Ariane Economies of Scale

Much has been written in this newsgroup how economies of scale could
reduce launch costs.

Recently Ariane ordered 30 Ariane 5 Launchers
http://www.arianespace.com/site/news...ase_index.html

Is 30 enough to enjoy substantial savings due to economy of scale?

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:55:52 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop
David made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Much has been written in this newsgroup how economies of scale could
reduce launch costs.

Recently Ariane ordered 30 Ariane 5 Launchers
http://www.arianespace.com/site/news...ase_index.html

Is 30 enough to enjoy substantial savings due to economy of scale?

Not on the order that many of us (at least I) have in mind.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Hop David writes:

Much has been written in this newsgroup how economies of scale could
reduce launch costs.
Recently Ariane ordered 30 Ariane 5 Launchers
http://www.arianespace.com/site/news...ase_index.html
Is 30 enough to enjoy substantial savings due to economy of scale?

Yes, it is. The standard engineering rule of thumb is that unit prices
drop by 30% when the volume doubles. So if you order 32 rather than 8,
the unit price will be only half as much. A factor of 2 is substantial,
though many in this newsgroup think that much larger factors are possible.

Lou Scheffer

In article ,
Louis Scheffer wrote:

Hop David writes:

Much has been written in this newsgroup how economies of scale could
reduce launch costs.
Recently Ariane ordered 30 Ariane 5 Launchers
http://www.arianespace.com/site/news...ase_index.html
Is 30 enough to enjoy substantial savings due to economy of scale?

Yes, it is. The standard engineering rule of thumb is that unit prices
drop by 30% when the volume doubles. So if you order 32 rather than 8,
the unit price will be only half as much. A factor of 2 is substantial,
though many in this newsgroup think that much larger factors are possible.

Lou Scheffer



And you have sources inside Ariansepace and ESA to determine if your
standard rule of thumb even applies to something as off-the-beaten track
as an expendable launch vehicle? Especially one as fraught with
technical and managerial issues as Ariane V has been?

P.S. As an aside, anyone see that The Carlyle Group (with strong ties
to the current U.S. administration) just bought 70% of Fiat's aerospace
division which apparently (among other things) manufactures the Ariane V
strap-on solids?

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

On 2 Jul 2003 23:32:49 -0700, in a place far, far away, Louis Scheffer
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Hop David writes:

Much has been written in this newsgroup how economies of scale could
reduce launch costs.
Recently Ariane ordered 30 Ariane 5 Launchers
http://www.arianespace.com/site/news...ase_index.html
Is 30 enough to enjoy substantial savings due to economy of scale?

Yes, it is. The standard engineering rule of thumb is that unit prices
drop by 30% when the volume doubles. So if you order 32 rather than 8,
the unit price will be only half as much. A factor of 2 is substantial,
though many in this newsgroup think that much larger factors are possible.

Given the relative inelasticity of the price-demand curve at that
point, I don't consider a factor of two substantial, in the sense of
enabling new markets. However, orders of magnitude are possible,
which is what I mean by substantial.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

--
When the pin is pulled, Mr Grenade is not our friend. (US Marine Corps)
Try to look unimportant; they may be low on ammo. (Infantry Journal)
If your attack is going too well, you have walked into an ambush. (Infantry
Journal)
Any ship can be a minesweeper... once. (Admiral Hornblower)

"Hop David" wrote in message
...


Sander Vesik wrote:
Hop David wrote:

Much has been written in this newsgroup how economies of scale could
reduce launch costs.

Recently Ariane ordered 30 Ariane 5 Launchers
http://www.arianespace.com/site/news...ase_index.html

Is 30 enough to enjoy substantial savings due to economy of scale?


If you look at
http://www.arianespace.com/site/news...ase_index.html

you'll see - 11 launches (out of world total of 15?) in 2002. satellite
(not launch!) backlog of 40. Three launches thus far in 2003. Which
basicly
meansthe batch of 30 is a contract to supply needs for quite a while.

A few weeks ago someone in sci.space.tech proposed an Andean rail gun in
Ecuador. This caused me to Google for equatorial launch sites which is
how I learned of the existence of Ariane.

Do they have the only equatorial launch site? If so, it seems to me they
enjoy a great advantage.

Sea Launch launches *ON* the equator.

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:55:46 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop
David made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I was surprised to see a figure as low as 30% quoted.

For only a doubling?

Besides gain in experience aren't costs of tools, dies etc.
amortized in quantities?

Please forgive some of my naive questions, I haven't been reading this
newsgroup long.

What kind of production runs are being hoped for? 100 units? 1000?

Not for Arianes

It's hoped that the satellite market plus space tourism would make this
sort of investment attractive?

No, those are separate markets, and they'll be served by different
vehicles. The satellite market will never be large enough to drive
the development of low-cost launchers, though it will take advantage
of them when they appear.

The economies of scale that we (or at least I) refer to are in
operations of a reusable space transport, not manufacturing quantities
of expendables.

I seem to recall a discussion that reusable space craft require huge,
massive fuel tanks. Is this a physics mandated expense that couldn't be
overcome by better business practices?

No, but large "massive" (not sure what that word means in this
context, other than that it isn't massless) fuel tanks aren't a
significant cost driver.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

(Googling Sea Launch) Owned by Boeing & others, 8 successful launches
since 1999?

I think I remember posts saying that by being in the middle of an ocean,
they avoided some (but not all) of the government paperwork.

I guess it helps if the launch site is on an east coast or in the middle
of an ocean. Although it seems Guiana & KSC would enjoy railroad & other
infarastructure Sea Launch has no access to.

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

In article ,
Hop David wrote:

Although it seems Guiana & KSC would enjoy railroad & other
infarastructure Sea Launch has no access to.

Rand Simberg and I beat each other over the head on this last week.
Google for the thread . . .

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:42:25 -0500, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Hop David wrote:

Although it seems Guiana & KSC would enjoy railroad & other
infarastructure Sea Launch has no access to.

Rand Simberg and I beat each other over the head on this last week.
Google for the thread . . .

Yes, probably pointlessly...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: