World rocket glut? Cut rocket models to save money?

[quanthasaquality]

World rocket glut? Cut rocket models to save money?

Rocket models >6 tons to LEO

ESA:
Ariane 5

Japan:
H-2A/B

Russia & Ukraine:
Soyuz variants
Zenit
Proton
Angara under development

China:
Long March 2-4 family
Long March 5-7 family under development

USA:
Delta IV
Atlas V
Falcon 9
Antares (it's more Russian/Ukraine, than American)
potential Pyrios + DUUS in a decade

India:
GSLV mark 3, has to get reliability up

There were a total of ~78 rocket launches in 2012
Long March 2-4 family ~19 launches
Soyuz variants ~14 launches
Proton ~11 launches
Ariane 5 ~7 launches
Atlas V ~6 launches
Delta IV ~4 launches
Zenit ~3 launches

Proton, Soyuz, Ariane 5, and Zenit dominate the commercial rocket market. Other rockets, like the Long March 2-4 family, Delta IV, and Atlas V rely on politics to get launches. With only a few launches to go around to the other rockets, it seems foolish to develop new rockets (Iran, South Korea).

Should some governments (USA) should consider eliminating some of their rockets to reduce costs?

[Jim]

Should some governments (USA) should consider eliminating some of their rockets to reduce costs?

A world glut does not equate to a US glut.  And eliminating vehicles does not necessarily equate to cost reduction.

[Robotbeat]

Quant, so you actually think Iran and South Korea are developing launch vehicles out of some sort of economic motivation?

Countries like to have independent launch capability because it's a way to develop, demonstrate, and maintain an independent ICBM capability and show it to the whole world without getting people really mad at you (okay, people get mad at you anyway...).

Also, why put up a hypothetical launch vehicle like Pyrios? Might as well put Blue Origin or something on there, it's at least as likely.

[SpacexULA]

There is no "glut" of launchers, just a continuing trend of the companies that produce launchers for their own domestic military use selling the same rockets on the international market for communications payloads.

It would be completely rational for all the industrial nations to have orbital launchers, just like almost all industrial nations have at least one domestic car manufacturer (even if said manufacturer has a very limited market domestically or internationally).

No nation wants to be in a situation where relations sour with the nation that provides their launch services, and most industrial nations see it in their interest to maintain orbital access for educational/military/communications.  Some do this by maintaining close relations with a nation that has oribitial launch capacity, others choose to develop their own civlil program. 

As the world continues to generally richer, I expect the number of nations with domestic launch capacity will only increase.

[edkyle99]

World rocket glut? Cut rocket models to save money?

There would be fewer launch vehicles if the satellite launch market were a true commercial marketplace, but it is not.
 
Many of the so-called "commercial" payloads are funded partially or fully by governments.  Most launches are for governments, mostly for national defense.  Commercial cost models go out the window when national defense comes into play. 

Consider too the robustness offered by a diversity of launch vehicles.  ISS has been served by seven different launch vehicles, if I'm remembering correctly.  During its lifetime, three of those have suffered failures (only one during an ISS mission), but the station kept running.

 - Ed Kyle

[Galactic Penguin SST]

This question is as strange as "Hey, isn't there already a Manchester United in Manchester? It seems foolish to keep Manchester City in the league as well....." or "Look there's the Los Angeles Lakers and the  Los Angeles Clippers playing in the same stadium, shouldn't we try to consolidate them into one single team to have a larger fan base?" 

[MP99]

This question is as strange as "Hey, isn't there already a Manchester United in Manchester? It seems foolish to keep Manchester City in the league as well....." or "Look there's the Los Angeles Lakers and the  Los Angeles Clippers playing in the same stadium, shouldn't we try to consolidate them into one single team to have a larger fan base?" 

I don't see this necessarily refutes the OP argument.

You're simply comparing a large, mature, market with a relatively smaller market. Yes, they both may be over-supplied to some extent, but the reason for continued funding is quite different - enthusiastic personal / commercial funding vs government support.

cheers, Martin

[Lurker Steve]

This question is as strange as "Hey, isn't there already a Manchester United in Manchester? It seems foolish to keep Manchester City in the league as well....." or "Look there's the Los Angeles Lakers and the  Los Angeles Clippers playing in the same stadium, shouldn't we try to consolidate them into one single team to have a larger fan base?" 

Well, I take a different tack on your examples.

People actually show up at the stadiums / arenas to watch the Lakers and Clippers.
But there is that awful Charlotte team that doesn't win very often, and has a meager fan base.
But Michael Jordan wanted to own a basketball team, so they are allowed to remain in the league.

We could compare the Charlotte Hornets with North Korea / Iran / India. They don't have much talent and aren't successful very often, but having some sort of rocket program makes them feel like they are in the same league as the larger players. Perhaps they should pool their resources, and create a third world version of the ESA. Unless they are only interested in building launchers for their warheads, of course.

[gospacex]

Should some governments (USA) should consider eliminating some of their rockets to reduce costs?

Don't worry, New Space launchers will eliminate about a half of this old overpriced [censored]

Why I am so sure?

I registered my nick here (see what it says?) on 2007-11-11. At that time, SpaceX had only two launch failures under its belt.

I was ridiculed here many times by Ares fans.

Arrogant [censored], where they are now, and where is SpaceX?

[Jim]

Arrogant [censored],

You must be looking in a mirror

[Jim]

Don't worry, New Space launchers will eliminate about a half of this old overpriced [censored]

Why I am so sure?

Your statement is not supported.

[gospacex]

Don't worry, New Space launchers will eliminate about a half of this old overpriced [censored]

Why I am so sure?

Your statement is not supported.

It took ULA five years and 0.5 billion dollars to upgrade Delta-IV 1st stage thrust by whopping 6.3%. No other substantial changes on ULA launchers in recent time.

Do you really think such glacial pace of progress is enough to prevent SpaceX/Orbital from eating ULA's lunch?

[Jim]

1.  It took ULA five years and 0.5 billion dollars to upgrade Delta-IV 1st stage thrust by whopping 6.3%.
 2.  No other substantial changes on ULA launchers in recent time.

3.  Do you really think such glacial pace of progress is enough to prevent SpaceX/Orbital from eating ULA's lunch?

Another post showing a biased and uninformed view.

1.  Thrust is not the only meaningful engine parameter
2.  There are others and many in work.  Do some research. 
3.  It isn't glacial when flying 12-15 missions a year.  How many have the others flown?    ULA has many customers that they are serving and aren't going to pull the rug from under them by having a long standdown to cut in changes. 

[JazzFan]

Won't this question be eventually answered by the market?  Launch demand will determine what is needed.

[quanthasaquality]

Won't this question be eventually answered by the market?  Launch demand will determine what is needed.

Launch numbers seem to suggest that the market has already chosen Soyuz, Proton, Ariane 5, Zenit, and PSLV. However, most launches are purchased by the Russian, Chinese, USA, and European govts. The US military is known for wasting money. The Chinese govt is known to support domestic industries at extra cost.

China's Long March 5, and rockets derived from its boosters, Long March 6 and 7, appear to provide a single rocket family for launch of a wide range of masses. Russia could go on the path to consolidate its rockets around Angara 1.1, 1.2, 3, and 5. Russia cancelled Rus-M on the grounds of being 'redundant'. Japan, Europe, and India each seem to have a single rocket for a given payload mass.

Iran and South Korea want to build rockets and enrich Uranium. I would think Iran could just buy some nuclear warheads from Pakistan or North Korea, and use Hezbollah to deliver them. I don't know why South Korea would bother. Maybe Iran and South Korea have big egos, want to train their own engineers, and build stuff on their own soil at higher prices.

A world glut does not equate to a US glut.  And eliminating vehicles does not necessarily equate to cost reduction.

True. I suppose you mean the converse as well.... Some believe it would be cheaper to make 12 Delta IV cores/year than 6 Delta IV cores, 4 Atlas V cores, 1 Falcon 9, and 1 Antares.

This question is as strange as "Hey, isn't there already a Manchester United in Manchester? It seems foolish to keep Manchester City in the league as well....." or "Look there's the Los Angeles Lakers and the  Los Angeles Clippers playing in the same stadium, shouldn't we try to consolidate them into one single team to have a larger fan base?" 

I don't know much about sports, but I would be tempted to consolidate the LA Lakers and the LA Clippers.

[edkyle99]

Launch numbers seem to suggest that the market has already chosen Soyuz, Proton, Ariane 5, Zenit, and PSLV.

By this I presume you mean "commercial" satellite launch market.  Otherwise, the totals differ.  During the 2010-2012 period, only nine currently active launch vehicle types flew two times or more per year on average.  They were:  Chang Zheng (17.7 annual average attempts), R-7 (15.3), Proton (10.7), Ariane 5 (6.0), Atlas 5 (5.0), Delta 4 (3.3), Zenit (2.7), H-2A/B (2.3), and PSLV (2.0).  Just those nine accounted for an average of 65 launches per year.

Notice that the rocket that gets talked about the most, by far, is not on this list.

 - Ed Kyle 

[ChrisWilson68]

Notice that the rocket that gets talked about the most, by far, is not on this list. ;)

Your list is a backward-looking list.  People talking about that rocket are looking forward.

[edkyle99]

Notice that the rocket that gets talked about the most, by far, is not on this list.

Your list is a backward-looking list.  People talking about that rocket are looking forward.

... and have been for three or four years now.  But it will be interesting to see a similar list three years hence. 

 - Ed Kyle

[Robotbeat]

Notice that the rocket that gets talked about the most, by far, is not on this list.

Your list is a backward-looking list.  People talking about that rocket are looking forward.

... and have been for three or four years now.  But it will be interesting to see a similar list three years hence. 

 - Ed Kyle

You're being unrealistic regarding your projections for SpaceX, here, if you don't think they'll show up on the list.

Delta II won't be on that list, obviously. SpaceX probably will get up to several launches per year, my bet is around 8-12/year within four years. Like the EELVs, it takes a while to ramp up launch rate. But provided the demand is there (and it certainly appears to be... SpaceX probably will most likely have about 4-5 launches/year to ISS alone in four years, plus lots of people who want an affordable but domestic--or at least Western--ride to orbit for their bird), I see no reason why they couldn't.

They'll almost certainly hit three launches this year (and maybe almost four, though I didn't see much chance of 4 before January 1st), and likely more next year, adding maybe one or two launches to their launch rate every year (until the market demand is met). If they don't, they'll likely fold within the next four years. So you're basically arguing that SpaceX is likely to fold?

[edkyle99]

Notice that the rocket that gets talked about the most, by far, is not on this list.

Your list is a backward-looking list.  People talking about that rocket are looking forward.

... and have been for three or four years now.  But it will be interesting to see a similar list three years hence. 

 - Ed Kyle

You're being unrealistic regarding your projections for SpaceX, here, if you don't think they'll show up on the list.    ....  So you're basically arguing that SpaceX is likely to fold?

I'm pretty sure I made no projections about, or assertions regarding the future of, SpaceX in this thread.

 - Ed Kyle