-
#600 by Chris Bergin on 22 May, 2009 01:02
-
Oh very nice indeed!
Meanwhile, the Air Force are happy...
http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123150517 -
#601 by kevin-rf on 22 May, 2009 13:12
-
Due to U.S. Capitol Police regulations, they could NOT use a tripod (!)
And we are safer for that
Great shots, thankyou and them for sharing. So how did they hold the camera steady? Or is that Itar'd 
-
#602 by antonioe on 23 May, 2009 13:12
-
O.K. - Here's the list of the Orbital People that launched TACSAT-3:
Electrical: Kathryn Miller (Avionics lead and Vehicle Manager, call sign VM), Chennault Slaughter, Justin Makinen, my fellow basques Rocio Jauregui and Rick Arvizu, Joe Taliva'a, Rob Czeranko, Bill Kellett and contract employees Marcus Cole and Travis Parker.
Mechanical: Eric Draves (Mechanical lead, call sign ME), Mike Rempe (Launch Pad Chief, call sign PAD), Kevin Alber, Richard Dail, Steve Rabideau, JD Martin, Larry Nelson and Bill Nelson.
Systems: Kelly Fitzpatrick, Ken Gregory and Matt Orlando.
GNC: Dan Cheke, Brian Reich (Call sign GCN) and Joseph Kokes.
Ordnance: Mike Powers and Zachary Adland.
Safety/QA/Other: Michael Riley, Dan Varner, Brandon Thau, Dana Frederic, the indefaticable Karl Seelandt (Launch Conductor, call sign LC - other vehicles call that position “TC”), Frank Lopez, Mike Motola (Chief Engineer, call sign CE), Kevin Wilder (Program Manager and backup LC, call sign LCA) and my very good and old friend Dan Givens.
I hope I have not missed anyone. Thanks and well done to all!
As you can see, a total of 35 people traveled from either Chandler or Vandenberg: the first ones arrived at Wallops March 23, the last ones will depart Wallops today, Saturday May 23 (after packing and cleaning up) for a well-deserved Memorial Day weekend with their families.
Not everybody was there all the time: looking at their travel matrix, I count 1157 person-days (including travel) for an average team size of only 19 people during the entire 62-day campaign. the average stay at Wallops was 33 days, not in a single stretch (most people came back home and returned after the first try). Indeed, had the weather and the range problems not postponed the launch, the campaign would have been 51 days long, for a total of 962 person-days and an average stay of 28 days. Average team size would still have been 19 people.
You may find these statistics interesting.
-
#603 by Spiff on 27 May, 2009 09:59
-
You may find these statistics interesting.
Yes I do. They're giving me a nice rough insight in the actual costs of a launch campaign and the cost of any delays.
Very rough, but to an amateur like me it's nice to get at least some actual cost data.
-
#604 by antonioe on 27 May, 2009 10:27
-
Just be careful extrapolating this data to other vehicles/circumstances; this is more in the vein of "the art of the possible". It represents the culmination of the "Keep It Simple, Stupid" small solid-motor approach that started with Scout in the 60's and 70's and culminated in Pegasus and Minotaur in the 90's and 00's.
You go to liquids, especially large liquids, and the bets are off.
-
#605 by Spiff on 27 May, 2009 11:14
-
Yes, I had a feeling the numbers were a bit low. Which is good for you and your business obviously.
Of course there are other major cost driving factors of which I have admittedly no idea about how high they might be. To name a few:
Manufacturing costs
Payload integration costs
Range rental fees
Amortization on development costs
All kinds of general management and commercial overhead costs
Etc. etc. etc.
Truth is, I don't have the slightest idea about the true cost of any launch. But the data you provided gives me at least some things to clutch onto.
-
#606 by antonioe on 27 May, 2009 14:32
-
Back 10-15 years ago, the cost of launch averaged anywhere between 50% to 100% of the cost of the spacecraft. Indeed, a classical "Mission Costs Rule of Thumb" used to say there are five nearly-equal pieces of the pie: Spacecraft Bus, Instrument(s), Launch, Ground Equipment and the Systems Engineering/Program Management glue that hold it together.
That is no longer true.
Today, ratios of 10:1 in the cost of spacecraft:cost of launch are not uncommon; two examples: the first SBRS GEO spacecraft will cost over $2B, and ride on a $175M EELV. The first Minotaur IV, priced around $50M, will launch the SBSS spaceraft that cost over $500M.
I don't know the cost of the TACSAT-3 spacecraft, but it probably was several times what Orbital got for that launch!!!
Corollary 1: while given two identical rockets with identical reliability and performance customers will prefer the cheaper one ("relative price elasticity" is high) a FREE rocket will not increase the demand for rockets more than 10-20%, given the cost of the rest of the mission ("absolute price elasticity" is very low.)
Corollary 2: customers will gladly pay a significant premium on the launch service if it is PERCEIVED to increase its reliability in any significant amount.
These are two lessons we learned the hard way.
-
#607 by antonioe on 27 May, 2009 17:44
-
Update: according to AW&ST the TACSAT-3 spacecraft cost more than 5x the Minotaur 1 that launched it.
Given that flight operations add to this cost, a FREE launch would have reduced the TACSAT-3 mission cost by less than 20%!
And that is for a low-cost spacecraft!!! -
#608 by Spiff on 28 May, 2009 12:29
-
I'm glad to hear you say that. There always seem to be a lot of people on internet fora claiming that 'we must develop a low cost mass produced booster that will dramatically decrease launch costs and therefore increase flight rates and that this will lead to the final commercialization of space!' or some such words.
Not true of course, and your words prove it. Not only because launch costs are a 'minor' item in the budget of any space mission, but also because
1) if it had been true it would already have happened, and
2) it's a case of switching cause and effect. The cause is the market for satellites, the effect is the market for launchers. Not vice versa.
If there would be a good reason (read: a way to make lots of money) to launch many more satellites to LEO, GEO, or whereever then this <MIGHT> lead to lower launch costs due to higher flight rates. But the price elasticity example that you provide already tells us that it won't be as impressive as some people like to dream it will be.
Good to hear from a pro that my amateur views weren't too far off the mark.
Well anyway, just my 2 cents. I guess it doesn't even belong in this topic so I'll shut up now.
-
#609 by pippin on 28 May, 2009 13:24
-
Corollary 1: while given two identical rockets with identical reliability and performance customers will prefer the cheaper one ("relative price elasticity" is high) a FREE rocket will not increase the demand for rockets more than 10-20%, given the cost of the rest of the mission ("absolute price elasticity" is very low.)
Antonio,
while I see your general point taken to extremes this is definitely wrong.
If you give me FREE rockets (OK: FREE launches) I guarantee you that I will personally double your 56 launch track record although I can not guarantee you that all of the stuff you will be launching for me is really space-worthy
-
#610 by pippin on 28 May, 2009 13:28
-
2) it's a case of switching cause and effect. The cause is the market for satellites, the effect is the market for launchers. Not vice versa.
Wrong. They are mutually dependent. See my example above at one extreme (and I'm serious: give me free launches and I'll fill them) and the other extreme is equally obvious (if you have no launch capability at any ost you will not have launches). So the whole question is: how does the elasticity function in between look like. -
#611 by antonioe on 29 May, 2009 11:19
-
If you give me FREE rockets (OK: FREE launches) I guarantee you that I will personally double your 56 launch track record although I can not guarantee you that all of the stuff you will be launching for me is really space-worthy
Yeah, I see your point; there are several individuals within my company that come to mind...
-
#612 by kevin-rf on 29 May, 2009 12:44
-
Yeah, I see your point; there are several individuals within my company that come to mind...
Chosing words out of Joe Bidens play book I see Where did that teleprompter go again?
-
#613 by Satori on 09 Jun, 2009 13:52
-
Hi!
I'm writing an article about this launch and I need the exact launch time in format 2355:00,XXXUTC. Did anyone managed to get it? I know that on the launch video we can ear a technitian saying the launch time but is voice gets confuse by the launch comentator.
Any help is apreciated, thanks!
Great shots, thankyou and them for sharing. So how did they hold the camera steady? Or is that Itar'd 
