ULA and USAF sign block buy over 36 Atlas and Delta cores

#20 by Oli on 02 Feb, 2014 08:09
Quote from: Hauerg on 02 Feb, 2014 07:55
11 AIR FORCE Launches ??

No but the fixed-cost contributions per launch from the Air Force are likely bigger than the average.

In any case, ULA operates basically 4 launchers (D2, D4, D4H, A5) at 2 launch sites with vertical integration for 10+ launches a year. Its not surprising things are rather expensive.
#21 by joek on 02 Feb, 2014 21:47
Quote from: Oli on 02 Feb, 2014 07:06
All right but Atlas/Delta launched 11 times in 2013, for example. So per launch the cost would be lower.

Yes; the chart shows only USAF numbers. If we make a simplistic assumption of 8 DOD launches/year (with NRO's contributions) and that launch service unit costs are the same as shown in the USAF budget projections, average per launch cost is $349M (down from $372M at 5 launches/yr).

It's hard to say much more with any justification as non-DOD launches (and some DOD launches) do not contribute to ELC or fixed program management costs.* If we assume all costs are shared pro-rata across all launches (including non-DOD), then while the per-launch cost goes down, most everyone except the DOD will be priced out of the market.

E.g., making an assumption of 12 launches/year with all costs paid pro-rata by all launches, average is ~$300M/launch. Beyond that, this discussion gets wobbly and the data thin or non-existent. For example, NRO (no information to speak of)--a few Delta IV Heavies in the mix could significantly skew the costs. Should all launch customers pay a pro-rata share for DOD-specific needs (e.g., ELC)? If not, is that an unreasonable subsidy? etc.

If the question is: How much does a single-core launch cost, and what might a non-DOD customer expect to pay for one? The first-order answer is the "launch services" line, plus maybe a bit of the "support" line, then add mission-specific services. If the question is: Why do DOD launches cost so much? The first-order answer is the "launch capability" line (amortized over launch rate), plus "launch services", plus "mission assurance", plus any mission-specific costs.

Quote from: Oli on 02 Feb, 2014 08:09
No but the fixed-cost contributions per launch from the Air Force are likely bigger than the average.

See above. The degree to which the USAF numbers inflate per-launch prices depends primarily on the split between USAF/NRO; for ELC it is 75/25%; for mission assurance 60/40%; and the ratio of flights by USAF and NRO. The USAF numbers and split with NRO are given for both ELC and mission assurance, so the NRO contributions are easily derived. The rest depends on what assumptions you make as to the number/ratio of USAF and NRO flights.

* Of the 11 launches you mentioned for 2013, 3 were NASA and 1 Navy. NASA and Navy did not contribute to fixed costs (ELC, mission assurance, or program management).
#22 by Jim on 02 Feb, 2014 22:21
Navy does not pay for EELV's, USAF does.
#23 by joek on 02 Feb, 2014 23:19
Quote from: Jim on 02 Feb, 2014 22:21
Navy does not pay for EELV's, USAF does.

No, Navy pays/paid (except for ELC and fixed program overhead); USAF is very clear on that "All non-Air Force launch services are funded by their respective agencies." Navy FY2012 budget for MUOS was $205M for launch services (Atlas-551) + $4.7M for production support. The contract was between Navy-ULA, not Navy-USAF.
#24 by Jim on 03 Feb, 2014 00:47
Quote from: joek on 02 Feb, 2014 23:19

No, Navy pays/paid (except for ELC and fixed program overhead); USAF is very clear on that "All non-Air Force launch services are funded by their respective agencies." Navy FY2012 budget for MUOS was $205M for launch services (Atlas-551) + $4.7M for production support. The contract was between Navy-ULA, not Navy-USAF.

Wrong, there is a difference between funding and contracting. Navy has no contract with ULA. Navy budgets for the ride but the contract is with the USAF.
#25 by joek on 03 Feb, 2014 01:15
Quote from: Jim on 03 Feb, 2014 00:47
Wrong, there is a difference between funding and contracting. Navy has no contract with ULA. Navy budgets for the ride but the contract is with the USAF.
Then why does the Navy budget show the contractor as ULA? In any case, back to the original point: regardless of the contractual arrangements, the Navy pays for their missions, not USAF.
#26 by Jim on 03 Feb, 2014 02:43
Quote from: joek on 03 Feb, 2014 01:15

Then why does the Navy budget show the contractor as ULA? In any case, back to the original point: regardless of the contractual arrangements, the Navy pays for their missions, not USAF.

Which is a distinction without a difference when it comes to EELV costs. MUOS launches are treated the same as the rest of the USAF launches.

And the USAF still pays for the launches, where the money comes has little bearing on the matter. Which was the point.
#27 by Jim on 03 Feb, 2014 02:49
Quote from: joek on 01 Feb, 2014 22:31

Of note, these numbers do not include budget for acquisition or fixed-cost contributions from other agencies. For example, the USAF and NRO split the cost for launch capability 75/25% and mission assurance 60/40%; the numbers shown are only for the USAF (with NRO contribution add ~$175M/yr).

EELV program costs do not equate to ULA costs. There are non ULA costs in those numbers.
#28 by john smith 19 on 08 Feb, 2014 09:41
So it would seem that a ball park figure is roughly $300m/launch.

I think I see why other people might want to offer their services to the USG if they think they can deliver the service a)Equally reliably (which is what the customer wants) and b) Much cheaper but still at a profit (which is what the supplier wants).
#29 by jongoff on 08 Feb, 2014 12:16
Quote from: Jim on 03 Feb, 2014 02:49
Quote from: joek on 01 Feb, 2014 22:31

Of note, these numbers do not include budget for acquisition or fixed-cost contributions from other agencies. For example, the USAF and NRO split the cost for launch capability 75/25% and mission assurance 60/40%; the numbers shown are only for the USAF (with NRO contribution add ~$175M/yr).

EELV program costs do not equate to ULA costs. There are non ULA costs in those numbers.

This was the question I was wondering about. How much of the EELV program costs were actually ULA's cost to launch the rockets, and how much of it was government personnel there to perform oversight and mission assurance?

~Jon
#30 by Jim on 08 Feb, 2014 14:44
Quote from: jongoff on 08 Feb, 2014 12:16
Quote from: Jim on 03 Feb, 2014 02:49
Quote from: joek on 01 Feb, 2014 22:31

Of note, these numbers do not include budget for acquisition or fixed-cost contributions from other agencies. For example, the USAF and NRO split the cost for launch capability 75/25% and mission assurance 60/40%; the numbers shown are only for the USAF (with NRO contribution add ~$175M/yr).

EELV program costs do not equate to ULA costs. There are non ULA costs in those numbers.

This was the question I was wondering about. How much of the EELV program costs were actually ULA's cost to launch the rockets, and how much of it was government personnel there to perform oversight and mission assurance?

~Jon

Don't forget Aerospace, various SETA's (like TASC, Scitor, Mantemp, etc) and greybeards that the USAF and NRO use.

It is like NASA's quoted launch service costs, which in addition to the launch vehicle includes: optional services and mission unique mods, payload processing facilities costs, spacecraft propellant, range and telemetry costs, NASA program office support contractors, range safety, etc
#31 by joek on 12 Feb, 2014 00:55
Quote from: jongoff on 08 Feb, 2014 12:16
Quote from: Jim on 03 Feb, 2014 02:49
EELV program costs do not equate to ULA costs. There are non ULA costs in those numbers.
This was the question I was wondering about. How much of the EELV program costs were actually ULA's cost to launch the rockets, and how much of it was government personnel there to perform oversight and mission assurance?

If you look at the budget line items you will find a reasonably detailed breakdown between "launch services". "launch capability" and "support".

Launch services are paid to the launch service provider (e.g., ULA); launch capability is paid to ULA; support includes mission assurance, program management, etc. The launch service providers are also listed at the end of the budget section. Mission-specific services (where defined) are *not* included in this EELV budget (e.g., AEHF includes its own budget for launch support and integration services).

In short, the "launch services" budget line, is a close approximation to what ULA is paid to launch the rocket (excluding a very hefty cost for ELC, which about doubles it).
#32 by Jim on 12 Feb, 2014 01:19
Quote from: joek on 12 Feb, 2014 00:55

In short, the "launch services" budget line, is a close approximation to what ULA is paid to launch the rocket (excluding a very hefty cost for ELC, which about doubles it).

ELC also pays for extra items that the USAF requests.
And the launch services cost still contain range, telemetry and other items that ULA has to pay to other agencies/organizations.
#33 by joek on 12 Feb, 2014 02:43
Quote from: Jim on 12 Feb, 2014 01:19
ELC also pays for extra items that the USAF requests.

Kinda-sorta, but that view may be a bit dated. More precisely: ELC pays for DoD requirements to sustain launch capability--no more and no less. That does not change the fact that ELC is a *significant* cost and that ELC is paid as a direct subsidy to ULA to maintain that capability, which significantly increases the DoD cost per launch.

Once upon a time ELC included pretty much anything the DoD wanted under the umbrella of the EELV program. Due to indigestion with the large projected cost increases, where the money was going, and the inability of the EELV program or contractors to show they had a handle on the problems (i.e., the program was out of control), Congress required segregation of budget information for Launch Services, ELC, and Support costs.

Thus we have a bit more insight in current budgets.

Quote
And the launch services cost still contain range, telemetry and other items that ULA has to pay to other agencies/organizations.

Note that the Support budget line now breaks out details (which were previously lumped into ELC costs, which were previously lumped into EELV program costs). Support costs include (among other things, mission support and program management) "Range, Certification, and Other Direct Govt Costs".
#34 by Jim on 12 Feb, 2014 13:08
Quote from: joek on 12 Feb, 2014 02:43

1. Kinda-sorta, but that view may be a bit dated.

2. Note that the Support budget line now breaks out details (which were previously lumped into ELC costs, which were previously lumped into EELV program costs). Support costs include (among other things, mission support and program management) "Range, Certification, and Other Direct Govt Costs".

1. Not a view, I know the ELC pays for the DOD additional requirements. I have insight

2. Those are not the same costs that I delineated.
#35 by joek on 12 Feb, 2014 23:02
Quote from: Jim on 12 Feb, 2014 13:08
1. Not a view, I know the ELC pays for the DOD additional requirements. I have insight

2. Those are not the same costs that I delineated.

Sorry, I should have posed that as a question, not an assertion. While I don't doubt your insight, the FY13+ budget justification provides significantly more insight than what we had before...

1. Yes, we know that ELC is DOD-specific and the DOD pays for it in whole. That does not change the fact that ELC is a major contributor to DOD launch costs, and ULA is currently the recipient of those ELC funds--as explicitly shown in the budget as ULA is the sole-source (SS).

2. So somewhere in the budget lines hides other costs not shown for launch services, ELC or support? Where in those budget lines are the costs you are referring to included? Moreover, if those costs are material, then whoever is responsilble would be in violation of and contravene Congress's intent. Assuming that is not the case, then those additional costs should be noise.

To rewind a bit... jongoff's question was with respect to the cost/price for ULA to launch a vehicle (?), exclusive of DOD-specific costs (e.g, ELC and support). The best estimate still appears to be the "launch services" budget line item, albeit that is probably high as it includes some basic DOD launch services (again, exclusive of DOD-specific ELC and support costs).
#36 by Star One on 18 Feb, 2014 14:59
Article on this from The Space Review site.

Quote
If the EELV program is to protect taxpayer value while keeping its very practical goal of maintaining two independent sources into the next decade, it is time to phase out the launch subsidy and insist that the incumbent at least enter the present decade. It begins with rejecting the false narrative of non-existent or exaggerated savings currently being put forward by the incumbent in an attempt to further justify its monopoly position in the market, and a clear recognition that it is time to demand the real savings through continuous competition which are already reshaping the launch industry.

http://thespacereview.com/article/2455/1
#37 by newpylong on 18 Feb, 2014 19:05
Hasn't the analysis already been done based on planned vehicle configurations to show there will be plenty of launches in that time frame up for grabs? Furthermore, aren't the majority of the 36 contracted cores are for configurations that other providers cannot touch performance wise.

I don't see the problem.
#38 by joek on 19 Feb, 2014 03:07
Quote from: newpylong on 18 Feb, 2014 19:05
Hasn't the analysis already been done based on planned vehicle configurations to show there will be plenty of launches in that time frame up for grabs? Furthermore, aren't the majority of the 36 contracted cores are for configurations that other providers cannot touch performance wise.

I don't see the problem.

The issues you mention are not the primary focus of the article. The focus of the article is: (1) the veracity of the claimed $4.4B in savings from the block buy (dubious); (2) the justification for ELC (questionable); and correspondingly (3) whether ULA needs to re-examine their relationship with the government Real Soon in the face of oncoming competition.[1]

With respect to the issues you raise:

1. Presumably some analysis has been done, although there is no public indication or record of such (that I can find). That said, any new entrants[2] won't likely be launching any of those payloads before 2017 as LV selection amd contract award is 24-36mo prior to launch. So figure ULA has a lock on those launches until at least late 2016 or early 2017.*

2. Whether there are plenty of launches is unclear. One of the concerns with the original 50 core block buy strategy was that it could produce an overhang or excess due to delays in payload availability (not unusual for some of these missions). That could potentially lock out new entrants beyond 2018. (Not our fault your payloads aren't ready. You bought and paid for the LV's, and now they're piling up in a warehouse...)

3. The compromise was a reduction in the block buy (from 50 to 36 cores exclusively from ULA) and that a certain number of missions would be left as TBD and open to competition in the future. No more and no less. There is no set-aside for new entrants based on their current or planned capabilities. If SpaceX can compete (meet requirements and at lower cost), they'll get the mission; if they can't, they won't.

[1] All of which I agree with. The gravy train will not last. While ULA is pretty much guaranteed missions and ELC through 2018,* what they have beyond that is questionable (assuming SpaceX does qualify for those DOD missions and can give ULA a run for their money).
[1] For the foreseeable future "new entrants" means "SpaceX", as launch capability from both CCAFS and VAFB is required by the DOD (if you can't launch from both, don't bother applying).

* edit: ELC through FY2019; launch service contract award through FY2017.
#39 by baldusi on 19 Feb, 2014 10:12
Probably also have to do with certification and mission capability.
Probabilty of certifying for D, C and some B rosk payloads is high. Getting that for A payloada, it's a lot more difficult.
Also, EELV have demonatrated multi hour multiple restarts missions many times. Riskier missions mean stringer certification requirements.
But the real two big issues are performance and vertical integration. Many missions require more than F9 v1.1 can do (specially high orbit), and Falcon Heavy will need at least three missions just to start qualification. And SpaceX will be lucky if they get those three flights before 2017. Then add the 24 to 36months.
Regarding VI, we have yet to see how they propose to handle that. And then they have to actually build and comission the capability. That's also a 24 or so months.
That's why I'm not surprised they have so little missions left to compete.