Lawmakers Seek To Curb EELV Block Buy

[cambrianera]

Didn't found any recent match on "block buy".
Maybe this is new:
http://www.spacenews.com/military/120806-lawmakers-curb-eelv-block-buy.html
"We support the Air Force’s effort to achieve some economies of scale to provide the best value for the taxpayer, but we are concerned that any EELV block buy that goes beyond three years worth of launches will unnecessarily exclude competition,” Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) wrote in the Aug. 2 letter"
"The Air Force was expected to award ULA a contract this summer for a total of 46 rockets to cover military launch needs from 2013 to 2017.
However, the service recently decided to delay the block buy until at least next year."

[Robert Thompson]

SpaceX’s Musk Says ULA Space Launch Monopoly a ‘Mistake’ By Brendan McGarry - Sep 29, 2011 5:29 PM MT
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-29/spacex-ceo-musk-says-boeing-lockheed-launch-monopoly-a-mistake-.html

Competition and the future of the EELV program
by Stewart Money 
Monday, December 12, 2011
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1990/1

[Ben the Space Brit]

Competition in any commercial (or even pseudo-commercial, as in this case) market has to be a good thing.  That said, and no offence intended, but I've got a feeling it will be a long while (>3 years) before SpaceX can seriously challenge ULA's effective current monopoly in USG GSO launches.

[Nomadd]

 It's one of those vicious circle things. The more a launch costs the more you put into the asset you're launching and the more reliable the launcher needs to be. The thing that could break the circle is the AF deciding that a whole lot of eggs in one satellite isn't the optimal way to go. Those $2 billion beasts might be unparalleled in capability, but it doesn't help if you're not over the spot you need to be. When they go for a lot more, lot cheaper, more specialized assets a much lower cost, slightly lower reliability rated launcher might be an option. I doubt if I'm the only one who thinks 10 $100 million LEO birds could be a lot more valuable than a single $1 billion one for intelligence and secure, low latency comms. Mr. Allen has to be thinking of that market.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

It's not the cost but the quantity of identical payloads built. The one-of-a-kind payload results in the cannot-fail for the LV.

[Lurker Steve]

If you take the AEHF program as an example, that was a 6.5 Billion dollar program for 3 sats and parts for a 4th. That's replacing Milstar which is, 5 or 6 satellites. The launch costs are a small fraction of the total program cost.

Do you really think Milstar could have been replaced by a constellation of 30 satellites cheaper than 6.5 Billion ?

Doesn't the larger constellation have corresponding larger operational costs ?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Comm sats especially now data sats have to have a tremendous capability increase due to how fast the data demand is rising. An AEHF sat will be 4-10 times more throughput than the sats its replacing plus the minimum for global coverage is 3 sats plus on orbit spare. Less orbital slots mean the other slots can be used for something else.

So yes the LV on such sats is not a big cost driver. But what if instead of a 15 year lifespan the sats were built with a 5 year lifespan? Total reliability levels would decrease sat costs tremdously. So $6.5B would be used to purchase 12 sats at $500M including launch costs instead of 4 at $1,500M including launch costs with each subsequent set of 4 having a capbility increase of 2-4 launched every 5 years. Planned obsolescence. This was an option that the AF Space Command commander metioned in his report to Congress that the AF was investigating as a cost cutting measure to model it to see if costs would lower, stay-the same or be higher that the current method.

A launch cost $180M on a $1.5B sat is 12% of the cost but for a $500M sat its 36% of the cost making using a much cheaper LV a requirement for meeting the budget. The LV costs would have to be <$65M to be the same 12%. The two scenarios shows how marginal the cost differences at the program level when using the two differnt LV's most appropriate for the scenario. If ULA's costs rise significantly then the differences are no longer marginal and become significant.

[Nomadd]

 But, it's not 180M a launch, is it? In fact when you add the government's total EELV cost during this block buy divided by the number of launches, it's going to be more than twice that much.

 I thought is was obvious I wasn't referring to geo satellites but to LEO intelligence gathering and low latency comms. It doesn't matter if you have the greatest sat in the universe if it isn't where you need it. And, things like controlling drones would be a lot better when you didn't have to wait more than 1/2 second for a response. The military is full of people who like giant, flashy multi billion dollar toys. The same ones who want to replace A-10s with F-16s. But the fact is, an Iridium like constellation would serve a lot of needs better than a geo sat ever could. But not at $180 million a launch.

 Being able to put up an asset in a custom orbit on a moments notice would also be a huge plus.
 

[edkyle99]

But, it's not 180M a launch, is it? In fact when you add the government's total EELV cost during this block buy divided by the number of launches, it's going to be more than twice that much.

Right.  One report mentioned $19 billion for 46 launches ($413 million each).  Another mentioned $15 billion for 40 launches ($375 million each).  The total reportedly only includes four Delta 4 Heavy launches during the 2013-2017 span.  These totals likely include the launch readiness contract costs.

 - Ed Kyle

[Prober]

But, it's not 180M a launch, is it? In fact when you add the government's total EELV cost during this block buy divided by the number of launches, it's going to be more than twice that much.

Right.  One report mentioned $19 billion for 46 launches ($413 million each).  Another mentioned $15 billion for 40 launches ($375 million each).  The total reportedly only includes four Delta 4 Heavy launches during the 2013-2017 span.  These totals likely include the launch readiness contract costs.

 - Ed Kyle

given the "history" with the EELV, hope the Government doesn't ruin  working systems to save money.   In some cases the Government has done more damage then help.

[Jim]

But the fact is, an Iridium like constellation would serve a lot of needs better than a geo sat ever could. But not at $180 million a launch.

Not really.  That is only a small part of the DOD needs.

[Nomadd]

But the fact is, an Iridium like constellation would serve a lot of needs better than a geo sat ever could. But not at $180 million a launch.

Not really.  That is only a small part of the DOD needs.

 Say that the next time you're trying to hold a conversation with a half second delay while under fire, or control some device in real time.

[Jim]

But the fact is, an Iridium like constellation would serve a lot of needs better than a geo sat ever could. But not at $180 million a launch.

Not really.  That is only a small part of the DOD needs.

 Say that the next time you're trying to hold a conversation with a half second delay while under fire, or control some device in real time.

That is the small part of DOD needs.

[Lurker Steve]

But the fact is, an Iridium like constellation would serve a lot of needs better than a geo sat ever could. But not at $180 million a launch.

Not really.  That is only a small part of the DOD needs.

 Say that the next time you're trying to hold a conversation with a half second delay while under fire, or control some device in real time.

Instead of a launch-on-demand, don't they use drones and AWACS for this purpose instead ?

The original Iridium constellation was very expensive to deploy, and that was done with "commerical-grade" communications standards.

I suppose you could look at what the Air Force is spending to replace the current GPS constellation. It's a lot of launches, but it's still going to cost 7-8 Billion to replace the current constellation, with almost 1 Billion annual operating costs.

[edkyle99]

ULA fighting back against efforts to stop block buy.

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2012/08/ula_asks_us_rep_mo_brooks_for.html
"We welcome the competition," ULA production manager Daniel Caughran told Brooks."

Interesting info in this report included the following:

"ULA Chief Operating Officer Dan Collins said the plant is ramping up production from eight rockets a year to 12 or 13."

and

"During Thursday's tour, Brooks saw two Atlas rockets in final stages of assembly and one massive Delta IV. News photographers were allowed to take pictures of the Atlas boosters, but not the Delta. Defense Department security regulations and federal law prohibit assembly images, plant security said."

Strange, that last bit.  Can't take a picture of a rocket that will, ultimately, stand on a launch pad for all to see? 

 - Ed Kyle

[Rocket Science]

ULA fighting back against efforts to stop block buy.

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2012/08/ula_asks_us_rep_mo_brooks_for.html
"We welcome the competition," ULA production manager Daniel Caughran told Brooks."

Interesting info in this report included the following:

"ULA Chief Operating Officer Dan Collins said the plant is ramping up production from eight rockets a year to 12 or 13."

and

"During Thursday's tour, Brooks saw two Atlas rockets in final stages of assembly and one massive Delta IV. News photographers were allowed to take pictures of the Atlas boosters, but not the Delta. Defense Department security regulations and federal law prohibit assembly images, plant security said."

Strange, that last bit.  Can't take a picture of a rocket that will, ultimately, stand on a launch pad for all to see? 

 - Ed Kyle

This Collins quote has some errors in it… 

"Collins said two of the companies tapped by NASA to compete for contracts to launch astronauts to the International Space Station plan to use ULA's biggest rocket, the Delta IV, to lift their capsules. If either or both of those two companies -- Boeing and Sierra Nevada -- are chosen, that will mean more work for the Decatur plant."

[Prober]

ULA fighting back against efforts to stop block buy.

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2012/08/ula_asks_us_rep_mo_brooks_for.html
"We welcome the competition," ULA production manager Daniel Caughran told Brooks."

Interesting info in this report included the following:

"ULA Chief Operating Officer Dan Collins said the plant is ramping up production from eight rockets a year to 12 or 13."

and

"During Thursday's tour, Brooks saw two Atlas rockets in final stages of assembly and one massive Delta IV. News photographers were allowed to take pictures of the Atlas boosters, but not the Delta. Defense Department security regulations and federal law prohibit assembly images, plant security said."

Strange, that last bit.  Can't take a picture of a rocket that will, ultimately, stand on a launch pad for all to see? 

 - Ed Kyle

just read that.....you missed the key word "assembly"  sure thats kept closed for competition as well as other reasons.

[Ludus]

Just curious about what the military is really buying when they are paying for "can't fail" levels of reliability in launchers. Obviously the launchers can in fact fail no matter how many dump truck loads of cash they burn to propitiate the rocket gods. Is it something like the CYA mentality of a board of directors paying the most expensive CEO candidate because if he screws up they can at least say they bought the "best" talent money could buy? Or is there in fact some objective set of standards for what they are paying for like multiple independent inspections and tests of everything?

[Jim]

Or is there in fact some objective set of standards for what they are paying for like multiple independent inspections and tests of everything?

Not a set of standards, but the ability to see all test data and analyze it independently.  Not just for the vehicles that they are flying but for the whole fleet.

[john smith 19]

Not a set of standards, but the ability to see all test data and analyze it independently.  Not just for the vehicles that they are flying but for the whole fleet.

I think that's a better description than the GAO got out of ULA on the subject. 

It sounds like what you're mostly buying is an assurance that a) the supplier will take detailed records (of both tests but also parts mfg and assembly) and b) Storing all that data in case you want to analyze it later

Which sounds a pretty expensive bill for things the business *should* be doing to improve its products anyway + archiving it just in case.

Back when the cutting edge of document storage was manually copied microfilm and test results really *were* spools of papers from chart recorders that *may* have been defensible. 

But 10s of $m ? Either ULA are doing *very* sophisticated processing (lots of human intervention and processing time) on this data before putting it in storage or the mfg/test of an LV generates literally TB of data.

Either (both) is possible but they just seem *very* unlikely.