$136.2 Million for Atlas V 401

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

edkyle98

Guest
The GAO was right. EELV costs have almost doubled. $136.2 million for an Atlas V 401 launch services contract: <br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/jul/HQ_C06042_LRO_contract.html<br /><br />"July 28, 2006<br />CONTRACT RELEASE: C06-042<br /><br />NASA Awards Launch Services for Lunar Mission<br /><br />NASA announced today the award of launch services for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission to Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services Inc. of Littleton, Colo. The total cost of launch services for NASA, which includes spacecraft processing, and associated mission integration services such as telemetry support and mission-unique items is $136.2 million dollars."<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle
 
S

steve82

Guest
"includes spacecraft processing, and associated mission integration services such as telemetry support and mission-unique items "<br /><br />I think it is these extra services in addition to the launch costs that are upping the bill. This has been a problem in costing launches and "dollers per pound of payload" estimating for years. It costs a lot less to launch a pound of sand than a pound of lunar orbiting payload.
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
You are correct , the question to ask is what is the actual cost of just the launch of the item to LEO? That has got to be a whole lot less than all these pre and post launch services. Heck, why not also include the cost of the payload itself? That should make the costs far higher!<br /><br />If we were going to find out how efficient the EELV program is, then ONLY the launch vehicle costs as plotted against the mass of the payload to LEO are what count!<br /><br />What many don't seem to realize is that the goal of the EELV program was to cut down the very high ($10,000+ per pound to LEO) costs of the older Titan IV, which was also comparible to the costs of the shuttle. This was to be done with just more efficient methodology, and no radical launch vehicles. The goal was a per pound to LEO of between $2,000 and 3,000. It wasn't to even bring it down as low as $1,000 per pound!<br /><br />This is also heavily dependent upon the number of launches made. The more launches, the lower the per pound costs (the economy of scale affect) this is why the range of $2,000 to $3,000 per pound instead of a solid figure!<br /><br />It would indeed be interesting to find out what the cost of JUST the launch vehicle is going to be, and what the mass of the payload is going to be!<br /><br />
 
E

edkyle98

Guest
"If we were going to find out how efficient the EELV program is, then ONLY the launch vehicle costs as plotted against the mass of the payload to LEO are what count! "<br /><br /><br />Why? What it costs is what it costs. If you are launching something into orbit, you have to pay for the complete launch services costs, which include payload processing, etc. Those costs are a relatively small part of the total at any rate. <br /><br /><br />"The goal was a per pound to LEO of between $2,000 and 3,000."<br /><br />They didn't make it. This Atlas is at almost $5,000 per pound.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Even if this is true, then their efforts have gotten the systems to cut the cost to LEO in half!<br /><br />And from your earlier argument in your post how is that $5,000 being calculated?<br /><br />IF you are throwing in ALL cost as you state that we should, then that figure of $10,000+ that was the start figure should also be far higher!<br /><br />If that were the case, and your figure of $5,000 per pound did indeed include all costs, then the percent that the EELV program had cut costs would be a great deal more than just the 50% that the $5,000 would represent if only counted against just the launch costs! <br /><br />The reason that the manner in which these costs are generally calculated (using only the actual launch costs) is to enable such costs to be counted as apples against apples!<br /><br />Now, I am just as willing to indeed count ALL costs , but that would then have to go for ALL launches, including the base from which cost reductions would be counted against!<br /><br />You can go one way or the other but NOT both ways at once. That is counting apples against oranges, and is an invalid way of totalling up cost reductions!<br /><br />Do you see my point here?<br /><br />
 
E

edkyle98

Guest
""...They didn't make it. This Atlas is at almost $5,000 per pound...."<br /><br />Is that 5K number based on the total mass to the parking orbit?"<br /><br />It is the cost ($136.2 million) divided by the 27,562.5 lb low earth orbit (185 km x 28.5 deg from Canaveral) capability of an Atlas V 402 (a 401 with two RL10s on the Centaur), giving $4,941 per pound. The payload figure is from the Atlas V Mission Planners Guide. <br /><br />I know, a 402 (the low earth orbit variant) should cost a bit more than a 401, but only a few (less than 10) million more, so the $5K per pound would still be about right. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle
 
E

edkyle98

Guest
"Now, I am just as willing to indeed count ALL costs , but that would then have to go for ALL launches, including the base from which cost reductions would be counted against! "<br /><br />I wasn't comparing EELV with Titan, but O.K., here goes. The figure we are using here for Atlas V 401 is very similar to the GAO estimate for an EELV Medium - a number that included total estimated program costs divided by the total number of estimated EELV flights during the program. Titan IV can't stand up to that comparison for the reason you mentioned in an earlier message - it didn't fly enough times. Total Titan IV program costs (including Titan IV-A and Titan IV-B) was something like $20+ billion for 39 launches, or a bit more than $500 million per flight. Much of the costs included vehicle development. Per-flight costs would have been much less if Titan IV had flown more than 100 times, which is what the current projection is for EELV. <br /><br />Titan 401B could lift 47,800 lbs to LEO from Canaveral. That is more than $10,500 per pound. <br /><br />But it is hardly fair to use Titan as a cost standard. Titan was a horrifically costly program (unprecedentedly so) because it included the development of two variants (including billions for upgraded SRMUs that only flew a few times and billions for two distinct upper stages, etc.) and because the total flight rate was so low. It would be fairer to compare EELV with, say, Atlas II(A), which flew more than 60 times or Delta II, which has flown more than 120 times. Both of those launchers are being supplanted by EELV, and both cost about $5-6K per pound to LEO.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle <br />
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
The military was NOT happy with the costs of the Titan. It WAS this reason that the EELV program was even funded by the military. At least this was what we were told at Rocketdyne when working to get the costs of the RS68 way down in comparison to other engines such as the SSME.<br /><br />The lightest Delta IV is capable of placing a heavier load into LEO than the Delta II, and so there is no real basis for comparison here. The Delta IV Heavy can place the same kind of mass into LEO that the Titan IV could, and is about half the cost, so while the program didn't reach all its goals it DID reduce the cost of a pound to LEO by a considerable margin.<br /><br />If there was a larger market for such rockets then the costs would be even less, but the commercial market is so over crowded with launchers at this time that Boeing decided that it wasn't worth the small profit that it would have to have the Delta IV for anything other than government work!<br /><br />If this coindition is not improved upon I also see very little future for any larger rocket for spacex than the small Falcon I. It doesn't matter how much the launch vehicle is brought down in costs as it IS the high costs of the payload that is at least ten times as much as the launch that is the controlling factor here. Even the very low costs of the Russian vehicles is not doing them that much good!<br /><br />However, as this is a very fast changing kind of field, there is still hope for far more launches in the future.<br /><br />
 
E

edkyle98

Guest
"The lightest Delta IV is capable of placing a heavier load into LEO than the Delta II, and so there is no real basis for comparison here. The Delta IV Heavy can place the same kind of mass into LEO that the Titan IV could, and is about half the cost, so while the program didn't reach all its goals it DID reduce the cost of a pound to LEO by a considerable margin."<br /><br />I think it is fair to compare Delta II with EELV because the Air Force is moving its GPS launches from Delta II to EELV (the first to be performed by an Atlas V 401, perhaps in 2007). How a $136 million Atlas V launch works out to be cheaper than a $60-80 million Delta II launch evades my mathematical skills! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Similar shifts occurred from Atlas II and III to EELV, with similar questionable cost "savings".<br /><br />As for Delta IV Heavy, it probably costs more than half as much as a Titan IV (the GAO numbers hint that it probably costs more than $300 million), but it clearly does cost less than Titan IV. But only two Titan IVs were flying per year at the end, so I wonder if the Heavy launch savings will make up for the costlier Medium-payload launches.<br /><br />Now, shut down one of the EELV programs altogether and EELV might start to really save money. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Actually, Boeing and LM are evidently going to combine their space divisions. And from what I hear the regular Delta IV is going away except for what government launches are still contracted for. And the Atlas V Heavy will not be developed as the Delta IV Heavy already is. From a financial standpoint this is a reasonable move for both companies as their just isn't enough business to keep both programs going at full speed at this time.<br /><br />Competition is all very well and good. But when there isn't enough business to keep such competition going, then it becomes a killer of programs. <br /><br />Also, as we don't know exactly what the newest generation of GPS satellites is going to consist of (and therefore the mass of the individual satellites) it is too early to tell whether or not placing such launches on the Delta IV instead of the Delta II's as previously done is a cost affective move. Perhaps the Air force now wishes to have GPS satellites that combine GPS with some form of satellite surveillance. So instead of two separate satellites with two separate launches they only have one launch to pay for, and that would indeed be cost affective even if a single launch was somewhat more than a previous single launch. As I earlier stated the cost of launch is relatively small compared to the cost of the satellite being launched! This was true for the very large and complicated spy satellites even when they were being launched by the more expensive Titans. And it is absolutely true for the commercial satellite business!<br /><br />I agree that bringing down the cost of the launches themselves is important. Providing that the all important quality and reliability of those launches is maintained! If the launch fails, it is far worse than if a successful launch is somewhat more expensive! Which would indeed explain why the Delta II itself has been so very successful, as no other system in the industry has a better over all reliability record! NASA therefore use
 
J

josh_simonson

Guest
At least EELVs have a fairly reasonable excuse for costing more than predicted - many of their flights were canceled and expected bookings based on the market at the time they were proposed fell through.<br /><br />$5k/lb puts them within striking distance of Ariane V, which is around $4600/lb (based on 2000 number adjusted for inflation).
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Thank you for that information, that is very interesting. For quite sometime arianespace was running away with the commercial launch business, but I think that even they have had to come to the conclusion that there are just too many launch systems for the amount of commercial business. Boeing, which had high hopes for the Delta IV for the commercial business has even had to conclude that it just will not be profitable enough to warrent the continued expanse, and has dropped out of the market. Of course, in their case this might also be a result of their own highly successful SeaLaunch business. They don't want to be cometing with themselves for the same business!<br /><br />However, LM has no such other business to be competing with the Atlas V, and is evidently going to continue in the commercial satellite launch area. <br /><br />Of course, if Boeing and LM do merge their space divisions, then that business will have both the regular Atlas V and the Delta IV Heavy in their inventory, and will stand a reasonable chance of success. Also, this particular merger has been made far more possible by the success of Space Alliance, which is the already merged shuttle processing buisness of both Boeing and LM. In fact I read someplace that this might just be the name of the newly merged unit of Boeing and LM.<br /><br />It will take the combined resources of such as Boeing and LM to be able to even compete at all in the very tight current commercial satellite business. If (and I mean IF) spacex can really reduce the cost of lauches by stome 75 % more than even the EELV's for rockets of a comparible size, then they will indeed stand a chance of doing what Arianespace originally did for quite some time. Corner a large percentage of the market. But in that case I don't see Boeing/LM just sitting still and allowing a large part of thier possible business to go astray. That may actually be the real good that comes out of spacex's efforts!<br /><br />So I DO wish spacex all t
 
E

edkyle98

Guest
"For quite sometime arianespace was running away with the commercial launch business, but I think that even they have had to come to the conclusion that there are just too many launch systems for the amount of commercial business. Boeing, which had high hopes for the Delta IV for the commercial business has even had to conclude that it just will not be profitable enough to warrent the continued expanse, and has dropped out of the market. Of course, in their case this might also be a result of their own highly successful SeaLaunch business. They don't want to be cometing with themselves for the same business!<br /><br />However, LM has no such other business to be competing with the Atlas V, and is evidently going to continue in the commercial satellite launch area."<br /><br /><br />Boeing only owns 40% of Sea Launch, and its main contribution is limited to payload processing. The other Sea Launch partners (RSC Energia, SDO Yuzhnoye/PO Yuzhmash, and Kvaerner ASA) take home 60% of the Sea Launch profits, if there are any profits.<br /><br />Lockheed owns 50% of International Launch Services, which offers launch services aboard both Proton and Atlas. Proton builder Krunichev owns the other 50%. Most of the ILS commercial launches have been performed by Proton in recent years, limiting Atlas V to only one commercial launch during each of the past three years, acting as a kind of back-up to Proton.<br /><br />What happened to Ariane also happened to Delta and Atlas. What happened was Proton and Sea Launch Zenit. These Russian and Russo-Ukrainian rockets cost less than their western counterparts, and have proven themselves to be pretty reliable (both have been more reliable than Ariane 5 to date, for example). Arianespace had a tough competitor when it flew Ariane 4 rockets, but the company phased Ariane 4 out a few years ago and has struggled to compete with its troublesome Ariane 5. Boeing and Lockheed have simply been unable to offer their EELVs at prices that could co
 
V

vulture2

Guest
>>Also, if ATK does not relent in its very high developement cost to NASA for the CEV effort, I think their may be a window of opportunity for the Delta IV Heavy, or an augmented Delta IV Heavy to also take that business as well! <br /><br />One can hope. With all the launch vehicles available, developing yet another one (i.e. CLV) is a gargantuan waste of taxpayer money. The Delta IV was eliminated from consideration for the CEV by a series of rather clearly biased assertions in the Launch Systems Architecture Study. Maybe if the cost overruns for the CLV are high enough NASA will realize that it is absurd to develop a new booster with 60's technolgy and solid fuel when we already have a modern, liquid-fueled rocket that can already do the job. <br /><br />I should mention that the RS-68 is an amazing engine; double the thrust of the SSME and only 10% of the parts. Kudos to Rockedyne, whatever company they're a division of. In fact the entire Delta IV system is well designed and deserves a shot at human spaceflight.
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
I agree totally with your post! I was originally for the developement of the single stick launcher using shuttle technology. But as it is going to take the kind of development (including the pure greed costs of ATK) that it now is going to take, then NASA would be far better off using the Delta IV Heavy. At least for the Human launch CEV vehicle at any rate. Man-rating should NOT be that hard to do. After all, NONE of the original launchers for the manned space program were originally man-rated anyway!<br /><br />As for the pure material launch heavy lift vehicle for the other part of a moon or Mars programs, I noticed where Boeing had a whole line up of improvements up till a vehicle that would place more mass into orbit than the original Saturn V! And as this is going to have to be an entirely new vehicle regardless of how it is designed and built, this would seem to be just as valid a proposition as any other! As a matter of fact by using the currently available Delta IV Heavy for the human launch portions (as well as all American lunchers to the ISS) the savings could go towards the building of the new Very Heavy Lift Launcher!<br /><br />I have some hope that NASA can ignore the high costs of politics and actually do the right thing technically here. But IF congess is going to insist on a political solution, then THEY should be willing to give NASA whatever it costs!!!
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
By the way, I am NOT opposing what you have said here! Just thought I would let you know that.<br /><br />I would agree that both Boeing and LM do have other programs. But I also believe that it is to their better interests to combine their space efforts. This is indeed because of the Russian efforts. The Russians have very good equipment, but their relative low costs are do more to the differences in the ecomomies of the US and Russia than to any inherent cost advantages over US systems. You can buy and entire scientific team for a project from the Russians for the cost of just one scientist from the US! <br /><br />If spacex can indeed reduce the costs of their systems as much as they say they can, and still increase the size of their launchers to the EELV and Russian levels, then they WILL quite probably take the lions share of the commercial market! Including the future business of Bigelow's inflatable space station habitats! Which I think is going to be a considerable buisness within one or two decades!<br /><br />But hopefully, there will be more than enough launch business for all current and future launchers!!<br />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts