In article ,
(Michael Kent) wrote:

In sci.space.policy Brian Thorn wrote:

Well, not really in the same class, those. Delta IV does it their way,
more or less, yet its no cheaper than any other medium vehicle the US
has built.

Not if you compare the amortized flight cost of the Delta IV to the
average annual program cost of the Atlas II, then no it probably isn't.
If you compare marginal cost to marginal cost, I'm willing to bet the
Delta IV is considerably less expensive than the Atlas II. Heck, I'm
willing to bet the Delta IV marginal cost is on par -- if not less --
than the Delta II.

The only reason the Delta IV (and to a lessor extent the Atlas V) are
as expensive as they are is that they're trying to recoup multi-billion
dollar development costs and the overhead cost of a production infra-
structure sized to build 50 vehicles a year each. And they're trying to
do that on about two launches a year each.

The obvious way out of this mess is to increase the flight rate. NASA
could do that by buying large quantities of rockets for the VSE, but
instead they're going to spend billions building their own vehicles to
compete with the EELV's.

Bad economics all around.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO


Leaving aside [important] questions of marginal costs, amortisation, man
rating etc etc. what I want to know is this:

Will the *hardware* cost per flight of 'a stick' putting 25MT on orbit
be significantly less or significantly more than that of an equivalent
EELV? If this stick is significantly cheaper, then perversely, does
this mean that NASA has a Lockmart-beating launch vehicle for commercial
applications (lets forget the Russians for a moment, and the fact that
the stick would need a 3rd stage for GTO work?)??? And if that is the
case, then:

1) EELV Heavy at least is seen to be a dead end?
2) How could (could?) the stick be 'farmed out' to private operation as
a cargo carrier?

P