ULA is getting green light

#180 by Dexter on 23 Oct, 2006 06:14
Quote
Jim - 22/10/2006 4:27 PM

A-III could only do 4m fairings. It was limited wrt solids.

6 of the 8 Atlas V's flown to date could NOT have flown on an Atlas III.

So much for "eliminating internal competition" BS theory

You posted the EELV manifest web link on another thread.

http://www.skyrocket.de/space/index_frame.htm?http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc/eelv.htm

There sure seem to be a lot of Delta 4M and Atlas V 401 on the manifest according to the data you provided. Looks like only two EELV missions have actually flown to this point and many of them need only 4 meter fairings and no solids.

I believe that the whole reason for the EELV program from the various sources provided here was for the Air Force to reduce the cost for their launches on a Titan IV (Fleecing of America type bad press). One number has this at $433M per launch.

The commercial Atlas program prior to EELV appears to have had success in the market even after the 2002 date when the "commercial market has collapsed" mantra was initiated by the contractors and the USAF. The FTC documents speak of medium to heavy launch capabilities and define Delta 2 for medium, Atlas 2/3 for intermediate, and Titan IV for heavy. In trying to correct the Titan IV problem, the mantra was to also modernize two other programs which has recently been modernized and in doing so designed vehicles not well suited to the commercial market.

Now we find out that the Atlas IIAR program was initiated by GD prior to EELV and not originally intended to be the evolutionary step to Atlas V as being presented now(spin). Then you tell us that MRO was swithched at no extra cost implying that the Atlas V 401 cost is more than the Atlas 3 cost even though the promise of EELV was to reduce launch cost.

The promise of ULA (bringining this back on topic) is to reduce launch cost.

You want to talk about BS theories, there are two for you.

When you truncate a program from 18 vehicles to 6, what else would you call it except an elimination of internal competition. Look at that EELV manifest again.

Doesn't sound like a BS theory to me.

Atlas V, brought to you by the same people who brought you Titan IV.
#181 by Dexter on 23 Oct, 2006 06:33
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm

Launch Price $: 138.000 million. in: 2004 price dollars. The originally estimated launch price in 1998 for the Atlas V 401 model was $77 million, the 500 series $ 110 million, and the HLV model $ 170 million. Due to the collapse of the commercial launch market, this was revised by the USAF in November 2004 to $ 138, $192, and $ 254 million respectively.

USAF to subsidise EELV's Nation: USA. The US Air Force asked the Congress to provide $1 billion of subsidies in 2004-2009 for the Atlas V and Delta 4 EELV launch vehicles. The collapse of the commercial satellite market invalidated the cost model on which the manufacturers invested their own funds in development. Lack of adequate sales could have meant the closure of the production line of one or both of the launch vehicles on which the US government would rely for future space missions. The US Air Force asked for a $200-million first tranche n FY2004.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delheavy.htm

Launch Price $: 254.000 million. in: 2004 price dollars. Cost comments: The originally estimated launch price in 1999 was $170 million. Due to the collapse of the commercial launch market, this was revised by the USAF in November 2004 to $ 254 million.

WOW.
#182 by meiza on 23 Oct, 2006 10:35
Yeah, 11 of the 14 Atlas V launches from buy 1 are 401:s, for those who don't want to scan the manifests...
#183 by Dexter on 24 Oct, 2006 04:39
Quote
meiza - 23/10/2006 5:18 AM

Yeah, 11 of the 14 Atlas V launches from buy 1 are 401:s, for those who don't want to scan the manifests...

Plus 7 Delta 4Ms for a total of 18.

18, where have I heard that number before? Hmmmmm.
#184 by Dexter on 24 Oct, 2006 04:47
Quote
pad rat - 23/10/2006 11:06 AM

Satellite customers do not particularly like dealing with the US launch ranges, either. They are pricey and difficult to work with. Russia and Arianespace were able to capitalize on that. In the end, Boeing decided pursuing commercial laucnhes was not worth the effort, and LM is still having difficulty finding customers.
Correct me if I am wrong here but aren't the ranges run by the USAF/DOD.
Perhaps a better strategy than ULA is to go figure out how to make the ranges less pricey and difficult to work with. If this prevents commercial customers from using US launchers, then the USAF is shooting themselves in the foot.
#185 by quark on 24 Oct, 2006 05:12
Quote
Dexter - 23/10/2006 12:16 AM

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm

Launch Price $: 138.000 million. in: 2004 price dollars. The originally estimated launch price in 1998 for the Atlas V 401 model was $77 million, the 500 series $ 110 million, and the HLV model $ 170 million. Due to the collapse of the commercial launch market, this was revised by the USAF in November 2004 to $ 138, $192, and $ 254 million respectively.

USAF to subsidise EELV's Nation: USA. The US Air Force asked the Congress to provide $1 billion of subsidies in 2004-2009 for the Atlas V and Delta 4 EELV launch vehicles. The collapse of the commercial satellite market invalidated the cost model on which the manufacturers invested their own funds in development. Lack of adequate sales could have meant the closure of the production line of one or both of the launch vehicles on which the US government would rely for future space missions. The US Air Force asked for a $200-million first tranche n FY2004.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delheavy.htm

Launch Price $: 254.000 million. in: 2004 price dollars. Cost comments: The originally estimated launch price in 1999 was $170 million. Due to the collapse of the commercial launch market, this was revised by the USAF in November 2004 to $ 254 million.

WOW.

Wow, I agree. Your source is completely out of whack. (an example, it says that Atlas V is produced by Convair, which hasn't been the case for about 13 years.) Atlas prices are not available on the internet. Get over it.

A few clarifications. Atlas III was discontinued because no one wanted to buy it and it cost more to produce than the Atlas V 401 which has more performance. Why pay more for less? From LM's perspective it also increased fixed costs to maintain two production lines, sets of engineering etc.

The decision to switch MRO to Atlas V was a win-win for NASA and LM. NASA got a higher performing vehicle for the same price which allowed the launch window to be expanded to almost double its original size. The costs of switching were absorbed by LM because of the inherently lower cost of the LV. It's not free to switch. Lot's of analyses, planning, documents, interfaces, etc had to be changed.

I don't know what you mean by "subsidies". The AF needs the capability to launch national security satellites. There is a cost associated with providing that capability. Are you against the government paying private companies for the services it recieves?
#186 by quark on 24 Oct, 2006 05:21
Quote
Dexter - 23/10/2006 10:30 PM

Quote
pad rat - 23/10/2006 11:06 AM

Satellite customers do not particularly like dealing with the US launch ranges, either. They are pricey and difficult to work with. Russia and Arianespace were able to capitalize on that. In the end, Boeing decided pursuing commercial laucnhes was not worth the effort, and LM is still having difficulty finding customers.
Correct me if I am wrong here but aren't the ranges run by the USAF/DOD.
Perhaps a better strategy than ULA is to go figure out how to make the ranges less pricey and difficult to work with. If this prevents commercial customers from using US launchers, then the USAF is shooting themselves in the foot.

You are right. The ranges are owned and operated by the AF. But range costs are not a significant piece of a commercial launch. The issue is that the US launchers are competing against foreign systems that have far more government support than they do. For example, 100% of the development cost of the Ariane V was paid by ESA/CNES, where only 25% of the EELV development cost was paid by the AF. The remainder was paid by the companies (Boeing and LM) who hope to recover their investment some day.
#187 by Dexter on 24 Oct, 2006 06:21
Quote
quark - 23/10/2006 11:55 PM

Quote
Dexter - 23/10/2006 12:16 AM

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm

Wow, I agree. Your source is completely out of whack. (an example, it says that Atlas V is produced by Convair, which hasn't been the case for about 13 years.) Atlas prices are not available on the internet. Get over it.

I don't think Convair ever produced an Atlas V so you are right there. I don't think Convair ever would have produced it according to this history:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdf

Everyone wanted to kill the original Atlas architecture and the Martin folks finally did.
Incidentally, there is a quote on page 257 of the pdf file from an Ed Bock,
"I think if we'd had a failure shortly after we moved here, we would have been Titanized at the drop of a hat".
What does that mean? It sounds derrogatory especially when you read the next paragraph. Did this Titanization occurr with Atlas V?

As far as prices go, unless you can provide refuting evidence, I will take them as ballpark numbers. The $77M seems to be reflected elsewhere. What atonishes me is the near doubling of the price. How much of the vehicle is a fixed cost?

[/QUOTE]
"A few clarifications. Atlas III was discontinued because no one wanted to buy it and it cost more to produce than the Atlas V 401 which has more performance. Why pay more for less? From LM's perspective it also increased fixed costs to maintain two production lines, sets of engineering etc."

[/QUOTE]
Is the cost of producing a 401, the promisary "get pregnant" price ($77M) or the real price based on work done($138M). If the Atlas V is so good, why are there only two commercial launches in 05-06. That's right, the market collapsed, but according to Jim, the sattellite suppliers are governed more by the commercial market, which is why it is not a good idea to create an Alliance of Satellite Suppliers. We can't compete against the Russians because of their low wages even though you said the cost of the rocket is not in the tank but in the engines and avionics, and of course the engine is made by Russians and their cheap wages and when you look at pictures of an Atlas 3 compared to a 401, the only striking difference is the booster tank and a fancy new pad whose cost to develop would need to be amortized against the unit cost of said vehicles.

So what's the point of ULA. Downselect now. One production line, one set of engineering, no relocations required. I'll take my EELV with American engines and Payload fairings, Thank You.
[/QUOTE]

"The decision to switch MRO to Atlas V was a win-win for NASA and LM. NASA got a higher performing vehicle for the same price which allowed the launch window to be expanded to almost double its original size. The costs of switching were absorbed by LM because of the inherently lower cost of the LV. It's not free to switch. Lot's of analyses, planning, documents, interfaces, etc had to be changed."

[/QUOTE]

So why was the switch done if it took all that extra work? Sounds like a bad business decision or a desire to eliminate capability in launching national security assets into space like 18 of the buy 1 EELV missions.

[/QUOTE]

"I don't know what you mean by "subsidies". The AF needs the capability to launch national security satellites. There is a cost associated with providing that capability. Are you against the government paying private companies for the services it recieves?"[/QUOTE]
The subsidy is quoted from the web site. Those Buy 3 contracts certainly could be perceived as subsidies
I am not against paying for services rendered but the infamous $600 hammer reported by the GAO has me thinking here.
#188 by Jim on 24 Oct, 2006 13:53
"So what's the point of ULA. Downselect now. One production line, one set of engineering, no relocations required. I'll take my EELV with American engines and Payload fairings, Thank You."

Wrong assumption!!! Delta-IV uses Japanese tanks

"So why was the switch done if it took all that extra work? Sounds like a bad business decision or a desire to eliminate capability in launching national security assets into space like 18 of the buy 1 EELV missions."

Wrong again!!!! The swtich was done to save money and provide the MRO spacecraft more capability. The MRO Altas V was not one the USAF's

"Is the cost of producing a 401, the promisary "get pregnant" price ($77M) or the real price based on work done($138M)."

It is not 138.

"Did this Titanization occurr with Atlas V?

No. But one of the problems of the Altas ballon tank was it took extra manpower and special hardware to build, maintain and launch and now days the extra performance it provided wasn't worth the $.
#189 by Gus on 24 Oct, 2006 14:39
Actually, the GX program performed several trade studies on the balloon tank was the low cost option. It was compared to a Titan 2, an Atlas V, and a Michoud supplied tank. The cost data of course is proprietary.

The advantage of Atlas V is in the multiple solids and larger fairings capability it brings to the table.

We would not have been able to launch New Horizons to Pluto without it.
#190 by Propforce on 24 Oct, 2006 16:37
Quote
Jim - 24/10/2006 6:36 AM

"So what's the point of ULA. Downselect now. One production line, one set of engineering, no relocations required. I'll take my EELV with American engines and Payload fairings, Thank You."

Wrong assumption!!! Delta-IV uses Japanese tanks

That's not quite correct. Part of tank subassembly was made by MHI, just as they use our part of tank subassembly for the H-IIA rocket, but the final tank assembly is done at Decatur.

Japan has been our best supplier among all the suppliers. Their commitment to schedule, cost and quality is second to none.
#191 by bombay on 25 Oct, 2006 00:14
"Wrong assumption!!! Delta-IV uses Japanese tanks"

So whats your point, in a downselect process the gov't would weigh Japanese made fuel tanks equal to that of Russian made engines?

Wrong again!!!! The swtich was done to save money and provide the MRO spacecraft more capability. The MRO Altas V was not one the USAF's

So what's your point, the USAF is charged more for the same performing rocket?

"It is not 138."

O.K. then what is it - 50, 60, 70 percent more? It was marketed at $77million

"Did this Titanization occurr with Atlas V?
No. But one of the problems of the Altas ballon tank was it took extra manpower and special hardware to build, maintain and launch and now days the extra performance it provided wasn't worth the $."

The "Titanization" of Atlas has nothing to do with extra manpower and hardware to run the program - that amounts to chump change comparatively speaking.
It has everything to do with: (1) the total reliance on gov't contracts and funding to maintain the program (2) massive gov't oversight/beauracracy in running and maintaining the program (3) no knowledge on how to compete in the commercial market and (4) no control of the obscene GS&A costs that are wrapped up into the cost of a launch that has fueled the cost to $138million or there abouts from $77million.

That is the definition of "Titanization" and that accurately describes what the Atlas program has morphed into over the years.
#192 by Jim on 25 Oct, 2006 00:40
"It has everything to do with: (1) the total reliance on gov't contracts and funding to maintain the program (2) massive gov't oversight/beauracracy in running and maintaining the program (3) no knowledge on how to compete in the commercial market and (4) no control of the obscene GS&A costs that are wrapped up into the cost of a launch that has fueled the cost to $138million or there abouts from $77million"

1. No, Atlas doesn't rely on gov't contracts, but Delta-IV does
2. No, there isn't the same oversight as Titan. There is less oversight.
3. They know how to compete, they still have commercial contracts.
4. Wrong, the costs added are buy down of the non recurring costs of development not GS&A
#193 by edkyle99 on 25 Oct, 2006 01:18
Quote
Dexter - 24/10/2006 1:04 AM

As far as prices go ... [t]he $77M seems to be reflected elsewhere. What astonishes me is the near doubling of the price. How much of the vehicle is a fixed cost?

The near doubling of the price (it actually has more than doubled on a per-launch basis) was not Atlas-specific, it came from a GAO report released in June 2004 regarding the progress of the entire EELV program.

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d04778r.html

It said,

"Program costs have increased over the approved 2002 program baseline
estimate of $18.8 billion, resulting from the failure of the commercial
market to materialize, additional access to space and mission assurance
initiatives, and several other factors such as incorrect inflation
assumptions and satellite weight growth. Specifically, the EELV System
Program Office reported about $13.3 billion in program cost increases
over the life of the program, as reflected in previous DOD acquisition
reports."

Later in the report, it said,

"This group reported additional cost increases built into the revised
program cost baseline based on 137 operational missions instead of the
previous 181 manifested missions."

So, according to this report, the original EELV program plan had called for $18.8 billion for 181 missions, an average of $103.9 million per mission. The new plan calls for $32.1 billion for only 137 missions, an average of $234.3 million per mission. That is a 125% increase on a per-launch basis.

The cost went up largely because the government decided it need two, rather than only one, EELV. That meant that it had to fund two production lines, two sets of launch facilities on *both* coasts, etc. The "collapse" of the commercial launch market was part of it, but it only accounts for a bit more than half of the increase, according to the GAO report.

I could go on and on about the "collapse" of the presumed commercial launch market. In fact, the presumed commercial launch market was never really there, unless the fantastic plans for 800+ Teledesic satellites and the like were presumed to be real. Boeing said it had a 60-launch commercial backlog for Delta III and IV at one point. There were going to be two dozen Delta III flights at least! That turned out to be a fantasy, as we know now.

Now, ULA promises to trim away at the projected $32.1 billion total program cost, which would reduce the per-launch cost. Whether that will in fact happen remains to be seen. A more certain way to cut costs would be to abandon one of the largely-redundant EELV programs entirely.

- Ed Kyle
#194 by bombay on 25 Oct, 2006 03:43
Quote
Jim - 24/10/2006 7:23 PM

"It has everything to do with: (1) the total reliance on gov't contracts and funding to maintain the program (2) massive gov't oversight/beauracracy in running and maintaining the program (3) no knowledge on how to compete in the commercial market and (4) no control of the obscene GS&A costs that are wrapped up into the cost of a launch that has fueled the cost to $138million or there abouts from $77million"

1. No, Atlas doesn't rely on gov't contracts, but Delta-IV does
2. No, there isn't the same oversight as Titan. There is less oversight.
3. They know how to compete, they still have commercial contracts.
4. Wrong, the costs added are buy down of the non recurring costs of development not GS&A
O.K. you convinced me. So Atlas doesn't rely on gov't contracts, there isn't alot of gov't oversight, Atlas can compete commercially, and GS&A is right in-line with any other normal operating business.

Definition of ULA: (1) total reliance on gov't contracts (2) massive gov't oversight/beauracracy embedded within the company (3) no commercial contracts or the need to compete commercially (4) subsidized by the gov't to fund the obscene GS&A costs with no concern for cost overruns.

So, it's easy to see that: The Atlas program has not been "Titanized" but ULA will be.
#195 by Dexter on 25 Oct, 2006 04:55
Jim

In case you missed it, Bombay is not really agreeing with you. This is known as sarcasm.
#196 by Dexter on 25 Oct, 2006 05:23
Quote
Gus - 24/10/2006 9:22 AM

Actually, the GX program performed several trade studies on the balloon tank was the low cost option. It was compared to a Titan 2, an Atlas V, and a Michoud supplied tank. The cost data of course is proprietary.

But Jim and Quark insist that the Atlas V is the lower cost launch vehicle!

This falls right in line with the savings promised by combining Atlas and Titan in 1995.
The promised savings of creating ULA which the DOD does not believe will be realized.
and here is another promise for you;
1997 -
"The common core boosters are powered by the Pratt & Whitney manufactured RD-180 engine for U.S. government missions"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/1997/eelv_pr_l.htm
Lets see. I am not a rocket scientist but that is about 9 years give or take. How long does it take to make an American RD-180 or is this just another "promise"?
#197 by Dexter on 25 Oct, 2006 05:30
Quote
edkyle99 - 24/10/2006 8:01 PM

[So, according to this report, the original EELV program plan had called for $18.8 billion for 181 missions, an average of $103.9 million per mission. The new plan calls for $32.1 billion for only 137 missions, an average of $234.3 million per mission. That is a 125% increase on a per-launch basis.

- Ed Kyle

So Jim was right on this point, it is not $138 million.

In fact according to this, it is somewhat higher.

A 125 % increase on $77M is $173M.

Can anyone hum the theme music for the NBC Nightly News??
#198 by meiza on 25 Oct, 2006 12:21
Perhaps the GX is more intended for smaller payloads (they have the H-2B after all) and thus doesn't need the more versatile rigid tanks where you can attach solids and various upper stages and fairings. Just my hunch.
#199 by Dexter on 26 Oct, 2006 04:08
Quote
meiza - 25/10/2006 7:04 AM

Perhaps the GX is more intended for smaller payloads (they have the H-2B after all) and thus doesn't need the more versatile rigid tanks where you can attach solids and various upper stages and fairings. Just my hunch.

I think the point here is that the Atlas V/EELV proponents have been claiming that the Atlas 3 was more expensive to manufacture, yet a lockheed guy says trade studies were performed which suggests otherwise.

As noted previously, the 3 could do 18 of the Buy1 missions.

And this is exactly the point the causes me much irritation. The inconsistency of logic in the offerred arguments diminishes the credibility of the people vehemently defending ULA, EELV, etc...