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: