-
#140
by
edkyle99
on 19 Apr, 2011 14:44
-
No. That's only since the ELC contract has been in place, and the ELC contract is with the DoD not NASA. The share of the ELC for non-DoD customers is added to the price of the launch contract or task order, be it another government customer or a commercial customer.
ELC has been in place since, what, 2005? Prior to that the costs were eaten by the contractors, presumably, but the costs still existed.
It doesn't matter if DoD pays or NASA pays or if the contractor writes it off. The end result is still the same. It is money spent to launch rockets - and the grand total is a lot more than the usually-quoted sums.
- Ed Kyle
No, when NASA or commercial customer quotes a price it includes ELC.
So the Atlas 401 for MAVEN cost NASA (last year) $187 million, $140 million for ELC and only $47 million for the rocket?
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/oct/HQ_C10-065_Maven_Services.html - Ed Kyle
-
#141
by
Jim
on 19 Apr, 2011 15:27
-
No. That's only since the ELC contract has been in place, and the ELC contract is with the DoD not NASA. The share of the ELC for non-DoD customers is added to the price of the launch contract or task order, be it another government customer or a commercial customer.
ELC has been in place since, what, 2005? Prior to that the costs were eaten by the contractors, presumably, but the costs still existed.
It doesn't matter if DoD pays or NASA pays or if the contractor writes it off. The end result is still the same. It is money spent to launch rockets - and the grand total is a lot more than the usually-quoted sums.
- Ed Kyle
No, when NASA or commercial customer quotes a price it includes ELC.
So the Atlas 401 for MAVEN cost NASA (last year) $187 million, $140 million for ELC and only $47 million for the rocket?
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/oct/HQ_C10-065_Maven_Services.html
- Ed Kyle
It is the marginal cost of the ELC
-
#142
by
baldusi
on 19 Apr, 2011 16:41
-
It is the marginal cost of the ELC
The Marginal Cost or the Average cost considering that launch? I was under the impression that it was the new average (ELC/(n+1)). It's very difficult to calculate a MgC of a mostly fixed price.
-
#143
by
edkyle99
on 20 Apr, 2011 00:27
-
It is the marginal cost of the ELC
The Marginal Cost or the Average cost considering that launch? I was under the impression that it was the new average (ELC/(n+1)). It's very difficult to calculate a MgC of a mostly fixed price.
ULA got $928 million for ELC in FY2010. During FY2010, ULA launched nine EELVs, but one of those may have been a planned FY2009 flight. The per-launch ELC average for $928 million (the marginal cost?) would be $103 million over nine flights, $116 million over eight, or $132.6 million over seven flights.
That seems to indicate that the ELS (launch services) per-flight total accounts for less than half of the total launch costs. I presume there are pro-rating factors for Heavies versus Mediums, etc., that complicate things more than I've suggested here, but recall that there were no Heavies during FY2010.
- Ed Kyle
-
#144
by
joek
on 20 Apr, 2011 00:46
-
---snip---
So the Atlas 401 for MAVEN cost NASA (last year) $187 million, $140 million for ELC and only $47 million for the rocket?
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/oct/HQ_C10-065_Maven_Services.html
Is that true for NASA missions today?
Currently, DOD pays the entire launch infrastructure cost for EELVs. However, NASA may be required to pay a share of costs associated with base support and infrastructure for EELVs after 2012. ... If the decision is made to have NASA share in the funding for launch services infrastructure, we estimate that it could result in an average increase of $100 million for each NASA EELV mission (see Appendix B).
http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11/IG-11-012.pdf
-
#145
by
baldusi
on 20 Apr, 2011 01:36
-
That's my point. The Marginal Cost, would be the added cost of ELC for the additional mission. If I understand it right, it's basically zero. What they charge, is a prorata share of the ELC. This is a burden that takes the EELV out of the market. First because the ELC is sized for assured access to space, and thus includes both CC and Vandenberg, both Atlas and Delta and the heavy delta. Which for commercial quite probably would only need the Atlas at CC part, and unfairly have to pay for Van and Delta extra cost.
But more importantly. Let's say that without the ELC price, the EELV were competitive. Now, let's say that they have 9 govt and 9 commercial launches, the prorata of the ELC would be around 51M (928M / 18), and that price they could get the 9 launches per year (all hypotetical, I'm making a point). But each time someone ask for a quotation, they have to quote the 928/10 share of the ELC. So nobody signs the first contract, and thus you can never achieve the commercially competitive price.
What I'm basically saying, is that the very way that the DOD charges for ELC, might be one of the reasons for the commercial failure of the EELV.
-
#146
by
Jim
on 20 Apr, 2011 01:39
-
No, that is not how it works. It is not prorata. It is a fixed amount.
-
#147
by
Halidon
on 20 Apr, 2011 01:47
-
Hmmm, I wonder if Musk and Mueller would swallow their pride and use someone else's engine.... (jeopardy music).... No, I think they'd buy the company instead.
Max Vozoff has said SpaceX would be happy to, if the product was superior and the price was fair (in SpaceX's eyes).
-
#148
by
Antares
on 20 Apr, 2011 01:54
-
1) The Marginal Cost, would be the added cost of ELC for the additional mission. If I understand it right, it's basically zero.
2) But each time someone ask for a quotation, they have to quote the 928/10 share of the ELC. So nobody signs the first contract, and thus you can never achieve the commercially competitive price.
3) What I'm basically saying, is that the very way that the DOD charges for ELC, might be one of the reasons for the commercial failure of the EELV.
1) Not true. All of the procured components, which are driving the recent increases, would be in the marginal cost. This would include engines, avionics, sensors, raw materials, batteries, ordnance, solids, etc.
2) Yes, AIUI.
3) EELV were mostly priced out of the market prior to ELC.
-
#149
by
baldusi
on 20 Apr, 2011 19:53
-
1) The Marginal Cost, would be the added cost of ELC for the additional mission. If I understand it right, it's basically zero.
2) But each time someone ask for a quotation, they have to quote the 928/10 share of the ELC. So nobody signs the first contract, and thus you can never achieve the commercially competitive price.
3) What I'm basically saying, is that the very way that the DOD charges for ELC, might be one of the reasons for the commercial failure of the EELV.
1) Not true. All of the procured components, which are driving the recent increases, would be in the marginal cost. This would include engines, avionics, sensors, raw materials, batteries, ordnance, solids, etc.
2) Yes, AIUI.
3) EELV were mostly priced out of the market prior to ELC.
1) I might have older information. But I understand that ULA had an ELC and an ELS. The ELC is the capabilities for X launches from CC and Y launches from Vandenberg. I've taken that information from
this article. Each launch is is handled through the ELS. So the price quoted is ELC/N (with N the number of launches, included the quoted) plus the cost according to ELS of each launch. So the MgC of the Launch is the cost according to the ELS. But the MgC of the ELC portion, should be zero, since is the minimum capability guaranteed.
3) That's possible, but they were also encumbered with the requirements of certain capabilities. It's very difficult if you cater to the most exquisite clientele, to price your product so you also are the price leader. Ariane haven't had an easy time doing it, they had to be subsidized, and they don't offer the flexibility nor scalability of the EELV program (at least, not yet).
No, that is not how it works. It is not prorata. It is a fixed amount.
Can you elaborate on how is it calculated such a fixed amount?
-
#150
by
joek
on 20 Apr, 2011 22:45
-
1) The Marginal Cost, would be the added cost of ELC for the additional mission. If I understand it right, it's basically zero.
2) But each time someone ask for a quotation, they have to quote the 928/10 share of the ELC. So nobody signs the first contract, and thus you can never achieve the commercially competitive price.
3) What I'm basically saying, is that the very way that the DOD charges for ELC, might be one of the reasons for the commercial failure of the EELV.
1) Not true. All of the procured components, which are driving the recent increases, would be in the marginal cost. This would include engines, avionics, sensors, raw materials, batteries, ordnance, solids, etc.
2) Yes, AIUI.
3) EELV were mostly priced out of the market prior to ELC.
1) I might have older information. But I understand that ULA had an ELC and an ELS. The ELC is the capabilities for X launches from CC and Y launches from Vandenberg. I've taken that information from this article. Each launch is is handled through the ELS. So the price quoted is ELC/N (with N the number of launches, included the quoted) plus the cost according to ELS of each launch. So the MgC of the Launch is the cost according to the ELS. But the MgC of the ELC portion, should be zero, since is the minimum capability guaranteed.
3) That's possible, but they were also encumbered with the requirements of certain capabilities. It's very difficult if you cater to the most exquisite clientele, to price your product so you also are the price leader. Ariane haven't had an easy time doing it, they had to be subsidized, and they don't offer the flexibility nor scalability of the EELV program (at least, not yet).
No, that is not how it works. It is not prorata. It is a fixed amount.
Can you elaborate on how is it calculated such a fixed amount?
1.
A nit but important to note: ELS contracts awarded to ULA; ELC contracts awarded to Boeing and LM. Different animals; different contract rules; different goals. [edit: ULA has ELC contract, per notherspacexfan link in post below.]
2. That appears to be an incorrect assumption. ELC provides base capability for infrastructure and is paid for by DoD. NASA missions are not charged for it (but may change in 2012); DoD missions are not charged for it (at least directly); commercial customers weren't charged for it (at least as of 2008).
1,2I have no idea how incremental costs above the minimum number of launches provided by ELC to ensure DoD capabilities are charged or amortized, but it does not appear as simple as $ELC/#launches. Given the difference between ELC and ELS, I expect it's more "You [Boeing,LM] get $X for ELC to guarantee Y DoD launches. If Y+N launches costs more than provided for by ELC, then you negotiate with the launch service provider."
23. See (2).
1 A Review of Costs of US Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV), NASA KSC, Feb 2008.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/EELV_main.htmFor a commercial customer the infrastructure subsidy can be expected to lower the price, as it is picked up by the Air Force. For NASA this too applies, as the launch provider does not attempt to recover this cost for the Air Force via any other customers, even if government. [sec 5, pg. 7]
2 Based on NASA figures, incremental cost above that provided by ELC is at best zero, and at worst noise. c.f.,
Review of NASA’S Acquisition of Commercial Launch Services, NASA IG, Feb 2011.
http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11/IG-11-012.pdfCurrently, DOD pays the entire launch pad infrastructure cost for EELVs such as the Atlas V, vehicles capable of carrying intermediate and larger payloads. However, the U.S. Government does not provide the same financial support for small- and medium-class launch vehicles. Without Government funding for infrastructure such as launch pads, most U.S. vehicles will remain too expensive to compete with similar vehicles provided by other nations. [pg 4]
Currently, DOD pays the entire launch infrastructure cost for EELVs. However, NASA may be required to pay a share of costs associated with base support and infrastructure for EELVs after 2012. ... If the decision is made to have NASA share in the funding for launch services infrastructure, we estimate that it could result in an average increase of $100 million for each NASA EELV mission (see Appendix B). [pg 11-12]
edit: add relevant quotes and specific section/page references.
-
#151
by
Jim
on 20 Apr, 2011 23:47
-
The first source is not valid. He is not in LSP
-
#152
by
notherspacexfan
on 21 Apr, 2011 00:09
-
-
#153
by
joek
on 21 Apr, 2011 00:19
-
1. A nit but important to note: ELS contracts awarded to ULA; ELC contracts awarded to Boeing and LM. Different animals; different contract rules; different goals.
This seems to show ULA getting an extension to an ELC:
http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4503
What am I missing?
You didn't miss anything. I missed it Duh. I was looking at 2009-2010 contracts. Thanks for the pointer.
-
#154
by
joek
on 21 Apr, 2011 01:07
-
The first source is not valid. He is not in LSP
Point taken; the author seems to have... ummm... some strong opinions.
However, the relevant quote seems straightforward and consistent with other information. Specifically: ELC costs are--today for NASA and recently for commercial launches--
not represented in launch service costs (ELS, NLS, etc.)
Is that a correct interpretation? Pointers to other publicly available data that would provide more insight? Thanks.
-
#155
by
edkyle99
on 21 Apr, 2011 01:52
-
The first source is not valid. He is not in LSP
Point taken; the author seems to have... ummm... some strong opinions.
However, the relevant quote seems straightforward and consistent with other information. Specifically: ELC costs are--today for NASA and recently for commercial launches--not represented in launch service costs (ELS, NLS, etc.)
Is that a correct interpretation? Pointers to other publicly available data that would provide more insight? Thanks.
This is the question!!! It doesn't matter if NASA or commercial users really pay the true ELC part of the cost.
Someone will pay the total, true cost of launching these rockets - like the $300 million mentioned for an intermediate size Atlas V launch, and that someone is the U.S. Government.
- Ed Kyle
-
#156
by
baldusi
on 21 Apr, 2011 23:23
-
But the whole point is if the commercial clients have to pay a share of the ELC or not. I'm completely confused. Jim first said they had to pay a fixed amount. Then said that not. Since he's so cryptic (probably ITAR related), does anyone else can find an authoritative source?
-
#157
by
edkyle99
on 23 Apr, 2011 02:07
-
-
#158
by
Downix
on 23 Apr, 2011 02:20
-
-
#159
by
Jim
on 23 Apr, 2011 02:50
-
RL-10C is new. Delta III used the B and DC-X used something completely different.