Delta, Atlas, (ULA) Commercial Lauches?

[beancounter]

Does anyone know where I could find the launch manifest for Delta and Atlas LVs over the last 5 years and into the next couple.

I want to know if they are still being used to launch non-government payloads or have they priced themselves out of the commercial market?

Thanks

[Antares]

Ed Kyle's site
http://spacelaunchreport.com/

[beancounter]

Ed Kyle's site
http://spacelaunchreport.com/

Thanks, had a look but I can't distinguish between commercial and non-commercial payloads - most of them anyway.  Any ideas anyone?

I know the Delta II and Titan vehicles are no longer flying - presumably no payloads therefore too costly for customers.  I want to see if the same applies to the remaining major US players.

[Jim]

I know the Delta II and Titan vehicles are no longer flying - presumably no payloads therefore too costly for customers.  I want to see if the same applies to the remaining major US players.

No, Delta II , Titan IV and Atlas II were were replaced by the EELV families, Delta IV and Atlas V. 


Titan IV never carried commercial spacecraft. 

Read up on the EELV program.

[kevin-rf]

Titan IV never carried commercial spacecraft. 

But Commercial Titan III did back in the early 1990's.

[Antares]

These are the commercial launches with commercial payloads.  *Note the GOES launches were commercial launches of government payloads.

08/21/02  Atlas 5-401   AV001 Hot Bird 6
11/20/02  Delta 4M+4,2  D293  Eutelsat W5
05/13/03  Atlas 5-401   AV002 HellaSat 2
07/17/03  Atlas 5-521   AV003 Rainbow 1
12/17/04  Atlas 5-521   AV005 AMC-16
03/11/05  Atlas 5-431   AV004 Inmarsat 4F1 (4A)
04/20/06  Atlas 5-411   AV008 Astra 1KR
05/24/06  Delta 4M+4,2  D315  GOES-N*
04/14/08  Atlas 5-421   AV014 ICO G1
06/27/09  Delta 4M+4,2  D342  GOES-O*
11/23/09  Atlas 5-431   AV024 Intelsat 14
03/04/10  Delta 4M+4,2  D348  GOES-P*

[William Graham]

I know the Delta II ... vehicles are no longer flying

There are four Delta II launches left. One of those is a commercial launch, two are NASA launches, and I'm not sure about the fourth; it is an Argentine satellite but NASA have a high level of involvement in the programme, and I don't know if they are responsible for the launch or not.

There are also five unsold Delta IIH rockets.

[Jim]

Aquarius is a NASA launch

[beancounter]

Ok ,so looking at this list of launches then commercial isn't providing anywhere near the funding to keep these enterprises operational.  Logically it follows that the only reason for the existence of these systems is strategic government.

I understand that the ULA was created to gain efficiencies in cost and delivery.  Seems to have failed it's objectives if it was mean't to create a viable commercial US launch service!

So it appears that the only viable US commercial launch service available as at now is SpaceX - assuming they continue to launch successfully and also that they remain profitable.  It would appear that their customers certainly believe so anyway.

Have the other US players been caught napping?  Is it possible for them to undergo sufficient cost reduction to compete?
Any views?

[Jim]

1.  I understand that the ULA was created to gain efficiencies in cost and delivery.  Seems to have failed it's objectives if it was mean't to create a viable commercial US launch service!

2.  So it appears that the only viable US commercial launch service available as at now is SpaceX - assuming they continue to launch successfully and also that they remain profitable.  It would appear that their customers certainly believe so anyway.

1.  Not true.  It has met its objectives.  The formation of ULA was to save the gov't money.  ULA can only sell its vehicles to the US gov't.  For commercial launches, customers must go through Boeing and LM to use ULA vehicles.

2.  Wrong again.  Outside of the Iridium contract (which has no financing yet) , Spacex has no "real" commercial contracts.  Just a few small spacecraft sprinkled here and there, just like ULA's, but ULA's are large comsats.

[kevin-rf]

Cough cough ... Orbital

[Antares]

Excessively simplistic market analysis in general.  SpaceX has a long way to go in demonstrating its ability to meet government requirements.  If you can't prove you have a good rocket on paper, unique, exquisite government payloads won't ride.

[beancounter]

Excessively simplistic market analysis in general.  SpaceX has a long way to go in demonstrating its ability to meet government requirements.  If you can't prove you have a good rocket on paper, unique, exquisite government payloads won't ride.

I didn't say they did.  Where have I stated that?  Besides, it seems only NASA and government are interested in paper rockets, SpaceX has hardware that flys and in the end, that's what will count, not slideshows.

So far as the customer base goes, SpaceX has pretty close to 50% of it's manifest as non-government therefore my statement regarding customer belief in the company stands.

NASA COTS – Demo 1 2010 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA COTS – Demo 2 2011 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA COTS – Demo 3 2011 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
Falcon 1e Inaugural Test Flight 2011 Falcon 1e  Kwajalein
ORBCOMM - Multiple flights 2011-2014 Falcon 1e Kwajalein
MDA Corp. (Canada) 2011 Falcon 9 Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 1 2011 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 2 2011 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
DragonLab Mission 1 2012 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 3 2012 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 4 2012 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
CONAE (Argentina) 2012 Falcon 9 Vandenberg**
Spacecom (Israel) 2012 Falcon 9 Cape Canaveral**
DragonLab Mission 2 2013 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 5 2013 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 6 2013 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 7 2013 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
CONAE (Argentina) 2013 Falcon 9 Vandenberg**
NSPO (Taiwan) 2013 Falcon 1e Kwajalein
Space Systems/Loral 2014 Falcon 9 Cape Canaveral**
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 8 2014 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 9 2014 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 10 2014 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
Astrium (Europe) 2014 Falcon 1e Kwajalein
Bigelow Aerospace 2014 Falcon 9 Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 11 2015 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 12 2015 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
Iridium 2015-2017 Falcon 9 Vandenberg

They're also on record as stating that they don't need government business to remain as a viable business. 
I also stated the proviso that this would continue so long as the company launches successfully and remains profitable.  So please read all my post rather than just the first bit!?

Yes I did ignore Orbital but again they don't appear to have much in the way of commercial launch service customers - but I might be wrong.  Someone point it out if I am please.

[edkyle99]

So far as the customer base goes, SpaceX has pretty close to 50% of it's manifest as non-government therefore my statement regarding customer belief in the company stands.

I recommend taking those published manifests with a grain of salt.  When it was starting its Delta 4 program, Boeing showed an impressive commercial backlog list of 40 or 60 or so satellites.  Then the bankruptcies started and the list vanished.

Historically, the serious space launch money comes from governments.  U.S. companies don't do commercial launches because they don't make money at it.  They, and by "they" I also include SpaceX, survive on government funding.  Not only that, but if you look hard at many of the "commercial" payloads, you will find government support, either directly or as a customer of the satellite.  Consider Iridium, for example, a "commercial" customer that recently signed with SpaceX.  Who buys Iridium's services?  Read the final paragraph of this release for the answer.
http://investor.iridium.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=464885

 - Ed Kyle 

[Antares]

Besides, it seems only NASA and government are interested in paper rockets, SpaceX has hardware that flys and in the end, that's what will count, not slideshows.

Not the parts of NASA or the DoD that launch unique and/or expensive payloads.  And because they are playing with their own money, commercial customers are just as conservative as government customers.

But it doesn't matter: you pivoted the argument.  I was faulting your market analysis of ULA and then you started talking about SpaceX.  I read the whole thing before I posted.  I view the following statements as uninformed of reality (out of either laziness or, no fault of yours, data restrictions):

"the only reason for the existence of these systems is strategic government."
"Seems to have failed it's objectives if it was mean't to create a viable commercial US launch service!"
"So it appears that the only viable US commercial launch service available as at now is SpaceX"
"Have the other US players been caught napping?"

I will continue to call out such bombastic statements when I see them.

[Jim]

.

So far as the customer base goes, SpaceX has pretty close to 50% of it's manifest as non-government therefore my statement regarding customer belief in the company stands.


Falcon 1e Inaugural Test Flight 2011 Falcon 1e  Kwajalein
ORBCOMM - Multiple flights 2011-2014 Falcon 1e Kwajalein
MDA Corp. (Canada) 2011 Falcon 9 Cape Canaveral

DragonLab Mission 1 2012 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral

CONAE (Argentina) 2012 Falcon 9 Vandenberg**
Spacecom (Israel) 2012 Falcon 9 Cape Canaveral**
DragonLab Mission 2 2013 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral

CONAE (Argentina) 2013 Falcon 9 Vandenberg**
NSPO (Taiwan) 2013 Falcon 1e Kwajalein
Space Systems/Loral 2014 Falcon 9 Cape Canaveral**

Astrium (Europe) 2014 Falcon 1e Kwajalein
Bigelow Aerospace 2014 Falcon 9 Cape Canaveral

Iridium 2015-2017 Falcon 9 Vandenberg

1.  Falcon 1 launches don't count
2.  Dragonlab are placeholders.  Spacex has yet to sell one or have enough customers for one
3.  Iridium doesn't have financing yet
4.  Some of the others are just placeholders.

[Jim]

http://space.skyrocket.de/index_frame.htm?http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_lau/atlas-5.htm

http://space.skyrocket.de/index_frame.htm?http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_lau/delta-4.htm


Look at the planned missions here.  This is not a complete summary either.

[beancounter]

Ok I give up.  Open question:

Is there any way in which a comparison of the US commercial players launch manifests can be made?  Does anyone have enough real data to be able to say whether or not US launch providers have priced themselves out of the commercial market.

That's what I'm really interested in.  Is there a launch provider in the US that can (or can reasonably state based on verifiable evidence that they can) survive without resort to government contracts of any sort?

My interest is that I've seen it stated that the US launch providers are commercially non-competitive meaning they all require government contracts to maintain the launch service business, without which they would close up shop.  This includes any government business - DoD, NASA, etc.

Hopefully that's clear enough now.

Cheers,

[nooneofconsequence]

Ok I give up.  Open question:

Is there any way in which a comparison of the US commercial players launch manifests can be made?  Does anyone have enough real data to be able to say whether or not US launch providers have priced themselves out of the commercial market.

That's what I'm really interested in.  Is there a launch provider in the US that can (or can reasonably state based on verifiable evidence that they can) survive without resort to government contracts of any sort?

My interest is that I've seen it stated that the US launch providers are commercially non-competitive meaning they all require government contracts to maintain the launch service business, without which they would close up shop.  This includes any government business - DoD, NASA, etc.

Hopefully that's clear enough now.

Cheers,

Numerically / quantitatively - never. Apples and oranges. Figures will never add up or be meaningful.

Subjectively ... suggest you look at overhead/head count on launch services for specific launches. They are moving to become more competitive with each other.

[beancounter]

Ok I give up.  Open question:

Is there any way in which a comparison of the US commercial players launch manifests can be made?  Does anyone have enough real data to be able to say whether or not US launch providers have priced themselves out of the commercial market.

That's what I'm really interested in.  Is there a launch provider in the US that can (or can reasonably state based on verifiable evidence that they can) survive without resort to government contracts of any sort?

My interest is that I've seen it stated that the US launch providers are commercially non-competitive meaning they all require government contracts to maintain the launch service business, without which they would close up shop.  This includes any government business - DoD, NASA, etc.

Hopefully that's clear enough now.

Cheers,

Numerically / quantitatively - never. Apples and oranges. Figures will never add up or be meaningful.

Subjectively ... suggest you look at overhead/head count on launch services for specific launches. They are moving to become more competitive with each other.

Sorry, can't accept that.  I though the US of A was the birthplace and champion of free markets and capitalism.  Now you're saying there's no way to tell if a company in a particular market (or segment) is competitive without government support!!
 
Evidence for movement toward competitiveness please?

More questions:  Why then do people (politicians, educators, customers ...) state that US launch services are too expensive?  What or who are they using as a comparative measure - Russians, Europeans?  What would or could be launched if the price was less?

And then why would SpaceX have entered the launch services market with the express intent of lowering launch prices if they at least, didn't believe that launch costs were more expensive that they should or had to be? 

Bit of humour to go with the serious questions:  I think there's a saying that goes something like 'How do you become a millionaire in the space business - start out a billionaire!!'

Cheers.