EELV Cost Almost Doubles

According to: "http://www.flatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004b/spacestoryN1010OVERRUN.htm"

The new Air Force estimate is that EELV (Delta IV or Atlas V)
costs for the next round will increase from $70 million to
about $138 million for a Medium version, will rise from
$100-ish million to $192 million for an "intermediate"
version, and will skyrocket from $150 million to $254 million
for a heavy version.

Ouch.

- Ed Kyle

(ed kyle) wrote in
om:

According to:
"http://www.flatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004b/spacestoryN1010OVERRU
N.htm"

The new Air Force estimate is that EELV (Delta IV or Atlas V)
costs for the next round will increase from $70 million to
about $138 million for a Medium version, will rise from
$100-ish million to $192 million for an "intermediate"
version, and will skyrocket from $150 million to $254 million
for a heavy version.

Ouch.

- Ed Kyle

This cost rise is due almost totally to lack of launch demand. If we were
to double what the expected demand was, by say using the EELV for the CEV
launch vehicle and taking up all the stuff for the upcoming "moon base"
costs would go down by a similarly stagerring amount :-)


That's basically my plug for not developing a new heavy lift and just
dockign together whatever we need up there.

Tom

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:17:07 GMT, in a place far, far away, Tom Kent
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

The new Air Force estimate is that EELV (Delta IV or Atlas V)
costs for the next round will increase from $70 million to
about $138 million for a Medium version, will rise from
$100-ish million to $192 million for an "intermediate"
version, and will skyrocket from $150 million to $254 million
for a heavy version.

Ouch.

- Ed Kyle

This cost rise is due almost totally to lack of launch demand. If we were
to double what the expected demand was, by say using the EELV for the CEV
launch vehicle and taking up all the stuff for the upcoming "moon base"
costs would go down by a similarly stagerring amount :-)

But, but, but, I thought high launch costs were due to lack of
technology? Are they saying that markets can have such a dramatic
effect on costs?

That's basically my plug for not developing a new heavy lift and just
dockign together whatever we need up there. BRBR


"Just" implies that it's easy to do. I have not seen an analysis of the cost,
weight, and risk factors involved in assembling, say, a Mars vehicle in orbit
vs. launching the same vehicle intact and paying the cost for a new heavy
lifter. Has anyone done that?


Matt Bille
)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR

MattWriter wrote:
That's basically my plug for not developing a new heavy lift and just
dockign together whatever we need up there. BRBR

"Just" implies that it's easy to do. I have not seen an analysis of the cost,
weight, and risk factors involved in assembling, say, a Mars vehicle in orbit
vs. launching the same vehicle intact and paying the cost for a new heavy
lifter. Has anyone done that?

I'm not sure how far anyone has taken that analysis.

I have done a weight and complexity analysis which
indicated that there should be only minor penalties
going from 20 to 10 tons for modules, and the knee
in the inefficiency curve didn't start until something
below 5 tons (3-4, depending on my assumptions),
for preoutfitted, berthed-on-orbit modules.

I've never gotten around to properly writing it up
and publishing it.

One of the things that has always irked me is analysts
who start off with "We have to develop these new great
technologies to save 50% IMLEO mass" (Initial Mass in LEO)
and then proceed to spend five times the cost of space
launch on unnecessary tech R&D. Mass is often cheaper
than engineers.

I would like to congratulate SpaceX for having boosted
Falcon V's payload up to above the knee in the curve ;-)


-george william herbert

On 12 Oct 2004 03:39:23 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(MattWriter) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


That's basically my plug for not developing a new heavy lift and just
dockign together whatever we need up there. BRBR


"Just" implies that it's easy to do. I have not seen an analysis of the cost,
weight, and risk factors involved in assembling, say, a Mars vehicle in orbit
vs. launching the same vehicle intact and paying the cost for a new heavy
lifter. Has anyone done that?

People are doing that, as part of the CE&R studies.

(George William Herbert) wrote in message ...
MattWriter wrote:
That's basically my plug for not developing a new heavy lift and just
dockign together whatever we need up there. BRBR

"Just" implies that it's easy to do. I have not seen an analysis of the cost,
weight, and risk factors involved in assembling, say, a Mars vehicle in orbit
vs. launching the same vehicle intact and paying the cost for a new heavy
lifter. Has anyone done that?

I'm not sure how far anyone has taken that analysis.

I have done a weight and complexity analysis which
indicated that there should be only minor penalties
going from 20 to 10 tons for modules, and the knee
in the inefficiency curve didn't start until something
below 5 tons (3-4, depending on my assumptions),
for preoutfitted, berthed-on-orbit modules.

For lunar missions, is that 3-4 tons delivered to the lunar surface?
At 5 tons, are you suggesting something like 7 launches of 5 tons to
LEO to place one 5 ton pallet on the lunar surface?

I've never gotten around to properly writing it up
and publishing it.

I'll look forward to it. I would have thought optimum would be about
10 ton pallets, delivered by Delta IV-Large (20 tons to LEO) or
equivelant. But I haven't done the analysis.

One of the things that has always irked me is analysts
who start off with "We have to develop these new great
technologies to save 50% IMLEO mass" (Initial Mass in LEO)
and then proceed to spend five times the cost of space
launch on unnecessary tech R&D. Mass is often cheaper
than engineers.

I would like to congratulate SpaceX for having boosted
Falcon V's payload up to above the knee in the curve ;-)

Agreed - though lets hold the champagne on ice till launch.

(George William Herbert) wrote in message ...
I have done a weight and complexity analysis which
indicated that there should be only minor penalties
going from 20 to 10 tons for modules, and the knee
in the inefficiency curve didn't start until something
below 5 tons (3-4, depending on my assumptions),
for preoutfitted, berthed-on-orbit modules.

What about volume?

I vaguely remember looking at the NASA Mars Reference Mission and
noting that out of more than a hundred tons IMLEO, the hab minus
consumables was something like 20 tons, which comparatively not huge,
but it wanted a ten-meter payload fairing, which is. I sketched out
20-ton / 10m diameter launch vehicles, and they looked, well, funny.

For lunar exploration this is less of a problem, but berthing together
modules to create a structure that can handle Mars entry loading seems
aggressive.

One of the things that has always irked me is analysts
who start off with "We have to develop these new great
technologies to save 50% IMLEO mass" (Initial Mass in LEO)
and then proceed to spend five times the cost of space
launch on unnecessary tech R&D. Mass is often cheaper
than engineers.

I think that high-level cost models don't account well for
construction and design aggressiveness. It's like the drunk looking
for his keys under the streetlight - it's easier to estimate costs
based on dry weight, so that's what happens.

-jake

(MattWriter) wrote in message ...

That's basically my plug for not developing a new heavy lift and just
dockign together whatever we need up there. BRBR


"Just" implies that it's easy to do. I have not seen an analysis of the cost,
weight, and risk factors involved in assembling, say, a Mars vehicle in orbit
vs. launching the same vehicle intact and paying the cost for a new heavy
lifter. Has anyone done that?

Here's something along those lines:
http://www.et.byu.edu/~jag42/PDP/propulsion/index.html

-kert

What are these companies thinking??

The latest AV week, 11 Oct 04, pg. 36, has SpaceX offering 5 tons to
LEO for $12M, and 5 tons to GTO for $20M. (That's the same class as the
smaller Delta-IVs). The Delta and Atlas teams can hardly be unaware of
this. Furthermore, SpaceX is an American company, so many of the
restrictions that keep the military and government away from other low
cost rockets do not apply. So what are they thinking?

(a) Ignore SpaceX entirely. However, head-in-the-sand is usually a
recipe for business disaster.

(b) They hope SpaceX fails. However, wishful thinking is not a great
business strategy, either

(c) They plan to abdicate the 5T payload market, and concentrate on the
Heavy versions for which there is no competition. This worked for the
Titan family of rockets for a while.

(d) Use the "I don't need to outrun the bear, I only need to outrun
you" strategy. Here they would assume the government will not allow
only one launcher, and hence will continue to support one of
Atlas/Delta even if they are ridiculously expensive. They just need
to be slightly less ridiculously expensive than their competitor.

(e) They have their skunk works working on low cost rockets. 5T to GTO
for $20M? Bahh! We'll sell you 6T for $20M. This would be the ideal
response in a capitalist world, but I doubt it's happening.
Any insight into their corporate frame of mind??

Lou Scheffer