Good catch, Ron. So the $82M isn’t SpaceX’s charge, it’s NASA’s total charge to NOAA, including the Falcon price. And once again, Joe falls on his face, comparing apples to eggs. It’s sad that he has so much trouble with this stuff. You’d think that at some point he’d be embarrassed, but I guess not.

But as I said, even if SpaceX did charge $82M for the launch, it’s still in the ball park of my original statement.

“Others might wonder how someone who claims to be such an expert on Aerospace matters is so unfamiliar with the basic structure of launch costs.”

Except that you were talking about payload costs being part of the full-up integrated cost, and Rand was talking about pure rocket costs.

As to integration costs, I have no doubt that it doesn’t cost $28M to attach a CST-100 or Dragon to it’s carrier rocket, so the Jason-3 satellite launch contract must have something else that accounts for that cost. If we look at NASA’s press release about the Jason-3 launch contract, they say:

“The total value of the Jason-3 launch service is approximately $82 million. This estimated cost includes the task ordered launch service for the Falcon 9 v1.0, plus additional services under other contracts for payload processing, launch vehicle integration, mission-unique launch site ground support and tracking, data and telemetry services. NASA is the procurement agent for NOAA.”

So while payload processing and launch vehicle integration is part of the contract, the unique part of the contract (and likely biggest cost drivers) are “mission-unique launch site ground support and tracking, data and telemetry services”, which are not launch vehicle related.

So no Joe, SpaceX is not charging everyone $28M extra above and beyond their advertised price to fly payloads on Falcon 9.

Last time I checked $28 Million qualifies as “tens of millions of dollars”.

It still doesn’t change my point. Three to four times $82M is still about an Atlas cost, sorry.

Rand Simberg says: Posted September 25, 2012 at 11:28 AM

“Do you really think it costs SpaceX tens of millions of dollars to integrate a payload?”

Since you insist on continuing to dig this hole for yourself, I will play this one more round (and then I am done with it).

Yes I “really think it costs SpaceX tens of millions of dollars to integrate a payload”. Here is the evidence (you know actual facts like you can never provide).

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/nasa-awards-four-launches-to-spacex-and-united-launch-alliance/

A Space X contract to launch a relatively uncomplicated applications satellite. Cost, not the Space X advertised $54 Million, but $82 Million.

That would be $28 Million more for what the article describes as services (meaning integration). Last time I checked $28 Million qualifies as “tens of millions of dollars”.

It is also:
– 52% more than the Space X advertised cost.
– 34% of the total contracted actual cost.

Now spin away, call me whatever names you like it will not make the facts go away. I am through with this “discussion”

Others might wonder how someone who claims to be such an expert on Aerospace matters is so unfamiliar with the basic structure of launch costs.

Skipping whether or not the Space X $140 Million figure is accurate, you still will not provided details for what you think an equivalent Atlas V Boeing/Sierra Nevada launch would be

Why should I?

We already know what the Atlas alone is. It’s three to four times the Falcon, which was my only point. So there remains no reason for me to answer a question that has nothing to do with what I wrote, despite your continuing willful misreading it.

As for whether or not anyone else on this website is agreeing with me, at one point a majority people believed the Earth was (1) Flat, (2) Stationary, (3) The Center of the Universe. Another question (that it is assumed you will not answer), were they correct?

No.

Not that it has any relevance. Anyone here can follow the conversation. Except, apparently, you.

We already know what the Atlas alone is. It’s three to four times the Falcon, which was my only point. So there remains no reason for me to answer a question that has nothing to do with what I wrote, despite your continuing willful misreading it.

Rand Simberg says:Posted September 25, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Skipping whether or not the Space X $140 Million figure is accurate, you still will not provided details for what you think an equivalent Atlas V Boeing/Sierra Nevada launch would be.

As for whether or not anyone else on this website is agreeing with me, at one point a majority people believed the Earth was (1) Flat, (2) Stationary, (3) The Center of the Universe. Another question (that it is assumed you will not answer), were they correct?

If the total launch price is $140M including Dragon, then obviously the Falcon 9 by itself can’t cost much more than the sixty million that SpaceX quotes. Do you really think it costs SpaceX tens of millions of dollars to integrate a payload?

As Ron asked, why are you being so obtuse about this? Do you see anyone else agreeing with you?

You and your buddy Rand (to use you’re terminology) can try to avoid the fact that you have no information to make a head to head comparison of total launch cost as much as you want, but the fact neither of you will provide data to support your positions explains everything.

Integration costs have to be included and ULA does that for their launch contracts. That $54 Million/launch figure that Space X still lists on its website is the equivalent of a crooked used car salesman offering a car for $10,000 then when you go to buy it saying – “Oh, you wanted wheels and an engine with that car, sorry they are extra.” What are you buying for that $54 Million the (in any practical sense useless) launch of a big rocket, for no other reason than you think it is “cool”.

Joe, it’s amazing how you don’t understand this. Rand talked about Atlas V vs Falcon 9 costs – just the rocket portion of the cost.

You are the one that wants to take rocket + spacecraft full-up costs and compare them using the rocket-only estimate Rand made, and then blame Rand for not agreeing with you. Why are you being so obtuse about this?

Your question has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote, and there is no basis for it, so I don’t know why I would be expected to answer it.

The simple question I asked was: “Using the Space X quoted figure (as it seems reasonable that a crewed flight will be somewhat more expensive than a cargo mission) that would place the total cost of an Atlas launch of either vehicle between $420 Million – $560 Million. Is there a source for those numbers that to which you could link?”

Instead of answering the question, you provide personal insults.

I would be forced to assume, therefore, the answer is no.

your numbers would still indicate a per launch cost as $226 Million, not the $420 Million – $560 Million range Mr. Simberg implied.

I implied nothing of the kind. You mistakenly inferred it. Go back and read what I wrote, this time for comprehension. I was comparing Falcon 9 costs to Atlas costs. Falcon 9 costs $60M. Do the math, and stop blaming me for your inability to read.

No I do not. I asked Mr. SImberg for a source on total cost for an Atlas V launch of either the Boeing or Sierra Nevada payload to which neither he nor you are even attempting a response.

“If you really want the inside scoop on what an Atlas V costs, ask your buddy Paul Spudis. He says he knows (or at least used to know) what ULA was charging NASA. A recent data point would be NASA’s purchase of two Atlas V 541 launches for $446M:”

Thanks for calling Dr. Spudis my “buddy” since I would take it as a compliment, but your numbers would still indicate a per launch cost as $226 Million, not the $420 Million – $560 Million range Mr. Simberg implied. I know missing your estimates by factors ranging from 2 – 2.5 is trivial to you but most sane people would consider it to be worthy of consideration.

The ATK Liberty can’t buy down as much risk with $460M as Sierra Nevada could with it’s Dream Chaser.

I’d take the $460M from Boeing and give most of it to Dream Chaser, then use the rest to continue to buy down risk with Dragon. Dream Chaser is really what NASA seems to want anyways (a horizontal lander with great cross-range capability), so this would be a good excuse to make sure it really happens.

The topic you responded to was Atlas V costs, not total transportation system cost, but you multiplied the total transportation system cost to try and find out what the Atlas V cost is supposed to be. Notice a flaw in your approach?

If you really want the inside scoop on what an Atlas V costs, ask your buddy Paul Spudis. He says he knows (or at least used to know) what ULA was charging NASA. A recent data point would be NASA’s purchase of two Atlas V 541 launches for $446M:

“The total cost of the GOES-R and GOES-S launch services is approximately $446 million. This estimated cost includes launch service for the Atlas V and additional services under other contracts for payload processing, launch vehicle integration, mission unique launch site ground support and tracking, data and telemetry services. ”

There are still proprietary details the public doesn’t get to see about pricing, so direct comparisons are hard. But there was this article about what Asia Broadcast Satellite (ABS) and Satmex are paying for two Falcon 9 launches in the same general timeframe. The article says that they are paying $130M for two launches, or an average of $65M/launch. Compare that to the $223M for the Atlas V 541, and that’s well over a 3X difference. Of course the crew version of the Atlas V is a 402 – no SRM’s but one additional RL-10 on the second stage – so we still don’t have apples-to-apples, but closer than guessing total crew transportation costs.

Bottom line though – Rand’s estimate looks like it’s in the right ballpark.

Yes that was the reason I saId total cost.

“Using the Space X quoted figure (as it seems reasonable that a crewed flight will be somewhat more expensive than a cargo mission) that would place the total cost of an Atlas launch of either vehicle between $420 Million – $560 Million.”

Do you have any such documentation?

I was referring to the cost for the launcher only. Falcon 9 is still about sixty million. You’re comparing apples to eggs (as you often do).

The established players may have to a skunkworks design to bring down costs. It’s obvious the current designs aren’t going to get there.

Blue Origin dropped out of Commercial Crew by their own choice. You would therefore have to assume they would decline the honor.

I think Blue Origin would be ‘Plan B’ in that scenario…

Well, yeah, but… (someone remind me) who’d be the “next” competor from that competition, the Forerunner of the Also-rans? Does that mean that a FULL share would be offered to maybe *Shudder!* ATK/Liberty?, or worse that Excalibur Alma-hoozits?

Given the looming fiscal-fundicide coming in a few months, might I suggest give half (or even a quarter), to SNC and put the rest into the Sequester-Sacrificial Insurance Pot?

Curious about those assumed launch numbers. Space X contract for cargo services to ISS is $1.6 Billion for 12 flights ($133,333,333.33/flight) and Space X has talked about $140 Million/flight for crewed missions.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/another-first-for-the-space-program-first-commercial-spacecraft-joins-international-space-station

Using the Space X quoted figure (as it seems reasonable that a crewed flight will be somewhat more expensive than a cargo mission) that would place the total cost of an Atlas launch of either vehicle between $420 Million – $560 Million.

Is there a source for those numbers that to which you could link?

You would have to check with them to see if they felt they were “behind”. Absent that i would stand be my original statement.

I didn`t hear that. From what I`ve seen they were behind the others and since there was only going to be 3 choices they just opted not to put out effort. Why bother if you know it is a waste time.

I thought I heard talk about upgrading cargo modules like the Cygnus PCM and the ATV too, but I think the economics of it don’t make sense when compared to dedicated spacecraft like the Dragon, CST-100 and Dream Chaser.

In fact I don’t see much of a future for the Cygnus as a cargo carrier if we get two or more crew-capable autonomous spacecraft. If that is the case, I hope OSC decides to use the Cygnus Service Module to offer tug services.

I wonder if Boeing has considered cargo delivery services as part of any potential future demand for the CST-100?

The economics could change if we consider settlement BEO. Boeing might then quit it’s BS and really start to compete.