-
#20
by
Jim
on 20 Jul, 2022 00:45
-
I am assuming NASA would want to launch this on a US rocket, given this is much less an international project compared to JWST. Tory stated earlier this year that ULA would not bid Vulcan for this mission, leaving only SpaceX and possibly Blue Origin if they choose to bid. Given that SpaceX becomes the default, and maybe only logical choice in this circumstance, why not grab some extra money for an almost guaranteed contract?
No, the contract has not to exceed prices
With FAR is there additional protections when a contract is sole source which forces the supplier to do some justification for the contract price? Our was it just a matter of SpaceX and NASA negotiating and NASA told SpaceX this is our not to exceed price so SpaceX just bid that price?
The NLS II contract is IDIQ and NTE prices were negotiated years ago.
-
#21
by
Brovane
on 20 Jul, 2022 00:52
-
The NLS II contract is IDIQ and NTE prices were negotiated years ago.
Thank you, that is interesting. So SpaceX would have known it could bid the pre-negotiated NTE price and almost certainly get the contract because of lack of alternatives?
-
#22
by
whitelancer64
on 20 Jul, 2022 01:25
-
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
It might given FIA/KH spacecraft heritage however the finalised spacecraft dimensions i cannot locate however I would ballpark compare it between Herschel and Hubble.
Ok. Dimensions via Wikipedia (sans payload adaptors) :
Herschel: 7.5 m × 4.0 m (25 ft × 13 ft)
Hubble: 13.2 m × 4.2 m (43 ft × 14 ft)
Can't find the standard Falcon payload fairing dimensions at the moment, my Google-fu is weak on mobile. Anyone else have those numbers?
Can't find Falcon
IIRC, NRGT / WFIRST was supposed to be slightly smaller than the Hubble in terms of length. I can't seem to google up any reference to its physical dimensions, though, which is weird.
-
#23
by
russianhalo117
on 20 Jul, 2022 01:39
-
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
It might given FIA/KH spacecraft heritage however the finalised spacecraft dimensions i cannot locate however I would ballpark compare it between Herschel and Hubble.
Ok. Dimensions via Wikipedia (sans payload adaptors) :
Herschel: 7.5 m × 4.0 m (25 ft × 13 ft)
Hubble: 13.2 m × 4.2 m (43 ft × 14 ft)
Can't find the standard Falcon payload fairing dimensions at the moment, my Google-fu is weak on mobile. Anyone else have those numbers?
Can't find Falcon
IIRC, NRGT / WFIRST was supposed to be slightly smaller than the Hubble in terms of length. I can't seem to google up any reference to its physical dimensions, though, which is weird.
The height of telescope is slightly less than that of hubble but approximately equal to or greater than than Herschel by visual appearance yet the scale of each graphice is unknown and the physical dimensions could be ITAR'd due to NRO and and Ball manufactured GFE as the dimensions of the pre NRO GFE design were fully known.
-
#24
by
Robotbeat
on 20 Jul, 2022 03:39
-
Why is this launch so expensive ($255M)? IIRC a fully expended Falcon Heavy launch is ~$150M and if there's reuse that lowers prices. IIRC previous NASA Falcon launches have been priced ~$50M more than usual due to government paperwork. Is there $100M of extra paperwork for this launch?
Well...
...Falcon Heavy is almost in the same situation as Delta IV Heavy. It flies rarely, more rarely than expected, so not only does SpaceX have the bargaining power due to having the only flying SHLV at the moment, but it probably costs SpaceX more than they thought it would cost back when they were projecting like 10 Falcon Heavies per year or whatever. And it's for 5 years from now, when they hope to be doing the vast majority of their launches with Starship.
Then again, tons of commonality with Falcon 9, obviously, so it's not as bad as Delta IV Heavy which only had commonality with Delta IV medium, which rarely flew.
Plus, if you adjust $150 million for inflation since 2013 when Falcon Heavy was announced until today, it's $190 million. And if adjusted through 2027 at ~3% compound annual interest, then it's about $220 million.
And it has to use the longer, more expensive fairing.
-
#25
by
DanClemmensen
on 20 Jul, 2022 04:26
-
Why is this launch so expensive ($255M)? IIRC a fully expended Falcon Heavy launch is ~$150M and if there's reuse that lowers prices. IIRC previous NASA Falcon launches have been priced ~$50M more than usual due to government paperwork. Is there $100M of extra paperwork for this launch?
Well...
...Falcon Heavy is almost in the same situation as Delta IV Heavy. It flies rarely, more rarely than expected, so not only does SpaceX have the bargaining power due to having the only flying SHLV at the moment, but it probably costs SpaceX more than they thought it would cost back when they were projecting like 10 Falcon Heavies per year or whatever. And it's for 5 years from now, when they hope to be doing the vast majority of their launches with Starship.
Then again, tons of commonality with Falcon 9, obviously, so it's not as bad as Delta IV Heavy which only had commonality with Delta IV medium, which rarely flew.
Plus, if you adjust $150 million for inflation since 2013 when Falcon Heavy was announced until today, it's $190 million. And if adjusted through 2027 at ~3% compound annual interest, then it's about $220 million.
And it has to use the longer, more expensive fairing.
If I were a SpaceX accountant, I would be looking at the cost of FH missions. Based on the current track record, it appears that every single FH payload slips, sometimes a lot. But SpaceX must commit to the original launch date, which means they must tie up resources that could otherwise be applied to other things. Just looking at the list of F9 boosters, they seem to have about 21 active boosters, of which about 9 are being held out for FH either as FH core or FH side. They can interconvert F9 and FH side boosters, but not FH cores, and converting takes time. Those nine boosters must be housed somewhere and must be cared for, and meanwhile they are all in danger of obsolescence due to Starship. All of these costs must be rolled into the price.
-
#26
by
Brovane
on 20 Jul, 2022 12:14
-
Reading the press release.
"NLS II is an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. The total cost for NASA to launch the Roman telescope is approximately $255 million, which includes the launch service and other mission related costs. "
For that $255M could those other mission related costs be a separate contractor from SpaceX? For example could a different contractor be charging $40M to transport the telescope to KSC, test and then integrate the payload onto the FH? However that $40M cost is part of the $255M to launch the telescope but isn't part of what SpaceX is doing which is the launch service.
-
#27
by
tbellman
on 20 Jul, 2022 12:17
-
Why is this launch so expensive ($255M)? IIRC a fully expended Falcon Heavy launch is ~$150M and if there's reuse that lowers prices. IIRC previous NASA Falcon launches have been priced ~$50M more than usual due to government paperwork. Is there $100M of extra paperwork for this launch?
Note though what the NASA press release says: "
The total cost for NASA to launch the Roman telescope is approximately $255 million, which includes the launch service and other mission related costs. (My bolding.) My understanding is that the $255M includes several other things than just what NASA will pay SpaceX for the launch.
Those other things could be things like transport of the telescope from the manufacturing location to KSC; NASA personnel helping with or watching over the integration on the rocket; propellant for the telescope; NASA personnel monitoring and controlling the telescope during the launch and its cruise towards SEL2; and probably a number of things I can't think of. (These are just examples that could reasonably count as "cost of launching". I don't know if there is some official list of what goes under launch and what goes under e.g. development or operations. Jim probably knows...)
I'm not sure if it will show up explicitly on the
USA Spending site, or if it will just be one or more anonymous lines under the
NASA Launch Services II contract. The Europa Clipper launch contract shows up as a separate contract, but that wasn't bought under NLS II from my understanding.
-
#28
by
edzieba
on 20 Jul, 2022 14:29
-
Is it a reasonable assumption that NGRST requires vertical integration? Dealing with gravity sag in large mirrors in one axis is annoying enough, in two orthogonal axes would be worse. NGRST's design is also constrained by some design assumptions made for FIA due to the donated telescope assemblies, and FIA was conceived when vertical integration for national security launches was the norm.
-
#29
by
whitelancer64
on 20 Jul, 2022 14:55
-
Is it a reasonable assumption that NGRST requires vertical integration? Dealing with gravity sag in large mirrors in one axis is annoying enough, in two orthogonal axes would be worse. NGRST's design is also constrained by some design assumptions made for FIA due to the donated telescope assemblies, and FIA was conceived when vertical integration for national security launches was the norm.
Yes. Spy sats require vertical integration, the mirrors are from spy sats.
-
#30
by
Robotbeat
on 20 Jul, 2022 15:27
-
The mirror is particularly lightweight in NGR, so maybe this is an exception?
-
#31
by
kevin-rf
on 20 Jul, 2022 15:41
-
Lightweight, means less structure to support any sagging when turned on its side.
-
#32
by
Jim
on 20 Jul, 2022 17:03
-
If I were a SpaceX accountant, I would be looking at the cost of FH missions. Based on the current track record, it appears that every single FH payload slips, sometimes a lot. But SpaceX must commit to the original launch date, which means they must tie up resources that could otherwise be applied to other things.
No, they get reimbursed for payload slips.
-
#33
by
Jim
on 20 Jul, 2022 17:08
-
Reading the press release.
"NLS II is an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. The total cost for NASA to launch the Roman telescope is approximately $255 million, which includes the launch service and other mission related costs. "
For that $255M could those other mission related costs be a separate contractor from SpaceX? For example could a different contractor be charging $40M to transport the telescope to KSC, test and then integrate the payload onto the FH? However that $40M cost is part of the $255M to launch the telescope but isn't part of what SpaceX is doing which is the launch service.
a. Transport to the launch site is not part of the launch service. Spacecraft testing and launch site ops is always done by the spacecraft contractor is included in the cost of the spacecraft.
B.
other mission related costs has been explained many times before. It for LSP contractors: mission integration support, launch site comm and telemetry, payload processing facility, propellant, gases, etc
-
#34
by
DanClemmensen
on 20 Jul, 2022 17:13
-
If I were a SpaceX accountant, I would be looking at the cost of FH missions. Based on the current track record, it appears that every single FH payload slips, sometimes a lot. But SpaceX must commit to the original launch date, which means they must tie up resources that could otherwise be applied to other things.
No, they get reimbursed for payload slips.
Good. I'm glad I'm not a SpaceX accountant.
I wonder of those reimbursements cover all of the costs, some of which would be difficult to quantify. Can SpaceX specify a fixed monthly delay cost, or must they justify the payment based on some computation of actual delay-related costs?
-
#35
by
Jim
on 20 Jul, 2022 17:14
-
Those other things could be things like 1. transport of the telescope from the manufacturing location to KSC;
2. NASA personnel helping with or watching over the integration on the rocket; 3. propellant for the telescope; 4. NASA personnel monitoring and controlling the telescope during the launch and its cruise towards SEL2
1. No, spacecraft cost
2. Yes, especially analytical integration
3. sometimes.
4. Spacecraft task and cost.
-
#36
by
russianhalo117
on 20 Jul, 2022 19:27
-
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
Would this launch require an extended fairing?
It might given FIA/KH spacecraft heritage however the finalised spacecraft dimensions i cannot locate however I would ballpark compare it between Herschel and Hubble.
Ok. Dimensions via Wikipedia (sans payload adaptors) :
Herschel: 7.5 m × 4.0 m (25 ft × 13 ft)
Hubble: 13.2 m × 4.2 m (43 ft × 14 ft)
Can't find the standard Falcon payload fairing dimensions at the moment, my Google-fu is weak on mobile. Anyone else have those numbers?
Can't find Falcon
here you go.
12.4m height in On-orbit science configuration so yes Extended PLF is required:
Slides:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39248.msg2388006#msg2388006
-
#37
by
Jim
on 20 Jul, 2022 19:35
-
Good. I'm glad I'm not a SpaceX accountant.
I wonder of those reimbursements cover all of the costs, some of which would be difficult to quantify. Can SpaceX specify a fixed monthly delay cost, or must they justify the payment based on some computation of actual delay-related costs?
It is pre priced.
-
#38
by
yg1968
on 20 Jul, 2022 20:36
-
-
#39
by
scr00chy
on 21 Jul, 2022 01:18
-
