From: gchudson@aol.com (GCHudson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Date: 20 Jul 2000 00:25:25 GMT
Subject: Re: Interesting Delta III Tidbit

>Mike Atkinson wrote:

>I would expect that payload handling and insurance would eat up
>a large part of that $50M, the real operating margins would probably
>be under 50%. It seems they have to do two launches a year just
>to clear interest, to get a decent ROI they would need to perform
>far more launches over the next couple of years than seems reasonable.

I'd find that hard to believe.  About ten years ago, the spacecraft prep
charges at Astrotech were about $300-500K/spacecraft.  I don't know the numbers
today, but would be surprised if it is more than $1-2 million.  Insurance is
usually additive to the launch cost (except for third part which is very cheap,
less than a few hundred K) and includes spacecraft value; rates are around
7-15% for insurable vehicles.

I think the $34 million is a pretty real number.

Gary C Hudson

From: gchudson@aol.com (GCHudson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Interesting Delta III Tidbit
Date: 20 Jul 2000 15:32:15 GMT

Josh Hopkins wrote:

>[snip]
>
>You can add up the costs of individual parts of the Delta III and pretty
>quickly come up with a total that's higher than this number.  For
>example, Boeing has said that GEM 40's (Delta II strapons) cost $900K
>each.  Delta III uses nine similar motors that are larger, three of
>which have TVC systems and must therefore be more expensive.   Scale
>that number accordingly and add in a few million for each of two liquid
>engines and you've already used up half the $34 million dollar figure
>just purchasing primary propulsion components.
>
>[snip]

The lower stage engine is around $6-8 million, upper about $4-5M, strapons
around $12-15 M, avionics $2M, tanks and structure about $2M (based on quotes
to buy such I've had over the past ten years).  Add a million or two for third
party liability and shipping plus propellants, and you get $34-35 million for
the high end estimates.  Propulsion is usually more than half the vehicle
costs, structure is surprisingly cheap, and so, frankly, is avionics (unless
you are the IUS).

Gary C Hudson

From: gchudson@aol.com (GCHudson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Interesting Delta III Tidbit
Date: 20 Jul 2000 17:29:15 GMT

Rand Simberg wrote:

>On 20 Jul 2000 15:32:15 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>gchudson@aol.com (GCHudson) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
>such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>The lower stage engine is around $6-8 million, upper about $4-5M, strapons
>>around $12-15 M, avionics $2M, tanks and structure about $2M (based onquotes
>>to buy such I've had over the past ten years).  Add a million or two for third
>>party liability and shipping plus propellants, and you get $34-35 million for
>>the high end estimates.  Propulsion is usually more than half the vehicle
>>costs, structure is surprisingly cheap, and so, frankly, is avionics (unless
>>you are the IUS).
>
>But those are only manufacturing costs.  Granted that these probably
>comprise the majority of the cost for an ELV, but there are still some
>fixed annual costs (a standing division, if not army) that have to be
>amortized among the flights.

True.  But I though we were discussing marginal cost per flight, or what some
call direct operating costs.

Though the comment about the standing army brings to mind the fact that liquid
rockets have been launched with very small crews (Titan II, and Thor with eight
guys).  I think the Delta team has managed to reduce their standing army from
1200 in NASA days to 300 today.  They only have two more orders of magnitude to
go.

Gary C Hudson

From: gchudson@aol.com (GCHudson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Date: 21 Jul 2000 16:04:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Interesting Delta III Tidbit

Derek Lyons wrote:

>gchudson@aol.com (GCHudson) wrote:
>>Though the comment about the standing army brings to mind the fact that
>>liquid rockets have been launched with very small crews (Titan II, and
>>Thor with eight guys).
>
>I find it hard to believe that eight guys assembled, checked out,
>fueled, and fired either.  (As a missile or a booster.)  If you are
>referring to a ready weapon (missile) there is a very large standing
>army behind them.

Of course they didn't manufacture the vehicle, but they did erect, fuel and
launch, all such actions occuring in the spec of 15 minutes, and once in 8.

Gary C Hudson

Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:25:53 -0700
From: Doug Jones <random@qnet.com>
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Interesting Delta III Tidbit

GCHudson wrote:
>
> Derek Lyons wrote:
>
> >I agree the Shuttle 'standing army' is too large, but the quotes above
> >implying that eight people alone readied and launched a missile give a
> >false picture.
>
> Not too false.  At the same time, the Royal Air Force base was hosting (and
> thus sharing expenses among) other users, such as aircraft.  One element of
> true commercial space transportation currently lacking is the ability to use
> facilities such as airfields, be close enough to a fast food outlet to
> eliminate the need for a commisary, etc.

Yeah, at Rotary we had all the fine culinary outlets of beautiful
downtown Mojave just two minutes away, yum yum (bleah).

A data point- my stepdad, John Winter, was the Thor missile commander
for the Fishbowl tests in 1962 on Johnston Island.  I asked him last
night how big his crews were, and he said that to set up & launch on
Johnston, including installing the pads, he had thirty people.

--
Doug Jones
Rocket Plumber, XCOR Aerospace
http://www.xcor-aerospace.com

Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:53:01 -0700
From: Doug Jones <random@qnet.com>
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Interesting Delta III Tidbit

Doug Jones wrote:

> A data point- my stepdad, John Winter, was the Thor missile commander
> for the Fishbowl tests in 1962 on Johnston Island.  I asked him last
> night how big his crews were, and he said that to set up & launch on
> Johnston, including installing the pads, he had thirty people.

Whoops- I just talked to John again, he wasn't involved with the nuke
tests but assigned to NORAD with a classified Thor program in the late
60s, an operational program whose mission he couldn't tell me.  The
thirty man crew was on Johnston, but never did a launch (probably a Good
Thing).  John did command Thor and Atlas missile squadrons earlier on,
though.

--
Doug Jones
Rocket Plumber, XCOR Aerospace
http://www.xcor-aerospace.com

Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:49:17 -0700
From: Doug Jones <random@qnet.com>
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Interesting Delta III Tidbit

Derek Lyons wrote:
>
> Doug Jones <random@qnet.com> wrote:
>
> >Doug Jones wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> A data point- my stepdad, John Winter, was the Thor missile commander
> >> for the Fishbowl tests in 1962 on Johnston Island.  I asked him last
> >> night how big his crews were, and he said that to set up & launch on
> >> Johnston, including installing the pads, he had thirty people.
> >
> >Whoops- I just talked to John again, he wasn't involved with the nuke
> >tests but assigned to NORAD with a classified Thor program in the late
> >60s, an operational program whose mission he couldn't tell me.  The
> >thirty man crew was on Johnston, but never did a launch (probably a Good
> >Thing).  John did command Thor and Atlas missile squadrons earlier on,
> >though.
>
> Installing the pad?  Does he actually mean building the pad?  Or was
> that thirty the operations crew?

The operations crew, I think, although that program did build new pads
for the Thors since the old ones from the 1962 Fishbowl tests had a hell
of a plutonium contamination problem.  Since in a rational launch system
you hire a contractor to do the one-off job of building a pad, the
thirty figure is reasonable.  The pad installation probably took a crew
of up to 100, but only for a short time.

In yet another example of Small World effects, Pat Kelley- my former
boss at VelaTech- was involved in that same program with my stepdad at
Ent AFB in Colorado Springs, and my dad was also stationed at Ent around
that time, and certainly had to know of the program even if he wasn't in
it.

--
Doug Jones
Rocket Plumber, XCOR Aerospace
http://www.xcor-aerospace.com

Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Interesting Delta III Tidbit
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:10:05 GMT

In article <3979D16D.B69F33B@qnet.com>, Doug Jones  <random@qnet.com> wrote:
>Whoops- I just talked to John again, he wasn't involved with the nuke
>tests but assigned to NORAD with a classified Thor program in the late
>60s, an operational program whose mission he couldn't tell me.

That's probably Program 437, the nuclear antisatellite system that the
USAF's Aerospace Defense Command operated from Johnston from the early
1960s until 1975 (although its combat capability was marginal from about
1970 on).  Quite a bit is now public about it, although of course he may
not have been told...
--
Microsoft shouldn't be broken up.       |  Henry Spencer   henry@spsystems.net
It should be shut down.  -- Phil Agre   |      (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)

Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Interesting Delta III Tidbit
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:32:58 GMT

In article <397CA828.87817756@qnet.com>, Doug Jones  <random@qnet.com> wrote:
>> That's probably Program 437, the nuclear antisatellite system...
>> Quite a bit is now public about it, although of course he may
>> not have been told...
>
>Thanks Henry- I'll look it up later and send it to John, so he can tell
>my mom all about it :)

In particular, there was a two-part series on it in recent issues of Quest.
--
Microsoft shouldn't be broken up.       |  Henry Spencer   henry@spsystems.net
It should be shut down.  -- Phil Agre   |      (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)

From: gchudson@aol.com (GCHudson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Interesting Delta III Tidbit
Date: 23 Jul 2000 05:56:42 GMT

>Just have to pipe in my two cents but...
>Comparing the launch pad crew of a Thor and a Delta 2/3 is like comparing
>Apples and Oranges.  Just one of many different examples I could give you.
>Back in the 'ol days you didn't have nearly the safety concerns or
>requirements that you have now.  Just fueling the second stage is an all day
>affair today.  One "On pad" crew of four is required to fuel either the ox
>or fuel.  Behind those four is at least two engineers in the blockhouse.
>And a test conductor, one backup person for each member in scape, a safety
>representative is present.  Crews that assist in the preps (typically four
>people to help set up pneumatics and breathing air). There are numerous
>other people that are involved in helping suit  the SCAPE personnel and
>other support activities.
>    ANYBODY saying that launching a rocket (today) with the certain number
>of people on launch team is completely out of the loop of reality for modern
>day processing.  Launching a rocket isn't like pulling a rocket up to a gas
>tank filling 'er up and pushing the button.  Each and every vehicle is put
>through a rigorous process of testing before and after it hits the stand.
>Any one just has to know a little bit about spacelight in the 50's and 60's
>to know why rockets are checkouted the way they are on the ground.  It takes
>an "Army" to try and at least offer some degree of certainty that the rocket
>and payload will make it.  Nothing is 100%, especially in rocketry.
>    As far as payload processing.  Somebody quoted something about payload
>cost at Astrotech.  Astrotech is a major milestone event for spacecraft and
>vehile integration but it is a minor event in the overall picture of payload
>processing and integration.  For starters there is a ton of work that begins
>the many years prior to that spacecraft mating and fueling.  Each vehicle
>has software that is wrtten specific for that flight profile.  Each Payload
>Attach Fitting is always just a bit different than the last.  This is all
>done way prior to a contract being signed with a processing center.  Than
>lets talk about spacecraft integration to the over all vehicle and the pad.
>Many people do not relize how many modifications are done to a facilitiy to
>meet the requirements of the "on-pad" checkout of the spacecraft.
>    It is very easy to sit back and criticize or spew numbers about
>something if you don't have the full picture or understanding of the real
>picture.
>    The examples I have used are not just for the Delta ('cpet for the
>fueing example).  Titan, Atlas and any other "mature" vehicle programs have
>a lot more than initially meets the eye.
>
>CB
>Delta 2 Launch Team Member

The examples you quote are not governed by physical law, but by organizational
stupidity.  (Note mention of "...[not having] requirements you have now." )
The Thor/Agena of 1968 was not much less complicated than the Delta of today,
and at one point launches were happening at the rate of one per week.  Of
course, that was a USAF crew, not a NASA crew, but the example is valid.  The
propellants of that Thor/Agena were just as nasty as NTO/MMH.

Further, we have the example of the Russian space program to show that all is
not lost.  They manage to launch many fairly complicated vehicles with quite
small crews, and they even build and integrate with small teams.  We also have
the example of DC-X, which is frequently and conveniently overlooked.  If
rockets are so complicated, how is it possible that a vehicle was flown and
reflown in 24 hours, with pump fed engines, landed on it's own exhaust, while
operating on liquid hydrogen, while employing a handful of ground crew?

I won't bother to belabor these points, but I will agree with one statement
made (with a paraphase): comparing existing US ELVs (and Shuttle) to potential
commercial RLVs is in fact like comparing apples to oranges, but for reasons
different than stated.  It's all in the requirements!

Gary C Hudson

From: gchudson@aol.com (GCHudson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Interesting Delta III Tidbit
Date: 24 Jul 2000 16:36:24 GMT

CB wrote:

>    Before you ramble on about organizational stupidity you have to
>understand a little bit more about the business.

[long snip]

I really would like to argue each of your points in detail, but time simply
doesn't permit.  But I will once again make the point that none of the
'problems" you mention are the result of physical law, but rather
organizational behavior.  This behavior was learned and can be unlearned where
appropriate.  We perhaps disagree on what would be appropriate to unlearn.

The subject of failure rates is one dear to my heart.  Current world launch
vehicle failure rate is about 92%, last time I checked.  The A4/V2 was
something like 85%.  All the care in the world hasn't made expendables much
better over the past fifty years, so you are right to say that we need to move
to RLVs of one sort or another.  That is what I have been preaching for most of
my 30+ year career in this business.

Gary C Hudson

From: gchudson@aol.com (GCHudson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Interesting Delta III Tidbit
Date: 25 Jul 2000 03:57:03 GMT

<<In article <20000724123624.07785.00004210@ng-ch1.aol.com>, gchudson@aol.com
(GCHudson) writes:

>The subject of failure rates is one dear to my heart.  Current world launch
>vehicle failure rate is about 92%, last time I checked.  The A4/V2 was
>something like 85%.

This is hardly an apples to apples comparison. The V2 had one engine, a single
stage, no staging events, and nothing like orbital performance. And the 85%
failure rate would seem to define "success" as landing someplace other than
Germany.

Will McLean>>


Built by slave labor actively trying to sabotage the product, using vacuum tube
electronics, under attack from allied aircraft...we could spar all day long.  I
maintain that RLVs will have higher reliability than ELVs and that we haven't
progressed all that much with respect to launch reliability for ELVs even after
50 years.

Gary C Hudson

From: gchudson@aol.com (GCHudson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Interesting Delta III Tidbit
Date: 24 Jul 2000 18:16:45 GMT

>In article <20000723015642.20089.00000944@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
>  gchudson@aol.com (GCHudson) wrote:
>>Further, we have the example of the Russian space program to show that
>>all is not lost.  They manage to launch many fairly complicated
>>vehicles with quite small crews, and they even build and integrate with
>>small teams.
>
>  The Russians have also managed to kill at least an order of magnitude
>more people in launch-pad incidents than the Americans have.
>
>--
>Jake McGuire


Essentially due to one accident in the very early days of their program.  We in
the US hold the record for killing astronauts.  Neither data points are much
relevant to the discussion.

Gary C Hudson