Delta 331, the GPS 2R-18 mission, closed out the orbital launch year for the United States. The flight was the 8th and final Delta 2 launch of the year and the 19th and final U.S. orbital launch attempt of 2007, one more than during 2006. Only 17 of the 19 U.S. launches were complete successes. Cape Canaveral hosted 10 launches, half of which were Delta 2 flights. KSC handled three shuttle human space launches. Vandenberg AFB performed four launches, including three by Delta 2 vehicles. 2007 U.S. Launches by Vehicle (Launches(Failures))Delta 2 8(0)Atlas 5 4(1)STS 3(0)Delta 4 1(0)Minotaur 1 1(0)Pegasus XL 1(0)Falcon 1 1(1)2007 U.S. Launches by SiteCape Canaveral, Florida 10(1) Vandenberg AFB, California 4(0)Kennedy Space Center, Florida 3(0)Wallops Island, VA 1(0) Kwajalein, RMI 1(1) 2007 U.S. Launches by Launch ProviderUnited Launch Alliance 13(1)United Space Alliance/STS 3(0)Orbital Sciences 2(0)SpaceX 1(1)
BTW, United Launch Alliance fell well short of its plans for the year. One year ago the consortium announced that it expected to perform 21 launches during the year, including 12 Delta 2, 6 Atlas 5, and 3 Delta 4 missions! Now ULA says that it expects to perform 23 launches in 2008.
- Ed Kyle
zappafrank - 20/12/2007 12:02 AMWhat about SeaLaunch?They are an an American company but with Ukranian rockets, that should count in the totals.
Analyst - 21/12/2007 7:34 AMNice overview, Ed. Wonder what happens to the numbers when Delta II isn't flying anymore.Analyst
GW_Simulations - 21/12/2007 7:18 AMQuoteAnalyst - 21/12/2007 7:34 AMNice overview, Ed. Wonder what happens to the numbers when Delta II isn't flying anymore.AnalystEELV launch rates will probably shoot up.
edkyle99 - 20/12/2007 9:44 PMBTW, United Launch Alliance fell well short of its plans for the year. One year ago the consortium announced that it expected to perform 21 launches during the year, including 12 Delta 2, 6 Atlas 5, and 3 Delta 4 missions!
Lee Jay - 21/12/2007 2:12 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 20/12/2007 9:44 PMBTW, United Launch Alliance fell well short of its plans for the year. One year ago the consortium announced that it expected to perform 21 launches during the year, including 12 Delta 2, 6 Atlas 5, and 3 Delta 4 missions!What are the reasons for the discrepancy between planned and executed launches?
Jim - 21/12/2007 12:59 PMNope, the EELV costs will limit the number of new projects as well as Constellation costs
Analyst - 21/12/2007 1:34 AMNice overview, Ed. Wonder what happens to the numbers when Delta II isn't flying anymore.Analyst
edkyle99 - 20/12/2007 9:44 PMBTW, United Launch Alliance fell well short of its plans for the year. One year ago the consortium announced that it expected to perform 21 launches during the year, including 12 Delta 2, 6 Atlas 5, and 3 Delta 4 missions! Now ULA says that it expects to perform 23 launches in 2008.
GW_Simulations - 21/12/2007 7:53 AMDamage to LC-37B ruined the Delta IV's year. The January Zenit failure resulted in delays to Atlas, due to similar engines used on the two vehicles. Atlas' year was then completely wrecked by its own failure in June. The delays to the Delta IIs were mostly spacecraft related (I think).
WHAP - 22/12/2007 3:09 AMQuoteedkyle99 - 20/12/2007 9:44 PM...ULA says that it expects to perform 23 launches in 2008....Next year will probably be more of the same. I think there are 6 Atlas V and 3 Delta IV - even with 3 launch pads, that's a lot of Delta II's to make up the rest...
edkyle99 - 20/12/2007 9:44 PM...ULA says that it expects to perform 23 launches in 2008.
GW_Simulations - 22/12/2007 1:59 AMULA launch schedule for 2008 (taken from the US Launch Schedule thread):Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (GMT)...1 December - SDO - Atlas V 401 - Canaveral...
WHAP - 22/12/2007 2:52 PMQuoteGW_Simulations - 22/12/2007 1:59 AMULA launch schedule for 2008 (taken from the US Launch Schedule thread):Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (GMT)...1 December - SDO - Atlas V 401 - Canaveral...I believe SDO has already moved into 2009, so that makes only 18. The others all look reasonable, but anything more than a few months out has some schedule risk.
Frediiiie - 30/12/2007 8:09 PMThe state of US space program is more clear when you break own launches by commercial vs government.shuttle 3 govt flightsAtlas 5 4 govt flightsDelta 4H 1 govt flightDelta 2 5 govt flights 3 commercial flightsPegasus 1 govtMinotaur 1 govtFalcon 1 failedSea launch (if you want to count it) 1 failedThat's a total commercial launch manifest of 3.The difference between growth and bumping along the bottom is commercial launches.ESA made much of the fact that through 2007 Ariane captured 80% of the commercial launch market.Ultimately it comes down to one thing.Costs
Frediiiie - 31/12/2007 2:09 AMshuttle 3 govt flightsAtlas 5 4 govt flightsDelta 4H 1 govt flightDelta 2 5 govt flights 3 commercial flightsPegasus 1 govtMinotaur 1 govtFalcon 1 failedSea launch (if you want to count it) 1 failedThat's a total commercial launch manifest of 3.
GW_Simulations - 31/12/2007 11:27 AMShuttle, Delta IV and Minotaur are not available to commercial customers. Failures caused commercial launches scheduled for Atlas V, Falcon 1 and Sea Launch to be delayed. Pegasus has always had a low launch rate, and payload issues affected the Delta II.
edkyle99 - 31/12/2007 4:39 AMQuoteFrediiiie - 30/12/2007 8:09 PMThe state of US space program is more clear when you break own launches by commercial vs government.shuttle 3 govt flightsAtlas 5 4 govt flightsDelta 4H 1 govt flightDelta 2 5 govt flights 3 commercial flightsPegasus 1 govtMinotaur 1 govtFalcon 1 failedSea launch (if you want to count it) 1 failedThat's a total commercial launch manifest of 3.The difference between growth and bumping along the bottom is commercial launches.ESA made much of the fact that through 2007 Ariane captured 80% of the commercial launch market.Ultimately it comes down to one thing.CostsI would suggest that it comes down to more than one thing. Costs, yes, but also government subsidies for the commercial launches that help determine the prices paid for launch by both civil and commercial satellite owners. And the varying relative value of currencies and wages and health care and retirement and worker safety programs, etc., since the commercial market is international.
And national policy decisions that force costs up, exemplified by the strange decision to keep and fund two EELV programs when the market should only bear one
- and the equally strange decision to develop an unnecessary third national launch system for human missions when two EELV programs already exist that could do the job
- or the odd decision made by the U.S. Government to cease production of its most successful and cost-effective launch vehicle, Delta II - the one that performed the only U.S. commercial launches in 2007.
And brute force international politics. For example, political decisions have kept U.S.-built comsats off of China's launch vehicles for years now. The world launch scene would look much different today otherwise.In the end, orbital space flight largely remains under government control. Government budgets determine how many launches there will be - even of commercial satellites. Budgets are determined by national defense needs and by a desire to enhance national prestige. - Ed Kyle
Frediiiie - 30/12/2007 12:02 AMA lot of what you say is true.National governments do set a lot of the ground rules.But commercial launches owe allegiance to no one and will go (generally) with the lowest price.The inability of US launchers to attract commercial customers has got to be worrying.What is being done about it?I don't mean COTS. As people are fond of pointing out here SpaceX is at best a long shot.It's the majors who are bleeding here. Ariane 5 had 6 launches at $211M eachAll commercial.As ESA said they have 80% of the c ommercial market.(figures from http://www.astronautix.com/articles/costhing.htm)that's a lot of bucks ULA is not getting.What are their plans to get some of this in future, or don't they care?
edkyle99 - 31/12/2007 3:24 PMEurodollars
JIS - 31/12/2007 10:14 AMQuoteAnd national policy decisions that force costs up, exemplified by the strange decision to keep and fund two EELV programs when the market should only bear oneThis looks as a standard DoD policy - see F-35 engines or refueling tankers.
JIS - 31/12/2007 9:48 AMQuoteedkyle99 - 31/12/2007 3:24 PMEurodollars I wasn't aware of this currency.
Antares - 31/12/2007 7:54 PMIf someone came along and wanted to launch on them, they certainly would not be turned away.
JIS - 31/12/2007 9:14 AMQuoteedkyle99 - 31/12/2007 4:39 AMIn the end, orbital space flight largely remains under government control. Government budgets determine how many launches there will be - even of commercial satellites. Budgets are determined by national defense needs and by a desire to enhance national prestige. - Ed KyleIt's not about national prestige. American commsats don't fly american rockets because they can get better deal somewhere else.
edkyle99 - 31/12/2007 4:39 AMIn the end, orbital space flight largely remains under government control. Government budgets determine how many launches there will be - even of commercial satellites. Budgets are determined by national defense needs and by a desire to enhance national prestige. - Ed Kyle
edkyle99 - 31/12/2007 7:56 PM broadcast across the planet, are proudly spoken in French. Some of those American comsats might not come back to fly on EELVs even if the dollar fell enough to make it affordable, so comfortable have they become with prestigious Arianespace. - Ed Kyle
Frediiiie - 31/12/2007 8:17 PM... that's where Ariane 5's 80 percent market share becomes a damning metric.This is a real commercial outcome which shows the US launch market is loosing heaps of business to its competitors.This is real income lost.Are there any plans to turn this around??
kevin-rf - 31/12/2007 3:59 PMQuoteJIS - 31/12/2007 10:14 AMQuoteAnd national policy decisions that force costs up, exemplified by the strange decision to keep and fund two EELV programs when the market should only bear oneThis looks as a standard DoD policy - see F-35 engines or refueling tankers. .....How this applies to spaceflight I do not know... The DOD wants assured acess to space and that justifies the extra cost that they are not willing to see in the F-35 or refueling programs.
Frediiiie - 1/1/2008 1:58 AMSo it's a "good thing" that the US doesn't do commercial launches as they loose money?I was wondering what the US launchers - essentially ULA - are going to do to turn this situation around.You're saying "nothing"? Seriously?I appreciate a lot of this is an economic and marketing problem rather than strictly an engineering problem.but I was hoping that there might be something in the pipeline someone could give a hint about.Surely the inductry can't be happy to just let this issue slide.
Frediiiie - 31/12/2007 8:32 PMI should add that the whole point of ULA was to turn this around.It hasn't
JIS - 1/1/2008 2:58 AMQuotekevin-rf - 31/12/2007 3:59 PMQuoteJIS - 31/12/2007 10:14 AMQuoteAnd national policy decisions that force costs up, exemplified by the strange decision to keep and fund two EELV programs when the market should only bear oneThis looks as a standard DoD policy - see F-35 engines or refueling tankers. .....How this applies to spaceflight I do not know... The DOD wants assured acess to space and that justifies the extra cost that they are not willing to see in the F-35 or refueling programs.F-35 has two similar engines from two different producers F135 and F136.
Frediiiie - 4/1/2008 8:59 PMWhat I'm saying is that something needs to be done in the interests of keeping ANY sort of US launch industry going.What is being done?
Frediiiie - 5/1/2008 7:19 PMSpace launch is a hi tec business. Labour costs are not that critical a factor.
Frediiiie - 5/1/2008 7:19 PMThere is the non commercial NASA market where govt contractors bid for monumental projects like Ares 1 & V. (or parts thereof.)Implicit in the contracts is the assumption that the designs will be world leading and cutting edge, and it doesn't matter much if the costs blow out as the government is picking up the tab. The important thing is that the work be elegant.
Frediiiie - 5/1/2008 7:19 PMI see several ways ahead for the majors.1/ either or both of the majors could select and fund their own lean in house teams to build their own "Mac Truck" launcher to compete directly with SpaceX Sealaunch the Russians et al in the commercial market.2/ Do system wide reviews of everything to do with Atlas & Delta to find ways to reduce costs, and improve the programs to the point where they can compete.
Jim - 6/1/2008 1:39 AMQuoteFrediiiie - 5/1/2008 7:19 PMI see several ways ahead for the majors.1/ either or both of the majors could select and fund their own lean in house teams to build their own "Mac Truck" launcher to compete directly with SpaceX Sealaunch the Russians et al in the commercial market.2/ Do system wide reviews of everything to do with Atlas & Delta to find ways to reduce costs, and improve the programs to the point where they can compete.1. They already exist. They are the EELV's2. US wages and unions drive up the labor costs. So does the mission assurance requirements of the main customer, the US gov't. Since the US Gov't self insures, it has the contractors do extra work.
edkyle99 - 4/1/2008 11:15 PMThe U.S. Government is planning on spending $31.8 billion for 137 EELV launches by 2020, an average of $232.12 million per launch. That's a lot of subsidy propping up ULA. - Ed Kyle
WHAP - 6/1/2008 10:56 AM If anyone has insight into the value of Aerospace's contracts relative to EELV, I'd love to see it, but I was not successful with a quick Google search.
quark - 5/1/2008 11:12 PMFor example, Proton is made by Energia.Proton isnīt made by Energia, but it is made by Khrunichev.
quark - 5/1/2008 11:12 PMEveryone on this thread is completely missing the boat. The international "market" for satellite launch is very far from a free market in the Freidman sense. ...For example, Proton is made by Energia, a GOR owned entity. I doubt anyone (even in Russia) knows what the total unit cost is (including development, fixed and marginal). They simply price it so as to keep the manifest full and cash coming in. Profit has no meaning.
Ariane is in a similar state although slightly closer to a capitalist model. It has all development and fixed cost completely covered, but it is not really required to be profitable. For most of its existence, the majority owner was the french government although I believe that has recently changed.
On the other hand, the US systems are owned by private corporations which are required (by shareholders) to deliver reasonable returns. Therefore selling at a loss is not really an option. Right now, since price will always favor those who don't don't have to cover costs, the only way US vehicles get commercial launches is based on technical superiority (reliability). Both DII and Atlas V can command a reliability premium in the marketplace.
If the US wants domestic launchers to gain market share there are 2 options:1) cover US companies for losses so they can price-to-win. This is the approach used by Ariane and Proton2) Pressure the rest of the world to privatize their launch businessesIn the meantime, we can have the GOR and ESA subsidize the launching of the world's satellites.
2) What if SpaceX actually get's their act together?3) Space launch is a hi tec business. Labour costs are not that critical a factor.4) does the industry want to compete or not.5) when you're one of only two people in the market and there's a good chance the govt might tap one of you and say "You're out of the game",6) so labour costs are only a problem if you've got 10 people trying to do a job that can be done by one.I've changed my mind. Perhaps labour costs are a problem.7) Why should Boeing or LM work to lower costs? All that would do would be to reduce their government subside (horror) A business chooses to change their management and starts pushing for efficiencies and cost reductions.9) Government could force competition.
Jim - 6/1/2008 10:56 AMQuoteWHAP - 6/1/2008 10:56 AM If anyone has insight into the value of Aerospace's contracts relative to EELV, I'd love to see it, but I was not successful with a quick Google search.Aerospace has only one contract with SMC. It cover GSE&I for USAF space systems and not just EELV.
Frediiiie - 6/1/2008 10:33 PMClose 1 launch centre.Close 3 pads.and that's a good start.The question is, does the industry want to compete or not.
Frediiiie - 6/1/2008 10:33 PM1. Well done Jim,I'm sure the alt space community will be pleased to know that low tech launch vehicles are possible. I think what you meant was relatively low tech.And sure, that was the original Ares concept. Didn't last long, though, did it?2. Dump one EELVClose 1 launch centre.Close 3 pads.and that's a good start.The question is, does the industry want to compete or not.