-
#200 by Jim on 26 Oct, 2006 11:56
-
No, the EELV Medium requirement was 10K to GTO. A-III didn't meet this. Also the taking 18 away from Atlas V would drive up the costs of the remaining vehicles
-
#201 by edkyle99 on 26 Oct, 2006 14:57
-
Quote
Dexter - 25/10/2006 12:13 AM
Quoteedkyle99 - 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??
The space news media, not just the nightly news, has been asleep at the switch on this story. This GAO report was released more than two years ago, but the cost facts were buried in the report body. To find the truth, one had to read past the opening paragraphs.
- Ed Kyle -
#202 by bombay on 26 Oct, 2006 23:42
-
"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 great philosopher Santayana said: "Advertisement is the modern substitue for argument, its function is to make the worse appear better".
-
#203 by bombay on 27 Oct, 2006 00:01
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 26/10/2006 9:40 AM
The public was led down the primrose path on this one!!QuoteDexter - 25/10/2006 12:13 AM
Quoteedkyle99 - 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??
The space news media, not just the nightly news, has been asleep at the switch on this story. This GAO report was released more than two years ago, but the cost facts were buried in the report body. To find the truth, one had to read past the opening paragraphs.
- Ed Kyle
What's the motivation behind concealing the truth? Why the deceit? Who's really benefitting from all of this? This is no different than what shady politicians do - feed the public short sound bites and play us as a bunch of fools. -
#204 by Jim on 27 Oct, 2006 00:09
-
Quote
bombay - 26/10/2006 7:44 PM
Quoteedkyle99 - 26/10/2006 9:40 AM
QuoteDexter - 25/10/2006 12:13 AM
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??
The public was led down the primrose path on this one!!
What's the motivation behind concealing the truth? Why the deceit? Who's really benefitting from all of this? This is no different than what shady politicians do - feed the public short sound bites and play us as a bunch of fools.
wrong again! It is less than 138 million. First hand knowledge -
#205 by bombay on 27 Oct, 2006 00:16
-
Quote
Jim - 26/10/2006 6:39 AM
The 18 weren't meant for Atlas V, they were meant for Atlas IIAR per Gus's post. Therefore, the AtlasV pricing was not with the 18 in mind. The Atlas V pricing of $77million was, as we have uncovered by way of Ed's post, a dubious figure based on totally unrealistic, wishful forecasting.
No, the EELV Medium requirement was 10K to GTO. A-III didn't meet this. Also the taking 18 away from Atlas V would drive up the costs of the remaining vehicles -
#206 by Jim on 27 Oct, 2006 00:26
-
Quote
bombay - 26/10/2006 7:59 PM
QuoteJim - 26/10/2006 6:39 AM
The 18 weren't meant for Atlas V, they were meant for Atlas IIAR per Gus's post. Therefore, the AtlasV pricing was not with the 18 in mind. The Atlas V pricing of $77million was, as we have uncovered by way of Ed's post, a dubious figure based on totally unrealistic, wishful forecasting.
No, the EELV Medium requirement was 10K to GTO. A-III didn't meet this. Also the taking 18 away from Atlas V would drive up the costs of the remaining vehicles
No. Those 18 were never, never A-III's. They were part of the EELV's buys. A-III was not an EELV. The 18 Atlas IIAR were for commercial customers and had nothing to do with EELV's or the 18 EELV missions. Just like the 18 Atlas I's that were to be built and reduced to something like 11 because the market didn't want them.
And like I said before the EELV Medium requirement was 10K to GTO. A-III didn't meet this, so those missions couldn't use A-III -
#207 by R&R on 27 Oct, 2006 01:12
-
The increase in cost may not really be as bad as it looks. Delta IV was originally priced with the assumption that they would build 40 CBC's a year in Decatur and 17 launches a year from the two coasts (only 2 or 3/yr at VAFB I think) most of them being Heavies and some with dual payloads. So given they've dropped to 3 or 4 a year at this point a doubling of the price aint bad. 75% fewer launches for 100% more instead 400% more.
-
#208 by bombay on 27 Oct, 2006 02:22
-
Quote
Jim - 26/10/2006 6:39 AM
How many of the buy1 EELV's had payload weights more than 9.92K - what AtlasIII could deliver to GTO. I would venture to guess that AtlasIII could have boosted them all at a far, far cheaper price.
No, the EELV Medium requirement was 10K to GTO. A-III didn't meet this. Also the taking 18 away from Atlas V would drive up the costs of the remaining vehicles
The Atlas V costs exploded regardless of not taking the 18 away once the AtlasIII was gone and it's easy to understand why being that a cheaper alternative was removed from service.
Gus's trade study, Ed's GAO report, Dexter's pricing search via the internet, the DoD report, the FTC report, all indicate that the AtlasV is and will be way more costly than what we're led to believe. And yet, the Gospel according to Jim says otherwise. -
#209 by edkyle99 on 27 Oct, 2006 03:16
-
Quote
bombay - 26/10/2006 9:05 PM
QuoteJim - 26/10/2006 6:39 AM
How many of the buy1 EELV's had payload weights more than 9.92K - what AtlasIII could deliver to GTO. I would venture to guess that AtlasIII could have boosted them all at a far, far cheaper price.
No, the EELV Medium requirement was 10K to GTO. A-III didn't meet this. Also the taking 18 away from Atlas V would drive up the costs of the remaining vehicles
The Atlas V costs exploded regardless of not taking the 18 away once the AtlasIII was gone and it's easy to understand why being that a cheaper alternative was removed from service.
Gus's trade study, Ed's GAO report, Dexter's pricing search via the internet, the DoD report, the FTC report, all indicate that the AtlasV is and will be way more costly than what we're led to believe. And yet, the Gospel according to Jim says otherwise.
Keep in mind that the GAO report only discussed the total EELV program, which includes both Atlas V and Delta IV. It is possible, and even likely, that one of the EELVs accounts for more of the cost increase than the other. The publically available evidence (the fact that Boeing cheated on its initial EELV bids and then dropped out of commercial payload competition altogether, etc.) hints that Delta IV is probably the costlier one. (Perhaps Delta IV tripled in cost while Altas V only went up a little - only the EELV players know for sure.) That would mean that the taxpayer might be subsidizing one EELV more than the other. ULA might help alleviate this problem.
- Ed Kyle -
#210 by quark on 27 Oct, 2006 04:06
-
Between Dexter, Bombay and Ed, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you really trying to argue that Atlas III was less expensive than Atlas V? Are you trying to argue that Boeing and LM are getting rich on launch?
First of all, it only makes sense to compare an Atlas III with the Atlas V 401. That is the apples to apples comparison. The GAO report, the GX trade study and any data available on the web will give you essentially nothing with which to judge.
It is true that GX chose the Atlas III based first stage. That does not imply that an Atlas III as a system is less expensive than an Atlas V 401. The GX trade study was referenced to a GX system having a Japanese upper stage launched out of Tanegashima. The AIII vs AV comparison is at the system level with the same booster engine, same upper stage, but different tank construction and different launch pad. Also keep in mind that the 401 is about 15% more performance to GTO. The Atlas V tank was overkill for the GX vehicle, but even so the trade study was essentially a toss up. And the tank construction cost is a small piece of the total.
The business decision to terminate Atlas III was simple. The variable cost of AIII was higher for lower performance. The fixed cost associated with AIII could be eliminated: Manufacturing, engineering and an entire launch pad (LC-36). That's real money saved.
The GAO report quite fairly describes the reasons for the cost growth of the EELV program. All are factors outside the control of the contractors. Nowhere did they cite mismanagement or gouging the government as reasons. Yes the projected cost did increase. But left unsaid is the cost of using the heritage systems (Titan IV, Atlas II and Delta II) which are well over $60B. So even after the growth, EELV still saved the taxpayer 50%.
On the development side, the taxpayer made out like a bandit. They got $5B worth of development for a paltry $1B. They got two systems with substantially more capability than the heritage. They got systems with substantially more reliability than heritage. And they got assured access for the first time in history. Two systems with overlapping capability.
For the contractors, the opposite is true. EELV has been a bad business. Why do you think both Boeing and LM are so eager to spin it off? Launch is high risk, low margin. If anyone ever asks you to invest in a launch business, run the other way. Better to light your money on fire. Even SpaceX is getting the message. Ariane has lost mone for the last 5 years.
ULA is an attempt to stabalize the business so that the essential capability of launch for national security missions is maintained. -
#211 by Dexter on 27 Oct, 2006 05:19
-
Quote
quark - 26/10/2006 10:49 PM
Between Dexter, Bombay and Ed, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you really trying to argue that Atlas III was less expensive than Atlas V? Are you trying to argue that Boeing and LM are getting rich on launch?
.
This thread is suppose to be about ULA.
Here is the point I am trying to make, but first let me recap.
1995 - Norm Augustine says combining Atlas and Titan will save money. Subsequently, Titan IV is featured in fleecing of America as a taxpayer rip-off.
1997 - Lockheed states that they will have Pratt & Whitney made RD-180 engines. The 2006 Rand report states that Lockheed does not have this capability yet and will still have to invest $500M to $800M to have American RD-180s
EELV program initiated in the early 1990s to replace legacy systems with new launch vehicle. Everyone takes the fake and goes for the pie in the sky commercial market forecast including the USAF who allow two contractors to build when one was the original intent.
ULA announced to "stabilize" the industry with advertised savings of $100m - $150M. FTC and DOD do not believe savings will be realized.
FTC approves ULA because of DOD plea of concern for national security.
ULA will put programs at risk because critical technical employees will not relocate (see Propforce's post). Similar occurrence on Titan failures in 1998-99 as reported by AW&ST (reference my earlier post) due to a loss of critical technical people.
Reason stated by you and Jim as to why MRO was switched to V from 3 is because the Atlas V is cheaper primarily because of more labor in the balloon tank. GX trade study mentioned by Gus says otherwise. (I am too tired to get your exact quote right now)
So now to my point. The proponents of ULA are supporting an ill-conceived plan that will deteriorate our ability to launch national security payloads. The downfall of the ULA plan will be in the loss of critical employess which has been summarily dismissed by the proponents here. The track record of forecasting risks is as follows:
Inability to properly assess the commercial market as in EELV.
Inability to show savings in 1995.
Prices creeping to Titan IV levels.
And then there is the credibility of the proponents.
ULA promises savings. FTC and DOD do not believe it.
3 is more expensive than 5 (401)
RD180 will be produced by Pratt and Whitney.
Commercial market collapsed yet it is still viable for sattelite manufacturers
Commercial market collapsed in 2002 yet Atlas had 5 commercial launches in 2004 but could only muster 2 in two years with Atlas V
3 could only launch 2 of 6 missions flown on Atlas V but sure seems capable of doing 18 of the buy 1 missions etc...
Delta 2 and Atlas 2/3 both recently mdernized and commercially viable are the victims of of the USAF and the contractors wanting their new toys.
Now we are stuck with two systems that can't compete commercially and the proposed solution to merge them which will create a lot of risk.
Just pick the better vehicle and move on. This is what should have happened initially and is what should happen now. -
#212 by Dexter on 27 Oct, 2006 05:26
-
Quote
quark - 26/10/2006 10:49 PM
The business decision to terminate Atlas III was simple. The variable cost of AIII was higher for lower performance. The fixed cost associated with AIII could be eliminated: Manufacturing, engineering and an entire launch pad (LC-36). That's real money saved.
This argument is a contradiction to your support of ULA.
If you downselect to one supplier between Atlas V and Delta 4 you could save some real money.
I know, you want duplicate overlapping systems for assured access.
But the DOD in their letter to FTC stated that Access to Space for National Security is more important than cost.
So why eliminate launch capability by eliminating launch pads?
-
#213 by Dexter on 27 Oct, 2006 05:35
-
Quote
quark - 26/10/2006 10:49 PM
On the development side, the taxpayer made out like a bandit. They got $5B worth of development for a paltry $1B. They got two systems with substantially more capability than the heritage. They got systems with substantially more reliability than heritage. And they got assured access for the first time in history. Two systems with overlapping capability.
Why don't you acknowledge that the companies did not have their arms twisted to invest their own money. Business is a risk. Good executives know how to manage risk and pursue good business. This is an example of defense contractors thinking they are good at business and failing in the commercial sector because they have no experience.
The whole assured access mantra would not even be spoken now if Titan IV wasn't such a tax payer rip-off and therefore no EELV program. -
#214 by Dexter on 27 Oct, 2006 05:54
-
Quote
quark - 26/10/2006 10:49 PM
It is true that GX chose the Atlas III based first stage. That does not imply that an Atlas III as a system is less expensive than an Atlas V 401.
.
OK. I am looking at side by side pictures of a IIIB and a 401 on Gunter's Space Page.
http://www.skyrocket.de/space/
Going top to bottom
Same fairing
Same upperstage
different tank
I assume the same engine.
Quoting Jim-
"No. But one of the problems of the Altas ballon tank was it took extra manpower and special hardware to build, maintain and launch "
Quoting Gus-
"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."
Can you see where there is a loss of credibility that transfers to my skepticism about ULA? -
#215 by meiza on 27 Oct, 2006 11:25
-
I don't know much, but here are some arguments you seemed to miss.
If some of the payloads need smaller and some bigger launchers, it's possibly cheaper to keep one launcher that does them both, even if it's somewhat oversize for the light launches, than a separate light and heavy launcher. The previous separate heavy launcher sure was expensive. Keeping capability is expensive.
It is also good to keep two launchers that can both do light and heavy stuff since that gives competition and redundancy. -
#216 by Dexter on 28 Oct, 2006 15:13
-
Here is an interesting rumor-
"LMT and BA called the gov's bluff when they announced ULA.
They called the bluff and approved it.
Now no news at all since the first week of the month. "Lots of documents to complete" seems to the the public line. (Which begets the question "What have they been doing for the last seventeen months?" But I digress.)
Rumor has it that there's still a zero-$um-game dogfight going on over what mom and dad are going to give to the baby for birthday presents. (You'd think they might have known that before they announced the deal in the first place. But I digress again.)
What are the chances that, after all that has happened, mom and dad's hankering to stiff each other--not to mention the baby--will end up killing this deal? And who, save Mr. Gass, will really be sad about it?
Inquiring minds want to know... Any other juicy tidbits?"
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Capital_Goods/Aerospace_and_Defense/threadview?m=tm&bn=10767&tid=178714&mid=178714&tof=42&frt=2
The light might be turning green but the greed will keep the car from moving. So much for the altruistic argument for national security.
-
#217 by Jim on 28 Oct, 2006 15:38
-
A yahoo message board is the last place to get reliable info.
-
#218 by bombay on 28 Oct, 2006 15:51
-
Quote
Jim - 28/10/2006 10:21 AM
No more so than you get reliable info. from this board that logically supports ULA.
A yahoo message board is the last place to get reliable info. -
#219 by Jim on 28 Oct, 2006 16:04
-
Quote
bombay - 28/10/2006 11:34 AM
QuoteJim - 28/10/2006 10:21 AM
No more so than you get reliable info. from this board that logically supports ULA.
A yahoo message board is the last place to get reliable info.
Logically is the correct term.
