CEV to be made commercially available

Monte Davis wrote:

As it is in John Walker's egregious "A Rocket a Day Keeps the High
Costs Away," based on Ordway & Sharpe's _The Rocket Team._

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html



Those are some very interesting cost figures; especially the one about a
Energia costing around 1/3rd of the price of a Titan IV.
Let's just buy the rights to make those.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Let's just buy the rights to make those.

And, of course, import some Russian workers at "home" pay and benefit
levels... and write off, transfer or otherwise ditch the cost of
production and launch facilities, which seems to be what's behind
Russian prices...

Pat Flannery ) writes:
Monte Davis wrote:

As it is in John Walker's egregious "A Rocket a Day Keeps the High
Costs Away," based on Ordway & Sharpe's _The Rocket Team._

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html

Those are some very interesting cost figures; especially the one
about a Energia costing around 1/3rd of the price of a Titan IV.
Let's just buy the rights to make those.

Problem is, the reason why current Russian boosters seem to cost
so little, is due to their sucky economy, and suckier currency,
where use of western currencies over there, buys far, far, more
than they could over here.

So, buy the full plans for Energiya, and plan to build and fly
them from anywhere on this side ? The costs will all now be in
those expensive ( Relative to rubles ) western currencies, and
that basis of cost advantage will... vanish.

Its why a Nike plant, were one to move from Vietnam to Missouri,
would lose it's similar cost advantages. Nike, the shoes, that is.
g

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On 23 Oct 2005 23:08:56 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:


Pat Flannery ) writes:
Monte Davis wrote:

As it is in John Walker's egregious "A Rocket a Day Keeps the High
Costs Away," based on Ordway & Sharpe's _The Rocket Team._

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html

Those are some very interesting cost figures; especially the one
about a Energia costing around 1/3rd of the price of a Titan IV.
Let's just buy the rights to make those.

Problem is, the reason why current Russian boosters seem to cost
so little, is due to their sucky economy, and suckier currency,
where use of western currencies over there, buys far, far, more
than they could over here.

So, buy the full plans for Energiya, and plan to build and fly
them from anywhere on this side ? The costs will all now be in
those expensive ( Relative to rubles ) western currencies, and
that basis of cost advantage will... vanish.

Its why a Nike plant, were one to move from Vietnam to Missouri,
would lose it's similar cost advantages. Nike, the shoes, that is.
g

Andre

What you actually want to do is set up co production of selected
Russian launch vehicles. Develop and test complete production in the
US, so that we have capability if needed, and then buy almost all of
the flight vehicles from Russia, because they are cheaper.

Alan Jones ) writes:
On 23 Oct 2005 23:08:56 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

Pat Flannery ) writes:
Monte Davis wrote:

As it is in John Walker's egregious "A Rocket a Day Keeps the High
Costs Away," based on Ordway & Sharpe's _The Rocket Team._

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html

Those are some very interesting cost figures; especially the one
about a Energia costing around 1/3rd of the price of a Titan IV.
Let's just buy the rights to make those.

Problem is, the reason why current Russian boosters seem to cost
so little, is due to their sucky economy, and suckier currency,
where use of western currencies over there, buys far, far, more
than they could over here.

So, buy the full plans for Energiya, and plan to build and fly
them from anywhere on this side ? The costs will all now be in
those expensive ( Relative to rubles ) western currencies, and
that basis of cost advantage will... vanish.

Its why a Nike plant, were one to move from Vietnam to Missouri,
would lose it's similar cost advantages. Nike, the shoes, that is.
g

Andre

What you actually want to do is set up co production of selected
Russian launch vehicles. Develop and test complete production in the
US, so that we have capability if needed, and then buy almost all of
the flight vehicles from Russia, because they are cheaper.

Then, the US facility is pretty much a write off. At least as far as
building cheaper than US launchers goes.

My point is that the current cheapness, in western currency terms, of
Russian launchers is not a function of technology or design, but one
solely about exchange rates of international currencies.

Moving a production facility out of that exchange rate enhanced lower
cost zone will lose that lower cost. Thats why Nike isn't moving to
build any " space " production capacity in the US, v/ Vietnam.

Andre



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

In article ,
Andre Lieven wrote:
My point is that the current cheapness, in western currency terms, of
Russian launchers is not a function of technology or design, but one
solely about exchange rates of international currencies.

Uh, no, it's also a function of lower manpower needs, rockets built for
easy production, and investment in efficient manufacturing facilities.
The Russian launchers would be cheaper even with exchange rates squared
away and wages equalized; they simply use many fewer people for much less
time to build and launch a rocket.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer ) writes:
In article ,
Andre Lieven wrote:
My point is that the current cheapness, in western currency terms, of
Russian launchers is not a function of technology or design, but one
solely about exchange rates of international currencies.

Uh, no, it's also a function of lower manpower needs, rockets built for
easy production, and investment in efficient manufacturing facilities.

Would such factors survive transfer to a licenced western facility ?

Not Invented Here works very insidiously...

The Russian launchers would be cheaper even with exchange rates squared
away and wages equalized; they simply use many fewer people for much less
time to build and launch a rocket.

True, but take away the currency exchage rate advantage, and how much
real cost savings would remain, along with what costs would be added
in the process of the suggested western " back up " assembly and
launch facility ?

I do believe that at least some of the differential will disappear
in that process. If not, well, outsourcing from western nations
would not be so aggressively a policy of much of western industry.

In this case, the Russian launchers and their facilities are already
similarly outsourced, to gain that western currency priced cost
advantage.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Andre Lieven wrote:
My point is that the current cheapness, in western currency terms, of
Russian launchers is not a function of technology or design, but one
solely about exchange rates of international currencies.

Uh, no, it's also a function of lower manpower needs, rockets built for
easy production, and investment in efficient manufacturing facilities.
The Russian launchers would be cheaper even with exchange rates squared
away and wages equalized; they simply use many fewer people for much less
time to build and launch a rocket.

And even so they probably could do better - in fact quite a bit better
if instead of LOX / Kerosene based launchers they made patches of
storable liquid based ones. Of course, that decision should then have
been taken quite a while ago.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In message , Sander Vesik
writes
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Andre Lieven wrote:
My point is that the current cheapness, in western currency terms, of
Russian launchers is not a function of technology or design, but one
solely about exchange rates of international currencies.

Uh, no, it's also a function of lower manpower needs, rockets built for
easy production, and investment in efficient manufacturing facilities.
The Russian launchers would be cheaper even with exchange rates squared
away and wages equalized; they simply use many fewer people for much less
time to build and launch a rocket.

And even so they probably could do better - in fact quite a bit better
if instead of LOX / Kerosene based launchers they made patches of
storable liquid based ones. Of course, that decision should then have
been taken quite a while ago.

Storable fuels make sense for ICBMs, but do they make sense for space
launchers? As well as being less efficient, they are _extremely_ nasty
chemicals.
--
Boycott Yahoo!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

On 24 Oct 2005 04:02:03 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:



What you actually want to do is set up co production of selected
Russian launch vehicles. Develop and test complete production in the
US, so that we have capability if needed, and then buy almost all of
the flight vehicles from Russia, because they are cheaper.

Then, the US facility is pretty much a write off. At least as far as
building cheaper than US launchers goes.

It would be a fully functional asset, that is simply idled most of the
time. It is just the cost of doing such business, since the US
government will never allow itself to become dependant on Russian
launch vehicles, regardless of the cost.

My point is that the current cheapness, in western currency terms, of
Russian launchers is not a function of technology or design, but one
solely about exchange rates of international currencies.

I understood your point, but I contend that technology and design also
play a significant role.

Moving a production facility out of that exchange rate enhanced lower
cost zone will lose that lower cost.

Nobody is suggesting that. To be clear, I'm not advocating that the
US purchase or use Russian launch vehicles, or even build them in the
US. I'm saying that there are national security issues, and greater
costs involved.

Thats why Nike isn't moving to
build any " space " production capacity in the US, v/ Vietnam.

Recreational sneakers and toys are not a US security concern.
Although, if the balance of trade got too far out of hand, US policies
could be imposed similar to those that prompted Honda and Toyota to
build cars in the US.

Andre