-
ULA and Monopoly discussions
by
Jim
on 16 Apr, 2011 17:57
-
I don't understand why people complain about the so called ULA monopoly on national security launches. Look at history.
Martin Marietta had it with T-IIIB, C, and D.
NASA had it with the shuttle
LM had it with Titan IV class missions (and it had Atlas II)
.
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?
-
#1
by
pummuf
on 16 Apr, 2011 18:02
-
I don't understand why people complain about the so called ULA monopoly on national security launches. Look at history.
Martin Marietta had it with T-IIIB, C, and D.
NASA had it with the shuttle
LM had it with Titan IV class missions (and it had Atlas II)
.
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?
What's wrong with monopolies? You have to ask?
-
#2
by
mmeijeri
on 16 Apr, 2011 18:06
-
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?
Maybe all of these were wrong. But is it really a monopoly? DoD needs assured access to space and that comes at a price. The ELC was awarded competitively and has a finite duration, so it has to be renewed and recompeted every n years. The market may be too small at the moment to support multiple simultaneous suppliers, but that could change if NASA switches to commercial transport.
-
#3
by
Andy USA
on 16 Apr, 2011 18:10
-
I don't understand why people complain about the so called ULA monopoly on national security launches. Look at history.
Martin Marietta had it with T-IIIB, C, and D.
NASA had it with the shuttle
LM had it with Titan IV class missions (and it had Atlas II)
.
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?
I've done a search and absolutely no one has made this claim on this site. Not one person.
-
#4
by
Downix
on 16 Apr, 2011 18:13
-
I don't understand why people complain about the so called ULA monopoly on national security launches. Look at history.
Martin Marietta had it with T-IIIB, C, and D.
NASA had it with the shuttle
LM had it with Titan IV class missions (and it had Atlas II)
.
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?
What's wrong with monopolies? You have to ask?
It depends on what the monopoly is for. Some areas, where there is a large market demand, a monopoly stifles growth of the market, such as Bell Telephone which limited communications growth. Upon its breakup, you had the rapid rise of cellular phones, computer modems, and the internet.
However, in a market with limited potential, like electrical access to the home (cannot realistically ask for home manufacturers to wire up a home for the potentially hundreds or thousands of potential electrical plugs, wiring systems, etc of a true open market) then a monopoly with regulation makes perfect sense.
So, which do you classify ULA? Is lift technology in such demand that multiple vendors are going to be viable?
From my viewpoint, I do not see enough demand for a full open market at this time. Frankly, I don't see enough demand for more than 2-3 vendors, with one handling huge industrial and the other two handling innovation. This is the initial compromise for Bell Telephone, with MCI and GTE being the smaller innovative companies. I see ULA in much the same position as Bell, providing a fixed basis to then innovate off of.
-
#5
by
robertross
on 16 Apr, 2011 18:23
-
-
#6
by
pummuf
on 16 Apr, 2011 18:29
-
I don't understand why people complain about the so called ULA monopoly on national security launches. Look at history.
Martin Marietta had it with T-IIIB, C, and D.
NASA had it with the shuttle
LM had it with Titan IV class missions (and it had Atlas II)
.
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?
What's wrong with monopolies? You have to ask?
It depends on what the monopoly is for. Some areas, where there is a large market demand, a monopoly stifles growth of the market, such as Bell Telephone which limited communications growth. Upon its breakup, you had the rapid rise of cellular phones, computer modems, and the internet.
However, in a market with limited potential, like electrical access to the home (cannot realistically ask for home manufacturers to wire up a home for the potentially hundreds or thousands of potential electrical plugs, wiring systems, etc of a true open market) then a monopoly with regulation makes perfect sense.
So, which do you classify ULA? Is lift technology in such demand that multiple vendors are going to be viable?
From my viewpoint, I do not see enough demand for a full open market at this time. Frankly, I don't see enough demand for more than 2-3 vendors, with one handling huge industrial and the other two handling innovation. This is the initial compromise for Bell Telephone, with MCI and GTE being the smaller innovative companies. I see ULA in much the same position as Bell, providing a fixed basis to then innovate off of.
When monopolies are granted they generally come with regulatory oversight, such as with public utilities. Your electric company does
not get to charge whatever they want, like PWR is doing with the RL10 now.
This is in the context of capitalism, where corporations exist to make money. The government wants to launch satellites. The launch providers are owned by shareholders who demand a return on their investment. The two have different motivations. There has to be a mechanism to govern that relationship - preferably competition among the launch providers. Without competition, you see higher costs and less advancement in the state of the art. There are exceptions, of course, which is why NASA pays to develop certain things. Sill, the best intentions in the world can't match competition as a motivator. Even the old USSR had competing design bureaus.
-
#7
by
Downix
on 16 Apr, 2011 19:06
-
I don't understand why people complain about the so called ULA monopoly on national security launches. Look at history.
Martin Marietta had it with T-IIIB, C, and D.
NASA had it with the shuttle
LM had it with Titan IV class missions (and it had Atlas II)
.
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?
What's wrong with monopolies? You have to ask?
It depends on what the monopoly is for. Some areas, where there is a large market demand, a monopoly stifles growth of the market, such as Bell Telephone which limited communications growth. Upon its breakup, you had the rapid rise of cellular phones, computer modems, and the internet.
However, in a market with limited potential, like electrical access to the home (cannot realistically ask for home manufacturers to wire up a home for the potentially hundreds or thousands of potential electrical plugs, wiring systems, etc of a true open market) then a monopoly with regulation makes perfect sense.
So, which do you classify ULA? Is lift technology in such demand that multiple vendors are going to be viable?
From my viewpoint, I do not see enough demand for a full open market at this time. Frankly, I don't see enough demand for more than 2-3 vendors, with one handling huge industrial and the other two handling innovation. This is the initial compromise for Bell Telephone, with MCI and GTE being the smaller innovative companies. I see ULA in much the same position as Bell, providing a fixed basis to then innovate off of.
When monopolies are granted they generally come with regulatory oversight, such as with public utilities. Your electric company does not get to charge whatever they want, like PWR is doing with the RL10 now.
This is in the context of capitalism, where corporations exist to make money. The government wants to launch satellites. The launch providers are owned by shareholders who demand a return on their investment. The two have different motivations. There has to be a mechanism to govern that relationship - preferably competition among the launch providers. Without competition, you see higher costs and less advancement in the state of the art. There are exceptions, of course, which is why NASA pays to develop certain things. Sill, the best intentions in the world can't match competition as a motivator. Even the old USSR had competing design bureaus.
PWR, however, is not the monopoly in this case. There are options, although for them to be utilized would require time and money. ULA is developing next-generation upper stages, and if PWR prices are kept too high, this gives an opportunity for another engine company such as XCOR, Aerojet, and SpaceX to come up with a solution. I know Aerojet is more than capable, and SpaceX has discussed an US engine which is capable of doing the job but am uncertain as to it's status. XCOR has been working on a Methane engine, which so I understand could do the job as well.
-
#8
by
R.Simko
on 16 Apr, 2011 20:09
-
With monopolies you don't get the competition that drives innovation and lower prices. Too me, the question is, is there enough launch business to have more than one US launch company. If SpaceX can keep their prices low and bring in additional international commercial contracts, that can increase the amt. of launch business available.
The US use to dominate the commercial satellite launch market, it would be great to see US companies gaining back market share. Hopefully with Bigelow, there will be a growing HSF market of not only the super rich, but other countries that want to send people to space.
IMHO, if we can bring American launch prices down substantially, there can be a large enough market for more than one launch company.
-
#9
by
DarkenedOne
on 17 Apr, 2011 01:21
-
-
#10
by
sdsds
on 17 Apr, 2011 02:14
-
-
#11
by
mlorrey
on 17 Apr, 2011 21:55
-
EELV was created a) to ensure US military access to space in the event of a long shutdown of shuttle operations (as has happened twice), and b) to ensure that US launch vehicle manufacturers would not cease production due to loss of commercial launch business to lower cost russian and chinese competition, so that talent and infrastructure would remain in the US as an important strategic asset. Lockheed and Boeing (actually McDonnell Douglas at the time owned Delta production) were chosen to ensure "competition" between the two companies would, in theory, keep costs down. A statutory duopoly, not a monopoly.
In order for a third competitor to enter the EELV market, they'd have to demonstrate a sufficient record of successful launches, but obviously would not have access to national security customers in order to pay for the cost of establishing that safety record, which in economics is called a 'barrier to entry'. A third launch operator would need to either fund the cost of enough launches to reach a successful record, or get commercial or other government customers to pay for those risks. Beale was one possibility in the 90's, but they went under after spending allegedly $300 million in failing to complete development, and also ran into problems when they explored establishing a launch site in Venezuela (back before Chavez came to power), I believe, but the kicker there was, according to Beale, funding of Lockheed's Venturestar/X-33 program that drove other capital sources away from investing in Beale. Beale said that Venturestar was intentional corporate welfare to an EELV operator in order to prevent real launch competition, a statement that caused a lot of controversy (and I'm sure some folks here will chime in).
Then Lockheed and Boeing decided to merge their launch operations to "save taxpayers money" (despite the fact that launch costs continue to climb at ULA) and the merger became ULA, which as the only certified EELV operator, and given requirements on others to provide a successful launch record, was in fact, a monopoly, though not an explicitly worded one: theres the barrier to entry but no law saying nobody else can compete if they overcome that barrier to entry. SpaceX has worked to establish a successful launch record and presumably will be able to compete for EELV contracts in the future. Them entering that market niche would return that market to the condition it was in before the ULA merger: two launch operators, a duopoly, with a barrier to entry, but not a statutory exclusion of competition.
The possible entry of SpaceX into that market has clearly dawned on ULA that they need to do some serious work to cut costs. Their deal with XCOR on a hydrogen engine is a good sign that that is happening. Hopefully they will continue to act in this way to meet the lower cost competitive threat that SpaceX poses to their business.
So, while ULA was in a monopolistic position for the EELV market, that is coming to a close and the signs of burgeoning competition forcing costs down show that the free market is working as it should. If the DoD were serious about cutting costs, they'd end the cost-plus and guaranteed profit clauses of the EELV program.
-
#12
by
mmeijeri
on 17 Apr, 2011 21:58
-
If the DoD were serious about cutting costs, they'd end the cost-plus and guaranteed profit clauses of the EELV program.
They can't very well do that unilaterally and they shouldn't until there is a proven competitor. SpaceX is getting there, but it's a long way away from building up a track record comparable to that of the EELVs. Or even matching their capabilities.
-
#13
by
Jim
on 17 Apr, 2011 23:11
-
EELV was created a) to ensure US military access to space in the event of a long shutdown of shuttle operations (as has happened twice), and b) to ensure that US launch vehicle manufacturers would not cease production due to loss of commercial launch business to lower cost russian and chinese competition, so that talent and infrastructure would remain in the US as an important strategic asset. Lockheed and Boeing (actually McDonnell Douglas at the time owned Delta production) were chosen to ensure "competition" between the two companies would, in theory, keep costs down. A statutory duopoly, not a monopoly.
No, that is not the reason. The DOD had long transitioned to ELV's and divorced itself from the shuttle when the EELV program was started. EELV program was initiated to reduce the cost of launch by 1/4 and replace Delta II, Atlas II, Titan IV.
PS EELV is a specific program and only refers to two specific vehicles. It is not the same as ELv
-
#14
by
Downix
on 18 Apr, 2011 00:49
-
EELV was created a) to ensure US military access to space in the event of a long shutdown of shuttle operations (as has happened twice), and b) to ensure that US launch vehicle manufacturers would not cease production due to loss of commercial launch business to lower cost russian and chinese competition, so that talent and infrastructure would remain in the US as an important strategic asset. Lockheed and Boeing (actually McDonnell Douglas at the time owned Delta production) were chosen to ensure "competition" between the two companies would, in theory, keep costs down. A statutory duopoly, not a monopoly.
No, that is not the reason. The DOD had long transitioned to ELV's and divorced itself from the shuttle when the EELV program was started. EELV program was initiated to reduce the cost of launch by 1/4 and replace Delta II, Atlas II, Titan IV.
PS EELV is a specific program and only refers to two specific vehicles. It is not the same as ELv
*if* we utilized the EELV's at the volume predicted, the costs would be far more reasonable. We cannot sit back and complain about costs while starving them of launch opportunities.
-
#15
by
edkyle99
on 18 Apr, 2011 01:34
-
I don't understand why people complain about the so called ULA monopoly on national security launches. Look at history.
Martin Marietta had it with T-IIIB, C, and D.
NASA had it with the shuttle
LM had it with Titan IV class missions (and it had Atlas II)
.
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?
My guess is that the arrival of new SpaceX and Orbital launch vehicles, along with ULA cost and price increases, are the reason. These newcomers might offer realistic competition for future DoD EELV-class contracts.
Until now, the only contract winners for medium to big payload DoD contracts were essentially the original guys who handled the work prior to the post-Challenger opening of commercial launch services. These original guys were the original winners of the IRBM and ICBM contracts. What was once Convair (General Dynamics), Martin (Marietta), and (McDonnell) Douglas is now just United Launch Alliance.
The new guys, or at least one of the new guys, want a shot. If they succeed in jumping through all of the proper hoops, they should get it - a chance to fairly compete for contracts. I look forward to that competition, which should, no matter who wins, be good for the nation.
- Ed Kyle
-
#16
by
DarkenedOne
on 18 Apr, 2011 05:04
-
EELV was created a) to ensure US military access to space in the event of a long shutdown of shuttle operations (as has happened twice), and b) to ensure that US launch vehicle manufacturers would not cease production due to loss of commercial launch business to lower cost russian and chinese competition, so that talent and infrastructure would remain in the US as an important strategic asset. Lockheed and Boeing (actually McDonnell Douglas at the time owned Delta production) were chosen to ensure "competition" between the two companies would, in theory, keep costs down. A statutory duopoly, not a monopoly.
No, that is not the reason. The DOD had long transitioned to ELV's and divorced itself from the shuttle when the EELV program was started. EELV program was initiated to reduce the cost of launch by 1/4 and replace Delta II, Atlas II, Titan IV.
PS EELV is a specific program and only refers to two specific vehicles. It is not the same as ELv
*if* we utilized the EELV's at the volume predicted, the costs would be far more reasonable. We cannot sit back and complain about costs while starving them of launch opportunities.
The solution is simple. Get rid of one of them. The Air Force policy is causing the problem. There is simply too low a launch rate in order to keep both rockets around.
Fact of the matter is that the Air Force does not need two launch systems. Both rockets are reliable enough for the job. Only one of them is required to reasonably assured access to space.
-
#17
by
Downix
on 18 Apr, 2011 05:18
-
EELV was created a) to ensure US military access to space in the event of a long shutdown of shuttle operations (as has happened twice), and b) to ensure that US launch vehicle manufacturers would not cease production due to loss of commercial launch business to lower cost russian and chinese competition, so that talent and infrastructure would remain in the US as an important strategic asset. Lockheed and Boeing (actually McDonnell Douglas at the time owned Delta production) were chosen to ensure "competition" between the two companies would, in theory, keep costs down. A statutory duopoly, not a monopoly.
No, that is not the reason. The DOD had long transitioned to ELV's and divorced itself from the shuttle when the EELV program was started. EELV program was initiated to reduce the cost of launch by 1/4 and replace Delta II, Atlas II, Titan IV.
PS EELV is a specific program and only refers to two specific vehicles. It is not the same as ELv
*if* we utilized the EELV's at the volume predicted, the costs would be far more reasonable. We cannot sit back and complain about costs while starving them of launch opportunities.
The solution is simple. Get rid of one of them. The Air Force policy is causing the problem. There is simply too low a launch rate in order to keep both rockets around.
Fact of the matter is that the Air Force does not need two launch systems. Both rockets are reliable enough for the job. Only one of them is required to reasonably assured access to space.
That would solve one issue, but cause another, namely their different profiles cannot be as easily covered by a single rocket.
Their Phase II plan would be a better solution, unifying the tooling would cut the costs to produce dramatically.
-
#18
by
DarkenedOne
on 18 Apr, 2011 14:19
-
EELV was created a) to ensure US military access to space in the event of a long shutdown of shuttle operations (as has happened twice), and b) to ensure that US launch vehicle manufacturers would not cease production due to loss of commercial launch business to lower cost russian and chinese competition, so that talent and infrastructure would remain in the US as an important strategic asset. Lockheed and Boeing (actually McDonnell Douglas at the time owned Delta production) were chosen to ensure "competition" between the two companies would, in theory, keep costs down. A statutory duopoly, not a monopoly.
No, that is not the reason. The DOD had long transitioned to ELV's and divorced itself from the shuttle when the EELV program was started. EELV program was initiated to reduce the cost of launch by 1/4 and replace Delta II, Atlas II, Titan IV.
PS EELV is a specific program and only refers to two specific vehicles. It is not the same as ELv
*if* we utilized the EELV's at the volume predicted, the costs would be far more reasonable. We cannot sit back and complain about costs while starving them of launch opportunities.
The solution is simple. Get rid of one of them. The Air Force policy is causing the problem. There is simply too low a launch rate in order to keep both rockets around.
Fact of the matter is that the Air Force does not need two launch systems. Both rockets are reliable enough for the job. Only one of them is required to reasonably assured access to space.
That would solve one issue, but cause another, namely their different profiles cannot be as easily covered by a single rocket.
Why is that?
Their Phase II plan would be a better solution, unifying the tooling would cut the costs to produce dramatically.
Problem is that they continually requested subsidies to do things yet costs for launching is still very high. It would be cheaper to just drop one.
-
#19
by
pathfinder_01
on 18 Apr, 2011 14:38
-
Why is that?
Rockets are optimized to reach certain Orbits. The Saturn I for instance was optimized for LEO. If you needed to reach GEO you would need another stage. Titan IIIC could get to GEO. The Shuttle and Falcon 9 are optimized for LEO. The shuttle can carry nothing higher than LEO without an upper stage while Falcon 9 can carry 4MT. Atlas V(Falcon 9's competitor) in its smallest form lifts 10MT to LEO and 4.5 to GEO but lifts more than Falcon 9 in larger forms(up to 29MT to LEO and 10 to GTO).
F9H lifts 53 to LEO but only 19MT to GTO. A Delta IV heavy can lift about 25MT to LEO and 13MT to GTO. Not that far behind a FH9 in the GTO lift(despite the cost).
Their Phase II plan would be a better solution, unifying the tooling would cut the costs to produce dramatically.
They would still drop one but they would have one in the same catagory as FH. An Atlas Phase II would cover the same range as Atlas does now and go up to 70MT. Phase II would be like 100+ MT.
Delta can be brought up to 50MT with other upgrades.
-
#20
by
gospacex
on 18 Apr, 2011 14:40
-
What was preventing LM and/or Boeing to do what Elon did? They had no spare $0.5bn? I think not. They had no need. They were a monopoly.
-
#21
by
pathfinder_01
on 18 Apr, 2011 14:49
-
What was preventing LM and/or Boeing to do what Elon did? They had no spare $0.5bn? I think not. They had no need. They were a monopoly.
Elon took technology and used it in a different way. Even LM did the same to Boeing as Delta is much more expensive than Atlas(hence Delta is used rarely).
-
#22
by
mmeijeri
on 18 Apr, 2011 18:12
-
Their Phase II plan would be a better solution, unifying the tooling would cut the costs to produce dramatically.
They would still have to recoup the investment that would be needed to make the change. If it were nearly free, wouldn't they have done it already?
-
#23
by
DarkenedOne
on 18 Apr, 2011 19:23
-
Why is that?
Rockets are optimized to reach certain Orbits. The Saturn I for instance was optimized for LEO. If you needed to reach GEO you would need another stage. Titan IIIC could get to GEO. The Shuttle and Falcon 9 are optimized for LEO. The shuttle can carry nothing higher than LEO without an upper stage while Falcon 9 can carry 4MT. Atlas V(Falcon 9's competitor) in its smallest form lifts 10MT to LEO and 4.5 to GEO but lifts more than Falcon 9 in larger forms(up to 29MT to LEO and 10 to GTO).
F9H lifts 53 to LEO but only 19MT to GTO. A Delta IV heavy can lift about 25MT to LEO and 13MT to GTO. Not that far behind a FH9 in the GTO lift(despite the cost).
What your saying is true, but it increases cost due to the increased fixed costs of developing and maintaining multiple systems. These fixed costs are the main reason cited why launch costs for the US over the last few year have gone up, and are expected to increase significantly in the future. All the producers cite low demand as the principle reason for these increases.
Take a look at the Russian rockets. They have only one rocket, the Proton, bigger than the Soyuz which maxs out about 7 mt. The Proton is 20 tones to LEO, but only 5 tones to GTO. Now seems really inefficient considering that many, probably most, of their payloads are to GTO. However because they have such high launch rates their system is more cost-effective than ours.
Having these different rockets maybe more mass efficient, but less cost efficient.
-
#24
by
Jim
on 18 Apr, 2011 20:19
-
Why is that?
Rockets are optimized to reach certain Orbits. The Saturn I for instance was optimized for LEO. If you needed to reach GEO you would need another stage. Titan IIIC could get to GEO. The Shuttle and Falcon 9 are optimized for LEO. The shuttle can carry nothing higher than LEO without an upper stage while Falcon 9 can carry 4MT. Atlas V(Falcon 9's competitor) in its smallest form lifts 10MT to LEO and 4.5 to GEO but lifts more than Falcon 9 in larger forms(up to 29MT to LEO and 10 to GTO).
F9H lifts 53 to LEO but only 19MT to GTO. A Delta IV heavy can lift about 25MT to LEO and 13MT to GTO. Not that far behind a FH9 in the GTO lift(despite the cost).
What your saying is true, but it increases cost due to the increased fixed costs of developing and maintaining multiple systems. These fixed costs are the main reason cited why launch costs for the US over the last few year have gone up, and are expected to increase significantly in the future. All the producers cite low demand as the principle reason for these increases.
Take a look at the Russian rockets. They have only one rocket, the Proton, bigger than the Soyuz which maxs out about 7 mt. The Proton is 20 tones to LEO, but only 5 tones to GTO. Now seems really inefficient considering that many, probably most, of their payloads are to GTO. However because they have such high launch rates their system is more cost-effective than ours.
Having these different rockets maybe more mass efficient, but less cost efficient.
No, it is due to their labor rates and use of conscript soldiers
-
#25
by
DarkenedOne
on 18 Apr, 2011 21:30
-
What your saying is true, but it increases cost due to the increased fixed costs of developing and maintaining multiple systems. These fixed costs are the main reason cited why launch costs for the US over the last few year have gone up, and are expected to increase significantly in the future. All the producers cite low demand as the principle reason for these increases.
Take a look at the Russian rockets. They have only one rocket, the Proton, bigger than the Soyuz which maxs out about 7 mt. The Proton is 20 tones to LEO, but only 5 tones to GTO. Now seems really inefficient considering that many, probably most, of their payloads are to GTO. However because they have such high launch rates their system is more cost-effective than ours.
Having these different rockets maybe more mass efficient, but less cost efficient.
No, it is due to their labor rates and use of conscript soldiers
Use of conscript soldiers would make sense for their own payloads, but why in the world would Russia pay their soldiers to launch payloads for foreign commercial companies.
As far as labor rates they are no doubt lower, however its hard to believe they make up for the difference.
-
#26
by
Jim
on 18 Apr, 2011 23:36
-
Use of conscript soldiers would make sense for their own payloads, but why in the world would Russia pay their soldiers to launch payloads for foreign commercial companies.
As far as labor rates they are no doubt lower, however its hard to believe they make up for the difference.
It has nothing to do with sensee, the soldiers support all launches.
It is the difference.
-
#27
by
DarkenedOne
on 19 Apr, 2011 01:54
-
Use of conscript soldiers would make sense for their own payloads, but why in the world would Russia pay their soldiers to launch payloads for foreign commercial companies.
As far as labor rates they are no doubt lower, however its hard to believe they make up for the difference.
It has nothing to do with sensee, the soldiers support all launches.
It is the difference.
As far as subsidizing our commercial launches with their conscript soldiers I am ok with that. If they want to pay for part of our launch costs than I am fine with that. However with regards to the Soyuz it is my understand that they are making a significant profit.
As far as it being the difference does it also explain why Europe and China also have comparatively low costs.
In any case if labor is the source of the high costs than why does it continue to rise.
-
#28
by
Jim
on 19 Apr, 2011 01:57
-
The government also subsidizes by providing money
-
#29
by
Jorge
on 19 Apr, 2011 02:05
-
Use of conscript soldiers would make sense for their own payloads, but why in the world would Russia pay their soldiers to launch payloads for foreign commercial companies.
As far as labor rates they are no doubt lower, however its hard to believe they make up for the difference.
It has nothing to do with sensee, the soldiers support all launches.
It is the difference.
As far as subsidizing our commercial launches with their conscript soldiers I am ok with that. If they want to pay for part of our launch costs than I am fine with that. However with regards to the Soyuz it is my understand that they are making a significant profit.
As far as it being the difference does it also explain why Europe and China also have comparatively low costs.
In any case if labor is the source of the high costs than why does it continue to rise.
Some of it is charging what the market will bear. That is supply-n-demand economics 101.
Some of it is the continuing weakening of the dollar against the ruble. The price in rubles hasn't gone up that much.
-
#30
by
kevin-rf
on 19 Apr, 2011 02:11
-
Well, there was that recent article in AvWeek that quoted people from GreatWall saying they could not offer a ride for as cheap as SpaceX's published prices...
-
#31
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 19 Apr, 2011 04:09
-
Well, there was that recent article in AvWeek that quoted people from GreatWall saying they could not offer a ride for as cheap as SpaceX's published prices...
Of course that assumes their prices will stay the same. The answer to that question will not be answered for awhile, and most likely they will go up (I would like to be wrong, and alot of dreams of everyone would come true as well, but conservative pessimism wins most of the time)
-
#32
by
Patchouli
on 19 Apr, 2011 04:37
-
Well, there was that recent article in AvWeek that quoted people from GreatWall saying they could not offer a ride for as cheap as SpaceX's published prices...
Of course that assumes their prices will stay the same. The answer to that question will not be answered for awhile, and most likely they will go up (I would like to be wrong, and alot of dreams of everyone would come true as well, but conservative pessimism wins most of the time)
The Chinese likely already considered that in detail.
Even if the cost of FH goes up by 50% it still would be a very cheap LV for it's performance range.
I don't think Spacex's cost would go up any more then 50% since they now have an understanding of costs and trouble with dealing with government red tape.
Their predictions for today are going to be much more accurate then their predictions of 2004.
What GreatWall will do in response they'll likely push for variants of the kerolox LM 5 LVs to replace their hypergolic LVs.
They may go for more engine commonality and horizontal vehicle integration as well.
The F9 second stage engine is just a restartable version of the first stage engines economically it's a brilliant concept.
I don't think we can say ULA has any sort of monopoly anymore since Spacex and OSC have LVs that can compete for many payloads.
If ULA and PWR were smart they'd take advantage of the SLS project to get some money saving concepts such as ACES through.
I don't think they will likely go out of business instead I think in the end they'll choose to adapt much like how IBM adapted to the personal computer revolution in the 70s.
ULA and PWR will just have to start thinking outside of the box.
The time of being able to stay in the comfort zone and be conservative is over just be glad it's an American company that's over turning the statuesque.
In the end I think the shakeup will be good for the industry as a whole and may prevent it from moving over seas like so many other industries have.
-
#33
by
alexw
on 19 Apr, 2011 05:11
-
What was preventing LM and/or Boeing to do what Elon did? They had no spare $0.5bn? I think not. They had no need. They were a monopoly.
They actually kinda did, on a different scale. Boeing and LockMart (and their predecessors?) invested far more of their own money than the US government's (~several billion vs. half-billion, roughly, for each of Atlas and Delta). Didn't go so well when the commercial market collapsed.
ULA's been offering Atlas V Heavy at 29mT to LEO and 13mT to GTO for years, yet no orders, because there have been no payloads in the first category and a bare handful in the second. Phase II scales much larger than Falcon Heavy, yet no market to develop it.
The key point is that Falcon Heavy isn't being financially justified as a 53mT to LEO or 19 mT to GTO launcher. SpaceX wants to target the GTO satellite market and some of the DOD market, and given that Merlin has scaled nicely, the simplest way to do that is to core-stretch Falcon 9 and also build the tri-core. Falcon Heavy is larger than necessary to achieve the target performance, but that's because building a hydrolox upper stage or adding solids to Falcon 9 is outside their experience base.
It's a happy coincidence (or rather, a side-effect of messy history) that we also may end up with a huge LEO launcher. Maybe it will have uses; it probably has more *political* uses than *payload* uses at the moment. That's not quite the same thing as suggesting complacent monopoly vs. disruptive upstart.
-Alex
-
#34
by
gospacex
on 19 Apr, 2011 13:20
-
What was preventing LM and/or Boeing to do what Elon did? They had no spare $0.5bn? I think not. They had no need. They were a monopoly.
They actually kinda did, on a different scale. Boeing and LockMart (and their predecessors?) invested far more of their own money than the US government's (~several billion vs. half-billion, roughly, for each of Atlas and Delta). Didn't go so well when the commercial market collapsed.
ULA's been offering Atlas V Heavy at 29mT to LEO and 13mT to GTO for years, yet no orders, because there have been no payloads in the first category and a bare handful in the second.
Correction. There is no payloads in Atlas V *price* category. And ULA did nothing to lower the price. Apparently, they felt no need to work towards that, because they had their key customer, DoD, cornered. They were a monopoly as far as DoD and NASA, who can't use foreign launchers regardless of price, were concerned.
-
#35
by
Jim
on 19 Apr, 2011 13:25
-
Correction. There is no payloads in Atlas V *price* category. And ULA did nothing to lower the price. Apparently, they felt no need to work towards that, because they had their key customer, DoD, cornered. They were a monopoly as far as DoD and NASA, who can't use foreign launchers regardless of price, were concerned.
wrong on all accounts. No payloads period.
Know some real information instead of spewing the koolade.
-
#36
by
kevin-rf
on 19 Apr, 2011 14:00
-
wrong on all accounts. No payloads period.
Jim,
I found a payload
-
#37
by
Downix
on 19 Apr, 2011 14:05
-
wrong on all accounts. No payloads period.
Jim,
I found a payload
Oh yeah!!
-
#38
by
kevin-rf
on 19 Apr, 2011 14:50
-
Oh yeah!!
Now I see why Jim says no payloads
-
#39
by
DarkenedOne
on 19 Apr, 2011 15:22
-
What was preventing LM and/or Boeing to do what Elon did? They had no spare $0.5bn? I think not. They had no need. They were a monopoly.
They actually kinda did, on a different scale. Boeing and LockMart (and their predecessors?) invested far more of their own money than the US government's (~several billion vs. half-billion, roughly, for each of Atlas and Delta). Didn't go so well when the commercial market collapsed.
"when the commercial market collapsed" - I cannot hate it when this is used as a reason why the EELVs have not been successful in the commercial market.
Fact of the matter is that the commercial market is still very much alive and kicking. In fact last year 23 of the 74 launches were commercial. Of course not a single one of those commercial launches were launched with the EELV.
Now that SpaceX has gotten in the game they have shown they are quite capable of getting commercial launches. They have also shown that they could get government payloads from other countries.
All of the evidence supports one conclusion. There exists a significant commercial market, and the Atlas V and the Delta IV have simply priced themselves out of it. The current launch costs of these vehicles is almost double that of what is found on the market.
-
#40
by
DarkenedOne
on 19 Apr, 2011 15:26
-
Correction. There is no payloads in Atlas V *price* category. And ULA did nothing to lower the price. Apparently, they felt no need to work towards that, because they had their key customer, DoD, cornered. They were a monopoly as far as DoD and NASA, who can't use foreign launchers regardless of price, were concerned.
wrong on all accounts. No payloads period.
Know some real information instead of spewing the koolade.
"No payloads period." - What are you saying?
-
#41
by
Mader Levap
on 20 Apr, 2011 18:27
-
wrong on all accounts. No payloads period.
Blind squirrel? FH was to never happen at all? Now this? And it is only what I seen after beginning of lurking here. I bet there are more failed predictions that Jim now pretends never happend, but I am too lazy to browse archives.
Reminds me of old saying "When an elderly but distinguished scientist says something is possible he is probably correct, when he says something is impossible he is probably wrong".
Just replace "sciencist" with "engineer" and we are all set.
-
#42
by
Jim
on 20 Apr, 2011 18:54
-
wrong on all accounts. No payloads period.
Blind squirrel? FH was to never happen at all? Now this? And it is only what I seen after beginning of lurking here. I bet there are more failed predictions that Jim now pretends never happend, but I am too lazy to browse archives.
Reminds me of old saying "When an elderly but distinguished scientist says something is possible he is probably correct, when he says something is impossible he is probably wrong".
Just replace "sciencist" with "engineer" and we are all set.
What failed predictions? I never provided a prediction on a Spacex launch. Never said that FH was never going to happen.
And there are no payloads, because price is not a "real" issue for the DOD. If they have a real need, they would do it.
-
#43
by
robertross
on 20 Apr, 2011 20:34
-
What failed predictions? I never provided a prediction on a Spacex launch. Never said that FH was never going to happen.
Now Jim, you are quite ON RECORD that NOVEMBER was the launch date for the last SpaceX launch with Dragon (which proved to be correct)
hehe.
(sorry for the OT)
-
#44
by
DarkenedOne
on 20 Apr, 2011 21:13
-
wrong on all accounts. No payloads period.
Blind squirrel? FH was to never happen at all? Now this? And it is only what I seen after beginning of lurking here. I bet there are more failed predictions that Jim now pretends never happend, but I am too lazy to browse archives.
Reminds me of old saying "When an elderly but distinguished scientist says something is possible he is probably correct, when he says something is impossible he is probably wrong".
Just replace "sciencist" with "engineer" and we are all set.
What failed predictions? I never provided a prediction on a Spacex launch. Never said that FH was never going to happen.
And there are no payloads, because price is not a "real" issue for the DOD. If they have a real need, they would do it.
Well lets hope that changes. Given that budgets appear to be flat if DOD launch costs continue to rise than pretty soon it will mean the DOD will not be able to put up new satellties.
NASA has been complaining about the costs for some time already.
-
#45
by
Mader Levap
on 20 Apr, 2011 22:29
-
Never said that FH was never going to happen.
Unfortunately, multiple times you suggested just that or even said it almost straight.
F9H is not a given
Just be ready to accept that F9 and a manned Dragon is the end point.
How about that the F9H has zero payload capacity because it does exist and may never.
I omitted endless "no customers, no clients, very little use" comments, they are still not proven wrong.
Ok, enough. I am shutting up now.
-
#46
by
Jim
on 21 Apr, 2011 00:34
-
Note I never said I was "never" going to happen.
"Not a given"
the statements were valid when they were made.
And they were to balance all the fanboi gushing.
-
#47
by
psloss
on 21 Apr, 2011 02:29
-
I omitted endless "no customers, no clients, very little use" comments, they are still not proven wrong.
Ok, enough. I am shutting up now.
Sweet -- if you can get Jim to stop posting, that's less in the way of the wishful thinking and irrational exuberance. That'll definitely make it easier to decide whether the forums are worth visiting anymore.
-
#48
by
alexw
on 21 Apr, 2011 06:49
-
What was preventing LM and/or Boeing to do what Elon did? They had no spare $0.5bn? I think not. They had no need. They were a monopoly.
They actually kinda did, on a different scale. Boeing and LockMart (and their predecessors?) invested far more of their own money than the US government's (~several billion vs. half-billion, roughly, for each of Atlas and Delta). Didn't go so well when the commercial market collapsed.
"when the commercial market collapsed" - I cannot hate it when this is used as a reason why the EELVs have not been successful in the commercial market.
Fact of the matter is that the commercial market is still very much alive and kicking. In fact last year 23 of the 74 launches were commercial. Of course not a single one of those commercial launches were launched with the EELV.
How many of those launches could have taken place in the US at all?
Now that SpaceX has gotten in the game they have shown they are quite capable of getting commercial launches. They have also shown that they could get government payloads from other countries.
All of the evidence supports one conclusion. There exists a significant commercial market, and the Atlas V and the Delta IV have simply priced themselves out of it. The current launch costs of these vehicles is almost double that of what is found on the market.
You do realize that when the EELVs were being designed, Boeing figured 40 DIV cores a year (call it 31 launches and three Heavies) and sized Decatur accordingly, and LockMart "conservatively" estimated (purportedly) something like 19 launches/year?
How about the history of Iridium, and competitor networks? Dot-com bust? But most importantly, ITAR?
-Alex
-
#49
by
Mader Levap
on 21 Apr, 2011 16:20
-
Note I never said I was "never" going to happen.
This was my interpretation of your arguments. This is how I read them. Of course, I could read your intentions wrong.
And they were to balance all the fanboi gushing.
Overdoing it for other side is not best idea, IMVHO. it makes your future arguments less realiable, especially if they are in same vein (at first, FH had to be non-exsistant, now it is supposed to have very little use).
Sweet -- if you can get Jim to stop posting,
Wow, someone used sarcasm. I am so impressed.
-
#50
by
DMeader
on 21 Apr, 2011 16:45
-
Wow, someone used sarcasm. I am so impressed.
I'd suggest you stop the trolling. This is not that type of a forum.
-
#51
by
Rabidpanda
on 21 Apr, 2011 17:57
-
mader it's time to get a grip on reality and admit you were wrong. In all three of the quotes from Jim that you linked he never ruled out the possibility of F9H existing. If you interpreted them differently then that is your problem because IMO it is quite clear what he meant.
-
#52
by
DarkenedOne
on 21 Apr, 2011 18:54
-
What was preventing LM and/or Boeing to do what Elon did? They had no spare $0.5bn? I think not. They had no need. They were a monopoly.
They actually kinda did, on a different scale. Boeing and LockMart (and their predecessors?) invested far more of their own money than the US government's (~several billion vs. half-billion, roughly, for each of Atlas and Delta). Didn't go so well when the commercial market collapsed.
"when the commercial market collapsed" - I cannot hate it when this is used as a reason why the EELVs have not been successful in the commercial market.
Fact of the matter is that the commercial market is still very much alive and kicking. In fact last year 23 of the 74 launches were commercial. Of course not a single one of those commercial launches were launched with the EELV.
How many of those launches could have taken place in the US at all?
Many. When it comes to satellites the US clearly has the best technology. We also have many leading commercial satellite producers and operators.
With commercial satellite manufacturers we have Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital Sciences Corporation.
You have Iridium, Orbcomm, and Globalstar asmajor satellite operators.
I could name many more if I were to search for them.
Now that SpaceX has gotten in the game they have shown they are quite capable of getting commercial launches. They have also shown that they could get government payloads from other countries.
All of the evidence supports one conclusion. There exists a significant commercial market, and the Atlas V and the Delta IV have simply priced themselves out of it. The current launch costs of these vehicles is almost double that of what is found on the market.
You do realize that when the EELVs were being designed, Boeing figured 40 DIV cores a year (call it 31 launches and three Heavies) and sized Decatur accordingly, and LockMart "conservatively" estimated (purportedly) something like 19 launches/year?
How about the history of Iridium, and competitor networks? Dot-com bust? But most importantly, ITAR?
-Alex
IT is like I said they are very much underused thus their costs are quite high. The problem would be alleviated if the Air Force dropped one of them.
As far as ITAR goes it encourages satellite manufacturers using ITAR tech to launch from US rockets. Problem is that there are no affordable rockets in the US, thus ITAR hurts US companies because they cannot launch ITAR technology.
-
#53
by
Xplor
on 22 Apr, 2011 00:09
-
Time will tell, but it is very challenging to compete commercially on the global market.
- How much money did Arianne invest in Arianne development? ESA has funded essentially the entire development cost (>$10B). Same is true for Proton, HII, Long March. Lockheed and Boeing had to invest some $5B combined to get into the EELV business.
- ESA bears the full brunt of the upfront cost for bulk buys of Arianne rockets.
- Back in the 1990's when Martin was truly trying to compete in the commercial market place Arianne would offer 5% less than the lowest bid, regardless of its price.
I truly wish Elon luck, but my guess, even if he is completely successful on the technical and cost fronts he will still not be succesful competing in the international launch market.
Time will tell.
-
#54
by
Bernie Roehl
on 22 Apr, 2011 00:50
-
Time will tell, but it is very challenging to compete commercially on the global market.
- How much money did Arianne invest in Arianne development? ESA has funded essentially the entire development cost (>$10B). Same is true for Proton, HII, Long March. Lockheed and Boeing had to invest some $5B combined to get into the EELV business.
- ESA bears the full brunt of the upfront cost for bulk buys of Arianne rockets.
- Back in the 1990's when Martin was truly trying to compete in the commercial market place Arianne would offer 5% less than the lowest bid, regardless of its price.
I truly wish Elon luck, but my guess, even if he is completely successful on the technical and cost fronts he will still not be succesful competing in the international launch market.
Time will tell.
Agreed, time will tell.
It's worth noting that the development cost for Falcon 9 is an order of magnitude less than that of Ariane 5, despite being in the same payload class.
Given the current economic situation in Europe, I'm not convinced that Ariane launches will continue to be subsidized at previous levels. Perhaps someone closer to the ESA or EADS can comment on that...?
-
#55
by
Jim
on 22 Apr, 2011 00:59
-
F9 is less than 1/2 the capability of the Ariane 5
-
#56
by
Bernie Roehl
on 22 Apr, 2011 01:27
-
F9 is less than 1/2 the capability of the Ariane 5
F9 with uprated Merlin engines has 16 ton payload.
Ariane 5 G has 16 ton payload.
Both have heavier variants.
-
#57
by
Jim
on 22 Apr, 2011 02:06
-
GTO is the relevant orbit
5 ton for F9
Ariane G is not the standard model
-
#58
by
baldusi
on 22 Apr, 2011 02:42
-
GTO is the relevant orbit
5 ton for F9
Ariane G is not the standard model
Ariane 5 ECA (current model) does 10.5tn to a GTO on 4deg orbit.
Falcon 9 Block II (future model) should do about 5tn to a 28deg orbit.
Never forget the expenditure of the plane change. Plus the unproven system.
-
#59
by
DarkenedOne
on 22 Apr, 2011 06:05
-
GTO is the relevant orbit
5 ton for F9
Ariane G is not the standard model
Yeah the GTO capacity of the Falcon 9 is not all that spectacular because of the kerosene second stage. They probably went with it because of the low development cost.
Not to long ago they announced that they are working on a LH2/LO2 upper stage, which should bring very significant increased performance to GTO.
-
#60
by
Zed_Noir
on 22 Apr, 2011 06:19
-
Ariane 5 ECA (current model) does 10.5tn to a GTO on 4deg orbit.
Falcon 9 Block II (future model) should do about 5tn to a 28deg orbit.
Never forget the expenditure of the plane change. Plus the unproven system.
But the Ariane 5 ECA usually dual-manifest GTO payloads on most current launches. So if the Falcon 9 Block 2 can send 5tn to GTO, than an Ariane 5 launch can only charged twice the cost of a F9 Block 2 launch without being undercut. So how much is the projected price for the Ariane 5 ECA when the F9 Block became available?
-
#61
by
baldusi
on 22 Apr, 2011 06:33
-
Ariane 5 ECA (current model) does 10.5tn to a GTO on 4deg orbit.
Falcon 9 Block II (future model) should do about 5tn to a 28deg orbit.
Never forget the expenditure of the plane change. Plus the unproven system.
But the Ariane 5 ECA usually dual-manifest GTO payloads on most current launches. So if the Falcon 9 Block 2 can send 5tn to GTO, than an Ariane 5 launch can only charged twice the cost of a F9 Block 2 launch without being undercut. So how much is the projected price for the Ariane 5 ECA when the F9 Block became available?
As I said above, the operator only cares about a satellite on GSO. The Cape GTO requires quite a bit more delta-v than Korou's. And in dual payload, one satellite is also heavier than the second one. So Falcon would only be competing for the "light" one. Plus, launch costs are usually 20% of the whole project. satellite, about 40%. And the income is only positive if it's actually delivered. So the insurance premium and risk premiums (when discounting the cashflows) give a huge weight to the "safest" choice. In any case, nowadays, Falcon competes with Zenit and Proton.
-
#62
by
joek
on 22 Apr, 2011 07:13
-
---snip---
Plus, launch costs are usually 20% of the whole project. satellite, about 40%.
Do you have any references for that? NASA science missions appear to average ~20% launch services of total mission cost (which includes payload-specific integration costs). But those NASA payloads are typically one-off and specialized. And thus launch service costs are higher, but the payload/mission cost is much higher.
I'd expect commercial to be less specialized and thus launch services to be a higher percentage of costs? Or by "whole project" do you mean the life cycle cost; that is, e.g., the 10-20 yr cost for a commercial GEO satellite?
-
#63
by
Jim
on 22 Apr, 2011 12:17
-
Not to long ago they announced that they are working on a LH2/LO2 upper stage,
It was proposed and not a firm commitment.
-
#64
by
Jim
on 22 Apr, 2011 12:19
-
I'd expect commercial to be less specialized and thus launch services to be a higher percentage of costs?
The 20% is still applicable
-
#65
by
kevin-rf
on 22 Apr, 2011 13:54
-
Not to long ago they announced that they are working on a LH2/LO2 upper stage,
It was proposed and not a firm commitment.
It was also proposed before the Heavy announcement, and we really haven't heard anything about it since.
My guess, if it happens, it will be some point after heavy... if at all...
They need to finish Dragon, finish Merlin 1D, ramp up 1D production, Ramp up Falcon 9, Find customers for Heavy, make pad modifications, and restart Falcon 1e before they will have time to start the development of an LH engine, upper stage, and add the GSE to the pads.
-
#66
by
ugordan
on 22 Apr, 2011 14:48
-
My guess, if it happens, it will be some point after heavy... if at all...
Shotwell said the LH2 stage is a low-level project at this point.
-
#67
by
DarkenedOne
on 22 Apr, 2011 16:27
-
Not to long ago they announced that they are working on a LH2/LO2 upper stage,
It was proposed and not a firm commitment.
Right now SpaceX is really focusing its attention on making the Dragon a success. After all deliveries to the ISS make up the majority of their launches.
On the other hand it is farther along than the proposal stage. They are currently working at it at a low priority.
-
#68
by
DarkenedOne
on 22 Apr, 2011 16:37
-
Not to long ago they announced that they are working on a LH2/LO2 upper stage,
It was proposed and not a firm commitment.
It was also proposed before the Heavy announcement, and we really haven't heard anything about it since.
My guess, if it happens, it will be some point after heavy... if at all...
They need to finish Dragon, finish Merlin 1D, ramp up 1D production, Ramp up Falcon 9, Find customers for Heavy, make pad modifications, and restart Falcon 1e before they will have time to start the development of an LH engine, upper stage, and add the GSE to the pads.
That is also another consideration. LH2/LO2 rockets have significantly increased performance in terms of ISP, but also significantly increased development and probably maintenance costs.
The Russians have been very successful with their Proton rocket which only delivers about 5 mt to GTO despite having the capacity to lift over 20 mt to LEO.
Its a less elegant brute force approach, but it minimizes development and maintenance costs.
-
#69
by
robertross
on 22 Apr, 2011 16:38
-
non-moderator note: We're getting away from monopoly discussions and now talking about everything else, including rocket performance.
-
#70
by
DGH
on 22 Apr, 2011 19:24
-
This whole argument makes no sense.
DOD has purchased many different rockets from many different companies over the years.
There are two major items deciding what rockets are chosen by DOD: reliability and mass to high energy orbits many beyond GTO in terms of energy required.
The rockets flown by ULA have both an exceptional lineage and proven flight record.
At the same time there are no other rockets flying today capable of launching most of the DOD payloads they are now launching. They are too big and too high.
-
#71
by
DeanG1967
on 23 Apr, 2011 06:43
-
Am I the only one laughing at this "supposed" monopoly? I mean really, you have two equal prime contractors (not small companies I might add) of Boeing and Lockheed. So, when you have the only 2 real companies in the US that make stuff that works (all you SpaceX nuts stop the flaming fireballs please) why is that a monopoly?
Short story....it isn't. The ULA is nothing but 2 major (and I mean MAJOR with all caps) companies that actually sat down and said, you know, if we work together, we can keep a business going for a while and not waste internal dollars on competing.
Oh my aching melon
-
#72
by
madscientist197
on 23 Apr, 2011 08:37
-
Short story....it isn't. The ULA is nothing but 2 major (and I mean MAJOR with all caps) companies that actually sat down and said, you know, if we work together, we can keep a business going for a while and not waste internal dollars on competing.
Which would generally be considered illegal collusion in most other industries...
-
#73
by
Downix
on 23 Apr, 2011 16:20
-
Short story....it isn't. The ULA is nothing but 2 major (and I mean MAJOR with all caps) companies that actually sat down and said, you know, if we work together, we can keep a business going for a while and not waste internal dollars on competing.
Which would generally be considered illegal collusion in most other industries...
Collusion would be to eliminate the possibility of new competition through their cooperation. As this did not eliminate competition, but instead made both divisions of the firms solid in order to *be* competitive, this is not collusion.
-
#74
by
edkyle99
on 23 Apr, 2011 16:26
-
This whole argument makes no sense.
DOD has purchased many different rockets from many different companies over the years.
Many different companies? Let's see which companies.
Atlas by Convair, later General Dynamics, later Martin Marietta, later Lockheed Martin, later ULA.
Titan by Martin Marietta, later Lockheed Martin, later ULA.
Thor/Delta by Douglas, later McDonnell Douglas, later Boeing, later ULA.
Scout by LTV, a company now divided to the winds, with pieces owned by Northrop and Lockheed Martin as I understand things.
Pegasus/Minotaur by Orbital Sciences, now Orbital.
Falcon 1 by SpaceX, still SpaceX.
So, by my count, DoD has bought launch vehicles from a limited set of contractors (never more than four or five), and the set remains limited (only three right now). There have been many company names, but those are just name changes on buildings.
- Ed Kyle
-
#75
by
Hop_David
on 23 Apr, 2011 17:57
-
Not to long ago they announced that they are working on a LH2/LO2 upper stage, which should bring very significant increased performance to GTO.
Could you link to that? I was having a conversation with a SpaceX fan that was trying to tell me kerosene is the wonder fuel that beats hydrogen.
I was trying to explain to him different circumstances call for different propellants. It was hard for him to distinguish between an ascent stage and a stage which does its burn in LEO.
-
#76
by
Jim
on 23 Apr, 2011 18:10
-
On the other hand it is farther along than the proposal stage. They are currently working at it at a low priority.
You can't make that distinction. The "proposal stage" exists until a design is selected. Do you know the size or engines that it will use?
-
#77
by
jongoff
on 23 Apr, 2011 22:26
-
My guess, if it happens, it will be some point after heavy... if at all...
Shotwell said the LH2 stage is a low-level project at this point.
Yeah (I was the one who asked her the question). From my take on it, they probably have a small team that's running numbers and doing preliminary work, but it's nowhere near a major project. That said...Merlin-1D was just such a project earlier in it's lifecycle. So just because it isn't a core project doesn't mean it will always stay that way.
That said...I don't see them doing much LOX/LH2 work anytime soon, because it just doesn't seem to make business sense for them to focus on that at this point.
~Jon
-
#78
by
baldusi
on 24 Apr, 2011 11:56
-
Many different companies? Let's see which companies.
Atlas by Convair, later General Dynamics, later Martin Marietta, later Lockheed Martin, later ULA.
Titan by Martin Marietta, later Lockheed Martin, later ULA.
Thor/Delta by Douglas, later McDonnell Douglas, later Boeing, later ULA.
Scout by LTV, a company now divided to the winds, with pieces owned by Northrop and Lockheed Martin as I understand things.
Pegasus/Minotaur by Orbital Sciences, now Orbital.
Falcon 1 by SpaceX, still SpaceX.
So, by my count, DoD has bought launch vehicles from a limited set of contractors (never more than four or five), and the set remains limited (only three right now). There have been many company names, but those are just name changes on buildings.
- Ed Kyle
There are two points. First, the antimonopoly law states that you're breaking it if:
a) You use your market powers of monopoly in a way that results in b).
b) Said use of power results in a loss of welfare to the general public/consumers (i.e. not the competitors, only consumers matter).
Second, there's just one, and only buyer, the US gvnt. Nobody else, period. Yea, you might have the fiction that Air Force, NROL and NASA are "different" buyers. It's all the same Old Sam.
But you did state that when buying about five different products lines, the government have chosen about five different companies. That said companies built to specs of govt after bidding on a cutthroat competition, and when built the whole package, did it "mostly" on their money. That when the govt gave "some" money (case in point, EELV and Orbital and SpaceX), it resulted in significant savings for the buyer (i.e. the US government). And even giving that "little money", was done after the due bidding process, with multiple and different companies competing. What's more, time has shown that very few always win. In fact, what has happened, is that some huge corporations have bought the winning companies systematically. What it has also shown, is that winning a bid once doesn't guaranties winning the next time, and if you don't it's quite possible to get out of business. Which is usually the reason for the brute consolidation in the industry.
