-
#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
-
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.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? -
#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.
There are two points. First, the antimonopoly law states that you're breaking it if:
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
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.
