It should be noted that much of the delay in the EELV flight rate is due to issues outside the control of the rocket programs.
The net result is that the flight rate slows down, but that goes hand-in-hand with a greater degree of confidence that the rocket will get the job done. I'd much rather wait out the delays and fly my comsat on an Atlas than put the bird on that crap-shoot of a booster, the Proton.
EELV is a failure because it costs too much.
A rocket that's flown as long as Proton has should not have such an abysmal flight record. But, oh yeah, it's cheap (relatively) and I can fly my sat real soon.
What kind of car do you drive? EELV's are expensive on the world market for the same reason the big three are: American labor rates. Wanna trade your national security and standard of living for a cheaper rocket? I don't.
note that six of the 10 most reliable on this list are Russian/Ukrainian. Only two are from the United States.
Which begs the question - if all of the money being spent on EELVs is supposed to buy extra reliability, where are the results?
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/13/2008 04:17 pmnote that six of the 10 most reliable on this list are Russian/Ukrainian. Only two are from the United States.Dubious!! You stack your list against American rockets. Of your 47 on the list:former Soviet are 24 (51%)American are 9 (19%)Oh look. 20% of the top ten are American, the same fraction as the overall list. Plus, you skew the share of Eastern bloc rockets by separately counting 6 different flavors of Proton and 7 different flavors of Soyuz.
Launch Vehicle Reliability by FamilyActive Family Orbital Launch Historyas of 12/14/2008=========================================Vehicle Successes/Tries Realzd Pred Rate Rate* =========================================STS 122 124 .98 .98 R-7 1599 1684 .95 .95R-36 256 269 .95 .95R-14 434 460 .94 .94Thor 540 594 .91 .91DF-5 (CZ) 108 119 .91 .90M55 7 7 1.00 .89Ariane 5 37 41 .90 .88Atlas 5 13 14 .93 .88Proton 300 340 .88 .88Pegasus 35 40 .88 .86RS-18 10 11 .91 .85H-2(A) 18 21 .86 .83Zenit 55 67 .82 .81Delta 4 7 8 .88 .80MX 11 14 .79 .75 P/GSLV 14 19 .74 .71=========================================* First level Bayesian estimate
Russia/CIS 2654/2831 = 0.94USA 724/787 = 0.92China 108/119 = 0.91Europe 37/41 = 0.90Japan 18/21 = 0.86
I think the problem of EELV launchers is a result from monopoly of ULA in U.S. government´s "market".
I think the problem of EELV launchers is a result from monopoly of ULA in U.S. government´s "market". The same situation is in the cost overruns in progammes for DoD, NASA and NOAA.
However you slice it, the history shows that the former USSR orbital launchers are just as reliable as any other nation's rockets, and probably more so. - Ed Kyle
One difference is that Western rockets tend to get more reliable when they fly a lot, while the reliability of Russian rockets stays about the same, no matter how much they have flown.
Quote from: ckiki lwai on 12/14/2008 07:01 pmOne difference is that Western rockets tend to get more reliable when they fly a lot, while the reliability of Russian rockets stays about the same, no matter how much they have flown.I disagree. To give one example, Proton has become much more reliable since the 1960s - It failed every few launches, and I believe it took 61 launches before the Proton-K was accepted into service. In the last 10 years, there have only been three core vehicle failures.
Quote from: GW_Simulations on 12/14/2008 07:14 pmQuote from: ckiki lwai on 12/14/2008 07:01 pmOne difference is that Western rockets tend to get more reliable when they fly a lot, while the reliability of Russian rockets stays about the same, no matter how much they have flown.I disagree. To give one example, Proton has become much more reliable since the 1960s - It failed every few launches, and I believe it took 61 launches before the Proton-K was accepted into service. In the last 10 years, there have only been three core vehicle failures.Let's compare Proton with Ariane 4, two launchers of the same class (Proton about 6 tons to GTO and Ariane 4 about 4 tons).At Gunter's space page, there is nice list with the launch history of both rockets:http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/ariane.htmhttp://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_fam/proton.htmIf we look at the last 74 flights of the Ariane 4, we see there wasn't a single failure anymore, while Proton had 2 total and 3 partial failures in its last 74 flights.Ariane 4 was a real mature vehicle, while Proton now and then still encounters a problem.
So it's just the fact that Russian mindset to keep upgrading old rocket designs and constant retesting somewhat fails it!
I think that people are failing to understand the proper idea of rockets in the east! For example in NASA, a launch vehicle family tends to be retired after about 20-25 years max! And by that time they will be performing to their capability! In the east, people tend to upgrade the existing launchers and keep the family for what, 40 years or something and keep upgrading them and retesting them! So the chances of failure will be higher. Take Proton for that matter, it flew first in 1965, same as the Saturn age. But Saturn was retired with the arrival of Titan family! While Proton was being upgraded with new technologies and being retested!So we tend to forget that the present Proton Breeze M is almost completely different expect or some things. So, launched in 2007 the new Proton Breeze M is just like something new and can't be compared to a Proton of 1960s! So it's just the fact that Russian mindset to keep upgrading old rocket designs and constant retesting somewhat fails it!