-
#60 by lmike on 24 Feb, 2007 10:07
-
Quote
Ventrater - 24/2/2007 2:58 AM
Quotebombay - 23/2/2007 7:49 PM
QuoteVentrater - 23/2/2007 6:57 PM
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.Quotebombay - 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?
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
QuoteVentrater - 24/2/2007 2:58 AM
Quotebombay - 23/2/2007 7:49 PM
QuoteVentrater - 23/2/2007 6:57 PM
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.Quotebombay - 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?
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?Quotelmike - 24/2/2007 5:15 AM
QuoteVentrater - 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
Quotelmike - 24/2/2007 5:07 AM
QuoteVentrater - 24/2/2007 2:58 AM
Quotebombay - 23/2/2007 7:49 PM
QuoteVentrater - 23/2/2007 6:57 PM
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.Quotebombay - 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?
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.Quotelmike - 24/2/2007 5:15 AM
QuoteVentrater - 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
QuoteVentrater - 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
Quotelmike - 24/2/2007 5:32 AM
QuoteVentrater - 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
Just give Bigelow a little more time... Not exactly love, though
But as an aside, "Peace and love" sure haven't funded any rockets.
-
#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?QuoteAntares - 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
Quoteyinzer - 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.
