USAF Predicts Much Higher Launch Costs

Say goodby to the promised EELV launch cost savings!

According to the Reuters report at
"http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/031118/arms_eelv_1.html"

"WASHINGTON, Nov 18 (Reuters) - Air Force Undersecretary
Peter Teets on Tuesday predicted future costs of launching
military satellites into space would rise from 20 percent
to 50 percent, given a slump in the commercial space launch
sector.

Teets told a Senate hearing that he expected both Boeing Co.'s
Delta IV rocket and Lockheed Martin Corp.'s Atlas V to remain
active in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program (EELV)
over the next five years.

The Air Force plans to ask for bids for a third series of
over 20 EELV rocket launches in January. Those contracts
were expected to be valued at over $2 billion, but a
50-percent price increase would raise their value to around
$3 billion."

It would seem that Boeing and Lockheed Martin now know what
USAF expects the bidding range to be. If you were preparing
the bid, would you do the 20% increase, or go for broke
with a 50% rise?

- Ed Kyle

(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...
Say goodby to the promised EELV launch cost savings!

The current commercial slump would have affected the legacy launch
costs even worse. Not something you can really blame on EELV.


It would seem that Boeing and Lockheed Martin now know what
USAF expects the bidding range to be. If you were preparing
the bid, would you do the 20% increase, or go for broke
with a 50% rise?
- Ed Kyle

I would use the X-33 model of competitive financing.

If I were LockMart preparing the bid for the AF, I would only do a 12%
increase, drastically undercutting Boeing, forcing them out of the
market forever. (Ala McDD with X-33) and then after the contract was
signed, start booking more and more delays and cost overruns, until
finally at each launch (If I got that far) I was 49% higher than
previous launch cost estimates. Max profits, but still low enough to
keep Congress quiet. Then I would use the profits to contribute to
several key Senator's campaigns and then perform more cost overrruns,
this time at 100% higher cost, with no fear of Congressional oversight
from anyone but John McCain.
Then I would buy the exhausted space launch division from Boeing,
creating a megaspace power incapable of actually completing a new
project, by which time all new AF/NSA launches would be accomplished
by SpaceX and friends, leading to the end of LockMart orbital space.
Any questions? (it's foolproof.)


Tom Merkle

"Tom Merkle" wrote in message
om...
(ed kyle) wrote in message
. com...
Any questions? (it's foolproof.)

It might be, if EELV contracts weren't fixed-price - any cost overrun is
eaten by the LSP.

-Kim-

On 19 Nov 2003 09:04:56 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

It would seem that Boeing and Lockheed Martin now know what
USAF expects the bidding range to be. If you were preparing
the bid, would you do the 20% increase, or go for broke
with a 50% rise?

I think the more interesting question is the effect this has on NASA's
Shuttle replacement costs, including OSP.

--
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:

On 19 Nov 2003 16:19:08 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Then I would buy the exhausted space launch division from Boeing,
creating a megaspace power incapable of actually completing a new
project, by which time all new AF/NSA launches would be accomplished
by SpaceX and friends, leading to the end of LockMart orbital space.
Any questions? (it's foolproof.)

I'm sure that Boeing would be happy to sell it right now, if the Air
Force would let them.

--
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:

It might be, if EELV contracts weren't fixed-price - any cost overrun is
eaten by the LSP. BRBR

In practice, the contractor cries to DoD and Congress that they will have to
abandon the launch business, and plenty of money is added either through
renegotiated contracts or by paying the companeis to do additional "mission
assurance" or "system engineering" work. It's happened already on EELV.
Fixed price has rarely meant a darn thing in the defense world.



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

(Tom Merkle) wrote in message . com...
(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...
Say goodby to the promised EELV launch cost savings!

The current commercial slump would have affected the legacy launch
costs even worse. Not something you can really blame on EELV.


I'm not so sure about this. U.S. launch vehicles have
almost always performed more Government than commercial
business. During the last 10 years, there have been an
average of 14.4 annual Atlas and Delta launches. If plans
hold, there will be 14 Atlas and Delta launches this year
(there have been 11 so far) - about average and more than
the past two years.

I suspect that Boeing and Lockheed Martin purposefully
overprojected the EELV commercial launch market in order
to meet the EELV cost-cutting provisions on paper. It
seems clear that they never really wanted to compete for
the commercial business. After all, both companies are
involved in ventures that divert commercial launches from
Atlas and Delta to Russian/Ukrainian rockets.

Boeing in particular has shunned commercial launches.
Remember that it was McDonnell Douglas, not Boeing, that
won the Iridium launch business that accounted for a
significant percentage of U.S. commercial flights during
the last decade.

- Ed Kyle

(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...
(Tom Merkle) wrote in message . com...
(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...
Say goodby to the promised EELV launch cost savings!

The current commercial slump would have affected the legacy launch
costs even worse. Not something you can really blame on EELV.


I'm not so sure about this. U.S. launch vehicles have
almost always performed more Government than commercial
business. During the last 10 years, there have been an
average of 14.4 annual Atlas and Delta launches. If plans
hold, there will be 14 Atlas and Delta launches this year
(there have been 11 so far) - about average and more than
the past two years.

I suspect that Boeing and Lockheed Martin purposefully
overprojected the EELV commercial launch market in order
to meet the EELV cost-cutting provisions on paper. It
seems clear that they never really wanted to compete for
the commercial business. After all, both companies are
involved in ventures that divert commercial launches from
Atlas and Delta to Russian/Ukrainian rockets.

Boeing in particular has shunned commercial launches.
Remember that it was McDonnell Douglas, not Boeing, that
won the Iridium launch business that accounted for a
significant percentage of U.S. commercial flights during
the last decade.
- Ed Kyle

As a native of StLouis, MO, it is a fact I am only too well aware of.
The rapid combined losses of the A-12 & the X-33, as well as the
sunset on F/A-18 due to 'JSF,' made the buyout of McDD by either the
more politically savvy (and far less honest) LockMart or the ever more
risk-averse Boeing, swiftly inevitable.

Tom Merkle

On 20 Nov 2003 07:18:37 -0800, (ed kyle) wrote:

(Tom Merkle) wrote in message . com...
(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...
Say goodby to the promised EELV launch cost savings!

The current commercial slump would have affected the legacy launch
costs even worse. Not something you can really blame on EELV.


I'm not so sure about this. U.S. launch vehicles have
almost always performed more Government than commercial
business. During the last 10 years, there have been an
average of 14.4 annual Atlas and Delta launches. If plans
hold, there will be 14 Atlas and Delta launches this year
(there have been 11 so far) - about average and more than
the past two years.

We lost Gravity Probe B to 2004, so only 13, I think.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote in message . ..
On 20 Nov 2003 07:18:37 -0800, (ed kyle) wrote:


If plans
hold, there will be 14 Atlas and Delta launches this year
(there have been 11 so far) - about average and more than
the past two years.

We lost Gravity Probe B to 2004, so only 13, I think.


I only included one more Delta II (the planned GPS launch),
as listed below.

Note that only three commercial payloads flew on Atlas,
and *none* on Delta, this year. A Pegasus launched one
additional commercial satellite, making a grand total of
four commercial launches out of a total of 20 performed to
date (11/21/03), with three more U.S. government launches
planned for the year.

As of 11/21/2003:
Vehicle 2003 Launches Commercial
(2003 Planned Payloads
Totals)
------------------------------------
Delta II 6(7) 0(0)
Delta IV 2(2) 0(0)
Atlas IIA(S) 0(1) 0(0)
Atlas IIIB 1(2) 1(1)
Atlas V 2(2) 2(2)
------------------------------------
Totals 11(14) 3(3)

- Ed Kyle