New NASA Policy = Higher USAF Launch Costs?

What? So, say NASA selects an EELV to launch an Orion Lite. That would *increase* launch costs to the USAF? What kind of logic is that?

So basically if NASA starts using true commercial vendors for its rockets and launch systems, then this reduces demand for the DOD's "commercial" design bureaus? It's beginning to sound more and more that the status quo is nothing more than socialism in patriot's clothing. The words of Dwight Eisenhower, "beware the military-industrial complex," ring stronger with every passing day. Ike was certainly more prescient than anyone could have possibly imagined.

Don't worry! Unlike NASA, the military has a virtually unlimited budget. They'll just pass on the extra cost to the tax payers.

Marcel

I assume that this is the reference to the SRBs. The proposed DIRECT launch vehicles such as the J-130 also use SRB (solid rocket boosters).

This is the most nonsensical thing I have ever seen. Wow.

What? So, say NASA selects an EELV to launch an Orion Lite. That would *increase* launch costs to the USAF? What kind of logic is that?

Exactly. Payton was probably assuming that NASA would go with some garage operation, rather than a commercially credible vendor. All I can say is that Gary Payton's was known better for things other than his deductive reasoning skills.

Apparently the Air Force Times expects the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles to have reverse economies of scale whereby if they fly *more* often they'll cost more. Incredible.

Is this the same Air Force that's had to pay more than they'd expected per EELV unit because of the collapse in projected flight rates following the telsat constellation bust?

And I suppose, in this upside down world, that all of the laid off NASA civil servants and contracts will drive up labor costs at the USAF and NRO?

What great Congressional theater:

At the Senate Armed Service Committee hearing Wednesday, Vitter asked Payton: “Was the Air Force explicitly asked the impact on you of canceling Constellation before the decision was made?”
“No sir,” Payton said.

And was NASA explicitly asked what the impact would be to their human spaceflight program budget if it had to subsidize the USAF-preferred rocket industrial base?

Does this have anything to do with ATK losing business on both Cx and STS?

Folks:

This is beginning to sound like criminal activity to me.

How about blackmail and extortion for starters.

Does it mean that the contractors for the military industrial complex has been subsidizing their Department Of Defense programs at NASA expense?

That sounds like outright fraud to me.

Who has been feeding Vitter his lines?

Can you spell conspiracy children?

Maybe the FBI should be looking into this.

It's getting downright ugly!

tinker

The primary cost driver in this case is the SRM cost. Given that NASA bought the vast majority of solid rocket fuel and won't be doing so in the future (with Constellation cancellation and assuming no solid replacement), then the per kilo cost of rocket fuel will go up, driving up the cost of rocket fuel for Delta IV and Atlas V solid rocket fuels.

That being said, ULA is ripping off the US govt with cost overruns and not getting the job done right the first time (i.e. delays cost money). Then again the boosters to work very well.

For those of you who believe in gov't conspiracy theories, this isn't one. What we have here, is the continuing fallout from the lack of government oversight that began in the 80's and 90's. Contractors were expected to police themselves.

An interesting observation, at least to me ...
Economies of scale apply when there are large numbers of identical products involved, numbers large enough to justify many production 'lots' of the part in question. Given the high degree of specialization of most parts (electronic and mechanical) in a space flight vehicle, this translates roughly into a large number of vehicles being required to bring 'economy of scale' into play. Sometimes, an entire lot of parts is required to simply get the one you need, so (if a lot = 1000 parts) one part costs 1000 times as much if you only use one (because the other 999 are waste).

This, along with the high degree of touch labor and mission specific engineering that is required for each specialized bird, helps to create the funny economy of aerospace production that Tinker refers to as fraud.

If only it were as simple as making all Ford Mustangs use the same catalog parts, as Mulally has done to bring Ford back.

The day we sell enough rockets, spacecraft, or sensors ... all of course being identical, will be the day we can apply simplistic economic theories to the realities of our business.

taka2k7 - I take it you have proof that ULA is ripping off the US Govt.? Would you mind sharing that information for the benefit of the rest of us?

You all wanted commercialization? You're gotten get it. With the drastic cut in the need for solid rocket motors with the cancellation of STS and CxP there is no market, and therefore no money to be made by keeping large, specialized facilities open. Say a solid rocket motor plant. As such, smaller, less capable facilities will be employed for the reduced need. But this will reduce production capacity and increase costs across the board. Not just solid boosters for EELV, but sidewinder motors, TOW and Hellfire motors, all DoD solid rocket motors might see an increase in cost as manufacturing consolidates to try to stay solvent in a shrinking market. Additionally, the sudden increase in demand for EELV components, if used for manned flight, will increase costs as production lines gear up to make more product. I doubt the current production lines are geared for a doubling or tripling in output. That costs money and that is what commercial companies are all about...passing their costs back to the customer in the name of the almighty bottomline. Ain't commercial exploration sexy.

Did the Undersecretary provide any context other than the quote? If not then he should be fired. I think what he means is that ULA and ATK has a monopoly with the defense department and they will make their money one way or another. They are basically blackmailing the rest of the U.S. citizens. Kind of reminds me of the banks that were "too big to fail".

wait, wait, wait, I have a better one:

Obama's space plan is good for SpaceX, which builds the Falcon 9, which uses Kerosene fuel, which is based on oil, which is imported from Saudi, which in turn (bringing it home now...) supports terrorism.

Now remove the redundant intermediate verbiage, and we'll take you directly to the underlying message.

Sigh.

Not everyone waving your flag has your best interest in mind.

I suspect the major effect is not on USAF space launch, but ICBM and SLBM costs.
There was an interesting study a few years back on how critical the Shuttle SRB was for DoD missile solid propulsion costs, particularly for things like the Trident SLBM. Which is just another way of saying that the civilian space program is concealing the true cost of the nuclear deterrent.

In any case, if we are going to select solid propulsion for our civil space launch as a subsidy for the military, even e.g. at the cost of higher risk for the astronauts, we should say so. Conversely if we are going to justify space exploration on its own merits, then the selection of a launch solution should not take the military industrial base into account, or at least not as the driving factor. If that makes the cost of DoD-tuned space launch solutions and of ballistic missiles higher (or, more visibly accounted for), well you are seeing their true cost finally, and as a country we have to decide whether they are in fact the best return on our defense dollars compared to other forms of protecting our national security, and whether there are cheaper solutions than those provided by the current contractors. Hiding those costs by forcing NASA to adopt whatever strategy makes life cheaper for DoD doesn't seem like the way to go.

Ah-ha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0

And Crazy Eddie Blogger March 13, 2010 3:42 AM "Obama's space plan is good for SpaceX, which builds the Falcon 9, which uses Kerosene fuel, which is based on oil, which is imported from Saudi[My emphasis.], which in turn (bringing it home now...) supports terrorism."

Sigh that old chestnut. Alas it's worse than that. Where do you get the bulk of your oil from? Hint they just beat you at Ice Hockey!
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_imports

It must be the same people who see a business case for private companies doing human space flight who don't understand how Mr. Payton comes to his conclusion. He's right and there isn't a conspiracy. It's simply a matter of spreading company operating fixed costs over a larger customer base. In the case of ULA and subcontractors, NASA's exit from the marketplace puts more of the company management, financial reporting mechanisms, and underutilized facilities on the shoulders of the DoD. This doesn't include the loss of critical skills for anomaly resolution and product upgrade (yes, they upgrade the rockets periodically).

The companies can shrink down to just service the EELV community but the smaller entities will have higher costs. The scale economy that NASA brings through supporting the Shuttle and developing Constellation keeps skilled engineers and technicians off the EELV books until needed. You don't have to build all the same things to benefit from scale economies.

Mr. Payton isn't ignoring illegal behavior nor is he coming to an incompetent conclusion. That appears to be NASA leadership's job. By fragmenting a relatively fixed market and ending all full scale development work we're just moving backwards to relearn the valuable lessons of the past that differentiate the US space program over all others. It isn't cheap, but it does produce products that are the envy of the world. Now NASA plans to spend more and get less. It's that simple.

What about all the gasoline (which comes from oil) which American drivers burn in huge quantities every single day. That means if you drive, you're supporting terrorism! (Oh the shame!)

Isaac Newton - that was sarcasm.

The military uses Delta and Atlas rockets, not the proposed Ares 1. They launch much more often than NASA. This whole argument is hollow posturing, the "patriot" card is being played "as usual" to support some narrow interest.

For a while there its was "Obama is selling our space program to the Russians", and then the ads of the astronaut glove waving an American flag...

I knew that.

Playing the patriot card worked pretty good in the past. Like the coach used to say, keep running the play until it stops working . . .

Your reasoning doesn't make sense. By your reasoning when an auto company decides to end production of a model of car all other models cost will go up. Haven't seen this happen in the free market.
Most of the proposed proposed construction for the Ares 1 and V were to be done at NASA facilities such as Michoud and the Cape, not at sites shared with the construction of the EELV's. that the ULA monopoly makes.

Your reasoning doesn't make sense. By your reasoning when an auto company decides to end production of a model of car all other models cost will go up. Haven't seen this happen in the free market.
Most of the proposed proposed construction for the Ares 1 and V were to be done at NASA facilities such as Michoud and the Cape, not at sites shared with the construction of the EELV's. that the ULA monopoly makes.

Believer,

You are the first adult comment I read in this queue. The Air Force uses Delta IV and Atlas V from ULA to launch their payloads (and NRO). Recently, NASA has used Delta II and the EELV launchers. There are very few Delta II vehicles left to use, so NASA will be using (probably) Delta IV soon. The cost to the Air Force is going up because they are now the only game in town for buying launch services. The airframers and propulsion providers for EELV are also suppliers (now) to NASA. If/when NASA stops buying from them the overhead cost will drop on the Air Force alone instead of being shared. The prospect of using EELV to loft Orion or similar is in the future. So, maybe things even out in time. In the short term, the DOD will be paying more.

It's a shame that so much discussion in this stream is so ill-informed.

You're missing that the price rises aren't for the EELV liquid-fuelled cores, but specifically for the solid rocket outriggers. The outriggers for the Delta-II and -IV are made for (wait for it) ATK! ATK also make some of the the propulsion segments for Minotaur and Taurus. ATK also make pure military motors for air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles as well as basically the US's entire ICBM and SLBM manifest.

As I understand it, it turns out that the shuttle RSRMs were a big money spinner and ATK is going to have to put up prices to cover the lost revenues. There seem to be issues with facilities costs vs. personnel costs that make it uncertain whether eliminiating the segmented SRM division, which was making RSRM and Ares-I's core, will actually save or cost money.

So, the cost of the GEMs on the Delta-IV go up. Because of that the cost of the entire vehicle goes up. We might see OSC have to raise their prices too.

Atlas-V is more of a grey area. The Atlas SRMs are made by Aerojet, IIRC. Aerojet may suffer a little because the AJ-10-derived Orion MPS won't be needed anymore, but they're also developing the AJ-26 core engine for OSC's Taurus-II and offered AJ-10 as an alternate upper stage engine for the same vehicle. If anything, I suspect that the retirement of Delta-II (which uses AJ-10 as an upper stage engine) will hurt Aerojet more than the cancellation of Orion, so they might be able to ride out this particular situation without hiking their prices for the Atlas SRMs.

There are ways you can manufacture carbon neutral synthetic kerosene though the production of hydrogen from the electrolysis of water and synthesizing it with CO2 from urban and rural biowaste.

So the production of kerosene for rocket fuel could be carbon neutral. But the cost of producing carbon neutral kerosene would be significantly higher than using kerosene derived from fossil fuels. But that may not be true a few decades from now as the price of fossil fuels continues to climb.

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/01/nuclear-synfuel-economy.html

Marcel F. Williams

i think not. ATK are not the only SRM suppliers - and especially those strap-ons supplied for Atlas and Delta. Those come from UTC, who lost the STS contract decades ago.

Whew! How quickly things come apart! After years of neglect, marking time, deals under the table and in backrooms, we suddenly find the endemic corruption Eisenhower spoke of in his 1961 farewell speech have come home to roost. Is that what Obama intended I wonder? Maybe it's about time..

I think dbooker's comment about monopolies, but with more factors as well, a more sophisticated set of influences than a pure monopoly, is close to the mark. The car company analogy implies the ability to walk away from one provider to another near instantly, whereas in the case of a large launch system provider the Government is in a far weaker position to "walk away" quickly. The lack of such a capability in launchers removes the pressure from the private company to be more competitive (there is no competition near term).

Add in the way in which the government cost auditing of contractors is really about tracking if the costs billed (labor and materials etc) were actually spent on a specific project, rather than if a contractor could have spent less or done the same function against some other metric, and the government even lacks the data by which to question the monopoly in an educated way. Again, there is even less ability to walk away to another provider.

Fixed costs behaviors explain some such commentary about costs not being spread over as many units. But the launch systems behavior is complicated by that and more. In a simple monopoly the fixed costs driver responds linear to the drop in demand. I believe Atlanta ran into this issue recently with the water company. Due to drought some time back there was a push to get everyone to conserve water. The initiative was successful, resulting in an INCREASE in everyone's bill. Yes, an INCREASE. The water company later explained that all the costs were still there but had to be spread over less gallons of water, so the per gallon rate was adjusted upwards, and everyone's bill remained the same (for less water). Add in the drought mitigation costs that were not part of normal yearly operations and everyone's bill went a little up on average, not down, for less water. (Yes, quite an uproar...the sad part is everyone thought they'd save money, when all they were saving was water, the truly scarce resource).

In a more complicated monopoly there is a lack of regulation to boot. The water company at least understands it's cost pretty well as do the regulators, by comparing against many other water suppliers anywhere, and long histories of data for each function in the process of providing water, looking for the best analogy and benchmarking. For the launch systems case, eliminate most of the understanding at this level and remove the regulation completely to boot.

In either case, the real question here is why should NASA with it's goals of a more open access to space, a more affordable access to low Earth orbit, and increases in reliability far beyond today's technology, designs or processes, have to use old ICBM (solids) as a given in such a future? There may be role in intermediate steps, but in the long term there can not be such a constraint to use something already available unless it is beneficial to the NASA mission.

To the extent this "hand-me-down" constraint (DoD, NASA, etc) exists among agencies, and it's not beneficial long term, then the long term NASA goal to dramatically improve "-ilities" (affordability, reliability, operability, etc) by investing in improved systems and R&D is unreachable by the agency that's so constrained.

Incorrect. ATK supplies GEM's for Delta and Aerojet supplies the SRB's for Atlas. Also ATK supplies all the composites in a Delta IV and some of them for Atlas V

Exploration Believer said:

"By fragmenting a relatively fixed market and ending all full scale development work we're just moving backwards to relearn the valuable lessons of the past that differentiate the US space program over all others. It isn't cheap, but it does produce products that are the envy of the world. Now NASA plans to spend more and get less. It's that simple."

In the case of military missiles and products, I'd have to agree that this is a relatively fixed market and unlikely to expand significantly. I don't see NATO getting into the business of buying missiles from American companies to have ICBMs based in France and Germany, to give an example of an "expanded market", so after a fashion this is relatively true.

This still begs the question as to why NASA must underwrite and subsidize the solid missile technology development for what is primarily a military mission. If we need to have solid propellant missiles in the Air Force's arsenal, let that come out of the Air Force's budget. Make the case based on military needs and have that legitimately come out of reasoned deliberation and debate over the practical role that this sort of weapon ought to have. It sure doesn't need to come at the cost of killing human spaceflight, or even more so to kill robotic exploration of the solar system that is even further down the food chain in budget matters.

As for economies of scale and that manned & unmanned spaceflight is a fixed market, I'd have to beg to differ on this point. What companies like Orbital, Scaled Composites, and SpaceX are doing is to try and expand that market and try to cut costs in such a way that new market opportunities can come around. If private commercial spaceflight (aka "space tourism" and other similar non-government funding sources for spaceflight) comes into its own, it only makes sense for NASA to throw its hat into the ring and encourage the economies of scale in this new and emerging market. In the long run, it will be better and cheaper for manned spaceflight and the other program at NASA to get this to happen.

I'm all for preserving and protecting skill sets and hard-earned technical knowledge in critical areas that we may need in the future. I have some close neighbors who are losing their jobs as a result of the cancellation of Constellation and were hoping that the Ares I vehicle would be able to keep them employed for the next 20 years or more. Still, at what cost is that happening, and if that is merely a way for the Air Force to trim its budget slightly I think that is a horrible way to balance the federal budget. Keep military matters to the military, and I don't mind a further separation between NASA and the Department of Defense on this issue.

Peyton may be referring to the fact that the vehicles will need changes to address human rating. Those changes will drive cost and reduce payload capability. It is unlikely that separate versions of the vehicle will be maintained, so even conventional payloads will pay the cost of the human rating upgrades.

If the launch vehicle is safer won't the customers be saving money on launch insurance? If it is a government launch and there is no launch insurance wouldn't a safer launch vehicle be better and more cost effective than losing a multi-billion dollar satellite? If some of the changes are for redundancy why can't the changes be engineered to fly with only one computer instead of 3? These are hollow arguments.
As far as spreading fixed costs, government contractors shed jobs, including the overhead positions such as HR and management much faster than a government entity such as NASA can. This is done all the time when contracts end or are canceled. They know how to maximize profits and upper management bonuses.