-
#20
by
Ventrater
on 17 Feb, 2007 22:45
-
-
#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
-
jongoff - 16/2/2007 6:56 PM
Ed,
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Jim - 21/2/2007 2:11 PM
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
-
Jim - 21/2/2007 6:28 AM
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Jim - 22/2/2007 6:46 AM
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.
