Sea Launch files for Chapter 11 protection

[mmeijeri]

This is just the impression I have, but I believe the idea is that ESA buys a block of Arianes before they know what they will do with it.

[pippin]

This is just the impression I have, but I believe the idea is that ESA buys a block of Arianes before they know what they will do with it.

So who's buying them? ESA or Arianespace? That's the question. If Arianespace is doing the block deal, it's not a subsidy unless it's being guaranteed by some gov backed organization. If ESA is doing it, that's something else.

[mmeijeri]

Good question and I'm not sure. I believe Arianespace places block buys with EADS and I suspect it is backed somehow by ESA, or it couldn't be part of official policy. The ownership structure of EADS and Arianespace, the organisational structure of ESA, its relationships with the national space agencies and the contractual relationships between all these entities are very complicated and confusing.

[mr.columbus]

Good question and I'm not sure. I believe Arianespace places block buys with EADS and I suspect it is backed somehow by ESA, or it couldn't be part of official policy. The ownership structure of EADS and Arianespace, the organisational structure of ESA, its relationships with the national space agencies and the contractual relationships between all these entities are very complicated and confusing.

Actually, not that confusing.

Arianespace, not ESA, is buying Arianes from the manufacturers en block (and doesn't pay upfront). Arianespace is however owned by the manufacturers themselves (Astrium (both the German and the French part...), Thales Alenia, MT Aerospace etc. - in total 23) and CNES which has a 33% share because it operates the launch platforms.

Arianespace doesn't actually operate to make a lot of profits (they make low single digit million EUR profits per year with revenues of about a billion EUR). The profits for Arianespace's shareholders are in getting paid for the parts of Ariane they manufacture. The price paid by Arianespace is tailored in such a way that the company is nearly balanced out.

All that being said, Arianespace is backed by ESA from an organizational and political viewpoint, not so much from a financial direct point (except if things go wrong - 2002 Ariane 5 ECA failure etc. and it paid for the development costs). CNES is subsidizing Arianespace by providing the launch facilities at Kourou to them.

[mmeijeri]

Actually, not that confusing.

Lol, I think that's pretty confusing.

ESA buys Arianes from Arianespace, which buys them from EADS. Arianespace launches from CSG in Kourou which is managed by CNES, which is the French space agency, France being a member state of ESA. ESA also pays part of the costs of maintaining and operating CSG. CNES and EADS are also major shareholders of Arianespace. EADS indirectly (through SOGEADE) has the French state as a major shareholder.

[mr.columbus]

Actually, not that confusing.

Lol, I think that's pretty confusing.

ESA buys Arianes from Arianespace, which buys them from EADS. Arianespace launches from CSG in Kourou which is managed by CNES, which is the French space agency, France being a member state of ESA. ESA also pays part of the costs of maintaining and operating CSG. CNES and EADS are also major shareholders of Arianespace. EADS indirectly (through SOGEADE) has the French state as a major shareholder.

Well, ok, sort of confusing.

Some corrections:

1. Arianespace buys Arianes from its suppliers (which is a consortium of 23 companies) with EADS subsidiaries being in the lead.
2. Customers pay Arianespace for launches.
3. ESA is a customer like anyone else (ok, not like anyone else, they get priority for their payloads like Herschel and Plank...)
4. Arianespace launches from Kourou.
5. Kourou is managed by CNES (and partly paid for by CNES - 1/3rd).
6. CNES is the French space agency, France is a member of ESA, but CNES has its own national space budget which is larger than France's contribution to ESA - which by itself is the largest among all ESA memberstates.
7. Yes, ESA pays parts of the Kourou annual operational costs (2/3rds).
8. CNES is a shareholder of Arianespace, ESA is not a shareholder (here are the 24 shareholders: http://www.arianespace.com/about-us-corporate-information/shareholders.asp the big ones are EADS (through AStrium etc.) and CNES)
9. EADS N.V. has a 50% free float (publicly held),  and is otherwise held by Daimler, SEPI and SOGEADE. SOGEADE has a 22.5% share in EADS is 50% owned by the French state making the French state a 11% shareholder in EADS and thus indirectly a 11% shareholder in the biggest contractor and shareholder of Arianespace (EADS indirectly holds about 40% of Arianespace).

[pippin]

Actually, not that confusing.

Lol, I think that's pretty confusing.

ESA buys Arianes from Arianespace, which buys them from EADS. Arianespace launches from CSG in Kourou which is managed by CNES, which is the French space agency, France being a member state of ESA. ESA also pays part of the costs of maintaining and operating CSG. CNES and EADS are also major shareholders of Arianespace. EADS indirectly (through SOGEADE) has the French state as a major shareholder.

What's confusing about that?
NASA buys Atlas 5's (OK launch service, but that's the same for ESA) from ULA which buys them from LM. ULA launches from CCAFS, which is operated by the Air Force, which is a US Agency. The US Air Force also pays for the cost of maintaining and operating the launch infrastructure. OK, LM does not have Florida as a shareholder.
Sounds pretty similar, doesn't it?

[SIM city]

All that being said, Arianespace is backed by ESA from an organizational and political viewpoint, not so much from a financial direct point (except if things go wrong - 2002 Ariane 5 ECA failure etc. and it paid for the development costs). CNES is subsidizing Arianespace by providing the launch facilities at Kourou to them.

Au contraire!  Arianespace's "revenue" is made up mostly of ESA funding through development programs, straight subsidies (EGAS), etc.  The revenue from the commercial business makes up less than 500M euro per year.  The purchase of vehicles from EADS is partially subsidized by ESA directly. 

It's hard to separate Arianespace as a business from ESA. 

[mmeijeri]

What's confusing about that?

You are right that here are obvious similarities and I'd say the ULA construction is also a bit involved, though not as much as with Arianespace. EADS itself is a very complicated and highly political beast. In the US the individual states do not have their own space agencies. NASA does have the various Centers, but all the money comes from federal funds if I'm not mistaken. There is no Florida space agency sharing part of the costs of operating CCAFS with NASA (nor are they offering the Russians a launch site ). Looking at it from a distance it looks as if the American structures are a lot less Byzantine than the European ones.

[mr.columbus]

All that being said, Arianespace is backed by ESA from an organizational and political viewpoint, not so much from a financial direct point (except if things go wrong - 2002 Ariane 5 ECA failure etc. and it paid for the development costs). CNES is subsidizing Arianespace by providing the launch facilities at Kourou to them.

Au contraire!  Arianespace's "revenue" is made up mostly of ESA funding through development programs, straight subsidies (EGAS), etc.  The revenue from the commercial business makes up less than 500M euro per year.  The purchase of vehicles from EADS is partially subsidized by ESA directly. 

It's hard to separate Arianespace as a business from ESA. 

Do you have a link for this information?

As far as I know the ESA contribution to the Ariane 5 development is not going through Arianespace but directly to contractors. EGAS does cover some of the production costs for Ariane 5. EGAS has a limit of 960 million EUR for the 6-year period from 2004 to 2009 (good while old link for that is http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMHQYR1VED_index_0.html) which means 160 million per year - not all of which are going to Arianespace but money is going to cover fixed costs at the providers (which would mean an indirect subsidy).

"The purchase of vehicles from EADS is partially subsidized by ESA directly.  " - please elaborate, I have not heard of that, or do you mean EGAS again?

"The revenue from the commercial business makes up less than 500M euro per year." - Commercial prices for payloads riding on Ariane 5 (for dual payloads) are between 60 and 100 million USD depending on the payload and approximately 150 million USD for a dedicated single launch. Airanespace launched 11 payloads to GTO, 5 dual launches and one single launch in 2008. Total revenue for the year 2008 was nearly 1 billion EUR (about 1.3 billion USD).

[pippin]

Looking at it from a distance it looks as if the American structures are a lot less Byzantine than the European ones.

I don't know about the American structures but I completely agree that there is probably nothing more Byzantine than European institutional structures.
But that doesn't necessarily make it more subsidized.

[Chris Bergin]

No more Ariane discussion on this thread. This about Sea Launch, and we have some Sea Launch workers on here as friends of the site. Let's show a bit of respect for their uncertain future by not moving this thread into a debate about other launch vehicles.

[McDew]

Sea Launch filed a motion with the bankruptcy court last week to break their office lease and abandon their headquarters at One World Trade Center in Long Beach at the end of the month.

Next bankruptcy hearing scheduled for 18 July.

[Space Lizard]

Sea Launch filed a motion with the bankruptcy court last week to break their office lease and abandon their headquarters at One World Trade Center in Long Beach at the end of the month.

Next bankruptcy hearing scheduled for 18 July.

Any news?

[McDew]

Sea Launch filed a motion with the bankruptcy court last week to break their office lease and abandon their headquarters at One World Trade Center in Long Beach at the end of the month.

Next bankruptcy hearing scheduled for 18 July.

Any news?

oops...I meant to say 18 August.

On Wednesday Intelsat filed a Motion with the court to Compel Sea Launch to Assume or Reject their Launch Services Contracts. 

Essentially Intelsat plans to stop making any payments to Sea Launch until they know whether their contracts will be honored.  Also, as part of the motion, Intelsat wants to bypass Sea Launch on the Land Launch contract and make their payments directly to Space International Services for Measat, I-15 and I-18.

[kfsorensen]

It really looks like they are shutting down for good then.

[McDew]

Sea Launch filed a motion opposing Intelsat's request for a shortened timeline to consider Intelsat's motion to assume or reject their contracts. 

The Judge has scheduled a hearing on 11 August for the Motion filed by Intelsat.

[McDew]

Latest bankruptcy news....

XM Satellite Radio filed a Motion with the court to Compel Sea Launch to Assume or Reject their Launch Services Contract.

The Judge has scheduled a hearing on 17 August for the Motion filed by XM.

Sea Launch has filed a motion with the court to reject their contracts for helicopter services used for the platform and command ship.

[jacqmans]

08-08-2009 Sea Launch Bankruptsy is not the End for the Company- Roscosmos Head Anatoly Perminov

http://www.roscosmos.ru/NewsDoSele.asp?NEWSID=7025


Roscosmos Head Anatoly Perminov states that Sea Launch bankruptsy does not mean that the company will terminate its activities.
The company will continue its work after some restructurization and `cleaning`, Perminov says.

Sea Launch Company L.L.C. and Sea Launch Limited Partnership and subsidiaries (“Sea Launch” or “Company”), a leading provider of launch services to the commercial satellite industry, has filed voluntary petitions to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in Wilmington. Nevertheless, the company intends to continue to maintain all normal business operations after the filing for reorganization.

Sea Launch is a limited liability corporation with Headquarters and Home Port facilities in Long Beach, Calif. The company is owned by Boeing of Seattle, Wash. (40%); RSC-Energia of Moscow, Russia (25%); Aker ASA of Oslo, Norway (20%); and SDO Yuzhnoye/PO Yuzhmash of Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine (15%). Financing for the venture is provided by these companies and through debt financing arranged by Chase Manhattan Bank in New York.
 

[SIM city]

Sea Launch filed a motion to reject their services contracts with Boeing and KBTM yesterday.  They stated that although they may use these services in the future, the contracts offer no material economic value and are not essential to the conduct of business.