NRO Atlas 541, and a NRO Delta IV 5,2. Work will be performed at Centennial, Colo., and is expected to be complete by 2015. This award is the result of a sole source acquisition. Fiscal 2013 Missile Procurement funds in the amount of $525,000,000 will be obligated on this award. Launch Systems Directorate, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles AFB, Calif., is the contracting activity (FA8811-13-C-0003).
Source: http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=5073
-
...
USAF:
* Atlas V 401
* Atlas V 501
* Delta IVM 4,2
* Delta IVM 5,4
Fourth X-37B flight? I only see the 501 used for X-37B and FIA radar, which would have been NRO. And the fist bird flew twice, so it would be fitting to give the second one a chance of reuse.
don't think so....Jim will clarify
-
The more other launch providers either delay or fail (for whatever reason) the more respect I have for ULA.
Those prices don't seem that bad.
World's best launch contractor and will be for a long time.
If you want a good price you need to block buy. That's the clear message here and it's smart business.
-
Wasn't there a recent agreement for a block buy of ULA cores?
Would these come out of that block buy?
Presumably yes, as they are being paid from FY2013+ funds, which is within the period of the block buys.
Those prices don't seem that bad.
Those prices represent (give or take) less than 50% of the actual cost to launch, assuming an EELV flight rate of 8-10/yr.
-
Those prices don't seem that bad.
True, although Arianespace ordered 35 A5 ECA for 4bn euros back in 2009. That's approx. $150m a piece.
I never quite understood why the Delta IV for example should be so expensive. The RS-68 is around $20m, the RL-10 probably not more than $10m (?). So the rest is basically for the tanks?
-
That works out to an average of $155M each for the seven launch vehicles (of course, the actual price for each vehicle will be different due to the different vehicles and configuration, but that information is not given).
-
Wasn't there a recent agreement for a block buy of ULA cores?
Would these come out of that block buy?
Presumably yes, as they are being paid from FY2013+ funds, which is within the period of the block buys.
Thanks.
Cheers, Martin
-
Those prices don't seem that bad.
True, although Arianespace ordered 35 A5 ECA for 4bn euros back in 2009. That's approx. $150m a piece.
I never quite understood why the Delta IV for example should be so expensive. The RS-68 is around $20m, the RL-10 probably not more than $10m (?). So the rest is basically for the tanks?
Your forgetting the standing army, engineering time, and corporate overhead that goes into these vehicles. I know in Biotech on research equipment, you usually multiply the material costs by a factor of 2.5 or 3 (whole bunch of vodoo where the selling prices really comes from but it is a good rule of thumb) to get a rough min. selling price that you can sell it for without losing money (but the rule usually matches the vodoo the MBA's come up with). So that plus tanks, LH compatible plumbing, electronics, ect. puts you in the ball park...
-
Those prices don't seem that bad.
True, although Arianespace ordered 35 A5 ECA for 4bn euros back in 2009. That's approx. $150m a piece.
I never quite understood why the Delta IV for example should be so expensive. The RS-68 is around $20m, the RL-10 probably not more than $10m (?). So the rest is basically for the tanks?
There is the payoff of development costs. ESA pays for all Ariane development costs.
-
Those prices don't seem that bad.
True, although Arianespace ordered 35 A5 ECA for 4bn euros back in 2009. That's approx. $150m a piece.
I never quite understood why the Delta IV for example should be so expensive. The RS-68 is around $20m, the RL-10 probably not more than $10m (?). So the rest is basically for the tanks?
There is the payoff of development costs. ESA pays for all Ariane development costs.
Was this the last with the 30M/core fee to Boeing?
-
I happen to agree with you. With reliability comes a cost.
You put your sh*t on an Atlas or a Delta, you know it's gonna get there.
The more other launch providers either delay or fail (for whatever reason) the more respect I have for ULA.
Those prices don't seem that bad.
World's best launch contractor and will be for a long time.
If you want a good price you need to block buy. That's the clear message here and it's smart business.
-
I never quite understood why the Delta IV for example should be so expensive. The RS-68 is around $20m, the RL-10 probably not more than $10m (?). So the rest is basically for the tanks?
If all it took to get payloads to orbit were two engines and two sets of tanks, launches would be vastly less expensive than they are. But it takes a whole lot more than that. Just to start with, a pad, some avionics, and some engineering for integration would be helpful.
-
Maybe a naive question, but are we sure that just 7 LVs are involved?
The announcement enumerates 7 LV "configurations", only the NRO Delta IV 5,2 is specifically indicated as one model.
For the other models, couldn't there be several launchers involved for a given configuration?
the following Air Force and National Reconnaissance Organization (NRO) launch vehicle configurations: AF Atlas V 401, AF Atlas V 501, AF Delta IV 4,2, AF Delta IV 5,4 NRO Atlas 401, NRO Atlas 541, and a NRO Delta IV 5,2.
-
Was this the last with the 30M/core fee to Boeing?
Likely does not include those fees to Boeing, which is $60M/core up to 31 cores, or $1.86B total. Payment is due "Within 30 days after each launch or other event that consumes one or more Delta IV common booster cores" (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/12927/000119312507033902/dex10vi.htm). To date 25 launched, with 5 more projected for the remainder of this year. First D-IV flight of 2014 and they should be done with it. edit: should be 19 launched to date; see correction below (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32284.msg1070573#msg1070573).
-
Was this the last with the 30M/core fee to Boeing?
Likely does not include those fees to Boeing, which is $60M/core up to 31 cores, or $1.86B total. Payment is due "Within 30 days after each launch or other event that consumes one or more Delta IV common booster cores" (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/12927/000119312507033902/dex10vi.htm). To date 25 launched, with 5 more projected for the remainder of this year. First D-IV flight of 2014 and they should be done with it.
That was 31 cores after 1st Dec 2006, right? So, the Delta IV should become a better value proposition from 2014 onwards. The big problem was cost/performance and the 30 months of lead time. Which was a problem since you couldn't switch of versions easily (say you wanted to swap payloads between Deltas or even Atlas V). With the Fleet Standarization switching is easy (still requiring 6 to 12 extra months of lead time than Atlas V) and the cost should be reduced, at least, by 60M. Probably more since there's the productivity gains on common avionics and simplified fairing offering. And the Delta Heavy should be reduced by 180M! Given it's GTO performance and dual manifesting it could be better than Ariane 5 (around 11.5tonnes to a 1,500m/s deficit GTO, as a guess).
-
That was 31 cores after 1st Dec 2006, right? So, the Delta IV should become a better value proposition from 2014 onwards. ... And the Delta Heavy should be reduced by 180M!
Yes, however the count started 31-Mar-2009.* And oops, sorry, I just realized my count is off; under the terms of the agreement 19 cores (not 25) have been consumed to date. So it will likely be end of 2014 before ULA has to stop paying under this agreement: 19 today; +5 remainder of 2013; +8(?) 2014.
Also, I'm not sure we can conclude that D-IV prices go down by $60M/core. If this is essentially a royalty payment to Boeing (which it smells like, even though it is titled "inventory supply agreement") , then yes. If however that includes LV parts which Boeing paid for (had in inventory or as part of commitments to suppliers), then presumably ULA will be paying someone else that $60M/core (or some part thereof**) instead of Boeing. Impossible to tell from the available records.
* "...commencing on the earlier of (x) the consumption of the eighth such common booster core consumed on or after January 1, 2007 or (y) March 31, 2009..." Only 6 cores were consumed prior to 31-Mar-2009.
** edit: Or more. If Boeing's price/inventory was based on block buys at that time using overly-optimistic flight rates (with consequent discounts, which have subsequently evaporated), and Boeing was simply attemptiog to recoup those costs, D-IV cost/price could increase. Which is likely given GAO projections.
-
The more other launch providers either delay or fail (for whatever reason) the more respect I have for ULA.
Those prices don't seem that bad.
World's best launch contractor and will be for a long time.
If you want a good price you need to block buy. That's the clear message here and it's smart business.
Why therefore does it seem to be a hobby by some space enthusiasts to run ULA down?
-
Why therefore does it seem to be a hobby by some space enthusiasts to run ULA down?
ULA is perceived to be a monopoly. The only people who typically like monopolies are those who profit from them.
- Ed Kyle
-
Why therefore does it seem to be a hobby by some space enthusiasts to run ULA down?
ULA is perceived to be a monopoly. The only people who typically like monopolies are those who profit from them.
A monopoly in what market? Certainly not the commercial launch market.
-
Selling the EELV sized payloads to the DOD and NASA. Outside of ISS resupply SpaceX and Orbital have yet to on ramp. But you know that already.
-
Selling the EELV sized payloads to the DOD and NASA.
A government monopoly selling to the government. That's not exactly unusual.
-
It's all the rave. Like how it has become a hobby to prop SpaceX on a pedestal no matter what.
The more other launch providers either delay or fail (for whatever reason) the more respect I have for ULA.
Those prices don't seem that bad.
World's best launch contractor and will be for a long time.
If you want a good price you need to block buy. That's the clear message here and it's smart business.
Why therefore does it seem to be a hobby by some space enthusiasts to run ULA down?
-
Non-ULA launchers that get U.S. government business just off the top of my head.
Falcon 9
Falcon Heavy
Minotaur V
Pegasus
Antares
Obviously Falcon Heavy is the only real competitor for large GEO Sats and it doesn't exist yet.
There's nothing that prevents any aerospace company from building a launcher that can get a 6-8mt payload to GTO. You don't even need a launch pad on the ground as Sea Launch has shown.
-
Non-ULA launchers that get U.S. government business just off the top of my head.
Falcon 9
Falcon Heavy
Minotaur V
Pegasus
Antares
Well, yeah. The typically way you claim someone is a monopolist is to define the "applicable market" so narrowly that they're the only significant competitor left.
-
So those $60m per core are included in the 1.088bn?
-
...
USAF:
* Atlas V 401
* Atlas V 501
* Delta IVM 4,2
* Delta IVM 5,4
Fourth X-37B flight? I only see the 501 used for X-37B and FIA radar, which would have been NRO. And the fist bird flew twice, so it would be fitting to give the second one a chance of reuse.
Speculation:
USAF:
* Atlas V 401 GPS-IIF-7 ?
* Atlas V 501 As suggested by other posters, another OTV?
* Delta IVM 4,2 AFSPC-4 ?
* Delta IVM 5,4 WGS-7 ?
NRO:
* Atlas 401 NROL-33 ?
* Atlas 541 NROL-67 ?
* Delta IVM 5,2 ??
-
AFSPC-4, NROL-33 and NROL-67 are not concerned : they were already included in the Jan 2012 batch.
See there : http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1201/18eelvbuy/
-
...
USAF:
* Atlas V 401
* Atlas V 501
* Delta IVM 4,2
* Delta IVM 5,4
Fourth X-37B flight? I only see the 501 used for X-37B and FIA radar, which would have been NRO. And the fist bird flew twice, so it would be fitting to give the second one a chance of reuse.
Speculation:
USAF:
* Atlas V 401 GPS-IIF-7 ?
* Atlas V 501 As suggested by other posters, another OTV?
* Delta IVM 4,2 AFSPC-4 ?
* Delta IVM 5,4 WGS-7 ?
NRO:
* Atlas 401 NROL-33 ?
* Atlas 541 NROL-67 ?
* Delta IVM 5,2 ??
The new buy is for missions 3 to 5 years out, 2016 and beyond.
-
Thanks for the info gentlemen.
I'll speculate further in that case (just guesswork and not wanting to go off topic)
Speculation:
USAF:
* Atlas V 401 GPS-IIF-8, SBIRS GEO 3 or 4 ?
* Atlas V 501 As suggested by other posters, another OTV?
* Delta IVM 4,2 AFSPC-6 ? (AFSPC-5 is on an Atlas)
* Delta IVM 5,4 WGS-7 ?
NRO:
* Atlas 401 NROL-79 ?
* Atlas 541 NROL-42 ?
* Delta IVM 5,2 No idea at all ?
-
Non-ULA launchers that get U.S. government business just off the top of my head.
Falcon 9
Falcon Heavy
Minotaur V
Pegasus
Antares
Obviously Falcon Heavy is the only real competitor for large GEO Sats and it doesn't exist yet.
There's nothing that prevents any aerospace company from building a launcher that can get a 6-8mt payload to GTO. You don't even need a launch pad on the ground as Sea Launch has shown.
ULA has something that newcomers don't have, which is an ongoing contract that includes massive annual funding whether any launches occur and an ongoing close relationship with the USAF and NRO.
- Ed Kyle
-
Maybe OT but any thoughts on AF payloads needing a generic "AFSPC" description?
The Intel birds are definitively in NRO's lane and launched on NROL designations and all other AF payloads are acknowledged (GPS, AEHF, SBIRs, even OTV)... ???
-
So those $60m per core are included in the 1.088bn?
No, based on projected D-IV launches ULA will be paid up in 2014; per Jim's post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32284.msg1071046#msg1071046) these launches are after 2014.