Sea Launch files for Chapter 11 protection

[hektor]

The title says it all

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSBNG17593820090623

[mr.columbus]

Cites liquidity concerns, recurring losses from operations

Seems to be the credit crunch pared with their last failure on pad in 2007 and the fact that they only do 3-4 launches maximum per year.

SpaceX beware, that's the sort of thing that can happen to you if the next 2-3 years work out the same as the last 2-3 years.

[Captain Scarlet]

The title says it all

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSBNG17593820090623

It does if you know what a Chapter 11 is??

[hektor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11,_Title_11,_United_States_Code

When a business is unable to service its debt or pay its creditors, the business or its creditors can file with a federal bankruptcy court for protection under either Chapter 7 or Chapter 11.

In Chapter 7 the business ceases operations, a trustee sells all of its assets, and then distributes the proceeds to its creditors. Any residual amount is returned to the owners of the company. In Chapter 11, in most instances the debtor remains in control of its business operations as a debtor in possession, and is subject to the oversight and jurisdiction of the court.

[Chris Bergin]

The title says it all

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSBNG17593820090623

It does if you know what a Chapter 11 is??

Into administration. Not good.

[HIPAR]

I's a neat idea to sail a rocket down to the equator .. that makes technical sense.  I always questioned the viability of the Sea Launch concept from a business viewpoint. There's just too much overhead operating those complex ships.  When all is said and done, What real advantage do they provide over, say, Arianespace?

---  CHAS

[Herb Schaltegger]

There's just too much overhead operating those complex ships.  When all is said and done, What real advantage do they provide over, say, Arianespace?

---  CHAS

There's less overhead operating two ships and supporting a couple dozen crew members than there is supporting a major launch facility in the middle of a jungle.  The problem is the flight rate - it's just not high enough to justify the investment, especially in light of the competition.  If Sea-Launch had the backlog to support two missions per sortie (I believe the launch platform can store two Zenit boosters) things would probably make more financial sense.

[NUAETIUS]

Are the operating costs of launch from the Sealaunch platform higher than launch from a typical launch complex? 

Considering Tesla is wanting to try to get an old GM plant cheap after their bankruptcy, I wonder if SpaceX will now try to get Sealaunch's launch platform (joke).

[mmeijeri]

It's sad news, but this is how plausible concepts that do not work out get scrapped. If this had been a federal project, politicians would have been all over it to 'preserve US leadership in space'.

[bobthemonkey]

The title says it all

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSBNG17593820090623

It does if you know what a Chapter 11 is??

Into administration. Not good.

It's somewhat better than administration in the UK in terms of preserving the company as a going concern. Ch.11 is more of a tool for business rescue than creditor protection, the balance is going the other way in the UK. 

Airlines were operating under Ch.11 protection for a long time after 9/11. This does not necessarily mean the end for Sea Launch.

[Bill White]

An interesting bit from the article:

The case In re Sea Launch Co LLC et al, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware. No. 09-12153. (Reporting by Ajay Kamalakaran in Bangalore; Editing by Saeed Azhar)

Even journalism is now being outsourced to the Sub-Continent!

[sammie]

Shame, hope they restructurise and get their act together. The rats (well, sats) have been jumping the ship lately, lost two contracts to ILS. And they got a major refurbishment of the launch platform coming up.

I think itīs just rather hard for non government backed launch provider to survive. Sea Launch will rarely get hand-out government launches. And having a government behind you is beneficial in other ways as well, O3B switched to Soyuz from Kourou so they could secure French loans, not because they were cheaper.

I donīt think they can actually launch multiple Zenits per sortie, due to instability and movement of the two platforms at sea, a sea transfer was deemed impossible for now.

[William Graham]

Will this affect the launch they currently have scheduled for October?

[Jim]

1.  Sea Launch will rarely get hand-out government launches.

2.  I donīt think they can actually launch multiple Zenits per sortie, due to instability and movement of the two platforms at sea, a sea transfer was deemed impossible for now.

1.  It will get none.  It isn't always

2.  Incorrect.   The system was designed for sea transfer.  The launch platform can carry one vehicle and the command ship can carry 3.

[sammie]

So far no sea transfer has taken place, all of them take place while docked in the harbour. I guess in the beginning because of shortages of Zenit launchers or not enough demand. But I also seem to remember that although the design called for Sea transfers, none have ever taken place because of practical problems as well. Maybe McDew, a former employee, can shed some more light into it.

[Blackstar]

Seems to be the credit crunch pared with their last failure on pad in 2007 and the fact that they only do 3-4 launches maximum per year.

SpaceX beware, that's the sort of thing that can happen to you if the next 2-3 years work out the same as the last 2-3 years.

There was a comsat conference a few months ago (might have been the Space 2009 conference that always takes place in Washington, DC) and someone there commented that they had helped another launch company stay afloat.  Cannot remember if it was a comsat company or another launch provider that gave the unnamed company a loan.  However, it was pretty clear that the company that received the money was SeaLaunch.

You touch on the bigger issue here: too many launch providers chasing too little market.  Overcapacity.

Now the US is currently in the process of adding several more launch vehicles: Taurus II, Falcon 9, and Ares I.  Ares I is not affected by market forces.  But what happens when Taurus II and Falcon 9 come online and are chasing tiny slices of a small pie?

[edkyle99]

... what happens when Taurus II and Falcon 9 come online and are chasing tiny slices of a small pie?

Taurus II and Falcon 9 aren't playing the same game.  Neither can haul the Zenit 3SL payload. 

The way I see it, no U.S. launch provider survives unless the Primary Customer (the U.S. Government) wants it to survive. 

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

I wonder how Land Launch fits into this picture.  The Reuters story says that Sea Launch "intends to explore the sale of one or more of its divisions".  It isn't entirely clear to me whether Sea Launch has an ownership stake in Land Launch, but surely it must. 

On the other hand, who is to say that Land Launch isn't more viable than Sea Launch?

The root cause of Sea Launch's troubles may be the collapse of the former Hughes Satellite business, which was the primary initial Sea Launch customer.  I hate to say it, but how many thriving businesses has Boeing turned to dust (including, based on today's headlines about 787, its own)?

 - Ed Kyle

[JimO]

[quote author=Herb Schaltegger
There's less overhead operating two ships and supporting a couple dozen crew members than there is supporting a major launch facility in the middle of a jungle.  The problem is the flight rate - it's just not high enough to justify the investment, especially in light of the competition.  If Sea-Launch had the backlog to support two missions per sortie (I believe the launch platform can store two Zenit boosters) things would probably make more financial sense.
[/quote]

Herb, my inside info is that the ships proved incapable of maintaining a  secure at-sea docking that allowed a safe ship-to-ship rocket transfer. They had to load the one vehicle on the platform in harbor and could not reload.

Anyone else hear anything like that?

[Jim]

The ships never dock while transferring the vehicle, the ship were to use DPS and the crane would handle the waves.