-
#400
by
Propforce
on 20 Nov, 2006 06:28
-
meiza - 19/11/2006 1:24 PM
And what, if launches get cheaper, the payloads could get cheaper too?
Payloads get bigger ... more complex... and heavier...
-
#401
by
yinzer
on 20 Nov, 2006 08:21
-
The EELVs were designed to support 10 launches per year, each, on a commercial basis. This was at the urging of the DoD, which thought it could save a lot of money by doing this. Of course, the commercial launch market imploded, Arianespace got their act together with the Ariane V, and Sea Launch and ILS started a vicious price war for what was left. The DoD's options are limited. They can pay reasonable rates for launches, which will result in Boeing or LM exiting the business (unclear which, the Atlas is better, Lockheed has a huge legal claim against Boeing, but also has the RD-180), and lots of people being laid off. They can pay someone to develop a new launch vehicle expected to fly 4 times a year, with correspondingly cheaper infrastructure, and deal with needing more lift capacity if the time comes. Or they can do what they're doing now, and pay whatever Boeing and Lockheed want.
All I'll say is that an extra 5-6 flights a year to the ISS would do wonders for the economics of the EELV. Too bad we have the Stick and COTS - I hope Doc Horowitz is proud of himself.
-
#402
by
yinzer
on 20 Nov, 2006 08:45
-
Sorry - by "on a commercial basis" I meant the customer delivers the satellite, and gets some assurances that the rocket will work (processes followed etc), and then gets a bill. Now they're going to the more typical cost-plus full-government-insight way of doing things, which naturally costs more.
However, this (the EELV debacle) is what the US Government
always does with space launch; the Titan IV infrastructure could probably have handled ten flights a year without breaking a sweat, except there were only payloads for four flights a year, and even those were frequently hideously delayed, especially those coming from the NRO. How much of the currently 1.5-year slip of the first west coast Atlas V launch do you think is due to the vehicle? How many of the flights listed
here have happened, and how many have had payload delays slipping them two or more years? This kind of nonsense directly increases costs.
-
#403
by
Jim
on 20 Nov, 2006 11:42
-
kevin-rf - 19/11/2006 7:55 PM
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...
Nope. Didn't happen on Delta II. NASA will get a "free ride " also wrt to fixed costs
-
#404
by
meiza
on 20 Nov, 2006 12:41
-
And even with this subsidy the EELV:s are not commercially viable...
I wonder what subsidies Arianespace gets.
-
#405
by
bombay
on 20 Nov, 2006 16:03
-
The Arianespace subsidies date back to 1987 when $9B was initially invested for development followed by $3B to fix technical problems followed by $1.5B in 2004 from European investors. That said, with high infrastucture costs, lower than expexted global demand, only one launch site, and other gov't subsidized competitors fighting for market share, if Ariane dosen't receive even more subsidies, they won't be able to continue to compete globally.
-
#406
by
kevin-rf
on 20 Nov, 2006 16:53
-
So the burning $77 million dolar question is what will the incremental cost be charged for each launch... Will it be less than $100 million per flight now that the fixed costs have been removed from the equation?
With the launch subsidies how about we rename EELV as Ariane... I am on the fence. It gives you more realistic launch costs, but for commercial customers we the tax payer are subsidizing the EELV launch. Or Ariane launch, How much are the Proton subsidies?
-
#407
by
quark
on 21 Nov, 2006 01:11
-
Jim - 20/11/2006 5:25 AM
kevin-rf - 19/11/2006 7:55 PM
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...
Nope. Didn't happen on Delta II. NASA will get a "free ride " also wrt to fixed costs
There is a credit back (to the AF) for every EELV sold to non-AF customers. That is part of the ELC contract. It was included in the price NASA paid for MSL and LRO for example. So not quite a free ride.
-
#408
by
lmike
on 21 Nov, 2006 03:46
-
yinzer - 20/11/2006 1:04 AM
...All I'll say is that an extra 5-6 flights a year to the ISS would do wonders for the economics of the EELV. ...
A very astute comment. It appears that thought (and a distinct 'promise' with the OSP developments back then) was a part of the equation in the 2 conglomerates' decision to (partially) foot the bill for the development.
-
#409
by
Dexter
on 22 Nov, 2006 03:11
-
James Lowe1 - 18/11/2006 9:24 PM
Which is obviously not correct.
USAF release:
.....
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.
.......
Isn't this similar to the contract structure that Titan IV operated on? The type that got them bad press on NBC Nightly News?
http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1996-2/1996-02-21-NBC-15.htmlSo Recapping,
USAF wants EELV inorder to reduce costs of launch associated with Titan IV.
Sees how Atlas operates in a commercial environment with competition on a global stage.
USAF downselects two suppliers and as stated at the time for purposes of competiton, not assured access with commercial procurement strategies.
Commercial market collapses (except for satellites).
Assured access mantra begins in 2003.
Atlas still selling legacy vehicles well in commercial market which are subsequently truncated and phased out.
Boeing VP threatens to pull plug on Delta 4 program.
ULA scheme is announced.
Back to non-commercial contracts (latest development).
No incentive for either provider to compete commercially.
Seems like a waste of a lot of taxpayer dollars.
-
#410
by
Avron
on 22 Nov, 2006 04:49
-
Dexter - 21/11/2006 10:54 PM
Seems like a waste of a lot of taxpayer dollars.
Not if you require "Assured access".. what is the total EELV cost?
What is the cost without assured access?
-
#411
by
Dexter
on 22 Nov, 2006 05:06
-
What is assured access?
The Secretary of the Air force in 2003 defined it as having two systems but he used to be a Lockheed Martin exec.
The White House Office of Management and Budget does not necessarily agree with ULA or the Air Force defintion of assured access.
Pre-EELV, we had assured access to space with the Titan program and Atlas was also available commercially as my previous post points out. Now, instead of having 1 program on the "Maytag repairman" mode, we have two.
I guess in some distorted way someone could claim this as progress.
Also, if I was living in Toronto, I would not be concerned about wasted US tax dollars either.
-
#412
by
bombay
on 22 Nov, 2006 05:33
-
Assured access: "being able to provide an operationally suitable launch vehicle when the satellite is ready".
Reviewing the past 20 yrs shows only (1) in (14) failures that resulted in LV grounding that exceeded (1) yr, which was subsequently delayed further due to a delay in satellite availability.
There's no heavy-lift assured access option.
The cost of dual payload integration for various designs may be significant such that only design compatibility will be offered rather than completed detailed engineering integration on the alternate vehicle. So simply swapping to the alternate vehicle if a problem arose won't be an option.
Similar RL-10 upperstage engines are used on both Atlas and Delta such that a problem with one would likely ground the other.
The assured access reasoning by the gov't came about in 2003 - long after program initiation back in 1995 when the intent was to downselect to (1) launch provider - winner take all.
Some of us did the math on previous posts of an EELV cost based on Buy 3 figures along with other launch related costs. The bill of goods doesn't jive with what we're being told.
-
#413
by
Jim
on 22 Nov, 2006 11:41
-
"Commercial market collapses (except for satellites)."
Incorrect. The "commercial market" was 100's of LEO spacecraft (Teledisc (sp), ICO, etc). This whole comm scheme (Big LEO, Little LEO) went away. This is what the DOD was banking on
"Assured access mantra begins in 2003."
Incorrect. This existed since Challenger
"Atlas still selling legacy vehicles well in commercial market which are subsequently truncated and phased out."
Incorrect, Atlas III is too small for current spacecraft
"Back to non-commercial contracts (latest development)."
Incorrect, Atlas is still available commerically.
-
#414
by
Jim
on 22 Nov, 2006 11:43
-
"The cost of dual payload integration for various designs may be significant such that only design compatibility will be offered rather than completed detailed engineering integration on the alternate vehicle. So simply swapping to the alternate vehicle if a problem arose won't be an option."
Not true. The interfaces and environments for both vehicles are the same. The "newer" crop of spacecraft were designed to the EELV SIS.
-
#415
by
edkyle99
on 22 Nov, 2006 14:23
-
bombay - 22/11/2006 12:16 AM
There's no heavy-lift assured access option.
This is an important point, because it is more than just heavy-lift that is not assured. As Jim has astutely pointed out a number of times, the two EELVs have somewhat complementary capabilities. If an RS-68 blows up, the U.S. will lose that heavy lift option (10.75 tonnes to GTO (1,500 m/s short of geostationary), 24 tonnes to LEO). But if an RD-180 shreds, the U.S. will lose GTO capabilities between 5.35 tonnes and 6.7 tonnes and LEO capabilities between 13.5 tonnes and 20.5 tonnes.
- Ed Kyle
-
#416
by
Propforce
on 22 Nov, 2006 18:21
-
edkyle99 - 22/11/2006 7:06 AM
bombay - 22/11/2006 12:16 AM
There's no heavy-lift assured access option.
This is an important point, because it is more than just heavy-lift that is not assured. - Ed Kyle
There is NO assured access option on ALL vehicles if the RL-10 blows up.
-
#417
by
bombay
on 22 Nov, 2006 19:18
-
With assured access to space not being so assured based on the issues discussed, what would make one believe that the assured access flaws would be resolved under ULA? If anything, you would tend to believe that the issues will go unaddressed given the monopoly status of ULA.
The two launch system was not meant to be perpetual based on the EELV language as I interpret it. It was to come under review prior to Buy 4 and every two years or so to determine if two systems were still needed. If nothing is done to correct the current flaws associated with the assured access to space concept, which likely won't happen under ULA because there's no incentive to do so, the two launch system need will be perpetual under the ULA welfare program.
-
#418
by
Dexter
on 23 Nov, 2006 02:51
-
Jim - 22/11/2006 6:24 AM
"Assured access mantra begins in 2003."
Incorrect. This existed since Challenger
Let me repost this quote from page 24.
1997 - "On November 6, 1997 the Air Force modified its procurement plans for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. The original concept -- a single winner-take-all award -- was amended, splitting the work between a pair of finalists for the multi-billion launch contracts, McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) and Lockheed Martin. One of the major reasons given for the redirection was to enhance U.S. space launch competitiveness by keeping two rocket builders in business."
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/delta_eelv-991124....
Can you tell me where the DOD used 'assured access to space" as a reason for the downselect to two programs in 1997?
This is the classic "bait and switch" tactic.
-
#419
by
Dexter
on 23 Nov, 2006 03:07
-
Jim - 22/11/2006 6:24 AM
"Back to non-commercial contracts (latest development)."
Incorrect, Atlas is still available commerically.
The point I am making here is that the USAF initially wanted commercial contracts for EELV. The Boeing settlement specificlly states that the contracts were converted from commercial contracts to more complicated government contracts.
In the Atlas 4?
thread you stated that the contracting philosophy of Atlas is one of the reasons for carrying the Atlas name. Yet know it appears that we are right back to the complicated government contracts.
So when people here state that the Atlas program is being Titanized along with the Delta program, the only conclusion is that they are correct.
EELV started with good intentions but placing faith in the most optimistic of forecasts resulting in two downselects is forcing the ULA scheme as the only considerd solution. Mistake after mistake.
When the critical employees don't relocate which will result in mission failures, the American taxpayer better not be asked to foot additional money to restore this capability.
thread you stated that the contracting philosophy of Atlas is one of the reasons for carrying the Atlas name. Yet know it appears that we are right back to the complicated government contracts.