Big (really big) increases in NASA EELV costs are coming

[Blackstar]

NASA has been negotiating a new NASA Launch Services agreement with ULA over the Atlas and Delta vehicles.  I believe the time horizon for this is rockets for launches starting around 2016. 

The costs are going up.  WAY up.

Wait and be amazed.

[SpacexULA]

Why would the cost rise dramatically?

[Blackstar]

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101216-costs-cloud-planetary-program.html

"In September, NASA awarded a second set of NLS contracts to Denver-based Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va., Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, Calif., and United Launch Alliance of Littleton, Colo. Prices in the second NLS contract round are “significantly higher” than the prices included in the first, Green said. He declined to reveal specific prices.

“We are surprised at how extensive those cost increases are,” he said. “You start to wonder where we go from here. How do we get out of low-Earth orbit on a regular basis?”"

Wait until you learn about the prices.

[jimvela]

Wait until you learn about the prices.

And somewhere in Hawthorne, a phone starts ringing...

[Blackstar]

Wait until you learn about the prices.

And somewhere in Hawthorne, a phone starts ringing...

Doesn't solve the problem.

[M_Puckett]

Might start solving them. 

Raptor might happen sooner rather than later.

[Lee Jay]

Wait until you learn about the prices.

And somewhere in Hawthorne, a phone starts ringing...

To ask why the prices are going up?

"In September, NASA awarded a second set of NLS contracts to...Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, Calif.,..."

[Robotbeat]

...
The costs are going up.  WAY up.

Wait and be amazed.

For just Atlas and Delta? Or also Falcon 9 and Taurus II?

[Jorge]

...
The costs are going up.  WAY up.

Wait and be amazed.

For just Atlas and Delta? Or also Falcon 9 and Taurus II?

Falcon and Taurus are not EELVs.

[Robotbeat]

...
The costs are going up.  WAY up.

Wait and be amazed.

For just Atlas and Delta? Or also Falcon 9 and Taurus II?

Falcon and Taurus are not EELVs.

I realize that, but I wanted to know if Falcon 9 and Taurus II prices were also slated for a large price increase.

If Falcon 9 gets a couple more successful launches and can be transitioned to routine operations, SpaceX may have a real opportunity on its hands since Delta II is out of the picture. Two successful launches in a row is a pretty good start. Especially the latest launch which was a lot more complex (a bunch of nanosats successfully deployed, a second stage restart putting the empty stage in GTO, not to mention the amazing Dragon performance) and showed they can fix problems once they are identified and are able to be fairly resilient to them (the second stage non-restart for the first flight would've been pretty disastrous for any non-LEO NASA probe missions, though).

It's a little sad that the EELV prices have risen so much. I would like to know exactly why and exactly what the prices are.

[marsavian]

Well that's why COTS put the accent on new cheap LVs. There should be opportunities for both SpaceX and Orbital going forward.

[robertross]

I can't wait to see the revised cost estimates for SLS then, along with Atlas phase II/III.

Perhaps this has more to do with expected (and typical) aerospace inflation, rather than low launch rates

[Malderi]

Are these NLS costs (i.e., specifically NASA's costs), or are ULA et al.'s costs in general going up, including those for non-governmental entities?

[Antares]

It's not (entirely) ULA's fault.  The biggest source of the increase is the uncertainty of the SSME contract, which was footing the bill for most of PWR's overhead.  Other suppliers are similarly affected by low launch rate, but not to the effect the engine costs have.  Cost and demonstrable reliability are about to collide in ELVs.

[nooneofconsequence]

Vertical vs horizontal business model. SpaceX eats its own dog food - so the engines they manufacture are linked to LV cost directly. ULA relies on key suppliers - no linkage, subject to fluctuation from other issues.

For many cases, this won't matter because those payloads are already tied to existing LV's / demonstrated capabilities. Nor will it matter with a large enough commitment for volume - thats what restores the stability to costs.

But then ... if budgets/projects commitments become uncertain (frequency) ... if future projections of launch costs are in flux (new vendors/processes/reuse/...) ... it would be easy to become locked into the wrong contract. A highly unstable situation. Next few years promise to be less, not more stable.

Most likely is reduced volume/frequency of ULA launchers as they occupy the top of the cost pyramid. Key item to avoid is a classic "cost spiral" between govt/ULA LV efforts where they ratchet up costs because they alternately attempt to absorb each others uncertainties, summarily reducing volume of each (given HSF only). A financial shock wave of Shuttle program conclusion.

There are other issues here too feeding into costs rising. Too many gambles going long and growing uncertain.

[ugordan]

It's not (entirely) ULA's fault.  The biggest source of the increase is the uncertainty of the SSME contract, which was footing the bill for most of PWR's overhead.

Does that imply EELV are hostages to the RL-10 they use or is the cause for the increases much more complex?

[EE Scott]

Argh....I wonder what that means to future robotic exploration missions.  Perhaps some may have to be de-contented to make it back into budget. 

[Ben the Space Brit]

It's not (entirely) ULA's fault.  The biggest source of the increase is the uncertainty of the SSME contract, which was footing the bill for most of PWR's overhead.

Does that imply EELV are hostages to the RL-10 they use or is the cause for the increases much more complex?

I would imagine that another issue is RS-68.  Under the old PoR, SSME at least got replaced with the RS-68B (Regen) and J-2X.  That isn't certain any more so PWR have to reconsider their price structure.  Yes, that means more expensive RL-10s but also means more expensive RS-68As and, possibly, an alteration to their estimated costs for building RD-180 under license.

Jim, if you've got a moment, how big is ULA's stockpile of RD-180s? I'm thinking that a possible way to offset this would be to start work on the production line now, partly paid for by CCDev cash.  However, if there are still lots of RD-180s left, it wouldn't be worth it.

[DGH]

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101216-costs-cloud-planetary-program.html

"In September, NASA awarded a second set of NLS contracts to Denver-based Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va., Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, Calif., and United Launch Alliance of Littleton, Colo. Prices in the second NLS contract round are “significantly higher” than the prices included in the first, Green said. He declined to reveal specific prices.

“We are surprised at how extensive those cost increases are,” he said. “You start to wonder where we go from here. How do we get out of low-Earth orbit on a regular basis?”"

Wait until you learn about the prices.

Your headline is IMO extremely misleading.

Your quote includes both SpaceX and Orbital not just the EELVs.

Personally I put much of the blame on NASA.

NASA wants a small number of rockets from several companies with no firm commitment on the number of rockets per year and they expect them fast when they order them.
No better way to get high prices.

[Nomadd]

“We are surprised at how extensive those cost increases are,” he said. “You start to wonder where we go from here. How do we get out of low-Earth orbit on a regular basis?”"

 Proton?