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
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...
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.
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.
Dexter - 23/10/2006 10:30 PMQuotepad 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.
quark - 23/10/2006 11:55 PMQuoteDexter - 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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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"?
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
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.