Secret plan to privatize shuttle; now, to a next-generation shuttle.

[RGClark]

Next Gen Shuttle-Capable vehicle interest as secret effort to save orbiters ends.
December 19th, 2011 by Chris Bergin
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/next-gen-shuttle-vehicle-secret-effort-save-orbiters-ends/

Atlantis Journal – Epilogue.
by MLD on Dec.19, 2011, under Commercial Space, Space Exploration, Space Policy, Space Shuttle Program
http://www.marylynnedittmar.com/?p=1303

These articles report on a plan to privatize the shuttles for commercial satellite launches only. Considering the costs of shuttle launches it might seem a non-starter. But these articles state those intending to finance the plan believed they could make a business case for profitability.
Further background is provided by this interview with Dr. Larry Kuznetz on The Space Show who was part of the plan:

Broadcast 1595 (Special Edition)
Aired on July 19th, 2011
Guest: Dr. Lawrence Kuznetz
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1595

About 58 minutes in he discusses the plan to privatize the shuttle. He says they estimated $2 billion to get the program going again and $500 million per launch which would all be paid for by private funds. The business case to make this profitable would be to launch large satellites to GEO.
Kuznetz stated the trend now is toward large satellites since it is cheaper to put up a single large satellite rather than two smaller ones or send up smaller ones more often to replace a larger one. He says that for commercial large satellites to GEO, the Ariane 5 has a monopoly so the satellite companies have no room to negotiate the price to launch these large satellites. According to Kuznetz it would be possible to undercut the Ariane 5 price point with the privatized shuttle.
However, it turned out because the shuttle assets and infrastructure were being re-tasked to be used for the SLS, the plan could not be implemented. So the current plan is use a next generation shuttle based on more up to date technology.
Interestingly Kuznetz also mentioned there would be other income streams beyond satellite launches that had not been considered before that he said could even be more profitable than satellite launches.
Anyone have any guess what they might be?

Bob Clark

 

[blackstar]

This idea was never realistic. The shuttle's fixed costs are immense. And right now there are too many rockets chasing too few payloads (something that the other rocket developers don't fully recognize either).

 

[Hobbes]

for commercial large satellites to GEO, the Ariane 5 has a monopoly so the satellite companies have no room to negotiate the price to launch these large satellites

What? The Delta IV, Atlas V and Proton are all in the same (capacity) ballpark. All of these have been used for commercial launches.

 

[Michel Van]

for commercial large satellites to GEO, the Ariane 5 has a monopoly so the satellite companies have no room to negotiate the price to launch these large satellites

What? The Delta IV, Atlas V and Proton are all in the same (capacity) ballpark. All of these have been used for commercial launches.

yes, but the cheaper Proton has sometimes tendency not to bring the payload into orbit, see the series of Proton launches failure in 2011
Delta IV and Atlas V are still to expensive, compare to quantity manufacturing Ariane 5
Delta IV - 17 launch since 2002
Atlas v - 28 launch since 2002
Ariane 5 - 60 launch since 1996
you see the Atlas 5 is on good way to become serious competitors for Ariane 5, in 10 years...

 

[blackstar]

for commercial large satellites to GEO, the Ariane 5 has a monopoly so the satellite companies have no room to negotiate the price to launch these large satellites

What? The Delta IV, Atlas V and Proton are all in the same (capacity) ballpark. All of these have been used for commercial launches.

Proton is having problems. See here:

http://www.ilslaunch.com/newsroom/news-releases/ils-proton-launch-ses-4-satellite-postponed

The Russian space program in general is having a lot of problems, and I expect that Proton is really going to hurt because of an overall impression that they lack quality control (put another way, the Soyuz rocket failures also hurt Proton's business).

Atlas V and Delta IV are not really commercial. A month ago I went to a workshop on launch vehicle issues and one of the speakers was from Intelsat, which buys a lot of commercial launches. Their rep said that Intelsat does not consider Atlas V and Delta IV to be "commercially competitive." The primary reason was that the United Launch Alliance does not try to win commercial contracts, and is primarily oriented towards serving the government customer (NRO, USAF, NASA).

That really leaves Ariane, SeaLaunch/LandLaunch, and Proton.

 

[airrocket]

Gee why make it so hard and try to invent the wheel again... just throw those billions to the SNC Dream Chaser and get err done.The way shuttle should have been done years ago. If they fully reuseable then air launch it from Strato bird.

 

[blackstar]

Gee why make it so hard and try to invent the wheel again... just throw those billions to the SNC Dream Chaser and get err done.The way shuttle should have been done years ago. If they fully reuseable then air launch it from Strato bird.

I don't think DC has a chance. Wings on a manned spacecraft create complications, and they don't really provide any significant advantages. You can get reusability out of a capsule, and the design is cheaper.

 

[RGClark]

...
Interestingly Kuznetz also mentioned there would be other income streams beyond satellite launches that had not been considered before that he said could even be more profitable than satellite launches.
Anyone have any guess what they might be?

Kuznetz later on in the interview says instead of costing us $2
billion a year, their plan could be making a *profit* of $1.4 billion
a year.
I can only think this must be coming from those alternative income
streams he mentioned that he says could be more profitable than
satellite launching. On another forum someone raised the possibility
of satellite servicing.
I like that idea but mostly in regards to refueling satellites,
especially in GEO. Most communication satellites have to be replaced
not because they stop operating or become obsolete, but simply because
they run out of fuel for station-keeping.
The Air Force put out a request for proposals for spacecraft that
could refuel satellites in GEO. And NASA has plans for doing testing
of the satellite refueling process. If you consider that the larger
GEO communication satellites may cost hundreds of millions of dollars
and the cost to launch them may cost in the range of $100 to $200
million, it becomes clear there would be a substantial market for
refueling satellites in GEO.

Satellite Refueling in Orbit, Coming Soon?
By Steve Rousseau
October 17, 2011 5:00 PM
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/satellites/satellite-refueling-in-orbit-coming-soon

Space Infrastructure Servicing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Infrastructure_Servicing

According to the "Satellite Refueling in Orbit, Coming Soon?" article
a satellite may last 10 to 15 years. According to the "Space
Infrastructure Servicing" wikipedia page, 200 kg of fuel may provide
an additional 2 to 4 years of life. So it might take 100 kg per year
for fuel, and over 10 years would require 1,000 kg.
The cost to get anything to GEO, including this fuel, is in the range
of $20,000 to $25,000 per kg. So for 1,000 kg of fuel to get to GEO
for satellite refueling it would cost perhaps $25 million. But this
would double the life of the satellite since it would again have a
full fuel load for 10 years. So for $25 million you saved the
satellite companies from paying, say, $300 - $500 million, to purchase
and launch a new satellite.
So even if you charged 4 times the usual price to get to GEO for this
fuel, the satellite companies could still consider this a bargain.
You would need a small reusable servicing spacecraft to launch from
the shuttle payload bay to transport the fuel to GEO. If you use LH2/
LOX propellant for this spacecraft like the Centaur upper stages, then
it takes about the same amount of propellant to get to GEO from LEO,
as the mass of the spacecraft + payload, the payload being the
refueling fuel in this case. The dry mass of the spacecraft is only a
small proportion of the propellant as indicated by the Centaur upper
stage, about 1/10th.
So the 25,000 kg cargo capacity of the shuttle could be made up of
half LH2/LOX propellant for the refueling spacecraft and half the fuel
for the satellites. That's 12,500 kg of refueling fuel. If you do
charge the satellites companies 4 times the usual rate to GEO to
$100,000 per kg for this fuel, then that's potentially $1.25 billion
revenue from this one shuttle launch.
The estimate of a charge of $100,000 per kg of the refueling fuel to
be delivered to satellites in GEO may seem high but it's actually less
than a price that has been quoted by a company planning on doing such
refueling missions. On that "Space Infrastructure Servicing" wikipedia
page is given this ref. to an article on satellite servicing:

de Selding, Peter B. (2011-03-14). "Intelsat Signs Up for Satellite
Refueling Service". Space News. Retrieved 2011-03-15. "if the MDA
spacecraft performs as planned, Intelsat will be paying a total of
some $200 million to MDA. This assumes that four or five satellites
are given around 200 kilograms each of fuel. ... The maiden flight of
the vehicle would be on an International Launch Services Proton
rocket, industry officials said. One official said the MDA spacecraft,
including its 2,000 kilograms of refueling propellant, is likely to
weigh around 6,000 kilograms at launch."
http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/intelsat-signs-for-satellite-refueling-service.html

So for this company they are charging $200,000 per kg of the
refueling fuel.
The advantage of the shuttle is that it can carry so much refueling
fuel to LEO for the spacecraft that does go to GEO to do the
refueling. So potentially you could make so much with each shuttle
launch. The shuttle could even leave this refueling fuel in LEO as a
propellant depot for the small refueling spacecraft that goes out to
GEO. The shuttle itself would not need to go to GEO.
The Ariane 5 with its large payload capacity to LEO could also be used
for this role to get large revenue per launch. The advantage of the
shuttle though is that it could bring back that GEO-refueling
spacecraft for servicing.
It also has the advantage that it could also bring back the satellites
themselves for servicing. It would have to be the large expensive
satellites for which this would be worthwhile. Some of these GEO
satellites cost hundreds of millions of dollars so this is
conceivable. Some large defense satellites are also reported to cost
over a billion dollars.
Again the shuttle itself would not need to get to GEO. It could use a
small spacecraft to go out to GEO to attach to the satellites and use
the spacecrafts thrusters and propellant to bring the satellites back
to LEO to be captured by the shuttle.


Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

Refueling GSO spacecraft has nothing to do with this subject. The shuttle is not going to carrying LH2.
Get realistic.

Also, MDA backed out of the servicing business.


Once again your google based knowledge failed you

 

[RGClark]

Refueling GSO spacecraft has nothing to do with this subject. The shuttle is not going to carrying LH2.
Get realistic.
Also, MDA backed out of the servicing business.
Once again your google based knowledge failed you

It doesn't have to be LH2/LOX. It could be the same hypergolic, storable, propellants used by the OMS. The proportion that could go to refuel the satellites would not be as high but would still be quite good.
MDA put the plans temporarily on hold because NASA is planning a similar program so that would cut into the US portion of their sales and also they were concerned they might be cut out entirely from the lucrative defense satellite market with its billion dollar satellites.
The group planning the privatized shuttles has said they will reveal what their plans are by the end of the first quarter of 2012. So we'll know within 3 months what is this alternate revenue stream that could produce $1.4 billion in profit a year.

Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

There was nothing said about 1.4 billion a year profit

 

[RGClark]

Dr. Larry Kuznetz who was part of the plan discussed it on
The Space Show about 58 minutes into the interview:

Broadcast 1595 (Special Edition)
Aired on July 19th, 2011
Guest: Dr. Lawrence Kuznetz
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1595

About 1 hour 45 minutes in, he mentioned with these other
revenue streams they might be able to make a profit of $700
million per launch. With 2 to 4 launches per year that's $1.4 to
$2.8 billion per year in profit.


Bob Clark

 

[blackstar]

NOBODY makes that much profit on a space mission.

Just because somebody claims something does not make it true.

 

[Byeman]

Dr. Larry Kuznetz who was part of the plan discussed it on
The Space Show about 58 minutes into the interview:

Broadcast 1595 (Special Edition)
Aired on July 19th, 2011
Guest: Dr. Lawrence Kuznetz
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1595

About 1 hour 45 minutes in, he mentioned with these other
revenue streams they might be able to make a profit of $700
million per launch. With 2 to 4 launches per year that's $1.4 to
$2.8 billion per year in profit.


Bob Clark

See, you don't even know enough to see that that it does not pass the smell test. A profit of 700 million would mean they would charging 1.2 billion or so per launch, which is not competitive.

 

[RGClark]

NOBODY makes that much profit on a space mission.

Just because somebody claims something does not make it true.

As I said, we'll know within 3 months what those supposed super
profitable income streams are.

Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

Dr. Larry Kuznetz who was part of the plan discussed it on
The Space Show about 58 minutes into the interview:

Broadcast 1595 (Special Edition)
Aired on July 19th, 2011
Guest: Dr. Lawrence Kuznetz
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1595

About 1 hour 45 minutes in, he mentioned with these other
revenue streams they might be able to make a profit of $700
million per launch. With 2 to 4 launches per year that's $1.4 to
$2.8 billion per year in profit.


Bob Clark

See, you don't even know enough to see that that it does not pass the smell test. A profit of 700 million would mean they would charging 1.2 billion or so per launch, which is not competitive.

Dr. Kuznetz is a very serious scientist with decades of experience in the space program. Undoubtedly this estimate on the potential profitability is based on in depth knowledge of the space program and markets.
Whatever it is it definitely will be interesting.

Bob Clark

 

[Orionblamblam]

revenue streams they might be able to make a profit of $700
million per launch.

$700 million in profit for 50,000 or so pounds works out to $14,000 per pound. That's just the *profit* part of it. There will be a whole lot of non-profit expenses that will have to factor into the total cost. But just the profit portion of the cost is much too expensive.

 

[Matej]

Atlas V and Delta IV are not really commercial. A month ago I went to a workshop on launch vehicle issues and one of the speakers was from Intelsat, which buys a lot of commercial launches. Their rep said that Intelsat does not consider Atlas V and Delta IV to be "commercially competitive." The primary reason was that the United Launch Alliance does not try to win commercial contracts, and is primarily oriented towards serving the government customer (NRO, USAF, NASA).

That really leaves Ariane, SeaLaunch/LandLaunch, and Proton.

That's the point! I just extend it a bit: Russian launchers also do not have good technical parameters in some particular areas for private customers like in-flight vibrations. This, combined with a fear of technology leak from advanced satellites (which effectively eliminates also Chinese launchers from "west" private space business) leaves only three mentioned rockets. And this is also the reason, why Arianespace has so full launch schedule.

 

[blackstar]

That's the point! I just extend it a bit: Russian launchers also do not have good technical parameters in some particular areas for private customers like in-flight vibrations. This, combined with a fear of technology leak from advanced satellites (which effectively eliminates also Chinese launchers from "west" private space business) leaves only three mentioned rockets. And this is also the reason, why Arianespace has so full launch schedule.

The Intelsat guy I mentioned stated that their business plan called for keeping three launch vehicle providers alive and competitive--Ariane, Proton and SeaLaunch. He was rather specific about that, meaning that they wanted more than simply two, possibly because with only two providers, they can start to jack up their prices on their own. They don't even need to actively collude, they can simply figure it out themselves. But a third helps to keep them honest.

I don't follow the commercial launch business at all (it's not part of my job), but I've heard from various analysts who follow this stuff that Ariane has a great reputation for being customer-oriented. They give the buyers what they want, probably more so than Proton and SeaLaunch. I imagine that Ariane is their first choice, but the buyers need to keep the market competitive for their own long-term interests.

 

[Archibald]

that Ariane has a great reputation for being customer-oriented

I tend to think Arianespace chance was that four decades ago they started from a clean sheet of paper. The Europa fiasco was a hard learned lesson.
Ariane and Arianespace were tailored for the comsat market right from the beginning - since there was zero military payloads in Europe at the time, and very few science satellites, and no manned flight either.
That left comsats as the sole market; unlike the shuttle, or the EELVs much later, Ariane was not really build on conflicting requirements...

 

[blackstar]

that Ariane has a great reputation for being customer-oriented

I tend to think Arianespace chance was that four decades ago they started from a clean sheet of paper. The Europa fiasco was a hard learned lesson.
Ariane and Arianespace were tailored for the comsat market right from the beginning - since there was zero military payloads in Europe at the time, and very few science satellites, and no manned flight either.
That left comsats as the sole market; unlike the shuttle, or the EELVs much later, Ariane was not really build on conflicting requirements...

It's not just the design. Their customer service is supposedly superior. They work with the customer to find the best options like launch time, schedule, personnel, etc. I was also told by a former NASA official who had done an analysis of Ariane operations that they were more efficient than the Russians. They had fewer people working on their rockets than anybody else (of course, they had higher labor costs than the Russians).