Atlas V and Delta IV vs. Ariane V

• Atlas V and Delta IV vs. Ariane V by Analyst on 15 Feb, 2007 06:55
• My question is: Why are both EELVs not competive with Ariane V in the commercial market? And to withdraw from a market (Delta IV) is the same as not being competitive, because if you are, you don't withdraw.
  
  Ariane V launches about 8 to 10 heavy comsats per year, not counting the occasional military or scientific sats. Atlas launched about 6 since 2002, Delta IV one. Very often international comsat operators turn to Ariane V. Why? It can't be payload capacity.
  
  Costs? I understand why Proton or Zenit are cheaper (labour costs). The US military paid (partially) for EELV development and does so for some launch infrastructure, ESA (or "Europe") supported Ariane V development and still does. Labour costs should be about the same. So what are the reasons?
  
  Analyst
• #1 by Skyrocket on 15 Feb, 2007 10:07
• You have already cited the reson: "ESA (or "Europe") supported Ariane V development and still does"
  
  
• #2 by Analyst on 15 Feb, 2007 11:10
• No I haven't. LM and Boeing are supported (and I said this in my post) by the government big time too: Development costs, infrastructure, a number of military and NASA launches. Look at the DOD EELV budgets in the last ten years. It's not that US vehicles are developed with private money nor are they operated in such a way.
  
  It is always easy to point fingers, but government support in Europe (and not in the US) can't be the reason.
  
  Analyst
• #3 by Jim on 15 Feb, 2007 11:34
• Each contractor was given $500M and then the Buy 1 orders.  Each contractor contributed between 1-3 billion (LM on the low end and Boeing on the high end).  Infrastructure support was only started this year
  
  Ariane V total development was paid for by ESA.  
  
  NASA launches don't count.
• #4 by Analyst on 15 Feb, 2007 11:52
• So the reason is that government support in Europe for Ariane V is higher than in the US?
  
  You say NASA does not count. Maybe. But NASA is forced by law to use US launchers, ESA often uses cheaper Russian vehicles. So NASA, by definition a government sponcered agency, brings EELVs some business and this should help to reduce per unit cost, thus make EELVs more competitive. Therefore, at least indirect, NASA launches help EELVs, and yet they don't seem to be competitive in the international comsat market.
  
  Analyst
• #5 by Jim on 15 Feb, 2007 13:55
• NASA's JWST is flying on Ariane V.
  
  NASA launches don't count because there are so few of them
• #6 by Skyrocket on 15 Feb, 2007 14:33
• Quote

  Jim - 15/2/2007  3:55 PM
  
  NASA's JWST is flying on Ariane V.
  

  
  JWST is technically an ESA launch
  
  
• #7 by edkyle99 on 15 Feb, 2007 15:12
• Quote

  Analyst - 15/2/2007  1:55 AM
  
  My question is: Why are both EELVs not competive with Ariane V in the commercial market?
  
  Analyst

  
  Ariane has a lot going for it in the commercial launch market.  First, Ariane is almost entirely dedicated to the geosynchronous commercial satellite market.  The EELVs are dedicated, first and foremost, to their U.S. government customer(s).  This means that Arianespace has become a specialist in prioritizing its commercial comsat customers, while the EELV providers must prioritize their U.S. government customers over any commercial customers.
  
  Second, Ariane is launched from a near-equatorial launch site, which gives it a substantial advantage in geosynchronous missions over Cape Canaveral.  If an Atlas V could be launched from Kourou, it would be able in theory to haul about 25% more payload to geosynchronous transfer orbit than it does from the Cape.  Since every kilogram to GTO costs something like $20,000 these days, each Ariane 5 ECA is going to have something in the neighborhood of a $50 million advantage over an equivalent Cape Canaveral-based competitor.  
  
  If there were a competitor, that is.  Currently, no U.S. launch vehicle offered for commercial business  - indeed none offered for commercial launches in the world - can haul as much to GTO as Ariane 5 ECA.  Atlas V 551 can only haul 6.7-ish tonnes to a Kourou-equivalent GTO.  Ariane 5 ECA can boost nearly 10 tonnes, which means that it can carry two big commercial comsats simultaneously.
  
  Third, the U.S. EELV government, and geography, conspire against EELVs by forcing them to launch from both Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg AFB.  The Cape handles GTO and other non-polar missions while Vandenberg handles the near-polar launches.  That means that the EELVs require twice as much launch infrastructure as Ariane, which can fly to GTO *and* near-polar orbits from just one launch pad at Kourou.  
  
  Fourth, the Pentagon insistence on maintaining two EELV options halves the number of launches performed by each, which doubles (on top of the dual pad cost addition) the per-launch fixed costs of each launch.  This, in addition to the geographic advantages, is why the only U.S. launch vehicle that could match or beat Ariane 5 ECA in payload haul (Delta IV Heavy) probably costs 150% as much to fly as an Ariane 5 ECA.
  
  Fifth, a commercial launch out of Cape Canaveral must not only wait out the notorious Florida weather, but must also compete for launch slots with Pentagon and NASA.  Guess who wins that competition?  It is also likely that commercial customers have more paperwork and fee obstacles to deal with at the Cape than they do at Kourou.
  
  IMO, the only way to attempt to compete with Ariane for GTO business would be to fly from an equatorial launch site while garnering an equivalent amount of government support.  (All launchers are subsidized, to some extent, by governments.)  But even then, good luck competing for narrow-margin business against a successful, entrenched competitor.
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #8 by Jim on 15 Feb, 2007 15:15
• Sealaunch is almost that competitor
• #9 by edkyle99 on 15 Feb, 2007 15:18
• Quote

  Jim - 15/2/2007  10:15 AM
  
  Sealaunch is almost that competitor

  
  Yes, and it appears to have made inroads on Arianespace business in recent years.  It offers a dedicated launch for each customer, which may give it an advantage in some cases.  Reliability, or the perception of reliability, is going to be a critical factor for both Sea Launch and Arianespace as this competition evolves.
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #10 by sandrot on 15 Feb, 2007 15:29
• Could Atlas V be "sea launchable"?
• #11 by Jim on 15 Feb, 2007 15:46
• Quote

  sandrot - 15/2/2007  11:29 AM
  
  Could Atlas V be "sea launchable"?

  
  SeaLaunch was designed around the Zenit
• #12 by sandrot on 15 Feb, 2007 15:55
• I was not implying Sea Launch had to do it. Possibly another interested company?
• #13 by Jim on 15 Feb, 2007 16:04
• Quote

  sandrot - 15/2/2007  11:55 AM
  
  I was not implying Sea Launch had to do it. Possibly another interested company?

  
  The "SeaLaunch" concept is built aound the Zenit.  Another LV could not use the existing facilities.
  
  As for launching an Atlas off an ocean platform?  Of course, given enough money.  
  
  Zenit was designed to be handled horizontally and erected at the pad.  Atlas is stacked
  Zenit uses RP-1 and LOX     Atlas also needs LH2
  
• #14 by quark on 16 Feb, 2007 02:18
• Quote

  Analyst - 15/2/2007  12:55 AM
  
  My question is: Why are both EELVs not competive with Ariane V in the commercial market? And to withdraw from a market (Delta IV) is the same as not being competitive, because if you are, you don't withdraw.
  
  Ariane V launches about 8 to 10 heavy comsats per year, not counting the occasional military or scientific sats. Atlas launched about 6 since 2002, Delta IV one. Very often international comsat operators turn to Ariane V. Why? It can't be payload capacity.
  
  Costs? I understand why Proton or Zenit are cheaper (labour costs). The US military paid (partially) for EELV development and does so for some launch infrastructure, ESA (or "Europe") supported Ariane V development and still does. Labour costs should be about the same. So what are the reasons?
  
  Analyst

  
  There are a number of reasons some of which have been stated below.  Certainly, the cost to build and launch an Ariane V (per kg of delivered payload) is not less than Atlas.  However, the PRICE charged to customers is almost always less.  How can that be?  It's quite simple.  Arianespace is not required to operate as a business and return shareholder value.  Its charter is to keep a full manifest and to provide access to space for Europe.  It's a point of pride for France in particular and CNES is a major shareholder.
  
  Take a look at their balance sheet for the last several years.  They suffered yearly losses in the hundreds of millions.  Recently they undertook a "recapitalization"  where the losses were written off and operating capital reestablished.  They also obtained an "infrastructure sustainment" arrangement similar to what the EELV contractors got last year.  In business terms, Arianespace was bankrupt and went through restructure.
  
  On the Atlas side, Lockheed was not willing to consistently sell at a loss to keep up with Ariane.  And neither was Boeing.  Better to focus on the USG market while picking up the rare commercial.
  
  The future may be brighter for both Atlas and Delta.  They both now have infrastructure sustainment contracts and market prices are increasing (more demand and tighter supply).  Arianespace is under pressure to deliver better financials so they will keep prices elevated as well.
  
  Bottom line, if the launch market were free from governmental influence (on both sides of the Atlantic) Atlas and even Delta would compete very well with Ariane.
• #15 by meiza on 16 Feb, 2007 12:32
• Free from goverment influence - does that mean EELV:s wouldn't launch any NRO, government weather or NASA satellites by default either? That everybody in the world would just go to the cheapest bidder? (Reliability is an issue of course.) Then probably everybody would launch with Soyuz and Proton...
  
  I think it's not only a "national pride" question but also important politically for EU to have independent space launch capability.
  
  A thought excercise: Is the cost lower to keep launching comsats with some subsidy or only launch the one government payload per year? I don't know.
  
  For EELV:s it seems that there are so many government payloads that they suffice alone.
• #16 by edkyle99 on 16 Feb, 2007 14:45
• Quote

  quark - 15/2/2007  9:18 PM
  Bottom line, if the launch market were free from governmental influence (on both sides of the Atlantic) Atlas and even Delta would compete very well with Ariane.

  
  I have to disagree with this assertion.  If the market were free from governmental influence, and if we assume that the cost to build the hardware was about the same in the U.S. and Europe, then Ariane would win the GTO business hands down due to the substantial physics boost provided by the geographical location of Kourou.  For the same payload, a launch vehicle from Kourou can be quite a bit smaller/lighter, and therefore less costly, than a launch vehicle flown from Cape Canaveral.
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #17 by jongoff on 16 Feb, 2007 16:56
• Ed,
  

  Quote

  I have to disagree with this assertion.  If the market were free from governmental influence, and if we assume that the cost to build the hardware was about the same in the U.S. and Europe, then Ariane would win the GTO business hands down due to the substantial physics boost provided by the geographical location of Kourou.  For the same payload, a launch vehicle from Kourou can be quite a bit smaller/lighter, and therefore less costly, than a launch vehicle flown from Cape Canaveral.

  
  I'm not so sure.  You're glossing over a whole bunch of other factors that I think could sway things one way or another.  The "physics benefit" from Kourou, while useful, isn't quite such an overwhelming advantage as you seem to portray it.  You have to add the cost of maintaining a tropical launch site, shipping stuff across the Atlantic, and a whole slew of other costs.  Would Ariane V come out ahead once all things were considered?  What with the points that quark made, I kind of doubt it.  
  
  ~Jon
• #18 by kevin-rf on 17 Feb, 2007 02:03
• You also forgot the added cost of a LH first stage vs a smaller Kero first stage used on say the Atlas V (For example).
• #19 by William Graham on 17 Feb, 2007 21:01
• Quote

  edkyle99 - 15/2/2007  4:18 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 15/2/2007  10:15 AM
  
  Sealaunch is almost that competitor

  
  Yes, and it appears to have made inroads on Arianespace business in recent years.  It offers a dedicated launch for each customer, which may give it an advantage in some cases.  Reliability, or the perception of reliability, is going to be a critical factor for both Sea Launch and Arianespace as this competition evolves.
  
   - Ed Kyle

  
  One interesting thing to note about the reliability issues is that Arianespace have the advantage of only having to worry about their own rocket's reliability. With Sea Launch, they could be affected by the failure of a Zenit 2, or, to some extent, an Atlas.
  
  Returning to the main issue under discussion, this works the other way as well. A problem with a Zenit could affect the Atlas. (As in the case of the recent NSS-8 incident)
  Also, an upper stage engine failure could ground both the Atlas and Delta, as they use the RL-10 engines.
• #20 by Ventrater on 17 Feb, 2007 22:45
• Ariane5 will be less expensive (production increase):
  http://www.arianespace.com/site/news/feature_2007_02_15_index.html
• #21 by meiza on 18 Feb, 2007 19:06
• Can Atlas V use people who are getting get their paychecks from government contracts for building commercial lv:s? Or is there strict separation in the amount of work?
  Say, if it costs the company 1 billion for the capability to be maintained and say, 5 rockets produced for the government, does the government pay 200 million for every rocket? How does it go? What if they build 6 rockets, with one of them being a commercial mission? Will government still pay the same price?
  Or less since there is the possibility that part of government paid man years went actually to support the commercial mission? Is it strictly monitored, people having to log hours?
  
  Now that there's ULA and all, doesn't the government do much more than just buy stuff from competing companies?
• #22 by Jim on 18 Feb, 2007 19:16
• Obiviously, you have never used charge numbers/accounts on a time card.  Employees record the time worked on specific vehicles/missions
• #23 by meiza on 18 Feb, 2007 19:32
• Yes I actually have, no need to be obnoxious. I was asking if they were using that. There are also places that don't have such things.
  But the work number system can also be a company internal thing. So, is the government in this process, making sure that the company doesn't charge extra from the government (since there's no more competition), and transfer that to the public side to get more money? Wasn't the Boeing document scandal enabled by flexible pricing, indicating that it isn't just work times...
  I still wonder how they settle the fixed and marginal costs. If ULA sells a launch, does the customer have to pay a formula-derived share of the fixed cost too? (Even if it would be profitable for ULA to sell at just a little above marginal cost, since government mostly pays for their fixed costs.)
  
  I don't know how it works for Ariane, on government and commercial contracts, if someone could clarify, that'd be nice.
• #24 by Zond on 19 Feb, 2007 13:58
• Quote

  jongoff - 16/2/2007  6:56 PM
  
  Ed,
  

  Quote

  I have to disagree with this assertion.  If the market were free from governmental influence, and if we assume that the cost to build the hardware was about the same in the U.S. and Europe, then Ariane would win the GTO business hands down due to the substantial physics boost provided by the geographical location of Kourou.  For the same payload, a launch vehicle from Kourou can be quite a bit smaller/lighter, and therefore less costly, than a launch vehicle flown from Cape Canaveral.

  
  I'm not so sure.  You're glossing over a whole bunch of other factors that I think could sway things one way or another.  The "physics benefit" from Kourou, while useful, isn't quite such an overwhelming advantage as you seem to portray it.  You have to add the cost of maintaining a tropical launch site, shipping stuff across the Atlantic, and a whole slew of other costs.  Would Ariane V come out ahead once all things were considered?  What with the points that quark made, I kind of doubt it.  
  
  ~Jon

  I doubt if Cape Canaveral has any advantage over Kourou in maintenance costs and transport costs. The pads at Cape Canaveral are a lot closer to the sea so they probably have a lot more salt water corrosion than the pads at Kourou. And Cape Canaveral has hurricanes and other nasty weather. Some major parts of the Delta and Atlas rockets also have to be flown/shipped over a considerable distance before they get to Florida. If you factor in all the costs i don't see a big advantage for either Cape Canaveral or Kourou  for maintenance and transportation costs. I think other factors are more important in determining which vehicle would be more competitive.
• #25 by nacnud on 19 Feb, 2007 14:30
• One other note, I've seen Ariane V take off in heavy rain. Are the EELVs able/allowed to do that? IE Do all the system have similar weather constraints.
• #26 by Jim on 19 Feb, 2007 14:32
• Quote

  nacnud - 19/2/2007  10:30 AM
  
  One other note, I've seen Ariane V take off in heavy rain. Are the EELVs able/allowed to do that? IE Do all the system have similar weather constraints.

  
  It isn't the rain.  Visibility and lightning are the issue for the Cape
• #27 by Dexter on 21 Feb, 2007 03:15
• I believe that in another thread it was mentioned that the cost of using the range at the cape is about $ 8 million per launch which is much higher than the Arianne range cost by about 4 times.  
  
  That would give the Arianne a $6 million advantage over Delat and Atlas.  
  
  As already pointed out in this thread, the possibility of being bumped on a commercial mission because of a DOD or Space Shuttle launch is greater than Arianne.
  
  Two strikes against the US launchers.
• #28 by CFE on 21 Feb, 2007 05:23
• Quote

  Dexter - 20/2/2007  9:15 PM
  
  As already pointed out in this thread, the possibility of being bumped on a commercial mission because of a DOD or Space Shuttle launch is greater than Arianne.
  
  Two strikes against the US launchers.

  
  I wouldn't make a big deal out of this one.  There's plenty of breathing room in the launch schedules for the cape, Vandy & Wallops where conflicts aren't too great of a problem.  Granted, the shuttle will always get priority over all other missions, but there's only four shuttle missions per year anyways.  Worst-case scenario is that you lose two days waiting for the facilities to turn around after a shuttle or DoD launch.
• #29 by Jim on 21 Feb, 2007 11:28
• Quote

  Dexter - 20/2/2007  11:15 PM
  
  I believe that in another thread it was mentioned that the cost of using the range at the cape is about $ 8 million per launch which is much higher than the Arianne range cost by about 4 times.  
  
  That would give the Arianne a $6 million advantage over Delat and Atlas.  
  
  As already pointed out in this thread, the possibility of being bumped on a commercial mission because of a DOD or Space Shuttle launch is greater than Arianne.
  
  Two strikes against the US launchers.

  
  wrong as usual.  The range no longer gives priority to the shuttle or any other missions.  It is first come, first serve.  They ask for a date on the range, if no one has it, then it and the next day or two is assigned to it
  
  Range costs are not that high.  Ask Elon Musk.
• #30 by dmc6960 on 21 Feb, 2007 18:27
• Why does the range need 2 days to support another launch?
• #31 by Jim on 21 Feb, 2007 19:11
• Quote

  dmc6960 - 21/2/2007  2:27 PM
  
  Why does the range need 2 days to support another launch?

  
  
  Time to reconfigure the range for a different user
• #32 by MKremer on 21 Feb, 2007 22:24
• Quote

  Jim - 21/2/2007  2:11 PM
  
  

  Quote

  dmc6960 - 21/2/2007  2:27 PM
  
  Why does the range need 2 days to support another launch?

  
  
  Time to reconfigure the range for a different user

  
  For Jim (or anyone else), what does "reconfigure" specifically require?
  
  
• #33 by Jim on 21 Feb, 2007 22:52
• comm channels are configured and validated,  programs loaded and validated for things such as antenna tracking, range safety displays, and weather programs etc.  Different support (tracking sites) called up around the world.
• #34 by Dexter on 22 Feb, 2007 03:21
• Quote

  Jim - 21/2/2007  6:28 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Dexter - 20/2/2007  11:15 PM
  
  I believe that in another thread it was mentioned that the cost of using the range at the cape is about $ 8 million per launch which is much higher than the Arianne range cost by about 4 times.  
  
  That would give the Arianne a $6 million advantage over Delat and Atlas.  
  
  As already pointed out in this thread, the possibility of being bumped on a commercial mission because of a DOD or Space Shuttle launch is greater than Arianne.
  
  Two strikes against the US launchers.

  
  wrong as usual.  The range no longer gives priority to the shuttle or any other missions.  It is first come, first serve.  They ask for a date on the range, if no one has it, then it and the next day or two is assigned to it
  
  Range costs are not that high.  Ask Elon Musk.

  
  I quote pad rat who on Oct. 24 in the ULA thread stated this:
  
  "I've seen quotes of eastern range mission costs as high as $8M. I wouldn't consider that insignificant - particularly when range costs at Kourou are about 75% less. Commercial customers are also nervous about being bumped by higher priority DOD missions. Delays can cost them serious money. Finally, the USAF is notoriously difficult to work with. It actually seems to not want commercial launch customers. By contrast, Arianespace is customer-oriented, as you would expect of a services company. Even the Russians seem to be easier to deal with as a launch site."
  
  
  Now if the perception is that the USAF is difficult to work with and the range costs more then advantage Arianne.
  
  Ironically, the USAF wanted to help share the cost for development of the EELV with commercial customers but its actions at the Cape seem to prevent commercial customers from choosing Atlas or Delta.
  
  
• #35 by MKremer on 22 Feb, 2007 05:44
• Quote

  Jim - 21/2/2007  5:52 PM
  
  comm channels are configured and validated,  programs loaded and validated for things such as antenna tracking, range safety displays, and weather programs etc.  Different support (tracking sites) called up around the world.

  
  That's what I figured (a whole lot more than just matching local LV frequencies). Thanks.  
• #36 by Analyst on 22 Feb, 2007 06:50
• I wonder how we launched an Atlas and a Titan 90 minutes apart in the Gemini program and need two full days to reconfigure the range.
• #37 by Jim on 22 Feb, 2007 11:46
• Quote

  Dexter - 21/2/2007  11:21 PM
  
  Now if the perception is that the USAF is difficult to work with and the range costs more then advantage Arianne.
  
  Ironically, the USAF wanted to help share the cost for development of the EELV with commercial customers but its actions at the Cape seem to prevent commercial customers from choosing Atlas or Delta.
  

  
  Not the same USAF organizations.  The Cape is not really the "USAF", it is a national range
• #38 by Antares on 22 Feb, 2007 13:39
• Quote

  Analyst - 22/2/2007  2:50 AM
  
  I wonder how we launched an Atlas and a Titan 90 minutes apart in the Gemini program and need two full days to reconfigure the range.

  Maybe they each had their own dedicated tracking, range safety, and TM assets - no overlap.
• #39 by Dexter on 23 Feb, 2007 02:57
• Quote

  Jim - 22/2/2007  6:46 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Dexter - 21/2/2007  11:21 PM
  
  Now if the perception is that the USAF is difficult to work with and the range costs more then advantage Arianne.
  
  Ironically, the USAF wanted to help share the cost for development of the EELV with commercial customers but its actions at the Cape seem to prevent commercial customers from choosing Atlas or Delta.
  

  
  Not the same USAF organizations.  The Cape is not really the "USAF", it is a national range

  
  http://www.robsv.com/cape/gate1.html
  
  "Cape Kennedy Air Force Station continued to support unmanned launches. It was renamed Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) in 1973. In 1992, CCAFS was renamed to Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS). Most recently, in 2000, the name was changed back to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station."
  
  http://www.patrick.af.mil/
  
  http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/launchingrockets/sites.html
  
  "Cape Canaveral Air Force Station
  Located adjacent to Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is ideal for spacecraft requiring a west-east orbit."
  
  
  Even NASA calls it CCAFS.  Sounds like Air Force control to me.
  
  
  
• #40 by bombay on 23 Feb, 2007 04:11
• When's the last time a commercial launch was bumped to make room for a more critical DoD launch at the Cape?
  
  The Cape is a military installation, so the difficulty in dealing with the AF by a commercial outfit likely stems from having to adhere to a certain amount of gov't/military protocol.
  
  
• #41 by CFE on 23 Feb, 2007 06:01
• As far as I can tell, the shuttle has priority if it's scheduled for launch on the same day as another mission.  If you may recall, STS-116 and the Atlas V carrying STP-1 were originally scheduled for the same day, and TacSat-2 (a Wallops launch, but still using CCAFS tracking assets) was scheduled for two days later.  Had all three launches went off according to schedule, the shuttle would have top priority, STP-1 would have gone off two days later, and TS-2 would have launched two days after that.  As it turned out, the shuttle got to launch without any conflict due to last-minute delays in both TS-2 and STP-1.
  
  Going back to the commercial launch concerns, though, I'm not aware of any commercial launch that has been scrubbed due to a shuttle or DoD launch.  There haven't been too many commercial launches from the US over the past few years, so if there's an example of this conflict it would have occurred some time ago.
• #42 by Jim on 23 Feb, 2007 11:25
• Quote

  CFE - 23/2/2007  2:01 AM
  
  As far as I can tell, the shuttle has priority if it's scheduled for launch on the same day as another mission.  

  
  Not true.  First come, first served
• #43 by Jim on 23 Feb, 2007 11:30
• Quote

  bombay - 22/2/2007  12:11 AM
  
  When's the last time a commercial launch was bumped to make room for a more critical DoD launch at the Cape?
  
  The Cape is a military installation, so the difficulty in dealing with the AF by a commercial outfit likely stems from having to adhere to a certain amount of gov't/military protocol.
  
  

  
  It has nothing to do with gov't/military protocol.   It is range and ground safety.  The regulations are more strict than other places.  Things have changed over the years.  Atlas and Delta-Iv own their own pads and are responsible for everything logisticswise (including security) within those boundaries.  Also the Cape serves multiple uses unlike Sealaunch and Kourou.
• #44 by Jim on 23 Feb, 2007 11:33
• Quote

  Dexter - 22/2/2007  10:57 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 22/2/2007  6:46 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Dexter - 21/2/2007  11:21 PM
  
  Now if the perception is that the USAF is difficult to work with and the range costs more then advantage Arianne.
  
  Ironically, the USAF wanted to help share the cost for development of the EELV with commercial customers but its actions at the Cape seem to prevent commercial customers from choosing Atlas or Delta.
  

  
  Not the same USAF organizations.  The Cape is not really the "USAF", it is a national range

  
  http://www.robsv.com/cape/gate1.html
  
  "Cape Kennedy Air Force Station continued to support unmanned launches. It was renamed Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) in 1973. In 1992, CCAFS was renamed to Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS). Most recently, in 2000, the name was changed back to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station."
  
  http://www.patrick.af.mil/
  
  http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/launchingrockets/sites.html
  
  "Cape Canaveral Air Force Station
  Located adjacent to Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is ideal for spacecraft requiring a west-east orbit."
  
  Even NASA calls it CCAFS.  Sounds like Air Force control to me.
  
  

  
  goody for you, looks like you can cut and paste.    You don't know from experience.  But wrong again
  
  KSC and CCAFS are part of the Cape Canaveral Spaceport.  One contractor provides base support for both.
• #45 by bombay on 23 Feb, 2007 15:38
• It's known that Ariane 5 launches "below cost", in the $130-$150 million range.  The Wal-Mart approach of selling a product below cost to draw customers into the store in the hopes of having them buy other items on the shelf is not a wise business model to follow in the rocket launch industry.
  
  The $130M-$150M range is the same cost range as Delta IV medium and Atlas V 401, which I assume provides some profit given that these LV's were initially marketed at $77 million.  If Lockheed or Boeing were really interested in peddling the Delta or Atlas in the commercial market to gain market share, they could probably do so.    
  
  
• #46 by sammie on 23 Feb, 2007 16:46
• On the otherhand the strategy seems to work, considering that Ariane Space recently announced to increase production to 7 ECA's and 1 special mission a year, from 2008 onwards. A flight rate of 8 per year is second or third highest in the whole industry, and should in normal economic circumstances also lead to lower "per piece" prices.
• #47 by juice on 23 Feb, 2007 17:30
• Quote

  bombay - 23/2/2007  10:38 AM
  
  It's known that Ariane 5 launches "below cost", in the $130-$150 million range.  The Wal-Mart approach of selling a product below cost to draw customers into the store in the hopes of having them buy other items on the shelf is not a wise business model to follow in the rocket launch industry.
  
  The $130M-$150M range is the same cost range as Delta IV medium and Atlas V 401, which I assume provides some profit given that these LV's were initially marketed at $77 million.  If Lockheed or Boeing were really interested in peddling the Delta or Atlas in the commercial market to gain market share, they could probably do so.    
  
  

  
  An Ariane 5 generally launches 2 payloads for that price, or up to 9Mt.  The Delta and Atlas configurations in that price range can't come anywhere near that.
• #48 by bombay on 23 Feb, 2007 17:51
• The dual launch strategy in many respects is what is hurting Ariane cost-wise and with launch schedule assurance.  There's so much value on a single pay-load that insurance rates are astronomical and satellite delay issues that could lead to launch delays are double that of a single satellite lift.  Thus the reason for the Ariane/Boeing agreement to use Sea Lauch is to off-load payloads originally schedules for Ariane.
  
  The small -medium market with the likes of Land Launch, Sea Launch, Soyuz, and even Delta and Atlas that don't have to launch at "below cost" rates could challenge Ariane's business case in a big time way!
• #49 by mr.columbus on 23 Feb, 2007 19:39
• Quote

  bombay - 23/2/2007  1:51 PM
  
  The dual launch strategy in many respects is what is hurting Ariane cost-wise and with launch schedule assurance.  There's so much value on a single pay-load that insurance rates are astronomical and satellite delay issues that could lead to launch delays are double that of a single satellite lift.  Thus the reason for the Ariane/Boeing agreement to use Sea Lauch is to off-load payloads originally schedules for Ariane.
  
  The small -medium market with the likes of Land Launch, Sea Launch, Soyuz, and even Delta and Atlas that don't have to launch at "below cost" rates could challenge Ariane's business case in a big time way!

  
  bombay,
  
  1. the dual-launch strategy is not hurting Ariane. Insurance rates are the same if you launch two payloads with two launchers or with one launcher. Ariane generally does not incur any costs for the delays it has seen up to now - you pay penalties only if you are actually really late with your launch, which Ariane hasn't been since its last failure in 2002.
  
  2. as to your suggested launch cost of $150 million dollar per launch being "below cost",
  
  a. we don't know the cost per customer, this is generally a matter of negotiation and depends on various factors and the launch costs are on average higher than 150 million USD (2006 revenues were over 1 billion EUR - see press releases)
  
  b. look at Arianespace's annual report for the year 2005 (you can find it on their website) - they had 5 Ariane launches and 1 Soyuz launch under Starsem and in total revenues over 1 billion EURs (at that time more than 1.2 billion USD), bottom line profits have been in the black for 4 straight years now (2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006), back in 2000, 2001 and 2002 Ariane was in the red due to launch failures and a downturn in the market. How do you suppose they can be profitable for 4 straight years, if they are pricing their launchers "below cost"? And Arianespace is not DIRECTLY subsidized by anyone, that is there is no income stream other than through customer contracts for Ariane 5 and for Soyuz (through Starsem).
  
  3. And now to the overall discussion why Arianespace is the business leader with well over 50% of the comsat market in terms of mass. The reasons are as follows:
  
   - As somebody already suggested, Arianespace is not primarily profit driven. Its shareholders are its major suppliers (EADS, Alcatel Alenia, Volvo etc.) and CNES (operator of the Kourou space center) - those shareholders want to profit from the contracts to build parts of the Ariane launcher, not so much through dividends yielded by Arianespace itself. The whole enterprise is much more like a partnership than a limited liability company.
  
  - As mentioned above, Ariane is launched from Kourou, 5° above the equator. For 10mt to GTO, the launcher can therefore be smaller, require less fuel etc. In a competitive market environment that helps a lot.
  
  - CNES owns 30% of the shares of Arianespace and is its largest shareholder (followed by EADS). While there are no direct subsidies by CNES, providing assistance in launch operations in Kourou is like an indirect subsidy.
  
  - ESA governments have implemented its European launchers first policy. This however will only help Arianespace in the future, because the policy is not binding yet and there are no consequences if governmental payloads are not launched by Arianespace (in fact more than half of Arianespace business is from the US and Asia).
  
  - Arianespace' strategy is to uphold a strong launch manifest each year. If you launch 5, 6 or 7 launchers a year your costs per launch go down, as your fixed costs are spread broader over each launch.
  
  - ESA has and is sponsering Ariane 5's development and upgrades. Currently ESA members are contributing millions to the Ariane 5 Evolution program.
  
  Those are among the strongest reasons why Arianespace is more competitive than Atlas and Delta launchers. Compared to Proton, Ariane can also be priced higher, because customers prefer smooth, professional and "westernized" pre-launch and launch procedures. Until January's failure, SeaLaunch was Ariane's main competitor, we will see what customers do in light of the Zenit's apparent problematic reliability.
• #50 by SIM city on 23 Feb, 2007 20:10
• Quote

  bombay - 23/2/2007  1:51 PM
  
  And Arianespace is not DIRECTLY subsidized by anyone, that is there is no income stream other than through customer contracts for Ariane 5 and for Soyuz (through Starsem).
  
  

  
  I don't know how much more direct you can get than EGAS.  Additionally, asking your shareholders (the largest of which is CNES) to contribute $1bn in funding to recapitalize operations also counts as a subsidy in my book.  
  
  All launch programs are subsidized to some extent, or they wouldn't exist.  There isn't now nor has there ever been a program that could have turned a profit on commercial launches alone.  Best of luck to SpaceX, but even they are going after the U.S. government market.
  
  

  Quote

  
  Compared to Proton, Ariane can also be priced higher, because customers prefer smooth, professional and "westernized" pre-launch and launch procedures.

  
  I think the fine folks at ILS would take particular offense to that comment.  Having worked with that group several times, the mission team (which is American) is as professional as they come, and certainly "smoother" than Ariane.
• #51 by bombay on 23 Feb, 2007 20:44
• $9 billion in up-front investment followed by an additional $3 billion to fix technical problems followed by $1.5 billion by European investors for recapitalization, doesn't amount to a DIRECT subsidy?
• #52 by Dexter on 23 Feb, 2007 22:56
• Quote

  Jim - 23/2/2007  6:33 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Dexter - 22/2/2007  10:57 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 22/2/2007  6:46 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Dexter - 21/2/2007  11:21 PM
  
  Now if the perception is that the USAF is difficult to work with and the range costs more then advantage Arianne.
  
  Ironically, the USAF wanted to help share the cost for development of the EELV with commercial customers but its actions at the Cape seem to prevent commercial customers from choosing Atlas or Delta.
  

  
  Not the same USAF organizations.  The Cape is not really the "USAF", it is a national range

  
  http://www.robsv.com/cape/gate1.html
  
  "Cape Kennedy Air Force Station continued to support unmanned launches. It was renamed Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) in 1973. In 1992, CCAFS was renamed to Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS). Most recently, in 2000, the name was changed back to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station."
  
  http://www.patrick.af.mil/
  
  http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/launchingrockets/sites.html
  
  "Cape Canaveral Air Force Station
  Located adjacent to Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is ideal for spacecraft requiring a west-east orbit."
  
  Even NASA calls it CCAFS.  Sounds like Air Force control to me.
  
  

  
  goody for you, looks like you can cut and paste.    You don't know from experience.  But wrong again
  
  KSC and CCAFS are part of the Cape Canaveral Spaceport.  One contractor provides base support for both.

  
  OK Smart guy.  Why don't you tell us all who the responsible government agency is for the range, the agency the mans all the tracking stations for an Atlas or Delta launch, the agency that provides a range safety officer for every launch.
  
  I suppose, based on your response that the guys at Partick AFB have misrepresented there function because they are contradicting what you are saying on their web site.
  
  Look at their press release for the THEMIS launch.
  
  http://www.patrick.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041626
  
  "The 45th SW provided launch base and Eastern Range support that helped ensure public safety and mission success via instrumentation such as radar, telemetry, communications and meteorological systems."
  
  This cut and paste thing is used to help support my argument.  You should try it sometime.
  
  
  
• #53 by Ventrater on 23 Feb, 2007 23:57
• Quote

  bombay - 23/2/2007  3:44 PM
  
  $9 billion in up-front investment followed by an additional $3 billion to fix technical problems followed by $1.5 billion by European investors for recapitalization, doesn't amount to a DIRECT subsidy?

  
  What do you mean? AtlasV and DeltaIV are born in the Heaven?
• #54 by MKremer on 24 Feb, 2007 00:49
• I predict vehement arguments about gov't/taxpayer subsidations from both sides.  
  
  It would be interesting to see truthful *facts* comparing costs for each major LV company - the actual final *costs* for the past 1/2 dozen or so launches -vs- what the payload companies have actually paid (less insurance).
  
  Costs/pricing for current/planned launches (from now thru future signed contracts) would be interesting to compare, too.  (not that anyone would be willing to release their actual costs    )
• #55 by bombay on 24 Feb, 2007 00:49
• Quote

  Ventrater - 23/2/2007  6:57 PM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 23/2/2007  3:44 PM
  
  $9 billion in up-front investment followed by an additional $3 billion to fix technical problems followed by $1.5 billion by European investors for recapitalization, doesn't amount to a DIRECT subsidy?

  
  What do you mean? AtlasV and DeltaIV are born in the Heaven?

  No not born in the heaven.  But a gov't investment of $1 billion ($500 million to each contractor) for Delta IV and Atlas V is a far cry from the $13.5 billion received by Ariane's contractor.
  
  Lockheed dumped in $1.6 billion and Boeing $2.3 billion of their own money into their respective systems.
• #56 by Jim on 24 Feb, 2007 03:22
• Quote

  Dexter - 23/2/2007  6:56 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 23/2/2007  6:33 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Dexter - 22/2/2007  10:57 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 22/2/2007  6:46 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Dexter - 21/2/2007  11:21 PM
  
  Now if the perception is that the USAF is difficult to work with and the range costs more then advantage Arianne.
  
  Ironically, the USAF wanted to help share the cost for development of the EELV with commercial customers but its actions at the Cape seem to prevent commercial customers from choosing Atlas or Delta.
  

  
  Not the same USAF organizations.  The Cape is not really the "USAF", it is a national range

  
  http://www.robsv.com/cape/gate1.html
  
  "Cape Kennedy Air Force Station continued to support unmanned launches. It was renamed Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) in 1973. In 1992, CCAFS was renamed to Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS). Most recently, in 2000, the name was changed back to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station."
  
  http://www.patrick.af.mil/
  
  http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/launchingrockets/sites.html
  
  "Cape Canaveral Air Force Station
  Located adjacent to Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is ideal for spacecraft requiring a west-east orbit."
  
  Even NASA calls it CCAFS.  Sounds like Air Force control to me.
  
  

  
  goody for you, looks like you can cut and paste.    You don't know from experience.  But wrong again
  
  KSC and CCAFS are part of the Cape Canaveral Spaceport.  One contractor provides base support for both.

  
  OK Smart guy.  Why don't you tell us all who the responsible government agency is for the range, the agency the mans all the tracking stations for an Atlas or Delta launch, the agency that provides a range safety officer for every launch.
  
  I suppose, based on your response that the guys at Partick AFB have misrepresented there function because they are contradicting what you are saying on their web site.
  
  Look at their press release for the THEMIS launch.
  
  http://www.patrick.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041626
  
  "The 45th SW provided launch base and Eastern Range support that helped ensure public safety and mission success via instrumentation such as radar, telemetry, communications and meteorological systems."
  
  This cut and paste thing is used to help support my argument.  You should try it sometime.
  
  
  

  
  Still doesn't matter, the point was the USAF at the Cape and EELV groups are not same.
  
  And it was mostly contractors performing the range support.
  
  I don't need to cut and paste,  I know these things.
  
• #57 by mr.columbus on 24 Feb, 2007 08:45
• Quote

  bombay - 23/2/2007  8:49 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Ventrater - 23/2/2007  6:57 PM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 23/2/2007  3:44 PM
  
  $9 billion in up-front investment followed by an additional $3 billion to fix technical problems followed by $1.5 billion by European investors for recapitalization, doesn't amount to a DIRECT subsidy?

  
  What do you mean? AtlasV and DeltaIV are born in the Heaven?

  No not born in the heaven.  But a gov't investment of $1 billion ($500 million to each contractor) for Delta IV and Atlas V is a far cry from the $13.5 billion received by Ariane's contractor.
  
  Lockheed dumped in $1.6 billion and Boeing $2.3 billion of their own money into their respective systems.

  
  I said in my post, Ariane's development was sponsored by subsidies. With "DIRECT" I was merely talking about operating costs of launches, there are no direct subsidies for the actual operations of the Ariane 5 launcher. Now, because that holds true your statement about Ariane 5 being priced "below cost" is untrue, or otherwise Arianespace could not possibly yield a profit for 4 consecutive years.
• #58 by lmike on 24 Feb, 2007 08:55
• From what I've read the next batch of the Ariannes is to be built on a loan sponsored by EADS underwritten by the French/EU government*.  (I'm not digging at the Arianne, it's a very nice rocket, just checking my facts)  If the batch will be built on the Ariannespace's company's dime, I have a crow ready to eat, salted and all...  Also, what sats do they launch most?  Alcatel's (Alenia) sats?
  
  [edit] * just to clarify -- some loans are guaranteed by a government to attract customers
• #59 by Ventrater on 24 Feb, 2007 09:58
• Quote

  bombay - 23/2/2007  7:49 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Ventrater - 23/2/2007  6:57 PM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 23/2/2007  3:44 PM
  
  $9 billion in up-front investment followed by an additional $3 billion to fix technical problems followed by $1.5 billion by European investors for recapitalization, doesn't amount to a DIRECT subsidy?

  
  What do you mean? AtlasV and DeltaIV are born in the Heaven?

  No not born in the heaven.  But a gov't investment of $1 billion ($500 million to each contractor) for Delta IV and Atlas V is a far cry from the $13.5 billion received by Ariane's contractor.
  
  Lockheed dumped in $1.6 billion and Boeing $2.3 billion of their own money into their respective systems.

  
  
  Ok! Now I understand.
  You mean that INDIRECT subsidies are not subsidies at all.
  Correct?
  
  What are INDIRECT subsidies?
  My worse and most improbable illustration: how the Apollo era is "indirect subsidy"?
• #60 by lmike on 24 Feb, 2007 10:07
• Quote

  Ventrater - 24/2/2007  2:58 AM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 23/2/2007  7:49 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Ventrater - 23/2/2007  6:57 PM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 23/2/2007  3:44 PM
  
  $9 billion in up-front investment followed by an additional $3 billion to fix technical problems followed by $1.5 billion by European investors for recapitalization, doesn't amount to a DIRECT subsidy?

  
  What do you mean? AtlasV and DeltaIV are born in the Heaven?

  No not born in the heaven.  But a gov't investment of $1 billion ($500 million to each contractor) for Delta IV and Atlas V is a far cry from the $13.5 billion received by Ariane's contractor.
  
  Lockheed dumped in $1.6 billion and Boeing $2.3 billion of their own money into their respective systems.

  
  
  Ok! Now I understand.
  You mean that INDIRECT subsidies are not subsidies at all.
  Correct?
  

  
  Sorry for butting into your conversation, but that is not correct.  If a company draws from its own cash reserves that's not a subsidy.  If a company draws from an outside reserve (a government's guaranteed loan) that is a subsidy
• #61 by lmike on 24 Feb, 2007 10:15
• Quote

  Ventrater - 24/2/2007  2:58 AM
  ...
  My worse and most improbable illustration: how the Apollo era is "indirect subsidy"?

  
  The Apollo (as great as it was) was a straight subsidy.
• #62 by Ventrater on 24 Feb, 2007 10:20
• Quote

  lmike - 24/2/2007  5:07 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Ventrater - 24/2/2007  2:58 AM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 23/2/2007  7:49 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Ventrater - 23/2/2007  6:57 PM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 23/2/2007  3:44 PM
  
  $9 billion in up-front investment followed by an additional $3 billion to fix technical problems followed by $1.5 billion by European investors for recapitalization, doesn't amount to a DIRECT subsidy?

  
  What do you mean? AtlasV and DeltaIV are born in the Heaven?

  No not born in the heaven.  But a gov't investment of $1 billion ($500 million to each contractor) for Delta IV and Atlas V is a far cry from the $13.5 billion received by Ariane's contractor.
  
  Lockheed dumped in $1.6 billion and Boeing $2.3 billion of their own money into their respective systems.

  
  
  Ok! Now I understand.
  You mean that INDIRECT subsidies are not subsidies at all.
  Correct?
  

  
  Sorry for butting into your conversation, but that is not correct.  If a company draws from its own cash reserves that's not a subsidy.  If a company draws from an outside reserve (a government's guaranteed loan) that is a subsidy

  
  The question is: is there (or not) any indirect subsidy to Delta and Atlas?
  
  

  Quote

  lmike - 24/2/2007  5:15 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Ventrater - 24/2/2007  2:58 AM
  ...
  My worse and most improbable illustration: how the Apollo era is "indirect subsidy"?

  
  The Apollo (as great as it was) was a straight subsidy.

  
  the question is: do you understand how this "straight subsity" is indirect subsidy to Atlas and Delta?
• #63 by lmike on 24 Feb, 2007 10:25
• Quote

  Ventrater - 24/2/2007  3:20 AM
  
  

  Quote

  lmike - 24/2/2007  5:07 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Ventrater - 24/2/2007  2:58 AM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 23/2/2007  7:49 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Ventrater - 23/2/2007  6:57 PM
  
  

  Quote

  bombay - 23/2/2007  3:44 PM
  
  $9 billion in up-front investment followed by an additional $3 billion to fix technical problems followed by $1.5 billion by European investors for recapitalization, doesn't amount to a DIRECT subsidy?

  
  What do you mean? AtlasV and DeltaIV are born in the Heaven?

  No not born in the heaven.  But a gov't investment of $1 billion ($500 million to each contractor) for Delta IV and Atlas V is a far cry from the $13.5 billion received by Ariane's contractor.
  
  Lockheed dumped in $1.6 billion and Boeing $2.3 billion of their own money into their respective systems.

  
  
  Ok! Now I understand.
  You mean that INDIRECT subsidies are not subsidies at all.
  Correct?
  

  
  Sorry for butting into your conversation, but that is not correct.  If a company draws from its own cash reserves that's not a subsidy.  If a company draws from an outside reserve (a government's guaranteed loan) that is a subsidy

  
  The question is: is there (or not) any indirect subsidy to Delta and Atlas?
  
  

  
  Yes, there is.  Both Delta and Atlas are derivatives of some government sponsored rockets.
  
  
  

  Quote

  lmike - 24/2/2007  5:15 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Ventrater - 24/2/2007  2:58 AM
  ...
  My worse and most improbable illustration: how the Apollo era is "indirect subsidy"?

  
  The Apollo (as great as it was) was a straight subsidy.

  
  the question is: do you understand how this "straight subsity" is indirect subsidy to Atlas and Delta?[/QUOTE]
  
  [/quote]
  
  Yes, I think I do.  Something more for me to expand on?
• #64 by Ventrater on 24 Feb, 2007 10:29
• I think that there is no problem and nothing to say about Atlas, Delta ant Ariane subsidy.
  Peace and love!
• #65 by lmike on 24 Feb, 2007 10:32
• Quote

  Ventrater - 24/2/2007  3:29 AM
  
  I think that there is no problem and nothing to say about Atlas, Delta ant Ariane subsidy.
  Peace and love!

  
  Great!  All of the above have had (and still do ) their subsidies.  The Arinanne is a better (more cleverly) subsidized rocket*.  
  
  *edit (it's not a better rocket technicaly though)
• #66 by Ventrater on 24 Feb, 2007 11:16
• Quote

  lmike - 24/2/2007  5:32 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Ventrater - 24/2/2007  3:29 AM
  
  I think that there is no problem and nothing to say about Atlas, Delta ant Ariane subsidy.
  Peace and love!

  
  Great!  All of the above have had (and still do ) their subsidies.  The Arinanne is a better (more cleverly) subsidized rocket*.  
  
  *edit (it's not a better rocket technicaly though)

  
  I see. You do not like peace and you do not like love and you think that a clever subsidy is a no-hidden subsidy.
• #67 by lmike on 24 Feb, 2007 18:19
• Quote

  Ventrater - 24/2/2007  4:16 AM
  
  

  Quote

  lmike - 24/2/2007  5:32 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Ventrater - 24/2/2007  3:29 AM
  
  I think that there is no problem and nothing to say about Atlas, Delta ant Ariane subsidy.
  Peace and love!

  
  Great!  All of the above have had (and still do ) their subsidies.  The Arinanne is a better (more cleverly) subsidized rocket*.  
  
  *edit (it's not a better rocket technicaly though)

  
  I see. You do not like peace and you do not like love and you think that a clever subsidy is a no-hidden subsidy.

  
  In the context of this thread, I have no idea what you are talking about... As for me, I'm just talking about some rockets and how they are funded.  But as an aside, "Peace and love" sure haven't funded any rockets.
• #68 by Antares on 24 Feb, 2007 19:28
• Quote

  lmike - 24/2/2007  2:19 PM
  But as an aside, "Peace and love" sure haven't funded any rockets.

  Just give Bigelow a little more time... Not exactly love, though
• #69 by edkyle99 on 02 Mar, 2007 02:47
• Quote

  lmike - 24/2/2007  5:32 AM
  
  Great!  All of the above have had (and still do ) their subsidies.  The Arinanne is a better (more cleverly) subsidized rocket*.  
  
  *edit (it's not a better rocket technicaly though)

  
  I've been wondering about this assertion.  What does it mean to be "better", technically or otherwise?  How does one determine which (Ariane 5, Atlas 5, Delta 4) is "better" or "best"?
  
  There are plenty of technical/engineering comparisons that could be made, but cost, reliability, and availability (via launch tempo) are probably the most important comparative parameters.  Cost data are hidden from public view, but snippets and rumors indicate that Ariane 5 ECA costs slightly less, on a dollar per payload kg to GTO basis, than either Delta 4 Heavy or Atlas 5-551.  The numbers appear to be in the $25-28 million per tonne range.  Atlas 5-551 actually costs more then the others on a dollar per payload tonne basis simply because it carries a smaller payload, even though it costs less on a per-launch basis.  Note that I'm talking about cost, not the subsidized customer price.
  
  In terms of reliability, the jury is clearly still out on these launch vehicles.   Here are the basic results to date, with Delta 4M and Delta 4H presented separately.
  
                   Success/Attempts
  
  Atlas 5                 8/8    
  Delta 4M              6/6    
  Ariane 5-ECA       7/8    
  Delta 4H              0/1  
  
  In terms of launch tempo, five Ariane 5 ECA vehicles flew last year, and more than that are planned this year.  The EELVs have come nowhere near that flight rate, despite each vehicle having twice as many launch pads as Ariane 5.  No more than two Atlas 5 launches have occurred in a single calender year to date, but at least one Atlas 5 has flown annually since 2002.  The only Delta 4 Heavy launch took place more than two years ago.  There might be one or two more this year.  Three Delta 4 Mediums flew last year, but no Delta 4 launches of any kind occurred in 2005.
  
  Right now, I have to say that Ariane 5 ECA is looking slightly "better" than either EELV.  This assessment could easily change depending on how the reliability and operational tempos ultimately pan out.
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #70 by yinzer on 02 Mar, 2007 05:17
• I'm not sure what conclusions you can draw about the "quality" of an EELV based on NRO payload slips and GPS satellites refusing to die, both of which have much bigger influences on the EELV flight rates than anything to do with the launch vehicles.
• #71 by lmike on 02 Mar, 2007 05:49
• edkyle99,
  
  "better" is perhaps relative and subjective, and somewhat superficial. I agree that there are different criteria. Perhaps in the end it’s the highest number of successful launches, or lower cost to orbit (but which orbit? Some orbits are more challenging than others), better integration procedures, availability of tropical scuba diving for the customer reps, or whatever else.
  
  What I meant by “not better technically” ('technically' is meant to be read literally here i.e. ISP, thrust, integration speed, payload conditioning in flight, delta-v or number of burns available for the second stage, etc... ) above is that nothing in the Ariane technical specs strikes me as exceptional technically/cost wise (although it seems pretty clever how the production is funded for years ahead), and of course the dual launch on the ECA, it’s a nice capable subsidized launch vehicle line any other. Some solids, some standard enough propulsion units, seemingly standard manufacturing procedures, nothing really intrinsically to drop the manufacturing costs of a rocket article. AFAIK. (I must state here that I'm an amature space enthusiast, not a professional scholar, or commercial launch worker. )
  
  As an example, you mentioned the higher tempo or more launches on the Ariane that contributes to it being “better” overall, however there could a number of reasons for that, subsidies bringing down costs, launching certain sats on certain rockets as a requirement, better management team, pure good luck, or bad luck for the competitors, no internal completion (like Atlas vs. Delta vs. etc… in the US), etc... I.e., the Atlas V, while remaining same technically, but under different management or different government supervision could achieve same results. Taken on its own this metric (the number of orders) *of course* makes a rocket "better" at any given time. I must admit I have not studied the vehicle standings on the market in much detail. And so, perhaps I simply lack information (thanks for your charts and your space launch log, btw)
  
  (once again I'm not "digging" at the Ariane, as in my original post in this thread, it's a fine enough rocket, and I never meant for this to be a ‘pissing match’ between rockets, although that's what it is in the launch business, I just don’t seem to find a reason to think that its success is less due to government intervention than for other LVs, as seems is often implied)
  
  
• #72 by Antares on 02 Mar, 2007 06:02
• To continue the subsidy discussion:
  
  Saturn V wasn't really a subsidy: it was a direct procurement.  Is an aircraft carrier purchase a subsidy for the shipyard?
  
  In the interest of U.S. national security via maintaining key technical staff at ULA, there is an "ELC" EELV Launch Capability line in recent EELV Buys and separate contracts.  I can't argue with it.  I don't think it helps their pricing structure with commercial launches much, which is what a subsidy does.
• #73 by lmike on 02 Mar, 2007 07:43
• Quote

  Antares - 1/3/2007 11:02 PM
  ...
  Saturn V wasn't really a subsidy: it was a direct procurement. Is an aircraft carrier purchase a subsidy for the shipyard?
  ...
  

  
  
  
  I think if a government contract keeps a commercial entity "keep its bottom line financially" that it otherwise couldn't keep, via competition in the global market (i.e. it'd simply go bankrupt making diapers or leisure yachts, instead of TPS for the Shuttle or submarine parts for the Navy), it can be considered a subsidy*. (Although, perhaps we are now far into semantics and word 'acrobatics' )
  
  Didn't Saturn V's engineering/production employ a lot of subcontractors? Doesn't an aircraft carrier production line employ a lot of subcontractors?
  
  

  Quote

  Antares - 1/3/2007 11:02 PM
  In the interest of U.S. national security via maintaining key technical staff at ULA, there is an "ELC" EELV Launch Capability line in recent EELV Buys and separate contracts. I can't argue with it. I don't think it helps their pricing structure with commercial launches much, which is what a subsidy does.
  

  
  Wouldn't this sort of thing help the EELV contractors maintain both cash reserves and production lines (the latter also useful for the commercial launches)?
  
  *Note, I personally *don't* attribute a bad connotation to the word 'subsidy'. It's a thing all countries have got to do if they want to stay competitive and capable of defense. Some things are just not made for the 'market'. And we do.
  
• #74 by Analyst on 02 Mar, 2007 07:58
• It seems to me the mobile launcher concept used by Arianespace for Ariane V (and IV) and by LM for Atlas V at LC41 is better than stacking the rocket at the pad (SLC3 at Vandenberg and LC17) or Boeings Delta IV approch at LC37B and SLC6. It reduces the time the booster sits on the pad, although I don't know how long it sits in its intergration building.
  
  Boeing talked about 8 days on pad for Delta IV Medium and 17 days for Delta IV Heavy. This has never been achieved. Could be because there simply has been no need, I don't know. The next Delta IV has been delayed again, could be the booster or the payload.
  
  Could it be that the payloads are very often the reason for long times on the pad? Titan 4 (NRO) comes to mind. On the other hand Titan 3E achieved very fast turnarrounds during the Viking and Voyager launches from LC41 in the 1970ies.
  
  Analyst
• #75 by lmike on 02 Mar, 2007 09:05
• Quote

  Analyst - 2/3/2007  12:58 AM
  
  It seems to me the mobile launcher concept used by Arianespace for Ariane V (and IV) and by LM for Atlas V at LC41 is better than stacking the rocket at the pad (SLC3 at Vandenberg and LC17) or Boeings Delta IV approch at LC37B and SLC6. It reduces the time the booster sits on the pad, although I don't know how long it sits in its intergration building.
  ...
  Analyst

  
  I don't think it could make that much difference.  It's vertically integrated in one spot than carried along to another spot.  Vertically.  
  
  I think horizontal integration  (and then of course elevation via a mechanism onto the pad) vs. vertical [integration] and then horizontal translation, could be a larger distinction in the rocket up times.  But, AFAIK, the jury is still out on it
• #76 by edkyle99 on 02 Mar, 2007 12:04
• Quote

  yinzer - 2/3/2007  12:17 AM
  
  I'm not sure what conclusions you can draw about the "quality" of an EELV based on NRO payload slips and GPS satellites refusing to die, both of which have much bigger influences on the EELV flight rates than anything to do with the launch vehicles.

  
  Atlas 5 has, and is, being offered for commercial launches, but has won relatively few launches.  The conclusion I draw from that is that Atlas 5 hasn't been price-competitive, despite the fact that it, like Ariane and every other launcher in the world, is subsidized in part by government.
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #77 by Jim on 02 Mar, 2007 16:42
• Quote

  Analyst - 2/3/2007  3:58 AM
  
  1.  It seems to me the mobile launcher concept used by Arianespace for Ariane V (and IV) and by LM for Atlas V at LC41 is better than stacking the rocket at the pad (SLC3 at Vandenberg and LC17) or Boeings Delta IV approch at LC37B and SLC6. It reduces the time the booster sits on the pad, although I don't know how long it sits in its intergration building.
  
  2.  Boeing talked about 8 days on pad for Delta IV Medium and 17 days for Delta IV Heavy. This has never been achieved. Could be because there simply has been no need, I don't know. The next Delta IV has been delayed again, could be the booster or the payload.
  
  3.  Could it be that the payloads are very often the reason for long times on the pad? Titan 4 (NRO) comes to mind. On the other hand Titan 3E achieved very fast turnarrounds during the Viking and Voyager launches from LC41 in the 1970ies.
  
  Analyst

  
  1.  Delta IV is horizontally integrated and rolled to the pad.  Payload is vertically integrated at the pad and solids if needed
  
  2.  No correct, no need, therefore no extra manpower hired and since flight rates are low no real repetition of tasks to reduce learning curve.  Also low flight rates means launch teams are shared on both coasts
  
  3.  Planetary missions are always the exceptions.   Everything is planned around the launch period.  There was nothing for T-IIIE to do other than support Viking and Voyager.  
  polar orbiting spacecraft are notorious for launch delays both before shipment to the launch site and once at the launch site.   WRT the $ involved with NRO spacecraft, time on the pad taken to resolve every risk is cheaper than a mission failure
• #78 by lmike on 02 Mar, 2007 20:21
• Quote

  edkyle99 - 2/3/2007  5:04 AM
  
  

  Quote

  yinzer - 2/3/2007  12:17 AM
  
  I'm not sure what conclusions you can draw about the "quality" of an EELV based on NRO payload slips and GPS satellites refusing to die, both of which have much bigger influences on the EELV flight rates than anything to do with the launch vehicles.

  
  Atlas 5 has, and is, being offered for commercial launches, but has won relatively few launches.  The conclusion I draw from that is that Atlas 5 hasn't been price-competitive, despite the fact that it, like Ariane and every other launcher in the world, is subsidized in part by government.
  
   - Ed Kyle

  
  What do you think is the reason for this?  Technical or otherwise.
• #79 by kevin-rf on 02 Mar, 2007 20:28
• Quote

  lmike - 2/3/2007  3:21 PM
  What do you think is the reason for this?  Technical or otherwise.

  
  Jim once pointed out that proton is cheaper but can not haul as much. So the commercial payloads Atlas V has won where to heavy for proton.
• #80 by lmike on 02 Mar, 2007 20:41
• Quote

  kevin-rf - 2/3/2007  1:28 PM
  

  Quote

  edkyle99 - 2/3/2007 5:04 AM
  
  

  Quote

  yinzer - 2/3/2007 12:17 AM
  
  I'm not sure what conclusions you can draw about the "quality" of an EELV based on NRO payload slips and GPS satellites refusing to die, both of which have much bigger influences on the EELV flight rates than anything to do with the launch vehicles.
  

  
  Atlas 5 has, and is, being offered for commercial launches, but has won relatively few launches. The conclusion I draw from that is that Atlas 5 hasn't been price-competitive, despite the fact that it, like Ariane and every other launcher in the world, is subsidized in part by government.
  
  - Ed Kyle
  

  
  

  Quote

  lmike - 2/3/2007  3:21 PM
  What do you think is the reason for this?  Technical or otherwise.

  
  Jim once pointed out that proton is cheaper but can not haul as much. So the commercial payloads Atlas V has won where to heavy for proton.

  
  Thanks.  So, relating to the Ariane, I suppose the sats are too heavy to launch [for other LVs], and the ride is cheaper?  But why is the ride [for same or heavier payload] on the Ariane is cheaper?
• #81 by Antares on 02 Mar, 2007 21:48
• Quote

  Analyst - 2/3/2007  3:58 AM
  It seems to me the mobile launcher concept used by Arianespace for Ariane V (and IV) and by LM for Atlas V at LC41 is better than stacking the rocket at the pad (SLC3 at Vandenberg and LC17) or Boeings Delta IV approch at LC37B and SLC6. It reduces the time the booster sits on the pad, although I don't know how long it sits in its intergration building.
  Analyst

  The advantages of a mobile launcher are:
  1) Keep the pad open if the launch rate demands it since
  2) multiple integration facilities are cheaper to build than multiple pads.
• #82 by edkyle99 on 02 Mar, 2007 21:49
• Quote

  lmike - 2/3/2007  3:41 PM
  
  

  Quote

  kevin-rf - 2/3/2007  1:28 PM
  

  Quote

  edkyle99 - 2/3/2007 5:04 AM
  
  

  Quote

  yinzer - 2/3/2007 12:17 AM
  
  I'm not sure what conclusions you can draw about the "quality" of an EELV based on NRO payload slips and GPS satellites refusing to die, both of which have much bigger influences on the EELV flight rates than anything to do with the launch vehicles.
  

  
  Atlas 5 has, and is, being offered for commercial launches, but has won relatively few launches. The conclusion I draw from that is that Atlas 5 hasn't been price-competitive, despite the fact that it, like Ariane and every other launcher in the world, is subsidized in part by government.
  
  - Ed Kyle
  

  
  

  Quote

  lmike - 2/3/2007  3:21 PM
  What do you think is the reason for this?  Technical or otherwise.

  
  Jim once pointed out that proton is cheaper but can not haul as much. So the commercial payloads Atlas V has won where to heavy for proton.

  
  Thanks.  So, relating to the Ariane, I suppose the sats are too heavy to launch [for other LVs], and the ride is cheaper?  But why is the ride [for same or heavier payload] on the Ariane is cheaper?

  
  It is a scaling issue.  In addition to the payload advantage given by its near-equatorial launch site, Ariane 5 also benefits by being bigger than Atlas.  Bigger launchers usually end up being cheaper on a kg-to-orbit basis.  Ariane 5 ECA can haul nearly 10 tonnes to GTO while Atlas 551 can only boost about 6.7 tonnes to an equivalent GTO (1,500 m/s delta-v short of geostationary orbit).  Atlas 551 would need to cost less than 67% of the cost of Ariane 5 ECA to match or better the European launcher on a cost per kg to GTO basis.  The limited information available hints that Atlas 551 doesn't quite make that mark.  
  
  But just because these launchers have payload capacity doesn't mean that it is fully used.  Most launches of Ariane, Delta 4, and Atlas 5 have to date only used 70-80% of the vehicle's payload capacity.  
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #83 by lmike on 03 Mar, 2007 00:10
• Quote

  edkyle99 - 2/3/2007  2:49 PM
  ... < trimmed for brevity >
  Atlas 551 would need to cost less than 67% of the cost of Ariane 5 ECA to match or better the European launcher on a cost per kg to GTO basis.  The limited information available hints that Atlas 551 doesn't quite make that mark.  
  
  But just because these launchers have payload capacity doesn't mean that it is fully used.  Most launches of Ariane, Delta 4, and Atlas 5 have to date only used 70-80% of the vehicle's payload capacity.  
  ...

  
  Thanks.  But do you think an Atlas configuration could be more competitive with a better government support (to match the Ariane's)  Wouldn't that mean more solids, redesigned lower/upper stages with higher impulse/thrust, etc...  Couldn't the proverbial 'subsidy' also play into this?
• #84 by edkyle99 on 03 Mar, 2007 00:34
• Quote

  lmike - 2/3/2007  7:10 PM
  
  ... do you think an Atlas configuration could be more competitive with a better government support (to match the Ariane's)  Wouldn't that mean more solids, redesigned lower/upper stages with higher impulse/thrust, etc...  Couldn't the proverbial 'subsidy' also play into this?

  
  I have no idea which rocket, Ariane or Atlas or Delta, receives more government monetary support.  But it is plainly obvious to me that all three programs receive large sums of public money, either through direct subsidy or via indirect support by providing a stream of more-or-less guaranteed payloads to an essentially non-competitive marketplace.  
  
  As things stand now, Atlas probably already is cost-competitive with Ariane 5 ECA *for specific payloads that match well with specific Atlas V variants*.  If it were to be developed, an Atlas V Heavy might be cost-competitive with Ariane 5 ECA for multiple-payload missions, but the bigger question is this:  does Lockheed Martin/ULA, or any U.S. company, really *want* to compete for commercial launches?  The answer in recent years appears to be a resounding "No".  The reason must be that there is little, if any, profit to be made in that business right now.
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #85 by DigitalMan on 03 Mar, 2007 01:00
• Last time I was at KSC someone mentioned the Atlas V can be rolled out and launched in 12 hours.  Not too shabby.
• #86 by Rocket Guy on 03 Mar, 2007 01:34
• Nine hours. They did just that through MRO. At MRO, they ran into problems and fell behind to the point where it countributed to the launch scrub that morning. Since then, starting with NH, they have rolled out the day before, usually at 10am.
• #87 by WHAP on 03 Mar, 2007 01:49
• Quote

  DigitalMan - 2/3/2007  7:00 PM
  
  Last time I was at KSC someone mentioned the Atlas V can be rolled out and launched in 12 hours.  Not too shabby.

  It's probably less than that.  Looking at some old coverage (Inmarsat 4 launch), they rolled at 7:30 am and were scheduled to launch at 4:42 pm, just over 9 hours later.  Roll was delayed an hour, so a normal timeline would be just over 10 hours.  They didn't launch that day, but it doesn't look like they rushed through the count or anything.
• #88 by WHAP on 03 Mar, 2007 01:50
• Quote

  Ben - 2/3/2007  7:34 PM
  
  Nine hours.

  I stand corrected.
• #89 by DigitalMan on 03 Mar, 2007 02:59
• 9 hours is pretty impressive!!!  Seems like a really good thing considering potential weather problems here.  I managed to get some pictures of the pad from the beachhouse, but couldn't get any closer.
• #90 by Jim on 03 Mar, 2007 04:33
• Quote

  DigitalMan - 2/3/2007  10:59 PM
  
  9 hours is pretty impressive!!!  Seems like a really good thing considering potential weather problems here.  I managed to get some pictures of the pad from the beachhouse, but couldn't get any closer.

  
  It still would not have helped the shuttle
• #91 by bigdog on 03 Mar, 2007 14:41
• Quote

  Analyst - 2/3/2007  1:58 AM
  
  It seems to me the mobile launcher concept used by Arianespace for Ariane V (and IV) and by LM for Atlas V at LC41 is better than stacking the rocket at the pad (SLC3 at Vandenberg and LC17) or Boeings Delta IV approch at LC37B and SLC6. It reduces the time the booster sits on the pad, although I don't know how long it sits in its intergration building.
  
  Boeing talked about 8 days on pad for Delta IV Medium and 17 days for Delta IV Heavy. This has never been achieved. Could be because there simply has been no need, I don't know. The next Delta IV has been delayed again, could be the booster or the payload.
  
  Could it be that the payloads are very often the reason for long times on the pad? Titan 4 (NRO) comes to mind. On the other hand Titan 3E achieved very fast turnarrounds during the Viking and Voyager launches from LC41 in the 1970ies.
  
  Analyst

  
  1. Mobile Launcher vs. Pad erection/stacking is about equal in the general sense.  Launch rates as they currently are (Atlas V & Delta IV) don't need anything different.  In fact Delta II was launching something like every two/three weeks once (Iridium I think) and it didn't hurt them though they did have more than one pad.
  
  2. As for the time to launch Boeing made very bad guesses at how long that would take.  They probably had a ship & shoot mentality.  Once people who know how to launch rockets got on the program that quickly changed.  Best time I hear is around 60 days.  I think the last launch for DMSP took about that.  The Medium and the Heavy versions are actually the shortest; putting on solids adds a lot of time.
  
  3. Payloads are a source of delay.  The first VAFB Delta IV was delayed for a long time by the payload, close to a year.
  
  There is one area where I would argue Delta IV approach of integrated vehicle erected at the pad is better.  First lets compare apples to apples, Ariane V to Delta IV heavy to Atlas V Heavy.  Atlas V 551 or 2 are what competes in this class now but I'm trying to leave the small solids out of this comparison since for Atlas and Delta they are equal in terms of them being stacked once vertical.
  
  If the situation arose where a payload had a significant slip driving the need to remove that rocket from the pad and put the next one up Delta IV would be better.  Atlas V and Ariane use the mobile launcher and have a vertical integration facility.  In Atlas's case they have only one mobile platform and one VIF, I don't know for sure about Ariane but I'd bet they can't store one vertically without impacting the next rockets processing.  Delta IV has the horizontal integration facility that has 3 bays (typically only two hold the rockets).
  
  Both Ariane and Atlas would need to de-stack (take apart) the rocket and store the piece parts then stack another rocket in the VIF.  Delta IV has a big advantage in that they just de-erect the rocket on the pad roll back to the HIF for storage and then roll out and erect the next one.  Then when it's time for the delayed rocket to go back just roll out and erect.
  
• #92 by Jim on 03 Mar, 2007 16:33
• Delta IV doesn't do any electical checkout of the vehicle horizontal and that is a disadvantage.  Also, just as Atlas V has only one MLP, D-IV only has one heavy LMU and so they can't have another heavy ready to swap out.  D-IV would be at a disadvantage to Atlas, they both  can have all the CBC's/CCB's and upperstages deliver but  Atlas could do some electrical testing.
  
  Atlas time from ASOC to VIF to launch is shorter than D-IV HIF to pad to launch.    Since Atlas had let the USAF tear up the RR tracks to the SMAB and SMARF, they lost a safe haven for an "extra" vehicle and another MLP doesn't help.  But even adding another LMU, Atlas is still better.  
  
  Also all Atlas CCB's are the same but D-IV CBC's are configuation unique.    Atlas can swap hardware easier.  
  
  The only advantage D-IV has is a swap of a heavy with a medium.
• #93 by edkyle99 on 03 Mar, 2007 17:01
• Quote

  bigdog - 3/3/2007  9:41 AM
    Atlas V and Ariane use the mobile launcher and have a vertical integration facility.  In Atlas's case they have only one mobile platform and one VIF, I don't know for sure about Ariane but I'd bet they can't store one vertically without impacting the next rockets processing.  
  

  
  My understanding is that Arianespace now has two Ariane 5 mobile launch tables, allowing it to process two campaigns in close succession.   One Ariane 5 could, for example, be in the Launcher Integration Building (BIL) while the other was in the Final Assembly Building (BAF).   An Ariane 5 launch campaign takes 22 days from EPC (core stage) erection to launch.
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #94 by bigdog on 03 Mar, 2007 18:01
• Quote

  Jim - 3/3/2007  10:33 AM
  
  Delta IV doesn't do any electical checkout of the vehicle horizontal and that is a disadvantage..

  
  Incorrect about a disadvantage.  They don't test there because they found it was of no value, cost them more and would only be duplicative of what is done at the pad.  They do extensive testing at Decatur which negates the need for it at the HIF.  Also Atlas does no testing of the booster horizontal.
  
  

  Quote

  Also, just as Atlas V has only one MLP, D-IV only has one heavy LMU and so they can't have another heavy ready to swap out..

  
  Wrong again.  I've seen by your posts you are at KSC/CCAS drive by the HIF and you'll see another Heavy LMU outside all shrink wrapped and ready to go.  Now you may end up being correct since VAFB will now be launching heavies and I would guess that LMU will be shipped there.  Building an additional LMU would be far easier and less expensive than building another MLP.
  
  

  Quote

  Atlas time from ASOC to VIF to launch is shorter than D-IV HIF to pad to launch..

  
  Very true and this is where Atlas has a big launch rate advantage although it has nothing to do with erecting vs. stacking.
  
  

  Quote

  Since Atlas had let the USAF tear up the RR tracks to the SMAB and SMARF, they lost a safe haven for an "extra" vehicle and another MLP doesn't help.  But even adding another LMU, Atlas is still better..

  
  Too bad they let that contingency go away, in fact it may have even been an advantage to stack multiple vehicles in close succession.
  
  

  Quote

  Also all Atlas CCB's are the same but D-IV CBC's are configuation unique.    Atlas can swap hardware easier..

   
  
  The DIV CBC's are the same except for the structural attachments for solids and strap-ons.  Electrical, plumbing, avionics are the same on all of them.  I doubt the Atlas boosters are identical either.  For example why install cables and other related hardware for solids if it's a 401.
  
  

  Quote

  The only advantage D-IV has is a swap of a heavy with a medium.

  
  Like I said above as of now they can have two heavies on LMU's.  But this probably makes my point since it's more likely they would go from a heavy to a medium or medium to a heavy under the circumstances I described.
  
• #95 by bigdog on 03 Mar, 2007 18:05
• Quote

  edkyle99 - 3/3/2007  11:01 AM
  
  

  Quote

  bigdog - 3/3/2007  9:41 AM
    Atlas V and Ariane use the mobile launcher and have a vertical integration facility.  In Atlas's case they have only one mobile platform and one VIF, I don't know for sure about Ariane but I'd bet they can't store one vertically without impacting the next rockets processing.  
  

  
  My understanding is that Arianespace now has two Ariane 5 mobile launch tables, allowing it to process two campaigns in close succession.   One Ariane 5 could, for example, be in the Launcher Integration Building (BIL) while the other was in the Final Assembly Building (BAF).   An Ariane 5 launch campaign takes 22 days from EPC (core stage) erection to launch.
  
   - Ed Kyle

  
  Thanks for the added information.  I think this suports my position since if the first vehicle were to go into long term storage it would have to be taken apart so that the second MLT and the BIL would be available for the next rocket.  Delta IV more times than not could just be parked in one of the HIF bays with no impact to the next rocket.
• #96 by edkyle99 on 03 Mar, 2007 18:05
• Quote

  Analyst - 2/3/2007  2:58 AM
  
  It seems to me the mobile launcher concept used by Arianespace for Ariane V (and IV) and by LM for Atlas V at LC41 is better than stacking the rocket at the pad (SLC3 at Vandenberg and LC17) or Boeings Delta IV approch at LC37B and SLC6. It reduces the time the booster sits on the pad, although I don't know how long it sits in its intergration building.
  

  
  One of the main arguments for the "clean pad" concept used by Ariane 5, Atlas 5, and in part by Japan's H-2A  is that in the event of a launch failure on the pad - like the recent Zenit Sea Launch failure - there are fewer nearby structures exposed to damage.  A Delta 4 failure on the pad would endanger not only the launch table equipment and the substantial umbilical tower, but also the nearby mobile service tower.  A clean pad launch failure would only expose the launch table and its smaller umbilical tower to the failure.
  
   - Ed Kyle
  
  
• #97 by bigdog on 03 Mar, 2007 18:23
• Quote

  edkyle99 - 1/3/2007  8:47 PM
                   Success/Attempts
  
  Atlas 5                 8/8    
  Delta 4M              6/6

  
  What about Ariane 4?  This is the closest to A5 & DIV Medium & Intermediate.  I know the total was very big but it's the success percentage you get from the numbers that matters.
   
  Ariane 5-ECA       7/8[/QUOTE]
  
  What about the basic Ariane V version?  They will not all be ECA's from now on will they?
  
  Delta 4H              0/1[/QUOTE]
  
  I'd make this 0.9/1 since was only a demo flight and everything was successful except the final orbit.  In other words it didn't blow up like a few Ariane 5's.  Plus as someone pointed out in another thread or maybe it was earlier in this one if that DIV heavy launched the DSP that's going up next it would have made it orbit and had room to spare.
  
  
  
  
   - Ed Kyle[/QUOTE]
• #98 by Jim on 03 Mar, 2007 18:40
• Quote

  bigdog - 3/3/2007  2:01 PM
  
  1.  Incorrect about a disadvantage.  They don't test there because they found it was of no value, cost them more and would only be duplicative of what is done at the pad.  They do extensive testing at Decatur which negates the need for it at the HIF.  Also Atlas does no testing of the booster horizontal.
  
  2.  Wrong again.  I've seen by your posts you are at KSC/CCAS drive by the HIF and you'll see another Heavy LMU outside all shrink wrapped and ready to go.  Now you may end up being correct since VAFB will now be launching heavies and I would guess that LMU will be shipped there.  Building an additional LMU would be far easier and less expensive than building another MLP.
  
  3.  The DIV CBC's are the same except for the structural attachments for solids and strap-ons.  Electrical, plumbing, avionics are the same on all of them.  I doubt the Atlas boosters are identical either.  For example why install cables and other related hardware for solids if it's a 401.
  
  4.  Like I said above as of now they can have two heavies on LMU's.  But this probably makes my point since it's more likely they would go from a heavy to a medium or medium to a heavy under the circumstances I described.
  

  
  1.  They found out it is a disadvantage.  While another vehicle is at the pad or the pad is down for mods.  The vehicle just sits in the HIF without any testing.   There are been so many post shipment mods (Decatur doesn't ship clean vehicles) and fixes that testing in HIF would save time.
  
  Altas tests the booster  (they can connect it to the upperstage) but more so the Centaur where the bulk of the avionics are
  
  2.  It is the VAFB one
  
  3.  No, the CBC's have different centerbodys, interstages and more, not just SRM attach hardware.  A D-IV medium can only be a medium, not a medium plus, nor can it handle 5m upperstage.  The Heavy CBC's are also unique.   An Atlas CCB can be 401, 421, 431, 501, 511, 521, 531, etc.  They can swap them, they can can start integration for a 531 and realize more thrust is needed and just add an SRM at the launch site.  All CCB's are identical.  Even the proposed Atlas V heavy.  It truly is a "common' core
  
  4.  Not quite that easy, there are more medium plus vehicles and therefore have solids that need to be removed.
• #99 by edkyle99 on 03 Mar, 2007 19:11
• Quote

  bigdog - 3/3/2007  1:05 PM
  
  

  Quote

  edkyle99 - 3/3/2007  11:01 AM
  
  My understanding is that Arianespace now has two Ariane 5 mobile launch tables, allowing it to process two campaigns in close succession.   One Ariane 5 could, for example, be in the Launcher Integration Building (BIL) while the other was in the Final Assembly Building (BAF).   An Ariane 5 launch campaign takes 22 days from EPC (core stage) erection to launch.
  
   - Ed Kyle

  
  Thanks for the added information.  I think this suports my position since if the first vehicle were to go into long term storage it would have to be taken apart so that the second MLT and the BIL would be available for the next rocket.  Delta IV more times than not could just be parked in one of the HIF bays with no impact to the next rocket.

  
  I can't think of a reason why Arianespace couldn't "shuffle" two assembled Ariane 5 vehicles between the BIL and BAF if need be, in the same manner that NASA has moved assembled shuttle stacks from one high bay to another in the past.   The track layout at Kourou would allow it.
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #100 by edkyle99 on 03 Mar, 2007 19:24
• Quote

  bigdog - 3/3/2007  1:23 PM
  
  

  Quote

  edkyle99 - 1/3/2007  8:47 PM
                   Success/Attempts
  
  Atlas 5                 8/8    
  Delta 4M              6/6

  
  What about Ariane 4?  This is the closest to A5 & DIV Medium & Intermediate.  I know the total was very big but it's the success percentage you get from the numbers that matters.
  
  

  
  Ariane 4 is no longer in service.  I wanted to compare active launch vehicles.
  
  

  Quote

  
  Ariane 5-ECA       7/8

  Quote

  
  What about the basic Ariane V version?  They will not all be ECA's from now on will they?
  
  

  
  The "G" version is being phased out in favor of the "E" version with the Vulcain-2 engine, although at least one more "G" launch is planned.   The "G" record stands at 19 successes in 22 attempts, which is in the same reliability ballpark as the "E" version to date.   ECA will probably handle most of the GTO launches from now on.  A new "ES" version (an "E" core with a hypergolic EPS-V upper stage) will launch the ATV missions to ISS.
  
  

  Quote

  
  Delta 4H              0/1

  Quote

  
  I'd make this 0.9/1 since was only a demo flight and everything was successful except the final orbit.  In other words it didn't blow up like a few Ariane 5's.  Plus as someone pointed out in another thread or maybe it was earlier in this one if that DIV heavy launched the DSP that's going up next it would have made it orbit and had room to spare.
  

  
  The CBC strap-on boosters and core stage all shut down 8-9 seconds early, with the result that several planned microsatellites were deployed into a suborbital trajectory and burned up.  The main dummy payload, "Demosat", was stranded in a 19,029 x 36,408 km x 13.48 degree orbit versus the planned 36,342 km circular at 10 degrees.  The Delta 4 Heavy didn't do what it was supposed to do.  It didn't even come close.  This was a launch vehicle failure by any measure.  
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #101 by bigdog on 03 Mar, 2007 19:37
• Quote

  Jim - 3/3/2007  12:40 PM
  
  1.  They found out it is a disadvantage.  While another vehicle is at the pad or the pad is down for mods.  The vehicle just sits in the HIF without any testing.   There are been so many post shipment mods (Decatur doesn't ship clean vehicles) and fixes that testing in HIF would save time...

  
  95% of the testing done at the Pad can't be done at the HIF and never could.  The rocket needs to be vertical to properly test control systems, test with Range assests and do simulated flights.  You are correct about the mods but the testing of those mods is almost always covered by the normal pad testing so nothing to be gained.
  
  

  Quote

  Altas tests the booster  (they can connect it to the upperstage) but more so the Centaur where the bulk of the avionics are.

  
  I'm guessing they don't normally connect to the upper stage so doesn't sound like much of an advantage.  The Centaur testing is required because it's not done in San Diego and probably could be done at the VIF so it's only an advantage if they are in a long down time as you mention or if they had a high launch rate.  Under ULA is there any chance the Centaur testing will get moved to Decatur?
  
  

  Quote

  3.  No, the CBC's have different centerbodys, interstages and more, not just SRM attach hardware.  A D-IV medium can only be a medium, not a medium plus, nor can it handle 5m upperstage.

  
  They are only different if you count cabling and ordnance lines etc. to the SRM's or strap-ons.  The attach points for both of those are on the metal skirts on the tanks not the composites.
  
  Look closely at a Medium, I believe you'll see the structural mounts for SRM's.  Same for a 4/2 for the 3rd & 4th SRM's of a 5/4.
  
  The Heavy CBC's are also unique.  Structurally a little not electrically.
  
  

  Quote

  An Atlas CCB can be 401, 421, 431, 501, 511, 521, 531, etc.  They can swap them, they can can start integration for a 531 and realize more thrust is needed and just add an SRM at the launch site.  All CCB's are identical.  Even the proposed Atlas V heavy.  It truly is a "common' core.

  
  I really doubt this.  Do they really put in all the cabling etc. for 5 solids in for a launch with 3 solids planned?  Do they install Safe & Arm devices for separating the solids if it's only a 401?  If they don't then they are not truely common.  Any of that can be added later on a CBC just as I bet it would be on a CCB.
  
  

  Quote

  4.  Not quite that easy, there are more medium plus vehicles and therefore have solids that need to be removed.

  
  That's why I tried to stick to heavies since regardless of "stacking" method the solids only go on vertical.  Still not taking apart the primary stages is more of an advantage.
• #102 by bigdog on 03 Mar, 2007 19:50
• Quote

  edkyle99 - 3/3/2007  1:24 PM
  
  The CBC strap-on boosters and core stage all shut down 8-9 seconds early, with the result that several planned microsatellites were deployed into a suborbital trajectory and burned up.  The main dummy payload, "Demosat", was stranded in a 19,029 x 36,408 km x 13.48 degree orbit versus the planned 36,342 km circular at 10 degrees.  The Delta 4 Heavy didn't do what it was supposed to do.  It didn't even come close.  This was a launch vehicle failure by any measure.  
  
   - Ed Kyle

  
  The microsats were a late addition that Boeing really didn't want on a demo flight since if something did go wrong it would look worse than it should.  The upper stage had no real control on when they were released as in once it was at the correct altitude.  The vehicle only had to trigger a timer for an experimental release system provided by the Air Force after the first shut off of the second stage engine, it did that correctly.  Since it had not made up the shortfall from the first stage yet they released themselves too soon.  If it had been able to control as it does for any other payload they would not have been lost.
  
  As a demo mission it demonstarted all but one milestone so it was a success in that sense.  It may not even be fair to compare it with Ariane since it did not lose a multi-hundred million dollar satelite.  Level of success is in the eye of the beholder and the Air Force & NRO saw it as a success and if your customer is okay with it I guess that's all that matters.
• #103 by Jim on 03 Mar, 2007 20:03
• Quote

  bigdog - 3/3/2007  3:50 PM
  
  
  As a demo mission it demonstarted all but one milestone so it was a success in that sense.  It may not even be fair to compare it with Ariane since it did not lose a multi-hundred million dollar satelite.  Level of success is in the eye of the beholder and the Air Force & NRO saw it as a success and if your customer is okay with it I guess that's all that matters.

  
  NASA doen't consider it a success.  And NRO didn't really.  That's why DSP is first
• #104 by Jim on 03 Mar, 2007 20:08
• You still don't understand.  Aside from some electrical cabling for the SRB's, all Atlas V CCB's are exactly the same.  This is not true for D-IV.  They have different centerbodies, interstages, LOX and LH2 tanks.  Each D-IV CBC is different from the first day of construction and is not interchangeable.  I am not at work, but I believe there are 2 different LOX tanks and 3 LH2 tanks.
• #105 by Nick L. on 03 Mar, 2007 20:58

• Quote

  
  The CBC strap-on boosters and core stage all shut down 8-9 seconds early, with the result that several planned microsatellites were deployed into a suborbital trajectory and burned up.  The main dummy payload, "Demosat", was stranded in a 19,029 x 36,408 km x 13.48 degree orbit versus the planned 36,342 km circular at 10 degrees.  The Delta 4 Heavy didn't do what it was supposed to do.  It didn't even come close.  This was a launch vehicle failure by any measure.  
  
   - Ed Kyle

  
  It was a TEST flight no matter what kind of "demonstration" they spun it to be. It was intended to find things that could go wrong. They found something that would prevent a successful mission from occurring, and fixed it.

  That's why Demosat was close to the maximum capacity to GSO (about 6000kg), and not the ~2500kg of a DSP-to test the limits. That's why mothers worry about their children becoming test pilots-because so much can go wrong on the first flight. And that's why it takes quite a bit of confidence (and higher insurance costs in all likelihood) to launch a valuable payload on a vehicle that has never flown before-because it is new and untested. The Air Force/NRO/whatever decided not to take that chance for exactly that reason.
   

  So you can call it a failure if you really think that they flew the mission just to put an expensive, heavy aluminum can in geostationary orbit. But if you look at it for what it was- a TEST flight-it was at least a partial success.
  

• #106 by Jim on 03 Mar, 2007 21:27
• For insurance and NASA future usage, it is still a failure
• #107 by bigdog on 03 Mar, 2007 21:29
• Quote

  Jim - 3/3/2007  2:08 PM
  
  You still don't understand.  Aside from some electrical cabling for the SRB's, all Atlas V CCB's are exactly the same.  This is not true for D-IV.  They have different centerbodies, interstages, LOX and LH2 tanks.  Each D-IV CBC is different from the first day of construction and is not interchangeable.  I am not at work, but I believe there are 2 different LOX tanks and 3 LH2 tanks.

  
  I understand fine because unless they have all that cabling they are not common, not in way you imply.  The CBC Tanks are all the same from one vehicle to the next.  Any difference is with the rings attached to the tanks.  The composite structures aside from 4 vs. 5 meter interstage are the same too.  The different tanks are on the second stage.  If you still think you're right prove it or at least decsribe how one is different than another with say a Medium LH2 tank vs. a Medium plus or with a Centerbody.  At least then I can check your facts.
• #108 by bigdog on 03 Mar, 2007 21:39
• Quote

  Jim - 3/3/2007  2:03 PM
  
  

  Quote

  bigdog - 3/3/2007  3:50 PM
  
  
  As a demo mission it demonstarted all but one milestone so it was a success in that sense.  It may not even be fair to compare it with Ariane since it did not lose a multi-hundred million dollar satelite.  Level of success is in the eye of the beholder and the Air Force & NRO saw it as a success and if your customer is okay with it I guess that's all that matters.

  
  NASA doen't consider it a success.  And NRO didn't really.  That's why DSP is first

  
  DSP was already first, long before heavy demo flew.  The NRO just won't move theirs up if DSP hits a big snag.  I'd bet if it got critial they would change their mind.  They also are behind the upgrade at VAFB for a heavy.  The partial success or failure how ever you want to call it didn't seem to shake their confidence that it will be a reliable launcher.
• #109 by Jim on 04 Mar, 2007 00:38
• Quote

  bigdog - 3/3/2007  5:29 PM
  I understand fine because unless they have all that cabling they are not common, not in way you imply.  The CBC Tanks are all the same from one vehicle to the next.  Any difference is with the rings attached to the tanks.  The composite structures aside from 4 vs. 5 meter interstage are the same too.  The different tanks are on the second stage.  If you still think you're right prove it or at least decsribe how one is different than another with say a Medium LH2 tank vs. a Medium plus or with a Centerbody.  At least then I can check your facts.

  
  The Atlas V SRB cables are missions kits, which can be added and subtracted at will, therefore each CCB coming off the line can be used for any configuration.
  
  You need to do the research and recheck the lack of your facts.  I know they are different from experience
• #110 by Antares on 04 Mar, 2007 01:31
• Quote

  bigdog - 3/3/2007  3:37 PM
  I'm guessing....
  
  I really doubt this...

  Bigdog, please stop arguing with people who KNOW.  As I understand it, there are 5 flavors of CBC that ship from Decatur.
  0 solids
  2 solids
  4 solids
  Heavy Center
  Heavy Strap-on.
  There are some opportunities to get that down by 1 or 2.
  
  There is 1 type of CCB that ships from Denver.  It isn't locked into a certain configuration until some holes are plugged late in the flow at the Cape.
  
  

  Quote

  The Centaur testing is required because it's not done in San Diego...

  The Centaur testing could never be done in San Diego because it isn't anywhere near finished until it goes to Denver.
• #111 by Nick L. on 04 Mar, 2007 02:31
• Quote

  Antares - 3/3/2007  8:31 PM
  2 solids
  4 solids
  

  
  Why would there be a 2-solid-only CBC? All of the Delta IVs that have flown with solids have mounting points for four.
• #112 by edkyle99 on 04 Mar, 2007 03:29
• Quote

  Nick L. - 3/3/2007  3:58 PM
  
  

  Quote

  
  The CBC strap-on boosters and core stage all shut down 8-9 seconds early, with the result that several planned microsatellites were deployed into a suborbital trajectory and burned up.  The main dummy payload, "Demosat", was stranded in a 19,029 x 36,408 km x 13.48 degree orbit versus the planned 36,342 km circular at 10 degrees.  The Delta 4 Heavy didn't do what it was supposed to do.  It didn't even come close.  This was a launch vehicle failure by any measure.  
  
   - Ed Kyle

  
  
  
  It was a TEST flight no matter what kind of "demonstration" they spun it to be. It was intended to find things that could go wrong.

  
  Regardless of how the MISSION turned out, the LAUNCH VEHICLE failed.  There is no such thing as a partial success for a launch vehicle.  It either does what it is supposed to do, or it doesn't.  
  
  - Ed Kyle
• #113 by Analyst on 04 Mar, 2007 06:58
• The discussion of how to classify the Delta IV Heavy launch is a little bit academic. It failed to achive the proper orbit, left its payload stranded, therefore it is a failure. But on the other hand it did achive orbit, it did not explode, had no engine failure etc. and proved the design and also showed some design problems. Like AS-502: no total success, but no complete failure like the first Ariane V.
  
  With DSP it *would" have achived GEO. I think the problem with both EELVs is not the design or performance of the rockets, but the lack of payloads. I don't know of any plans to use the Heavy after the next two Delta IVH. Both, Atlas and Delta, launch almost only government payloads, because in the commercial market both EELVs are not competitive, for whatever reason.
  
  Analyst
• #114 by Space Lizard on 04 Mar, 2007 10:29
• Quote

  edkyle99 - 4/3/2007  5:29 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Nick L. - 3/3/2007  3:58 PM
  
  

  Quote

  
  The CBC strap-on boosters and core stage all shut down 8-9 seconds early, with the result that several planned microsatellites were deployed into a suborbital trajectory and burned up.  The main dummy payload, "Demosat", was stranded in a 19,029 x 36,408 km x 13.48 degree orbit versus the planned 36,342 km circular at 10 degrees.  The Delta 4 Heavy didn't do what it was supposed to do.  It didn't even come close.  This was a launch vehicle failure by any measure.  
  
   - Ed Kyle

  
  
  
  It was a TEST flight no matter what kind of "demonstration" they spun it to be. It was intended to find things that could go wrong.

  
  Regardless of how the MISSION turned out, the LAUNCH VEHICLE failed.  There is no such thing as a partial success for a launch vehicle.  It either does what it is supposed to do, or it doesn't.

  
  It is quite similar to what happened on the second Ariane 5 which suffered from unexpected spin of the core stage that led to early shutdown and lower than expected apogee in GTO.
  
  This low performance would have led to significant loss in lifetime for a commercial payload, hence it was considered a failure.
  
  The event that caused the problem was very difficult to reproduce and test on the ground (even after it was known to exist) and the flight allowed to qualify lots of modifications introduced after the maiden launch failture. A lot was learnt from this flight and no operational mission was lost, hence it was mostly lived as a success...
• #115 by Jim on 04 Mar, 2007 13:23
• Quote

  Analyst - 4/3/2007  2:58 AM
   I don't know of any plans to use the Heavy after the next two Delta IVH. Both, Atlas and Delta, launch almost only government payloads, because in the commercial market both EELVs are not competitive, for whatever reason.
  
  Analyst

  
  There is an east coast heavy in a few years and VAFB pad is currently being upgraded to take a heavy which will be the following mission after the next west coast medium
• #116 by edkyle99 on 04 Mar, 2007 17:08
• Quote

  Analyst - 4/3/2007  1:58 AM
  
  The discussion of how to classify the Delta IV Heavy launch is a little bit academic. It failed to achive the proper orbit, left its payload stranded, therefore it is a failure. But on the other hand it did achive orbit, it did not explode, had no engine failure etc. and proved the design and also showed some design problems. Like AS-502: no total success, but no complete failure like the first Ariane V.
  

  
  Although the Apollo 6 mission was able to achieve some of its objectives, AS-502 was a launch vehicle failure, plain and simple.  The S-IVB stage failed to restart.  The SLA suffered a structural failure.  Etc.
  
  

  Quote

  With DSP it *would" have achived GEO.
  
  

  
  Woulda, coulda, shoulda.  It wasn't a DSP payload.  The launch vehicle failed to meet the assigned objectives on this flight.  There was a failure, a post-flight failure investigation, engineering changes to the vehicle design, etc.  
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #117 by bigdog on 04 Mar, 2007 21:32
• Quote

  Jim - 3/3/2007  6:38 PM
  
  The Atlas V SRB cables are missions kits, which can be added and subtracted at will, therefore each CCB coming off the line can be used for any configuration.
  
  You need to do the research and recheck the lack of your facts.  I know they are different from experience

  
  I will re-check my facts but it's not a lack of them.  My facts came from people who actually work on the hardware and from experience.  That info may be a bit dated so I'll double check but it would help me if you could explain how those parts of the CBC you speak of are not the same.
  
  You say the tanks are different, how?  Thinner/thicker, shorter/longer etc.?
  
  If the 2 SRM CBC has mounts for 4 SRM's it would seem it only lacks the "mission kits" that Atlas does.  How is it not the same?
  
  Also how does the Atlas come off the line?  No SRM Kits installed or the number planned for that mission?
  
  I don't want to argue with you and did not intend to as you clearly know a lot about these vehicles.  I look for your help to better undrstand your position.
• #118 by bigdog on 04 Mar, 2007 21:50
• Quote

  Antares - 3/3/2007  7:31 PM
  
  

  Quote

  bigdog - 3/3/2007  3:37 PM
  I'm guessing....
  
  I really doubt this...

  Bigdog, please stop arguing with people who KNOW..

  
  You are correct I was argueing and I should have backed up my position with more detail.  As I said in my reply to Jim I got my information from people who work on the rocket.  I asked him to help me with more detail and I extend that request to anyone on this forum.
  
  

  Quote

  As I understand it, there are 5 flavors of CBC that ship from Decatur.
  0 solids
  2 solids
  4 solids
  Heavy Center
  Heavy Strap-on.
  There are some opportunities to get that down by 1 or 2.
  
  There is 1 type of CCB that ships from Denver.  It isn't locked into a certain configuration until some holes are plugged late in the flow at the Cape..

  
  My information supports what you say about the CBC "flavors" but it's at a high level final assembly not at the generic assembly or sub assembly i.e. centerbody.  Based on that I see the CBC as no different than the CCB from a commonality perspective once all the holes are plugged for example.  The difference as I know it is the configuration is "locked' at Decatur instead of the Cape.
  
  

  Quote

  Quote

  The Centaur testing is required because it's not done in San Diego...

  The Centaur testing could never be done in San Diego because it isn't anywhere near finished until it goes to Denver.

  
  I did not know why the testing was not done in San Diego just that it was not, thanks for the clarification.  I was only trying to point out that the testing done at the Cape is needed and an advantage to horizontal processing whereas any testing for Delta IV was not.
  
  I'll try not to get fired up and keep the discussion civil.
• #119 by bigdog on 04 Mar, 2007 22:00
• Jim,
  
  I just thought of something else that you are likely just the right person to help with.
  
  Since it's only been designed would the Atlas Heavy CCB's really as common as the others?  Why would they build them with mounting points for 5 SRM's on each?  Would that not be an un-needed weight penalty?  Would they not impact the connection of the CCB's together?
• #120 by bigdog on 04 Mar, 2007 22:11
• Quote

  edkyle99 - 4/3/2007  11:08 AM
  Woulda, coulda, shoulda.  It wasn't a DSP payload.  The launch vehicle failed to meet the assigned objectives on this flight.  There was a failure, a post-flight failure investigation, engineering changes to the vehicle design, etc.  
  
   - Ed Kyle

  
  I won't continue the debate about Delta IV Heavy Demo but you make a point that I'd like to explore.
  
  "failed to meet the assigned objectives"
  
  Is it not the "assigned objective" of every launch to place the payload in a specific orbit (+ or - an allowable amount)?  If so then how many flights of Delta, Atlas, Ariane etc. failed to reach the target orbit but were considered a "success" because the satellite was able to make up the shortfall?
• #121 by Jim on 04 Mar, 2007 22:22
• Quote

  bigdog - 4/3/2007  6:11 PM
  
  If so then how many flights of Delta, Atlas, Ariane etc. failed to reach the target orbit but were considered a "success" because the satellite was able to make up the shortfall?

  
  They weren't called successes.  The Delta II that carried a solid through the whole first stage flight was called a failure even though the spacecraft made it to orbit.    Part of the success criteria is the spacecraft arriving on station with the projected lifetime fuel load.
  
  so none for Delta and Atlas.
• #122 by Jim on 04 Mar, 2007 22:39
• D-IV was designed with propellant tanks sized too small.  The Medium fails to meet the 10k kb to GTO requirement.  So they had to save weight and therefore the CBC's were optimized for each configuration.  
  
  Atlas was overized to make sure it met requirements.   They kept the CCB as generic as possible to save costs.  The Heavy CCB would have kits to adapt it.
  
  The SRM attach points extra weight is minor.
• #123 by Jim on 05 Mar, 2007 14:59
• Quote

  bigdog - 4/3/2007  5:32 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 3/3/2007  6:38 PM
  
  The Atlas V SRB cables are missions kits, which can be added and subtracted at will, therefore each CCB coming off the line can be used for any configuration.
  
  You need to do the research and recheck the lack of your facts.  I know they are different from experience

  
  I will re-check my facts but it's not a lack of them.  My facts came from people who actually work on the hardware and from experience.  That info may be a bit dated so I'll double check but it would help me if you could explain how those parts of the CBC you speak of are not the same.
  
  You say the tanks are different, how?  Thinner/thicker, shorter/longer etc.?
  
  If the 2 SRM CBC has mounts for 4 SRM's it would seem it only lacks the "mission kits" that Atlas does.  How is it not the same?
  
  Also how does the Atlas come off the line?  No SRM Kits installed or the number planned for that mission?
  
  I don't want to argue with you and did not intend to as you clearly know a lot about these vehicles.  I look for your help to better undrstand your position.

  
  
  These are the numbers of different configurations of components of a D-IV CBC:
  
  4 interstages
  2 forward LO2 skirts
  3 LO2 tanks
  2 centerbodies
  3 LH2 tanks
  2 Aft LH2 skirts
  6 Engine sections
  
  The only two configurations that use the same CBC is the Med+ 5,2 and 5,4.  The Med + 4,2 has a diffent engine section, not to mention the interstage
  
  All three heavy CBC's are different.
  
  Eliminate the heavy and there are still 3 different CBC's.   The Medium shares nothing in common with the Med + 4,2
  
  I will correct myself, Atlas has 2 CCB's types.  One for the heavy and the one for all other configurations
  
  
  
• #124 by kevin-rf on 05 Mar, 2007 17:25
• Quote

  Jim - 5/3/2007  9:59 AM
  
  These are the numbers of different configurations of components of a D-IV CBC:
  
  4 interstages
  2 forward LO2 skirts
  3 LO2 tanks
  2 centerbodies
  3 LH2 tanks
  2 Aft LH2 skirts
  6 Engine sections
  
  The only two configurations that use the same CBC is the Med+ 5,2 and 5,4.  The Med + 4,2 has a diffent engine section, not to mention the interstage
  
  All three heavy CBC's are different.
  
  Eliminate the heavy and there are still 3 different CBC's.   The Medium shares nothing in common with the Med + 4,2
  
  I will correct myself, Atlas has 2 CCB's types.  One for the heavy and the one for all other configurations
  
  
  

  
  So how does that work out?
  
  Med +4,2
  unique engine section
  unique interstage
  Same LOX,LH,tanks,skirts,center bodies with others
  
  Med +5,2
  unique engine section
  unique interstage
  Same LOX,LH,tanks,skirts,center bodies with others
  
  Med +5,4
  unique engine section
  unique interstage
  Same LOX,LH,tanks,skirts,center bodies with others
  
  Heavy
  three Different engine sections, one for each CBC
  unique interstage
  Three Different LOX,LH one for each CBC
  how do the LOX,LH skirts and center bodies fit into this?
  
  How do we mix and match all the parts?
• #125 by Jim on 05 Mar, 2007 17:50
• Quote

  bigdog - 4/3/2007  5:32 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 3/3/2007  6:38 PM
  
  The Atlas V SRB cables are missions kits, which can be added and subtracted at will, therefore each CCB coming off the line can be used for any configuration.
  
  

  
  Also how does the Atlas come off the line?  No SRM Kits installed or the number planned for that mission?
  
  I don't want to argue with you and did not intend to as you clearly know a lot about these vehicles.  I look for your help to better undrstand your position.

  
  I was wrong.  All the single core CCB's have all the SRB wiring installed.  There is no mission mods needed to add or subtract an SRB.  An Atlas can be changed between a 4XX and 5XX as late as when the CCB is stacked in the VIF.  Centaurs can be swapped out later.
• #126 by Jim on 05 Mar, 2007 17:50
• Quote

  kevin-rf - 5/3/2007  1:25 PM
  
  How do we mix and match all the parts?

  
  The rest is left up to the reader
• #127 by edkyle99 on 05 Mar, 2007 18:04
• Quote

  bigdog - 4/3/2007  5:11 PM
  
  

  Quote

  edkyle99 - 4/3/2007  11:08 AM
  Woulda, coulda, shoulda.  It wasn't a DSP payload.  The launch vehicle failed to meet the assigned objectives on this flight.  There was a failure, a post-flight failure investigation, engineering changes to the vehicle design, etc.  
  
   - Ed Kyle

  
  I won't continue the debate about Delta IV Heavy Demo but you make a point that I'd like to explore.
  
  "failed to meet the assigned objectives"
  
  Is it not the "assigned objective" of every launch to place the payload in a specific orbit (+ or - an allowable amount)?  If so then how many flights of Delta, Atlas, Ariane etc. failed to reach the target orbit but were considered a "success" because the satellite was able to make up the shortfall?

  
  As Jim noted, no Delta 2 or Atlas failures in recent years have left a satellite able to achieve its orbit by itself.    The most recent example worldwide of this type of failure was on June 29, 2004, when Zenit 3SL-20 suffered a Blok DMSL upper stage failure that left the Apstar 5 payload short of its planned transfer orbit.  The upper stage shut down 54 seconds early due to an electrical system failure that caused the engine to burn fuel too fast.  
  
  The insertion orbit was 722 x 21618 km versus the planned 756 x 35929 km.  Apstar 5 was subsequently able to propel itself to GEO, reportedly with a minimal lifetime impact.  As a result, many reports call this launch a success even though it clearly was not a *launch vehicle* success.  The launch vehicle suffered an actual hardware failure that caused it to substantially miss its mark.  In my book, this one goes down as a launch vehicle failure despite the relatively happy ending for the customer.
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #128 by Analyst on 06 Mar, 2007 07:36
• Quote

  edkyle99 - 4/3/2007  7:08 PM
  
  Although the Apollo 6 mission was able to achieve some of its objectives, AS-502 was a launch vehicle failure, plain and simple.  The S-IVB stage failed to restart.  The SLA suffered a structural failure.  Etc.
  
  

  Quote

  With DSP it *would" have achived GEO.

  
  Woulda, coulda, shoulda.  It wasn't a DSP payload.  The launch vehicle failed to meet the assigned objectives on this flight.  There was a failure, a post-flight failure investigation, engineering changes to the vehicle design, etc.  
  
   - Ed Kyle

  
  Come on Ed, the world is not only black and white, there are grays. I fully understand a customer or insurance company classifies a lower than planned orbit as a failure of the LV. And I fully understand you were in need of a clear definition of failure for the purpose of your book. But a definition can't be right or wrong, only useful with regard to a purpose. If its purpose is to compare LV problems, you need more than success and failure. You need the grays. Again, I don't want to talk the maiden voyage of the Delta IVH better than it was, but if you compare it to Ariane V, it was way better. And the fact DSP would have reached GEO is an indication for this.
  
  Would you classify AS-502 a failure if only the SLA problem (and not the multiple engine problems) occured? There was no complete structural failure of the SLA, if it has been, the CSM could not have reached orbit. The SLA served its purpose of structurally  connecting SIVB and CSM.
  
  Analyst
• #129 by edkyle99 on 06 Mar, 2007 14:47
• Quote

  Analyst - 6/3/2007  2:36 AM
  
  Come on Ed, the world is not only black and white, there are grays. I fully understand a customer or insurance company classifies a lower than planned orbit as a failure of the LV. And I fully understand you were in need of a clear definition of failure for the purpose of your book. But a definition can't be right or wrong, only useful with regard to a purpose. If its purpose is to compare LV problems, you need more than success and failure. You need the grays. Again, I don't want to talk the maiden voyage of the Delta IVH better than it was, but if you compare it to Ariane V, it was way better. And the fact DSP would have reached GEO is an indication for this.
  

  
  If you were shopping for a launch for your hundreds-of-millions-dollars satellite, or if you were insuring such a launch, you would not be interested in "gray areas".  A so-called "partial success" could cost you everything.  
  
  These "gray areas" and "partial successes", etc. are unfortunately used by some to essentially misrepresent what really happened.  In my mind, it is more accurate and truthful to "round down" than to "round up" when accumulating launch vehicle reliability data.
  
  

  Quote

  
  Would you classify AS-502 a failure if only the SLA problem (and not the multiple engine problems) occured? There was no complete structural failure of the SLA, if it has been, the CSM could not have reached orbit. The SLA served its purpose of structurally  connecting SIVB and CSM.
  
  Analyst

  
  If the SA-502 third stage had restarted and propelled the Apollo spacecraft to its planned injection orbit, and if no damage had occurred to the "payload", then I would have classified SA-502 as a launch vehicle success despite the SLA problem.  A launch vehicle success is only registered when the launch vehicle injects its  payload, undamaged, into or very nearly into the planned orbit.  
  
  Now the "AS-502" (Apollo 6 spacecraft/mission) question is not the same as the "SA-502" (launch vehicle) question.  The Apollo 6 mission was able to achieve some, but not all, objectives, despite the failure of the launch vehicle.
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #130 by bigdog on 08 Mar, 2007 23:56
• Quote

  Jim - 5/3/2007  8:59 AM
  
  These are the numbers of different configurations of components of a D-IV CBC:
  
  4 interstages
  2 forward LO2 skirts
  3 LO2 tanks
  2 centerbodies
  3 LH2 tanks
  2 Aft LH2 skirts
  6 Engine sections
  
  The only two configurations that use the same CBC is the Med+ 5,2 and 5,4.  The Med + 4,2 has a diffent engine section, not to mention the interstage
  
  All three heavy CBC's are different.
  
  Eliminate the heavy and there are still 3 different CBC's.   The Medium shares nothing in common with the Med + 4,2
  

  
  Okay I will say that I was incorrect in saying the CBC's are the "same".  They are different but not to the extent that I I felt they are not common.
  
  For example:
  
  Centerbodys for the strap-on boosters have less avionics.  Other than that I can't find anything else.
  
  Engine sections for strap-ons have unique attachments for connecting to the core and they are left vs. right.  The 4,2 has an aeroskirt and different thermal shield and the strap-on shields contain the separation motors.
  
  My take is the differences are piece parts required or not because of the ultimate vehicle configuration which drive different configuration part numbers at the final assembly level.  Can you please be more specific about what's different in your list above?  I'm just not sure the differences are a big deal in the big picture or that they make it less common.
• #131 by Jim on 09 Mar, 2007 01:48
• Quote

  bigdog - 8/3/2007  7:56 PM
  
  
  Centerbodys for the strap-on boosters have less avionics.  Other than that I can't find anything else.
  
  Engine sections for strap-ons have unique attachments for connecting to the core and they are left vs. right.  The 4,2 has an aeroskirt and different thermal shield and the strap-on shields contain the separation motors.
  
  My take is the differences are piece parts required or not because of the ultimate vehicle configuration which drive different configuration part numbers at the final assembly level.  Can you please be more specific about what's different in your list above?  I'm just not sure the differences are a big deal in the big picture or that they make it less common.

  
  The centerbody differences are structural and  have nothing to do with avionics.
  Aeroskirts were not included.
  
  The tanks and tank skirts (skin thicknesses, gage thicknesses) are different and can't be changed from one type to another just by the addition or subtraction of parts.  The basic construction is different from day one of production.  Can't swap components.
  
  Let's eliminate the Heavy parts and see what is left.
  
  3 interstages
  2 forward LO2 skirts
  2 LO2 tanks
  2 centerbodies
  2 LH2 tanks
  2 Aft LH2 skirts
  3 Engine sections
  
  Per my other post, let's eliminate the medium parts
  
  2 interstages
  1 forward LO2 skirts
  1 LO2 tanks
  1 centerbodies
  1 LH2 tanks
  1 Aft LH2 skirts
  2 Engine sections
  
  Aside from the heavy CBC's, there are big differences in the the Mediums.  
  
  Atlas chose to make the interstage a field installation to allow the 5XX and 4XX CCB's to be the same.  If Delta did this, there still is a difference in the Med + CBC's due to the engine section.
  
  Going back to the Med, it was so underperforming that a light version of all the components was needed and it still doesn't meet the EELV specs.
  
  
  P.S.
  WRT Heavy strapon, Atlas V would have one version that can be used in any position
• #132 by Nick L. on 09 Mar, 2007 03:37
• So let me see if I've got this straight.
  Interstages
  Medium+(4,2) 4-meter
  Medium 4-meter lightweight
  Medium+(5,X) 5-meter
  Heavy 5-meter with strap-on CBC attach points
  
  Fwd LOX skirts:
  Standard for all variants except Med.
  Medium lightweight
  
  LOX tanks
  Medium+ standard
  Heavy standard
  Medium lightweight
  Why are the Heavy LOX tanks different from the ones used on the M+ versions?
  
  Centerbodies
  Standard for all variants except Med.
  Medium lightweight
  
  LH2 tanks
  Heavy standard gauge, no mount points
  Medium+ standard gauge, mount points
  Medium lightweight
  
  Aft LH2 skirts? Where is this part on the vehicle?
  
  Engine sections:
  Heavy port, center, and starboard with respective mount points
  Medium+ with 2 solids
  Medium+ with 4 solids (I thought that this and the above were the same, the M+ with 2 solids seems to have the other two mount points)
  Medium lightweight
  
  
  Have I got all of this correct? I guess you learn something new everyday!  
• #133 by Jim on 09 Mar, 2007 07:05
• the engine section for the Med + 4,2 is different than the Med + 5,X.
  Remember the Med + 5,2 and Med + 5,4 are the only configurations that use the same CBC
• #134 by publiusr on 30 Mar, 2007 19:24
• Quote

  Jim - 4/3/2007  5:39 PM
  
  D-IV was designed with propellant tanks sized too small.

  
  That's why some folks wanted Magnum/CaLV,ALS/NLS etc. Keep all your low-density, high volume LH2 in one very large tank with multiple engines burning off that.
• #135 by Jim on 31 Mar, 2007 00:32
• Quote

  publiusr - 30/3/2007  3:24 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 4/3/2007  5:39 PM
  
  D-IV was designed with propellant tanks sized too small.

  
  That's why some folks wanted Magnum/CaLV,ALS/NLS etc. Keep all your low-density, high volume LH2 in one very large tank with multiple engines burning off that.

  
  Undersized tanks.
• #136 by fatjohn1408 on 07 Jul, 2013 19:26
• The answer just boils down to the following:
  
  The European institutional market is a) not obliged to use the Ariane V and b) not big enough to keep its launch frequency at an acceptible pace.
  
  The US institutional market is big enough and needs to launch domestically.
  
  Therefore ULA does not need to hunt on the commercial market for unprofitable payloads and customers. Arianespace does need to do this and they can because Europe (ESA and CNES i think) have as a mission to provide access to space for Europe. That is the reason Europe has an accompaniment programme for Arianespace.
  
  But at the moment Arianespace is quite close to break even on their commercial launches (read close to being profitable), while ULA is still not competing for the market (read: cannot be profitable on the market and thus choose to remain active only on the profitable institutional market, a choice Arianespace does not have.)
• #137 by John-H on 07 Jul, 2013 21:34
• If ULA charged government prices on the commercial market, would anyone buy?
  
  If they charged commercial prices to the government, they would go broke.
  
  If they charged two different prices for the same launch service, wouldn't they have severe problems with the government accounting office?
• #138 by spectre9 on 08 Jul, 2013 01:55
• Nobody has asked ULA for a large enough bulk buy to get a discount.
  
  At least there's no public knowledge of such an offer.
  
  Inmarsat has used the Atlas V when they really needed to capture the market. They're my favourite satellite provider. They get things done.