-
#380
by
Jim
on 18 Nov, 2006 02:34
-
It's not that. Just pointing out that D-IV fails to meet the requirements too. Forgot to add that the Heavy also doesn't meet the payload to orbit
-
#381
by
Dexter
on 18 Nov, 2006 04:31
-
Jim - 17/11/2006 8:31 PM
Propforce - 17/11/2006 9:27 PM
Jim - 17/11/2006 6:05 PM
Propforce - 17/11/2006 7:38 PM
Boeing won BIG by making it's own infrastructure investment, including a Heavy, that met & far exceeded EELV launch requriements.
Actually the D-IV medium fails to meet the payload to orbit requirements.
D-IV Medium plus meet those requirements.
The requirements were for no solids
A few pages back you were talking about how great Atlas V was because you could add solids. The expression was "dial a rocket" if I recall correctly. You also pointed out that solids were added for commercial customers. But obviously DOD would take advantage of the D4M+ with the solids added.
So what's your point.
How about this one. Current and previous space transportation policies prohibit the dependence of foreign made critical components. Contraves, CASA, and RD-180 don't meet the requirements either.
-
#382
by
Dexter
on 18 Nov, 2006 04:36
-
-
#383
by
quark
on 18 Nov, 2006 05:22
-
-
#384
by
Jim
on 18 Nov, 2006 11:01
-
Dexter - 18/11/2006 12:14 AM
Jim - 17/11/2006 8:31 PM
Propforce - 17/11/2006 9:27 PM
Jim - 17/11/2006 6:05 PM
Propforce - 17/11/2006 7:38 PM
Boeing won BIG by making it's own infrastructure investment, including a Heavy, that met & far exceeded EELV launch requriements.
Actually the D-IV medium fails to meet the payload to orbit requirements.
D-IV Medium plus meet those requirements.
The requirements were for no solids
A few pages back you were talking about how great Atlas V was because you could add solids. The expression was "dial a rocket" if I recall correctly. You also pointed out that solids were added for commercial customers. But obviously DOD would take advantage of the D4M+ with the solids added.
So what's your point.
How about this one. Current and previous space transportation policies prohibit the dependence of foreign made critical components. Contraves, CASA, and RD-180 don't meet the requirements either.
The solids for Atlas were not for meeting the EELV requirements.
But since we are talking foreign suppliers,the D-IV use Japanese domes on the second stages.
-
#385
by
Dexter
on 18 Nov, 2006 16:17
-
Jim - 18/11/2006 5:44 AM
But since we are talking foreign suppliers,the D-IV use Japanese domes on the second stages.
Let's dissect this Japanese dome issue.
1) Is there any evidence that Boeing promised to co-produce domes in the United States?
2) Did the Rand Report mention Japanese domes as a risk item with a $500M to $800M development cost?
3) Could these domes be manufactured in the US by the same providers of domes for Atlas V?
4) Does the US see Japan as more of an ally with co-operation on programs like FX/F2?
Bringing up the Japanese domes is apples and oranges and a feeble attempt to associate a major lapse in program requirements on Lockheed's part with a non-critical component that could easily be duplicated in the US for Boeing's program.
-
#386
by
Propforce
on 18 Nov, 2006 16:41
-
Jim - 18/11/2006 3:44 AM
But since we are talking foreign suppliers,the D-IV use Japanese domes on the second stages.
Boeing is fully capable to produce the 2nd stage dome here in the U.S.
Can Lockheed do so with the RD-180?
-
#387
by
bombay
on 18 Nov, 2006 19:53
-
What's really strange is that the Russians have shared technology, production information and permitted coproduction of the RD-180.
The Air Force contract calls for Lockheed to pay for development costs but acknowledges that they (the USAF) will ultimately absorb these costs given that they will be the primary consumer of the capability.
Why would Lockheed drag their feet on RD-180 development if the costs would ultimately be on the Air Force's nickle? Why would Lockheed turn their backs on a no-lose situation?
-
#388
by
edkyle99
on 19 Nov, 2006 00:43
-
-
#389
by
Nick L.
on 19 Nov, 2006 02:09
-
-
#390
by
James Lowe1
on 19 Nov, 2006 02:41
-
Which is obviously not correct.
USAF release:
The U.S. Air Force announces the award of an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Launch Capability (ELC) contract to The Boeing Company (Integrated Defense Systems, Huntington Beach, CA). This Boeing ELC contract is for a 16-month period and provides the infrastructure required for launch capability to support four launches per year, with one of those from the west coast. Launch capability includes prime and supplier critical skills retention; engineering; program management; launch and range site activities; and mission integration. Since previously awarded mission prices included this same scope of work, those contracts will be adjusted to remove any duplication in scope.
This contract is part of the EELV Buy 3 strategy to enable a flexible contract structure in which the Government aims to share an appropriate level of risk with the launch service providers, preserve the space launch industrial base, and stabilize the launch operations tempo. The revised EELV acquisition strategy focusing on the U.S. Government and National Security Space as the primary user of EELV and absolute Mission Success as the primary goal.
According to the Launch and Range Systems Wing chief engineer, Col. Joseph F Boyle, "We now have the basic contract structure in place to provide the government’s required level of mission assurance with both Boeing and Lockheed Martin and we will have the assured access to space needed for national security."
The new acquisition strategy incorporates two separate contracts for each launch provider: ELC, and a Launch Service contract (ELS). ELC contracts are a standard government negotiated procurement and thus fundamentally different from the previous commercial type contracts. The new contracts require traditional cost reporting from the contractors, and will comply with Cost Accounting Standards and the DoD Earned Value Management Systems policy.
The Boeing ELC contract was awarded today. A pre-contract cost letter was signed that recognizes costs as of June 1, 2006, upon the successful resolution of the DCAA audit of Boeing’s proposal. Thus the period of performance on the Boeing ELC contract is June 1, 2006 through Sept. 30, 2007. The Boeing ELC contract value is $674 million for the 16-month period of performance.
The Lockheed Martin ELC contract was awarded on Feb. 28, 2006 for $815 million and covers a 24-month period of performance from Oct. 1, 2005 through Sept. 30, 2007.
The Launch Services portion of Buy 3 contract strategy or ELS, covers the specific launches. The Government will award ELS contracts on a per mission basis, awarded at least two years in advance of the anticipated launch. We are currently in negotiations for award of the first ELS contract.
The EELV program is a world-class space launch system that has enjoyed unprecedented success, 15 successes for 15 missions, supporting military, intelligence, and civil mission requirements previously serviced by Titan II, Delta II, Atlas II, and Titan IV. With the Nation’s critical dependence on space launch, EELV meets National Security Space needs, National Space Transportation Policy requirements for assured access, and Congressional mandates.
-
#391
by
Nick L.
on 19 Nov, 2006 03:59
-
James Lowe1 - 18/11/2006 9:24 PM
Which is obviously not correct.
Okay, I can admit it when I'm wrong...
Correct me if I'm wrong again, but the release states that costs are for a "16 month period of performance" starting June 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007. Does that mean the $674 million includes NROL-22 and DMSP F17 (which launched within the "period of performance") as well as the two Heavies?
I hope I understand all of this properly now.
Nick
-
#392
by
edkyle99
on 19 Nov, 2006 04:37
-
James Lowe1 - 18/11/2006 9:24 PM
USAF release:
The U.S. Air Force announces the award of an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Launch Capability (ELC) contract to The Boeing Company (Integrated Defense Systems, Huntington Beach, CA). This Boeing ELC contract is for a 16-month period and provides the infrastructure required for launch capability to support four launches per year, with one of those from the west coast. Launch capability includes prime and supplier critical skills retention; engineering; program management; launch and range site activities; and mission integration. Since previously awarded mission prices included this same scope of work, those contracts will be adjusted to remove any duplication in scope.
This contract is part of the EELV Buy 3 strategy to enable a flexible contract structure in which the Government aims to share an appropriate level of risk with the launch service providers, preserve the space launch industrial base, and stabilize the launch operations tempo. The revised EELV acquisition strategy focusing on the U.S. Government and National Security Space as the primary user of EELV and absolute Mission Success as the primary goal. ...
The new acquisition strategy incorporates two separate contracts for each launch provider: ELC, and a Launch Service contract (ELS). ELC contracts are a standard government negotiated procurement and thus fundamentally different from the previous commercial type contracts. The new contracts require traditional cost reporting from the contractors, and will comply with Cost Accounting Standards and the DoD Earned Value Management Systems policy.
The Boeing ELC contract was awarded today. A pre-contract cost letter was signed that recognizes costs as of June 1, 2006, upon the successful resolution of the DCAA audit of Boeing’s proposal. Thus the period of performance on the Boeing ELC contract is June 1, 2006 through Sept. 30, 2007. The Boeing ELC contract value is $674 million for the 16-month period of performance. ...
The Launch Services portion of Buy 3 contract strategy or ELS, covers the specific launches. The Government will award ELS contracts on a per mission basis, awarded at least two years in advance of the anticipated launch. We are currently in negotiations for award of the first ELS contract.
OK. So this $674 million is the amount it costs to be ready to launch
whether any Delta 4 launchers fly or not. If the projected four launches occur during the contract period, then it will have cost an average of $168.5 million per launch,
not including the price of the launch! The launch price is extra!
If I'm understanding this right, then the $674 million must essentially be what it costs extra to have two, rather than one, EELV program running during a 16 month period.
- Ed Kyle
-
#393
by
Propforce
on 19 Nov, 2006 07:52
-
edkyle99 - 18/11/2006 9:20 PM
OK. So this $674 million is the amount it costs to be ready to launch whether any Delta 4 launchers fly or not.
- Ed Kyle
Yeah... try to figure this out is like trying to figure out the TRUE COST of the Space Shuttle launches
-
#394
by
Analyst
on 19 Nov, 2006 09:28
-
Dod is seperating fixed costs from marginal costs. The contract names imply it:
The Launch Capability Contract (ECL) provides the infrastructure required for launch. These are the fixed costs, weather you fly or not. 674m$ for 16 months for Boeing and 815m$ for 24 months for LM translates into 505.5m$ for Boeings Delta IV per year and 407.5m$ for LMs Atlas V per year. Just to have the capability to launch. The difference can easily be explained by Boeing having the Heavy infrastructure in place, LM not. You can say it costs 505.5m$ each year to have two full EELV programs running, compared to just one (If LM would offer a Heavy launcher, their fixed costs would probably rise.).
They talk about the capability to launch four missions per years (three ETR, one WTR), but I guess these fixed costs would not be substantially higher for say six or eight missions per year. They still have to maintain the same pads, the workforce, the production capability etc.
Now you have to add the marginal costs for a launch, covered in Launch Service Contracts (ELS). These cover the costs you have when conducting a launch, but you don’t have without flying. These costs will depend upon the launch configuration, less for a Medium, more for a Medium Plus, even more for a Heavy. We don’t have numbers for these because until now fixed and marginal costs were mixed in one contract: “Since previously awarded mission prices included this same scope of work, those contracts will be adjusted to remove any duplication in scope.”
The more missions, the more you spread the fixed costs, the lower the total costs per launch. I wonder if NASA or any commercial customer will have to pay only the marginal costs, since Dod covers the fixed costs, or if there is a mechanism to spread the fixed cost over all customers.
Analyst
PS: I know the difference between costs and prices, and I assume the numbers here include some kind of profit and are therefore no costs in a strict sense from Boeings or LMs point of view. But they are from a Dod point of view. Anyway, the argument is the same, only the numbers change.
-
#395
by
edkyle99
on 19 Nov, 2006 17:11
-
I look forward to seeing the launch services (marginal launch cost) information.
These numbers are scary-big for the low launch rates being supported. Both EELV programs together are costing $913 million per year for fixed costs alone, to support a presumed eight launches per year ($114 million per launch in fixed costs plus unknown marginal costs).
But there haven't been eight launches per year (both EELVs combined). There were only five this year. Next year might see a half dozen or more, but only two Delta 4 launches are expected (gives $252.75 million in fixed costs, not including marginal costs for those two Delta 4 launches, on average). NO Delta 4 launches are planned from Vandenberg next year.
$913 million is real money. It amounts to about $7 per U.S. individual tax return per year. Add the marginal launch cost surely drives this to more than a ten-spot per taxpayer. It might double it to $14. Where, I have to wonder, is the proported EELV savings to the taxpayer?
- Ed Kyle
-
#396
by
bombay
on 19 Nov, 2006 19:58
-
To get some idea of launch costs - per the RAND report, reasonable estimates for payloads costing $1B, launch costs will range between 10% and 20% of the LV total cost and payload total cost. For typical commercial payloads, launch costs are approximately 35% to 40% of the total costs, while smaller payloads, such as GPS, launch costs are about 50% of the total costs.
So if I understand this rule of thumb correctly, if an LV costs $100M and a payload costs $1B, the launch costs would range from $110M - $220M depending on configuration.
Assuming 8 launches per year (best case scenario) at $114M fixed, you have a total in the range of $224M-$334M per launch. The way it's beginning to look, $14/taxpayer might be a screaming deal.
-
#397
by
meiza
on 19 Nov, 2006 20:41
-
And what, if launches get cheaper, the payloads could get cheaper too?
-
#398
by
kevin-rf
on 20 Nov, 2006 00:12
-
So what happens if a comercial EELV does fly? Do they now reimburse the goverment for part of the fixed costs or is it a free ride?
Eyebrows raised...
-
#399
by
Jim
on 20 Nov, 2006 00:17
-
meiza - 19/11/2006 4:24 PM
And what, if launches get cheaper, the payloads could get cheaper too?
nope
