ULA Atlas V 551 - ViaSat-3 F3 - CCSFS SLC-41 - NET early 2025

[Chris Bergin]

Presser:

  VIASAT SELECTS UNITED LAUNCH ALLIANCE’S PROVEN ATLAS V ROCKET FOR COMMERCIAL SATELLITE LAUNCH

PARIS, Sept. 10, 2018 – Global communications company, Viasat Inc., (Nasdaq: VSAT) announced today it selected United Launch Alliance’s (ULA’s) proven Atlas V vehicle to launch one of its ViaSat-3 satellite missions. This is the first commercial contract ULA has directly signed since assuming responsibility for the marketing and sales of the Atlas V launch vehicle from Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services earlier this year.

The Viasat mission will carry one of the ViaSat-3 series spacecraft and is scheduled to launch in the 2020 - 2022 timeframe from Space Launch Complex-41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. This mission will launch aboard an Atlas V 551 configuration vehicle, the largest in the Atlas V fleet. The 551 configuration provides the performance to deliver a ViaSat-3 satellite into a high-energy geostationary transfer orbit where it can begin on-orbit operations faster than with other available launch vehicles.

The selection of Atlas V for one of the ViaSat-3 missions is the next step in implementing Viasat’s integrated launch strategy which is designed to ensure the on-time launch of all of the ViaSat-3 spacecraft through launch vehicle diversity and an integrated approach to launch planning. Viasat will announce specific mission assignments for each of the contracted launch vehicles at a later date.

“ULA continues to demonstrate schedule certainty and flexibility, as well as be a trustworthy and reliable business partner. This coupled with unmatched Atlas V launch vehicle reliability and tailored mission design capabilities made ULA a strong partner for a ViaSat-3 launch mission,” said Dave Ryan, president, Space Systems at Viasat. “ULA is known for providing an innovative launch solution that is focused on mission success, which will allow us to meet our business objectives to bring high-speed, high-quality broadband connectivity to meet end-user demand.”       

“ULA’s Atlas V launch vehicle is the most reliable launch vehicle in the world and we could not be more pleased that Viasat, a leading satellite broadband innovator, has recognized the value the Atlas V can offer, and decided to select this rocket to launch its critical commercial communications satellite,” said Tory Bruno, ULA’s president and CEO.

The ViaSat-3 class of Ka-band satellites is expected to provide unprecedented capabilities in terms of service speed and flexibility for a satellite platform. The first two satellites will focus on the Americas and on Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), respectively, with the third satellite planned for the APAC region, completing Viasat's global service coverage. Each ViaSat-3 class satellite is expected to deliver more than 1-Terabit per second of network capacity, and to leverage high levels of flexibility to dynamically direct capacity to where customers are located.

Atlas V has launched 78 missions with 100 percent success including 17 successful commercial missions. The workhorse rocket also delivered critical science missions for NASA such as Mars Science Lab, Pluto New Horizons and Mars InSight, and critical missions for the Department of Defense including Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) and Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS).


ViaSat-3 Americas Falcon Heavy launch thread

[soltasto]

According to statements by SpaceX's COO and ArianeSpace's CEO neither company bid on this launch.

Source, PBdeS: https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1039537710434840576

[russianhalo117]

According to statements by SpaceX's COO and ArianeSpace's CEO neither company bid on this launch.

Source, PBdeS: https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1039537710434840576

Let me make it clear that this launch is the first of 2 ViaSat-3 EMEA satellites with still present options for further ViaSat-3 EMEA and ViaSat-3 APAC satellites.

Original full sized constellation coverage plan including expansion options before EUTELSAT backed out was:
ViaSat-3 EMEA-1 (Europe and Middle East)
ViaSat-3 EMEA-2 (Atlantic)
ViaSat-3 EMEA-3 (Central)
ViaSat-3 EMEA-4 (Pacific)
ViaSat-3 APAC-1 (West)
ViaSat-3 APAC-2 (Central)
ViaSat-3 APAC-3 (East)

Current initial coverage plan post EUTELSAT:
ViaSat-3 EMEA-1 (Europe and Middle East)
ViaSat-3 EMEA-2 (Central (Americas))
ViaSat-3 APAC (Central (Pan Asia))

[gongora]

According to statements by SpaceX's COO and ArianeSpace's CEO neither company bid on this launch.

Source, PBdeS: https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1039537710434840576

let me make it clear that this launch is the first of 2 ViaSat-3 EMEA satellites with options for further ViaSat-3 EMEA and ViaSat-3 Asia satellites.
Original full sized constellation coverage plan including expansion options before EUTELSAT backed out was:
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Europe and Middle East)
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Atlantic)
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Central)
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Pacific)
ViaSat-3 Asia (West)
ViaSat-3 Asia (Central)
ViaSat-3 Asia (East)

Current initial coverage plan post EUTELSAT:
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Europe and Middle East)
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Central)
ViaSat-3 Asia (East)

I don't think that is correct?  The first two are supposed to be for the Americas and for EMEA, with a later one for Asia.  Considering the problems ViaSat has had even trying to arrange the first 3 I would have to think that expanded plan was very speculative and not all that serious.

[russianhalo117]

According to statements by SpaceX's COO and ArianeSpace's CEO neither company bid on this launch.

Source, PBdeS: https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1039537710434840576

let me make it clear that this launch is the first of 2 ViaSat-3 EMEA satellites with options for further ViaSat-3 EMEA and ViaSat-3 Asia satellites.
Original full sized constellation coverage plan including expansion options before EUTELSAT backed out was:
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Europe and Middle East)
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Atlantic)
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Central)
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Pacific)
ViaSat-3 Asia (West)
ViaSat-3 Asia (Central)
ViaSat-3 Asia (East)

Current initial coverage plan post EUTELSAT:
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Europe and Middle East)
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Central)
ViaSat-3 Asia (East)

I don't think that is correct?  The first two are supposed to be for the Americas and for EMEA, with a later one for Asia.  Considering the problems ViaSat has had even trying to arrange the first 3 I would have to think that expanded plan was very speculative and not all that serious.

There are still contract options to build the rest of the satellites. The bottom list is what is currently procured. The plan changed quickly after EUTELSAT backed out and joint funding for the 4 ViaSat-3 EMEA sats went away.

[gongora]

According to statements by SpaceX's COO and ArianeSpace's CEO neither company bid on this launch.

Source, PBdeS: https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1039537710434840576

let me make it clear that this launch is the first of 2 ViaSat-3 EMEA satellites with options for further ViaSat-3 EMEA and ViaSat-3 Asia satellites.
Original full sized constellation coverage plan including expansion options before EUTELSAT backed out was:
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Europe and Middle East)
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Atlantic)
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Central)
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Pacific)
ViaSat-3 Asia (West)
ViaSat-3 Asia (Central)
ViaSat-3 Asia (East)

Current initial coverage plan post EUTELSAT:
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Europe and Middle East)
ViaSat-3 EMEA (Central)
ViaSat-3 Asia (East)

I don't think that is correct?  The first two are supposed to be for the Americas and for EMEA, with a later one for Asia.  Considering the problems ViaSat has had even trying to arrange the first 3 I would have to think that expanded plan was very speculative and not all that serious.

There are still contract options to build the rest of the satellites. The bottom list is what is currently procured:

They didn't procure two satellites for EMEA and they haven't procured the third satellite yet.

[Brovane]

The 551 configuration provides the performance to deliver a ViaSat-3 satellite into a high-energy geostationary transfer orbit where it can begin on-orbit operations faster than with other available launch vehicles.

ViaSat must really want that bird into operation faster considering they are willing to pay the extra money for a 551 configuration.   

[gongora]

The 551 configuration provides the performance to deliver a ViaSat-3 satellite into a high-energy geostationary transfer orbit where it can begin on-orbit operations faster than with other available launch vehicles.

ViaSat must really want that bird into operation faster considering they are willing to pay the extra money for a 551 configuration.

It's a really big electric propulsion sat (if previous reports are still correct it will be bigger than SES-12).  ViaSat's current birds generate higher revenue than a typical GEO comsat.  Shaving a few months off of the orbit raising time might make up for the difference in launch costs.  Considering the new version of FH hasn't flown yet and may only have a few flights before ViaSat-3 starts launching it's not an unreasonable decision.

[Steven Pietrobon]

According to statements by SpaceX's COO and ArianeSpace's CEO neither company bid on this launch.

The next question I have is why didn't they bid? Was the required orbit too high for either Falcon Heavy or Ariane 5? Was the required timeline too short?

[russianhalo117]

According to statements by SpaceX's COO and ArianeSpace's CEO neither company bid on this launch.

The next question I have is why didn't they bid? Was the required orbit too high for either Falcon Heavy or Ariane 5? Was the required timeline too short?

Other factors as before EUTELSAT dropped out to create its own new fleet of HTS and VHTS sats Ariane-5ECA was the launcher of choice due to domestic cost advantage.

[woods170]

According to statements by SpaceX's COO and ArianeSpace's CEO neither company bid on this launch.

The next question I have is why didn't they bid? Was the required orbit too high for either Falcon Heavy or Ariane 5? Was the required timeline too short?

Other factors as before EUTELSAT dropped out to create its own new fleet of HTS and VHTS sats Ariane-5ECA was the launcher of choice due to domestic cost advantage.

Like Gwynne suggested: ask Viasat why Arianespace and SpaceX didn't bother to bid.

Speculation: Something about the Viasat-3 RFP must have been either really unattractive or impossible to do for Arianespace and SpaceX.

[Semmel]

According to statements by SpaceX's COO and ArianeSpace's CEO neither company bid on this launch.

The next question I have is why didn't they bid? Was the required orbit too high for either Falcon Heavy or Ariane 5? Was the required timeline too short?

Other factors as before EUTELSAT dropped out to create its own new fleet of HTS and VHTS sats Ariane-5ECA was the launcher of choice due to domestic cost advantage.

Like Gwynne suggested: ask Viasat why Arianespace and SpaceX didn't bother to bid.

Speculation: Something about the Viasat-3 RFP must have been either really unattractive or impossible to do for Arianespace and SpaceX.

Yeah, and we will not know what that is. There are too many options, just to speculate about a few: Maybe it does not fit into the F9 fairing and is too large for dual launch in an Ariane. Single launch with Ariane could be too expensive. Or maybe it has vibration requirements that both launchers cannot meet. Or it wants direct GEO insertion which requires expendable core FH or single launch with Ariane. Who knows? The range of possibilities is too large to determine the reason.

[soltasto]

According to statements by SpaceX's COO and ArianeSpace's CEO neither company bid on this launch.

The next question I have is why didn't they bid? Was the required orbit too high for either Falcon Heavy or Ariane 5? Was the required timeline too short?

Other factors as before EUTELSAT dropped out to create its own new fleet of HTS and VHTS sats Ariane-5ECA was the launcher of choice due to domestic cost advantage.

Like Gwynne suggested: ask Viasat why Arianespace and SpaceX didn't bother to bid.

Speculation: Something about the Viasat-3 RFP must have been either really unattractive or impossible to do for Arianespace and SpaceX.

Yeah, and we will not know what that is. There are too many options, just to speculate about a few: Maybe it does not fit into the F9 fairing and is too large for dual launch in an Ariane. Single launch with Ariane could be too expensive. Or maybe it has vibration requirements that both launchers cannot meet. Or it wants direct GEO insertion which requires expendable core FH or single launch with Ariane. Who knows? The range of possibilities is too large to determine the reason.

Or maybe they just weren't allowed to bid or were asked to not bid. My guess is that ViaSat wants every launch on a different launch vehicle, for some reason. It was said that 3 companies competed for this launch, so if SpaceX and ArianeSpace didn't bid, the possible remaining companies are ULA with Atlas V, ILS with Proton and Angara, and either Blue Origin with the New Glenn or MHI with the H3. China is also a possibility.

[russianhalo117]

They didn't procure two satellites for EMEA and they haven't procured the third satellite yet.

This contradicts your statement:

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/viasat-3.htm

...
The new first of the news spacecraft for the american market is scheduled to launch in late 2019 or early 2020 and is expected to provide more than 15 years of service life. The second satellite for EMEA will follow soon after. The asian satellite is not yet ordered. The first two busses were were firmly contracted with Boeing in July 2016 for ViaSat 3 Americas and ViaSat 3 EMEA.

ViaSat 3 EMEA was originally to be procured jointly with Eutelsat, but in May 2018, Eutelsat dropped out of the joint venture.
...

[gongora]

They didn't procure two satellites for EMEA and they haven't procured the third satellite yet.

This contradicts your statement:

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/viasat-3.htm

...
The new first of the news spacecraft for the american market is scheduled to launch in late 2019 or early 2020 and is expected to provide more than 15 years of service life. The second satellite for EMEA will follow soon after. The asian satellite is not yet ordered. The first two busses were were firmly contracted with Boeing in July 2016 for ViaSat 3 Americas and ViaSat 3 EMEA.

ViaSat 3 EMEA was originally to be procured jointly with Eutelsat, but in May 2018, Eutelsat dropped out of the joint venture.
...

That doesn't contradict what I said at all.  They're currently building one satellite for the Americas and one for EMEA, with the third satellite bus to be procured soon.

[ccdengr]

Or maybe they just weren't allowed to bid or were asked to not bid.

Maybe the fact that Viasat had to switch from FH to Ariane for Viasat-2 after the FH schedule slipped contributed.  https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/02/15/viasat-trades-in-falcon-heavy-launch-for-ariane-5/

[LouScheffer]

The 551 configuration provides the performance to deliver a ViaSat-3 satellite into a high-energy geostationary transfer orbit where it can begin on-orbit operations faster than with other available launch vehicles.

ViaSat must really want that bird into operation faster considering they are willing to pay the extra money for a 551 configuration.   

The military did this as well.  They used a 551 to put MUOS-5  (a similar size satellite) into a 3790 km x 35706 km x 19.1^o GTO, needing only about 1410 m/s to GEO.

[gongora]

Tweet from PBdeS:

.@ViasatInc on choice of @ulalaunch Atlas 5 w/o soliciting bids from @Arianespace or @Spacex: 'Viasat doesn't follow traditional procurement practices. We've engaged in discussions w/ multiple launch providers for the ViaSat-3 constellation, including SpaceX and Arianespace.'

[Brovane]

The 551 configuration provides the performance to deliver a ViaSat-3 satellite into a high-energy geostationary transfer orbit where it can begin on-orbit operations faster than with other available launch vehicles.

ViaSat must really want that bird into operation faster considering they are willing to pay the extra money for a 551 configuration.   

The military did this as well.  They used a 551 to put MUOS-5  (a similar size satellite) into a 3790 km x 35706 km x 19.1^o GTO, needing only about 1410 m/s to GEO.

Usually the US military is less price sensitive than private commercial companies.

I am not a expert, but is it usual process for Private companies to want to pay extra for super-sync GTO insertions for launches?   

[ncb1397]

Playing with ULA's rocket builder page, an Atlas 551 with the 5 meter longest fairing can put 8856 kg into a GTO with a 1800 m/s deficit. Assuming that the launch services page on SpaceX is the same 1800 m/s deficit GTO, a $95 million Falcon Heavy can put 8000 kg into the same orbit[1]. This satellite could theoretically be in the 8000 kg - 8856 kg range requiring a launch service greater and more expensive than the $95 million tier. These numbers might have an inflation adjustment as they are a few years old for a 2020 launch. NASA also recently purchased a Atlas V 541 for 2020 at a launch cost of $243 million[2]. Now, SpaceX and presumeably others charge somewhat of a premium for government contracted launches and that number includes some additional things not related to ULA costs or comsat costs like planetary protection and nuclear handling. On the other side, we are talking about adding an additional solid and potentially a longer fairing as well. For the sake of argument, let's say that Viasat was able to secure this launch for a cool $200 million. Now, ULA advertises an average industry launch insurance cost savings of $12 million dollars for an Atlas because of a superior reliability record to Arianespace/SpaceX/ILS and these would be on the more expensive side in terms of launch insurance (each satellite is projected to cost $600 million to build/insure/deploy). So, the difference in cost is likely to be less than $100 million and somewhat less likely to be significantly less than $100 million (say $75 million).

Now each Viasat has about 1 terabit of network capacity. Viasat also has various plans but their basic plan is up to 12 mbps that throttles at 40 GB per month for $50-$70 per month. Assuming some deflation, let's say this service level goes for $30/month during Viasat 3's introductory service period. 1 terabit/s of network capacity translates to a theoretical throughput limit of 324,000,000 GB per month or a theoretical limit of servicing the full non throttled capacity of 8.1 million basic subscribers. If the actual throughput per subscriber is double the throttled-free limit, it would be more like 4 million subscribers. 8.1 million subscribers is $243 million dollars per month in revenue and 4 million subscribers is ~120 million dollars per month in revenue. This probably represents the upper bound in cost/GB as it is the cheapest plan and therefore the upper bound in revenue. Viasat also has a $100-$150 plan for up to 50 mbps. Assuming this goes for $60 in the future and every customer uses all their capacity all the time, you could service 200,000 of these customers or monthly revenue of $12 million(this would be the absolute worst case scenario assuming the cost figure is correct). I think it likely that the additonal launch costs could be justified on the basis of just a few months of earlier service. And that isn't even counting the 1/30 possibility of losing the satellite and 1/3 of the revenue potential in the $2 billion dollar Viasat 3 constellation effort on something like a Falcon Heavy. By the time you could replace it, Viasat 3 might already be going obsolete. Not to mention it could potentially decimate their customer base that may or may not be recoverable.

[1] https://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
[2] https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-launch-services-contract-for-mars-2020-rover-mission