-
#60
by
robertross
on 01 Nov, 2011 23:31
-
Here's a question for these costs of LC-39:
If NASA is paying for a 'service' for commercial crew access to (for now) the ISS, then could it not simply say the facilities (or portions thereof) are 'free issued' to the service provider (ie: borne by NASA)?
Any launches 'above and beyond' ISS flights/NASA-purchased, would have to be paid for by some formula.
Yes, no?
I know the accounting may not work, but with all the funding being provided to CCDev, what is so different from also including launch facilities to sweeten the deal, much like OPF-3 to Space Florida?
-
#61
by
Namechange User
on 01 Nov, 2011 23:47
-
Here's a question for these costs of LC-39:
If NASA is paying for a 'service' for commercial crew access to (for now) the ISS, then could it not simply say the facilities (or portions thereof) are 'free issued' to the service provider (ie: borne by NASA)?
Any launches 'above and beyond' ISS flights/NASA-purchased, would have to be paid for by some formula.
Yes, no?
I know the accounting may not work, but with all the funding being provided to CCDev, what is so different from also including launch facilities to sweeten the deal, much like OPF-3 to Space Florida?
This is the point I tried to address earlier. There are some really awesome designs and concepts how to make the whole LC-39 complex adaptable and modular.
Given that and the fact the complex itself is not going anywhere and will to some degree or another be a cost to NASA, it has been considered (and the exact details I am not aware of nor what the latest and greatest status is) of allowing other providers to use the complex.
There would be some sort of lease associated with it, allowing a funding stream back to NASA. Of course it needs to be small enough so that it is cost effective to the user, but when coupled with other users, the sum total is "enough" to "sufficiently" (and those terms are subjective on purpose because it is for NASA to decide) offset the total cost the government pays and is worth it to proceed with these designs and concepts.
Of course this could nullify concerns about making changes to other pad structures, etc and eliminate certain manifest issues. This would natually be something for NASA, USAF, etc to consider in partnership with the potential LC-39 users and if they do that, how and when time will tell.
-
#62
by
Robotbeat
on 01 Nov, 2011 23:49
-
Here's a question for these costs of LC-39:
If NASA is paying for a 'service' for commercial crew access to (for now) the ISS, then could it not simply say the facilities (or portions thereof) are 'free issued' to the service provider (ie: borne by NASA)?
Any launches 'above and beyond' ISS flights/NASA-purchased, would have to be paid for by some formula.
Yes, no?
I know the accounting may not work, but with all the funding being provided to CCDev, what is so different from also including launch facilities to sweeten the deal, much like OPF-3 to Space Florida?
Do we want a commercial crew service with its possible cost reductions or not?
As a taxpayer, I want NASA to choose the most cost-effective domestic option (that helps grow a larger market as a side-effect). Do you want a more expensive launch infrastructure just because it leaves some of KSC's little managerial kingdoms intact?
(And makes gosh-darned sure that if there is any commercial crew industry that arises out of NASA's commercial crew program investment that it stays firmly under the mothering eye of NASA. I wish this weren't true, but that's exactly what it appears to be. And I say that as someone who is applying to a job actually building/analyzing the LC-39 modifications needed... In other words, I have an interest in having a perspective which SUPPORTS using LC-39 for commercial crew, but I simply think it's a bad idea.)
-
#63
by
Jim
on 02 Nov, 2011 00:04
-
Here's a question for these costs of LC-39:
If NASA is paying for a 'service' for commercial crew access to (for now) the ISS, then could it not simply say the facilities (or portions thereof) are 'free issued' to the service provider (ie: borne by NASA)?
Any launches 'above and beyond' ISS flights/NASA-purchased, would have to be paid for by some formula.
Yes, no?
I know the accounting may not work, but with all the funding being provided to CCDev, what is so different from also including launch facilities to sweeten the deal, much like OPF-3 to Space Florida?
OPF-3 was going to be razed, it was excessed. NASA doesn't have to maintain it or pay to tear it down.
But what NASA provides to CCT proposers will be taken into account in the selection process.
-
#64
by
robertross
on 02 Nov, 2011 00:33
-
Here's a question for these costs of LC-39:
If NASA is paying for a 'service' for commercial crew access to (for now) the ISS, then could it not simply say the facilities (or portions thereof) are 'free issued' to the service provider (ie: borne by NASA)?
Any launches 'above and beyond' ISS flights/NASA-purchased, would have to be paid for by some formula.
Yes, no?
I know the accounting may not work, but with all the funding being provided to CCDev, what is so different from also including launch facilities to sweeten the deal, much like OPF-3 to Space Florida?
OPF-3 was going to be razed, it was excessed. NASA doesn't have to maintain it or pay to tear it down.
But what NASA provides to CCT proposers will be taken into account in the selection process.
Thanks for the answers by all.
I think the crux of the matter is bolded above.
Because at the end of the day, if NASA wants this 'service', it is going to pay for it one way or the other, and I see no difference between using pre-existing facilities, or sharing facilities with enough synergies, that can be of benefit to a commercial enterprise while NASA's needs are fully met.
In the case of OPF-3 & Space Florida: After 15 years, things 'might' have changed enough in the grand scheme of things for those companies to develop their own facilities (doubtful), pay full (or a higher) price for use of these facilities, or the ISS has splashed down, the economies of the world (or the US) can't support human spaceflight, and all this is moot and could rot away.
-
#65
by
Downix
on 02 Nov, 2011 01:07
-
LC-39 has very low marginal costs,
It's high fixed costs negate this and the flight rates wont be high enough to put a dent in it
High fixed costs mean even a single flight addition causes a price reduction to be more significant.
-
#66
by
pathfinder_01
on 02 Nov, 2011 01:27
-
High fixed costs mean even a single flight addition causes a price reduction to be more significant.
High Fixed costs=High Fixed costs period. Meaning unless thoose fixes costs buy you something special(which in the case of a rocket launch probably not) they are not worth it.
-
#67
by
Jason1701
on 02 Nov, 2011 01:38
-
LC-39 has very low marginal costs,
It's high fixed costs negate this and the flight rates wont be high enough to put a dent in it
High fixed costs mean even a single flight addition causes a price reduction to be more significant.
By that logic, we want the highest fixed costs possible, so we experience the maximum cost reduction with each additional flight.
-
#68
by
Downix
on 02 Nov, 2011 01:44
-
LC-39 has very low marginal costs,
It's high fixed costs negate this and the flight rates wont be high enough to put a dent in it
High fixed costs mean even a single flight addition causes a price reduction to be more significant.
By that logic, we want the highest fixed costs possible, so we experience the maximum cost reduction with each additional flight.
It depends on your utilization rate. That is why the Shuttle paradigm was hurt so severely by the lack of utilization, it threw a wrench into the costs. But this is the logic behind large factories built in anticipation of volume production.
-
#69
by
Downix
on 02 Nov, 2011 01:45
-
High fixed costs mean even a single flight addition causes a price reduction to be more significant.
High Fixed costs=High Fixed costs period. Meaning unless thoose fixes costs buy you something special(which in the case of a rocket launch probably not) they are not worth it.
Tell that to every mass production company ever to enter business. Their whole model is based on high fixed costs.
-
#70
by
pathfinder_01
on 02 Nov, 2011 02:11
-
Tell that to every mass production company ever to enter business. Their whole model is based on high fixed costs.
err. no. All factories/companies have fixed costs. However larger factories have higher fixed costs(more space to heat/cool/patrol). With mass production it is hoped that your fixed costs are spread over enough product(that sells) else you won't have a profit(i.e. GM before the bailout).
If you have a large factory that isn't running near capacity, you may have a problem. It can indeed make sense to reduce the size of your facility(or close factories) if the amount of product being produced(or sold) is less than the capacity of the plant and if by doing so you reduce your cost.
-
#71
by
sdsds
on 02 Nov, 2011 02:13
-
And makes gosh-darned sure that if there is any commercial crew industry that arises out of NASA's commercial crew program investment that it stays firmly under the mothering eye of NASA. I wish this weren't true
Yes, the OPF-3 etc. lease does look a bit like NASA "mothering" Boeing. How funny is that!? Luckily for those who fear this as a trend, SpaceX will never accept it and Elon assures us he personally will make certain SpaceX is in the commercial crew business.... So we needn't fear this kind of OPF-3 arrangement will become the only game in town!
-
#72
by
Downix
on 02 Nov, 2011 02:14
-
Tell that to every mass production company ever to enter business. Their whole model is based on high fixed costs.
err. no. All factories/companies have fixed costs. However larger factories have higher fixed costs(more space to heat/cool/patrol). With mass production it is hoped that your fixed costs are spread over enough product(that sells) else you won't have a profit(i.e. GM before the bailout).
If you have a large factory that isn't running near capacity, you may have a problem. It can indeed make sense to reduce the size of your facility(or close factories) if the amount of product being produced(or sold) is less than the capacity of the plant and if by doing so you reduce your cost.
We have a facility here that is not running near capacity, not even at a fraction of capacity. As you put it, we have a problem. Utilizing it for commercial crew adds to that, utilizing its space capacity. Add a few more, then you make up the capacity needed to make the fixed costs fall in line.
-
#73
by
pathfinder_01
on 02 Nov, 2011 02:49
-
We have a facility here that is not running near capacity, not even at a fraction of capacity. As you put it, we have a problem. Utilizing it for commercial crew adds to that, utilizing its space capacity. Add a few more, then you make up the capacity needed to make the fixed costs fall in line.
Or simply launch out of the normal Atlas pads or build new pads that require fewer works......
-
#74
by
Downix
on 02 Nov, 2011 03:19
-
We have a facility here that is not running near capacity, not even at a fraction of capacity. As you put it, we have a problem. Utilizing it for commercial crew adds to that, utilizing its space capacity. Add a few more, then you make up the capacity needed to make the fixed costs fall in line.
Or simply launch out of the normal Atlas pads or build new pads that require fewer works......
And then have more pads to pay for, as LC-39 is needed for SLS regardless. This is a sure fire way to further increase costs across the board.
-
#75
by
Jim
on 02 Nov, 2011 09:51
-
And makes gosh-darned sure that if there is any commercial crew industry that arises out of NASA's commercial crew program investment that it stays firmly under the mothering eye of NASA. I wish this weren't true
Yes, the OPF-3 etc. lease does look a bit like NASA "mothering" Boeing. How funny is that!? Luckily for those who fear this as a trend, SpaceX will never accept it and Elon assures us he personally will make certain SpaceX is in the commercial crew business.... So we needn't fear this kind of OPF-3 arrangement will become the only game in town!
No, it is no different than the USAF giving Spacex SLC-40 and SLC-4.
Also, NASA did not give OPF-3 to Boeing, Space Florida did.
Additionally, Spacex got recovery funds from NASA for infrastructure upgrades
-
#76
by
Jim
on 02 Nov, 2011 09:55
-
We have a facility here that is not running near capacity, not even at a fraction of capacity. As you put it, we have a problem. Utilizing it for commercial crew adds to that, utilizing its space capacity. Add a few more, then you make up the capacity needed to make the fixed costs fall in line.
Or simply launch out of the normal Atlas pads or build new pads that require fewer works......
And then have more pads to pay for, as LC-39 is needed for SLS regardless. This is a sure fire way to further increase costs across the board.
No, Atlas and Delta use of LC-39 makes sense if SLC-41 andSLC-37 can't handle addition flights
-
#77
by
simonbp
on 02 Nov, 2011 16:10
-
What's the chances of an all-new 'Commercial Crew' clean pad, maybe at LC-37A?
That's what I want to know. If commercial crew on Atlas V takes off in a big way, then a second Atlas V launch site begins to make a lot of sense, and having it in parallel with the current site is the most economical solution.
That said, the current DoD/NASA Atlas V flight rate is sufficiently low that you'd need really regular crew flights for it to really impinge on the schedule at the current facilities.
-
#78
by
Lurker Steve
on 02 Nov, 2011 17:20
-
What's the chances of an all-new 'Commercial Crew' clean pad, maybe at LC-37A?
That's what I want to know. If commercial crew on Atlas V takes off in a big way, then a second Atlas V launch site begins to make a lot of sense, and having it in parallel with the current site is the most economical solution.
That said, the current DoD/NASA Atlas V flight rate is sufficiently low that you'd need really regular crew flights for it to really impinge on the schedule at the current facilities.
How long does it normally take to integrate the payload with an Atlas ? Can they move a completed CST-100 over from OPF-3, and be ready be launch in less than 4 weeks ? How quickly does integration need to happen in order not interfere with the existing DOD / NASA launch pace.
-
#79
by
Downix
on 02 Nov, 2011 19:31
-
We have a facility here that is not running near capacity, not even at a fraction of capacity. As you put it, we have a problem. Utilizing it for commercial crew adds to that, utilizing its space capacity. Add a few more, then you make up the capacity needed to make the fixed costs fall in line.
Or simply launch out of the normal Atlas pads or build new pads that require fewer works......
And then have more pads to pay for, as LC-39 is needed for SLS regardless. This is a sure fire way to further increase costs across the board.
No, Atlas and Delta use of LC-39 makes sense if SLC-41 andSLC-37 can't handle addition flights
I can think of several reasons why, such as LC-41 and LC-37B are not configured for crew flight, which will require funding to add while LC-39 is already to be configured for crew flight, saving that funding. Also, IIRC, part of the agreement between the USAF and ULA includes EELV flights from LC-41 and LC-37 having a portion of the USAF's costs for them added starting in 2012, which obviously flights from LC-39 would not as it would be NASA paying itself for its own launch pad. According to the DTIC, these added costs for NASA will range from $40-$90 million per launch starting in 2012, which would be eliminated by launching at a NASA controlled facility rather than a USAF if I am reading the report by the Office of Inspector General correctly.