Atlas V and Delta IV vs. Ariane V

• #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"?