Pegasus/SciSat Launch Cost

According to Justin Ray's Spaceflightnow report at
"http://www.spaceflightnow.com/pegasus/scisat1/status.html",
about today's (8/12/2003) planned Pegasus XL launch:

"The launch costs are $21.6 million. The price tag for the
SciSat spacecraft, its instruments and two years of mission
operations is $40 million."

Most of the previous sources I've seen listed Pegasus
launches in the $12-14 million range. $21.6 million seems
a bit steep for putting a 150 kg payload into a 650 km deg
orbit (inclined 73.9 degrees). That's $144,000 per kg!
Taurus, designed to launch three times as much as Pegasus,
was supposed to cost $20-25 million. The spacecraft/mission
cost seems quite reasonable by comparison. (Maybe Canada
should develop its own space launcher, eh?)

- Ed Kyle

Most of the previous sources I've seen listed Pegasus
launches in the $12-14 million range.

It varies depending on what services you want Orbital to provide, but the price
has definitely gone up. I gave a $20M estimate in a recent paper, and the
senior fellow at Orbital who reviewed it didn't challenge that.


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

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
According to Justin Ray's Spaceflightnow report at
"http://www.spaceflightnow.com/pegasus/scisat1/status.html",
about today's (8/12/2003) planned Pegasus XL launch:

"The launch costs are $21.6 million. The price tag for the
SciSat spacecraft, its instruments and two years of mission
operations is $40 million."

Most of the previous sources I've seen listed Pegasus
launches in the $12-14 million range. $21.6 million seems
a bit steep for putting a 150 kg payload into a 650 km deg
orbit (inclined 73.9 degrees). That's $144,000 per kg!
Taurus, designed to launch three times as much as Pegasus,
was supposed to cost $20-25 million. The spacecraft/mission
cost seems quite reasonable by comparison. (Maybe Canada
should develop its own space launcher, eh?)

Pegasus is the most expensive launcher in the world on a per-pound basis.
It's due to the way Orbital procures its parts and sub-assemblies, as well
as the fact that avionics for rockets just ain't cheap and don't scale down
with the rest of the rocket.

-Colonel K

Colonel K wrote:

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
According to Justin Ray's Spaceflightnow report at
"http://www.spaceflightnow.com/pegasus/scisat1/status.html",
about today's (8/12/2003) planned Pegasus XL launch:

"The launch costs are $21.6 million. The price tag for the
SciSat spacecraft, its instruments and two years of mission
operations is $40 million."

Most of the previous sources I've seen listed Pegasus
launches in the $12-14 million range. $21.6 million seems
a bit steep for putting a 150 kg payload into a 650 km deg
orbit (inclined 73.9 degrees). That's $144,000 per kg!
Taurus, designed to launch three times as much as Pegasus,
was supposed to cost $20-25 million. The spacecraft/mission
cost seems quite reasonable by comparison. (Maybe Canada
should develop its own space launcher, eh?)

Pegasus is the most expensive launcher in the world on a per-pound basis.
It's due to the way Orbital procures its parts and sub-assemblies, as well
as the fact that avionics for rockets just ain't cheap and don't scale down
with the rest of the rocket.

-Colonel K

However, Pegasus is frequently the least expensive launcher for a
specific mission. It has the advantage of being able to fly to a
specific area and head in a direction that might require a
propellant expensive "dog leg" from some land launch points.

And so far SeaLaunch does not provide a small launcher
capability.

Mike Walsh

"Michael Walsh" wrote in message
...
However, Pegasus is frequently the least expensive launcher for a
specific mission. It has the advantage of being able to fly to a
specific area and head in a direction that might require a
propellant expensive "dog leg" from some land launch points.

And so far SeaLaunch does not provide a small launcher
capability.

Absolutely true, and I should've indicated that in my post after I qualified
my comment with the "per pound" tag. SciSat - and many, many other small
satellites - would still be waiting to bum hitchhike rides on bigger LVs if
it weren't for Peg.

-Colonel K

George William Herbert wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:
Aren't avionics mostly electronics - in which case why aren't they all
on a $100 chip?

Even if you use MEMS gyros and acellerometers it's not quite that
compact yet.

It's not far off.
The guidance package can probably be fit in 10g, with quite a lot of
effort, I think to go an order of magnitude lower would need at the least
making it into one multichip module.
100g is easy, and possibly achievable using just standard parts, without
much design.

A guidance package the size of some chips (say the same size as the
athlon processor I'm using to compose this post) is quite possible.


Aside from that, the best way would be to get the volume up, which
won't happen till the price comes down.

Or, design to lower priced components from the beginning...

In some cases it's a case of relaxing the specs, and getting by using
combinations of sensors.

The gold standard is certainly an inertial guidance system that can
get to a tightly specified orbit without needing any outside help other
than its position before launch.

This pretty much requires fiber optic gyros and other complex items,
which are neither light, or cheap, some of which for pretty fundamental
reasons.

However, while this may be entirely appropriate for some things
(ICBMs where it may be launching through a nuclear fireball, and maybe
manned flight), is it really needed in all cases?

If you just allow the addition of sun sensors, and magnetometers, even
basic commercial grade $5 each accellerometers, magnetometers and cameras
are perfectly adequate to get you into some sort of orbit.
If you then add a GPS reciever, it can be as accurate as the gold-standard
one, for a very small fraction of the mass and cost, with the caveat that
if GPS goes off during the launch, it probably won't make the orbit you
want.

What else:
- Redesign the engine for larger scale production

Yep.

Think really hard about the end product, not the process.
Do you care if the nosecone is made of oak, or it burns 10 times as
much fuel as the 'proper' one should, or that it's painted bright pink,
if it delivers what it should on time and budget?


- Reengineer the supply chain, and incentivise suppliers to improve
component costs.

Use non traditional aerospace vendors.

And possibly also design and manufacture.
Someone who makes trumpets for a living just might know how to get
your engine bell just the right shape for $5.


COTS. COTS is your friend. Often with conformally coated
circuit boards, but it's still your friend.

A week ago, I bought a camera that would suit as a sun-sensor, perhaps
it needs the addition of some aluminised mylar.

Including the lens, it masses a couple of grams, and cost around $(us)10.

--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
The fight between good and evil, an epic battle. Darth vader and Luke,
suddenly in the middle of the fight, Darth pulls Luke to him, and whispers
"I know what you'r getting for christmas!" Luke exclaims "But how ??!?"
"It's true Luke, I know what you'r getting for christmas" Luke tries to ignore
this, but wrenches himself free, yelling "How could you know this?",
Vader replies "I felt your presents" -- The Chris Evans breakfast show ca. 94

Michael Walsh wrote:

And so far SeaLaunch does not provide a small launcher
capability.


Hmmm.... Now maybe there's a market to consider aiming for.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Michael Walsh wrote:

And so far SeaLaunch does not provide a small launcher
capability.


Hmmm.... Now maybe there's a market to consider aiming for.

SpaceX Falcon.

-Colonel K

Ian Stirling wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:
Aren't avionics mostly electronics - in which case why aren't they all
on a $100 chip?

Even if you use MEMS gyros and acellerometers it's not quite that
compact yet.

It's not far off.

It's further off than you think, unless there have been some
advances in the last week or so.

The guidance package can probably be fit in 10g, with quite a lot of
effort, I think to go an order of magnitude lower would need at the least
making it into one multichip module.
100g is easy, and possibly achievable using just standard parts, without
much design.

A guidance package the size of some chips (say the same size as the
athlon processor I'm using to compose this post) is quite possible.

MEMS by itself isn't good enough yet. You really want FOG, and those
are kilogram by the time you have all three axies going.

Aside from that, the best way would be to get the volume up, which
won't happen till the price comes down.

Or, design to lower priced components from the beginning...

In some cases it's a case of relaxing the specs, and getting by using
combinations of sensors.

The gold standard is certainly an inertial guidance system that can
get to a tightly specified orbit without needing any outside help other
than its position before launch.

This pretty much requires fiber optic gyros and other complex items,
which are neither light, or cheap, some of which for pretty fundamental
reasons.

Oh?

FOG are light, cheap, etc by comparison to old gyros.
$10k range for a good unit, a bit over a kilogram, etc.

However, while this may be entirely appropriate for some things
(ICBMs where it may be launching through a nuclear fireball, and maybe
manned flight), is it really needed in all cases?

If you just allow the addition of sun sensors, and magnetometers, even
basic commercial grade $5 each accellerometers, magnetometers and cameras
are perfectly adequate to get you into some sort of orbit.
If you then add a GPS reciever, it can be as accurate as the gold-standard
one, for a very small fraction of the mass and cost, with the caveat that
if GPS goes off during the launch, it probably won't make the orbit you
want.

I think you want to study the problem a bit more.

COTS IMUs and GPS are just fine for the mission, now.
Really.

What else:
- Redesign the engine for larger scale production

Yep.

Think really hard about the end product, not the process.
Do you care if the nosecone is made of oak, or it burns 10 times as
much fuel as the 'proper' one should, or that it's painted bright pink,
if it delivers what it should on time and budget?




- Reengineer the supply chain, and incentivise suppliers to improve
component costs.

Use non traditional aerospace vendors.

And possibly also design and manufacture.
Someone who makes trumpets for a living just might know how to get

On a hundred thousand pound thrust rocket motor?

Do you know how *big* those are?
your engine bell just the right shape for $5.

COTS. COTS is your friend. Often with conformally coated
circuit boards, but it's still your friend.

A week ago, I bought a camera that would suit as a sun-sensor, perhaps
it needs the addition of some aluminised mylar.


With all due respect, sun sensors and magnetic sensors are the
Wrong Answer. Look at IMUs, look at GPS units that are on
the shelf now.

Sun sensors are the wrong question. Honest.


-george william herbert

How would one go about creating a less-costly smallsat
launcher? Liquid propellant? Hybrid?

Funny you should ask. We just delivered a paper on that to the Conference on
Small Satellites. Email me at work address ) if anyone
wants a copy. Actually, this year's conference theme was launch, and when the
Proceedings are issued, there will be a batch of papers and presentations on
this.
Matt Bille
)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR