-
#40
by
woods170
on 22 May, 2014 12:56
-
then the general outcome is that the Atlas V per-mission price-tag will jump up from $164 million to somewhere close to $230-ish million the minute the capabilities (ELC) contract goes away.
Nope, as I understand Dr. Sower's message the $164 million figure already includes a share of the ELC money. Once ELC goes away the price will be $164 million (or more if ULA has to spread its fixed costs over fewer launches than currently).
The statement by Dr. Sowers is clear: In case the ELC contract goes away then the costs associated with the capabilities side of the contract will be reflected in the per mission cost. I read that as: the per mission cost will rise to adjust for the fact that ULA no longer gets ELC money.
But, I think Dr. Sowers will have the final word on this.
-
#41
by
baldusi
on 22 May, 2014 14:01
-
I would like to ask Dr Sowers about that 100M marginal cost to a 401. In particular, regarding the commercial implications. Up to now, Atlas V commercial business have been quite limited. The las commercial win, the Mexican satellite, is a very interesting case. The satellite had to go to an inclined (15deg) GSO orbit, thus, it couldn't ride on Ariane 5 without executing a plane change back to inclined. It didn't fit into a Falcon 9, and apparently Proton-M and Sea Launch's reliability record is worse than what the Mexican Army can tolerate (it is a national security payload, after all).
Yet, LM Stated that they had to offer a 20% discount on that contract to get it. As we are (apparently) at the end of the cheap insurance cycle, which might push clients to the more reliable launchers, and when combined with the improved costs of the block buy plus Fleet Standardization Program, do you expect further commercial wins? Ariane 5 seems to be lacking enough small payloads for dual launch and thus there must be some excess demand for bigger than Falcon 9 payloads where Atlas V should be able to compete.
Also, with the current push for extra Delta IV long lead items, should the Atlas V propulsion issues be solved, could push for some commercial win for boeing?
And last, will you implement Common Centaur on Delta IV 4m?
-
#42
by
WindnWar
on 22 May, 2014 17:29
-
-
#43
by
kirghizstan
on 22 May, 2014 17:45
-
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2014/05/ulas-per-launch-costs-rival-spacex-and-its-a.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A
ULA's per-launch costs rival SpaceX and it's a better overall value, CEO says
I am confused, from that article the block buy is 36 cores over 5 years for $11 billion. That works out to $305 million a core. In addition that does not appear to include the ELC cost of an average $1 billion a year, which would add another $5 billion over 5 years. If that is the case you end up with $444 million per core.
Either someway or somehow the figures presented are wrong or the claimed cost per launch simply isn't valid. Even if the $11 billion figure includes the ELC cost, $305 million a core is still a lot higher then the numbers being claimed.
What am I missing? 
you are missing ULA spin or at least creative accounting. of course they all do this so i don't blame them
-
#44
by
Lars_J
on 22 May, 2014 17:45
-
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2014/05/ulas-per-launch-costs-rival-spacex-and-its-a.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A
ULA's per-launch costs rival SpaceX and it's a better overall value, CEO says
I am confused, from that article the block buy is 36 cores over 5 years for $11 billion. That works out to $305 million a core. In addition that does not appear to include the ELC cost of an average $1 billion a year, which would add another $5 billion over 5 years. If that is the case you end up with $444 million per core.
Either someway or somehow the figures presented are wrong or the claimed cost per launch simply isn't valid. Even if the $11 billion figure includes the ELC cost, $305 million a core is still a lot higher then the numbers being claimed.
What am I missing?
I'm wondering the same... It just doesn't seem to add up.
-
#45
by
RocketGoBoom
on 22 May, 2014 17:50
-
I am confused, from that article the block buy is 36 cores over 5 years for $11 billion. That works out to $305 million a core. In addition that does not appear to include the ELC cost of an average $1 billion a year, which would add another $5 billion over 5 years. If that is the case you end up with $444 million per core.
Either someway or somehow the figures presented are wrong or the claimed cost per launch simply isn't valid. Even if the $11 billion figure includes the ELC cost, $305 million a core is still a lot higher then the numbers being claimed.
What am I missing?
I would like to echo this remark. From all of the articles and sources, the average still appears to be well above $300 million each. Once we add back in the $90 million average ELC, that George Sowers confirmed as being in the ballpark, it gets into the $400 million range.
Maybe there is something about government math that I am unaware of. But the basic info seems to confirm that ULA is roughly 3X to 4X more expensive than SpaceX. Even in a best case scenario for ULA with an apples to apples comparison, it is still likely that ULA is 2X more expensive for Atlas vs Falcon.
-
#46
by
ChrisWilson68
on 22 May, 2014 17:53
-
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2014/05/ulas-per-launch-costs-rival-spacex-and-its-a.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A
ULA's per-launch costs rival SpaceX and it's a better overall value, CEO says
I am confused, from that article the block buy is 36 cores over 5 years for $11 billion. That works out to $305 million a core. In addition that does not appear to include the ELC cost of an average $1 billion a year, which would add another $5 billion over 5 years. If that is the case you end up with $444 million per core.
Either someway or somehow the figures presented are wrong or the claimed cost per launch simply isn't valid. Even if the $11 billion figure includes the ELC cost, $305 million a core is still a lot higher then the numbers being claimed.
What am I missing? ???
I'm wondering the same... It just doesn't seem to add up.
What it adds up to is desperation on the part of ULA.
-
#47
by
Jim
on 22 May, 2014 18:23
-
2. Within the current block buy, the total price of an Atlas V 401 (comparable to a Falcon 9 1.1) is $164M. This number is arrived at by taking the incremental price as spelled out in the contract and adding an allocation of the capability cost. The allocation was on a simple per mission basis.
According to NASA's ELV Performance tool (http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/elvMap/) Falcon 9 v1.1 is neck in neck with Atlas 411 to GTO and has more capacity than Atlas 511 for any elliptical orbit. (Falcon 9 has a 5 m fairing.) According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V#Variants there have been 21, 3, 5, and 0 launches of Atlas 401, 411, 501, and 511 respectively, so Atlas 401 is the best single comparison vehicle, but it would be nice if we had analogous price data for Atlas 411, 501 and 511 too.
401 beats F9 V1.1 except for LEO
-
#48
by
clongton
on 22 May, 2014 21:14
-
then the general outcome is that the Atlas V per-mission price-tag will jump up from $164 million to somewhere close to $230-ish million the minute the capabilities (ELC) contract goes away.
Nope, as I understand Dr. Sower's message the $164 million figure already includes a share of the ELC money. Once ELC goes away the price will be $164 million (or more if ULA has to spread its fixed costs over fewer launches than currently).
The statement by Dr. Sowers is clear: In case the ELC contract goes away then the costs associated with the capabilities side of the contract will be reflected in the per mission cost. I read that as: the per mission cost will rise to adjust for the fact that ULA no longer gets ELC money.
But, I think Dr. Sowers will have the final word on this.
That's what I suspect. If true then that means that the cost of maintaining the launch infrastructure is *not* included in the per-launch costs charged to the USGov, while SpaceX's is. That effectively zeros out a ULA major cost per-launch, while SpaceX has to pay that cost in their per-launch costs charged to the USGov. So if we think ULA's prices are higher than SpaceX now, just wait until they no longer get that ELC money and have to increase their prices to cover their launch infrastructure.
So I'm wondering, if ULA gets to keep the ELC contract for USGov launches, shouldn't SpaceX also get an ELC contract for USGov launches? Why should the USGov pay for ULA's launch infrastructure and not SpaceX's? Isn't that the very definition of actively fostering anti-competition?
-
#49
by
deltaV
on 22 May, 2014 22:04
-
401 beats F9 V1.1 except for LEO
The NASA Launch Services Program Launch Vehicle Performance Website states otherwise. Can you explain why you're right and they're wrong?
-
#50
by
Jim
on 22 May, 2014 22:22
-
The NASA Launch Services Program Launch Vehicle Performance Website states otherwise. Can you explain why you're right and they're wrong?
Because it is a tool and not a perfect comparison.
-
#51
by
Excession
on 22 May, 2014 22:34
-
A marginal cost of less than a hundred million for the 401 is all well and good, but what's it like when you add a five-meter fairing or strap-on boosters? A 401 is only competitive with the Falcon to GTO and it has a substantially smaller payload fairing.
-
#52
by
Lars_J
on 22 May, 2014 22:53
-
401 beats F9 V1.1 except for LEO
The NASA Launch Services Program Launch Vehicle Performance Website states otherwise. Can you explain why you're right and they're wrong?
That NASA page uses data that predates the first F9v1.1 flights by several months. It also does not take into account performance that SpaceX reserves for first stage reuse. (although SpaceX can forego some of that when performance is needed - they already do that for some commercial flights)
-
#53
by
Jim
on 22 May, 2014 22:58
-
A marginal cost of less than a hundred million for the 401 is all well and good, but what's it like when you add a five-meter fairing or strap-on boosters? A 401 is only competitive with the Falcon to GTO and it has a substantially smaller payload fairing.
a. Most spacecraft in that class don't need a five meter fairing. Just wasted rattle space that makes some parts of ground ops harder.
b. What's the point of comparing with SRB's? F9 can't perform any those missions.
-
#54
by
Excession
on 22 May, 2014 23:44
-
That NASA page uses data that predates the first F9v1.1 flights by several months.
It also agrees nicely (conservatively, even!) with Shotwell's mention that they're already reserving 30% of the performance for first-stage reuse. Given that they're clearly willing to give up that margin for payload, I don't think we should ignore that extra performance.
I also suspect that the NLS page is on the conservative side, since the performance data is what the launch provider is contractually obligated to deliver.
A marginal cost of less than a hundred million for the 401 is all well and good, but what's it like when you add a five-meter fairing or strap-on boosters? A 401 is only competitive with the Falcon to GTO and it has a substantially smaller payload fairing.
a. Most spacecraft in that class don't need a five meter fairing. Just wasted rattle space that makes some parts of ground ops harder.
b. What's the point of comparing with SRB's? F9 can't perform any those missions.
A: Most, yes. Nevertheless, that's a capability the Falcon has that the 401 does not.
B: As per the NLS payload tool, Atlas needs three SRBs to match the Falcon's payload to LEO. Granted, there haven't been many LEO missions that made use of the solid boosters, but there have been a few. And, even if you completely discount the extra performance beyond the Falcon's advertised payload, the Falcon still has an advantage of a couple of tonnes over the 401.
-
#55
by
bberkey
on 23 May, 2014 03:03
-
Dr. Sowers
I assume the $100M figure covers a relatively simple AV401 mission (something like the Thaicom launch), with extra fees added on top of this for more complicated missions (exotic propellants, cryogenics, tighter security clearances, etc).
Assuming this is the case what fraction of ULA's 401 manifest fits into this vanilla spacecraft category? Are these fees are large percentage of the total USG expenditure for any launches?
Thanks you for bringing some insight into this discussion. You had a beautiful flight yesterday and I look forward to another one in July
-
#56
by
Jim
on 23 May, 2014 03:12
-
B: As per the NLS payload tool, Atlas needs three SRBs to match the Falcon's payload to LEO. Granted, there haven't been many LEO missions that made use of the solid boosters, but there have been a few.
Only one mission, so it is an irrelevant comparison. So any relevant comparisons would be at high energy missions, which number over 17.
the F9 can't do some of the GTO and HEO missions that a 401 can do.
-
#57
by
deltaV
on 23 May, 2014 05:03
-
the F9 can't do some of the GTO and HEO missions that a 401 can do.
What's your source of that info?
-
#58
by
Jim
on 23 May, 2014 11:15
-
the F9 can't do some of the GTO and HEO missions that a 401 can do.
What's your source of that info?
work
-
#59
by
georgesowers
on 23 May, 2014 13:00
-
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2014/05/ulas-per-launch-costs-rival-spacex-and-its-a.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A
ULA's per-launch costs rival SpaceX and it's a better overall value, CEO says
I am confused, from that article the block buy is 36 cores over 5 years for $11 billion. That works out to $305 million a core. In addition that does not appear to include the ELC cost of an average $1 billion a year, which would add another $5 billion over 5 years. If that is the case you end up with $444 million per core.
Either someway or somehow the figures presented are wrong or the claimed cost per launch simply isn't valid. Even if the $11 billion figure includes the ELC cost, $305 million a core is still a lot higher then the numbers being claimed.
What am I missing?
What you are missing is that the block buy contract includes support to a large quantity of backlog missions. In other words, the denominator is wrong in your calculation. That is why we gave the $225M number which is arrived at by adding up the value of all our contracts (numerator) and dividing by the total number of missions represented in those contracts (denominator). Your calculation is off because the capability contract, which represents most of the cost in the block buy is an annual cost, not a per mission cost. It takes knowledge of the annual launch rate to determine a reasonable allocation of those costs to an individual mission. That is what I provided to get the $164M total price of a AV 401.
For example, the two missions we launched within the last week were supported by launch site labor that was charged to this year's capability contract (part of the block buy) even though neither was part of the 36 cores.
