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

[Robotbeat]

Indeed. Much safer that way.

[beancounter]

They'll have to do more than 12 next year to catch up on their backlog.

[Jim]

The US military is known for wasting money.

Not a relevant point for this thread

[Robotbeat]

They'll have to do more than 12 next year to catch up on their backlog.

They certainly won't do that.

I expect maybe 5. 6 would be awesome.

[Darren_Hensley]

Quant...

While I agree with Jim that the world does need a measure of redundancy making launcher types.

I agree with you to the point that the world should act as one agency. In that we don't need multiple rockets in multiple countries making the same size payload go up. It's just stupid.

However, countries and cultures run the world, not perfect science. The standard will always be "well, oh yea, I've got one too! nanny nanny boo boo!"

I'd like to see the standards as follows:

1. A purpose for every rocket, and not more than two types of rockets for every purpose.
2. No more than 10 purposes should exist. Making 20 types of rockets the most there would ever be.
3. Any country can build or buy an existing rocket type. Mass production encouraged.
4. We don't build a rocket just to see if we can.(technology advancement of 3rd world countries included)
5. ICBMs, along with NBC warheads are unilateraly banned.
6. Science & exploration and comercial use payloads will be the only reasons to build a rocket.
7. No one country will be denied access to a rocket to be used for science, exploration or commercial use
8. We all watch each other like hawks, to maintain control and peacful use of rockets.
9. A rocket and or payload shall not be launched when shareing existing resources is possible(sell extra capabilities or unused capacity, eliminate over redundancy)
10. Orbital debris will be agressivly avoided or eliminated altogether
11. Reuse/recover/return of rocket components will be high priority
12. Payloads shall be recovered/deorbited/eliminated upon End-Of-Life, no loitering beyond 90 days.
13. Consolidation of payloads to one rocket will be considered and encouraged
14. All debris will be policed up by the launching country within 90 days of creation. Existing debris will be policed up NOW!
15. If a rocket type becomes old or obsolete, It will be retired. It can be replaced by a newer make and model if needed.

Peacful Purposes:
1. Manned Exploration
2. Command & Control of payloads
3. Commercial Profit Venture
4. Unmanned Exploration
5. Scientific Experimentation/Proof of theory/Discovery
6. Observation
7. Manufacturing
8. Colonization(preservation/perpetuation of humanity)
9. World defense against natural objects or alien beings (Extinction Level Events)
10. Logistical support of all other missions

You might say that this line of thinking would reduce or eliminate the "Glut" of rocketry brought on mostly by a military posture. But that's the purist in me talking.

[Jim]

I agree with you to the point that the world should act as one agency. In that we don't need multiple rockets in multiple countries making the same size payload go up. It's just stupid.

Why not?  Why should launch vehicles be any different than trains, planes and automobiles?  The marketplace and national needs determine what gets produced.  How many fighter planes do the same thing?  Tanks?  Cargo ships?  Airliners?

Your list is just nonsense.  There shouldn't be anymore restrictions on launch vehicles than on other modes of transportation.   We got to stop with the space cadet type of thinking. Just because it is space related doesn't mean it is any more special.  ICBM's will not be eliminated.  Deal with it.

[Lars_J]

I'd like to see the standards as follows:

1. A purpose for every rocket, and not more than two types of rockets for every purpose.

Should there only be two car for sale of every size, to give everyone the illusion of choice? No, that doesn't benefit anyone - and sounds more like Soviet era planning.

The market will eventually hash things out and eliminate the non-competitive alternatives. New ones will rise in their places.

[QuantumG]

What market?

Launch vehicles are made for launching a lot more reasons than just servicing the commercial satellite industry.

[Lars_J]

What market?

Launch vehicles are made for launching a lot more reasons than just servicing the commercial satellite industry.

I'm not sure who you are responding to (quote button to hard to find?) - but it if it me, the market is of course the commercial market. Government purchasing will always be dictated by different rules - but that is no different than how gov't purchasing of cars and aircraft are different from commercial or individual purchasing. Or did you have another point?

[QuantumG]

The market will eventually hash things out and eliminate the non-competitive alternatives. New ones will rise in their places.

This won't happen because the market forces are not dominate.. launch vehicles are built for other reasons.

[gospacex]

They'll have to do more than 12 next year to catch up on their backlog.

Isn't is wonderful to have problems of *this* sort ("too many customers")? 

[quanthasaquality]

5. ICBMs, along with NBC warheads are unilateraly banned.

You might say that this line of thinking would reduce or eliminate the "Glut" of rocketry brought on mostly by a military posture. But that's the purist in me talking.

You sound like an idealist.

The US military is known for wasting money.

Not a relevant point for this thread

If the US military is not interested in saving money, why would it bother trying to save money on launch vehicles? Congress might have changed the military's mind with planned future budget cuts.


If I had my way, the Delta IV, Atlas V, and Antares would be eventually cancelled. The United States would then have Mitsubishi build a factory in the United States to build the H-2A/B. Critical parts would be built in Japan, and stockpiled in the United States. Japan would perform upgrades, like man rating, of the rocket design. Production of many parts could also be stopped, including the RS-68A, and the RL-10. Development of Atlas V, and Delta IV software could cease. Launch pads would be closed. All the better to focus on the J-2X, RS-25E, and maybe F-1B.

[savuporo]

If everything would be defined and driven by "world glut" then the sequence of Falcon I appearing and disappearing, Vega and Epsilon coming online shortly after would be really, really hard to explain.

[Jim]

If I had my way, the Delta IV, Atlas V, and Antares would be eventually cancelled. The United States would then have Mitsubishi build a factory in the United States to build the H-2A/B. Critical parts would be built in Japan, and stockpiled in the United States. Japan would perform upgrades, like man rating, of the rocket design. Production of many parts could also be stopped, including the RS-68A, and the RL-10. Development of Atlas V, and Delta IV software could cease. Launch pads would be closed. All the better to focus on the J-2X, RS-25E, and maybe F-1B.

That is completely nonsensical and not based on any relevant intelligent thought.   You forgot to include Falcon 9.

[Robotbeat]

Quant...

While I agree with Jim that the world does need a measure of redundancy making launcher types.

I agree with you to the point that the world should act as one agency. In that we don't need multiple rockets in multiple countries making the same size payload go up. It's just stupid.

However, countries and cultures run the world, not perfect science. The standard will always be "well, oh yea, I've got one too! nanny nanny boo boo!"

I'd like to see the standards as follows:

1. A purpose for every rocket, and not more than two types of rockets for every purpose.
2. No more than 10 purposes should exist. Making 20 types of rockets the most there would ever be.
3. Any country can build or buy an existing rocket type. Mass production encouraged.
4. We don't build a rocket just to see if we can.(technology advancement of 3rd world countries included)
5. ICBMs, along with NBC warheads are unilateraly banned.
6. Science & exploration and comercial use payloads will be the only reasons to build a rocket.
7. No one country will be denied access to a rocket to be used for science, exploration or commercial use
8. We all watch each other like hawks, to maintain control and peacful use of rockets.
9. A rocket and or payload shall not be launched when shareing existing resources is possible(sell extra capabilities or unused capacity, eliminate over redundancy)
10. Orbital debris will be agressivly avoided or eliminated altogether
11. Reuse/recover/return of rocket components will be high priority
12. Payloads shall be recovered/deorbited/eliminated upon End-Of-Life, no loitering beyond 90 days.
13. Consolidation of payloads to one rocket will be considered and encouraged
14. All debris will be policed up by the launching country within 90 days of creation. Existing debris will be policed up NOW!
15. If a rocket type becomes old or obsolete, It will be retired. It can be replaced by a newer make and model if needed.

Peacful Purposes:
1. Manned Exploration
2. Command & Control of payloads
3. Commercial Profit Venture
4. Unmanned Exploration
5. Scientific Experimentation/Proof of theory/Discovery
6. Observation
7. Manufacturing
8. Colonization(preservation/perpetuation of humanity)
9. World defense against natural objects or alien beings (Extinction Level Events)
10. Logistical support of all other missions

You might say that this line of thinking would reduce or eliminate the "Glut" of rocketry brought on mostly by a military posture. But that's the purist in me talking.

But you also can't have free market competition with just two rockets for every class. Duopoly--especially worldwide--breeds stagnation.

And besides, probably a good 50% of the launch demand is military in nature.

[Darren_Hensley]

But you also can't have free market competition with just two rockets for every class. Duopoly--especially worldwide--breeds stagnation.

And besides, probably a good 50% of the launch demand is military in nature.

You don't realy need competition if IF!!!! improvments are made for a number of reasons, like payload capacity increases, tech advancement, streamlining, consolidation and so on...

It's like this. Einstien had a selection of suits in his closet, one for every day of the week. They were all black, same size, make and model. He waseted no time getting dressed in the morning, and moved on to more important things.

Or you could order any color Model A ford you wanted, as long as it was black.

My point is why be presented with too many decision points in the LV process. Find one that will lift your object, buy it, launch it!. Move on to other things like what your payload can do, and how much does it weigh, what orbit do you need and so on... If everything is man rated all the better. It would mean more reliability, and redundancy, and safety were already built in.

Two competing LVs, who cares, maybe it's the launch sites and mission controls that need to compete?

Just thinking out of the box here...

[Darren_Hensley]

I'd like to see the standards as follows:

1. A purpose for every rocket, and not more than two types of rockets for every purpose.

Should there only be two car for sale of every size, to give everyone the illusion of choice? No, that doesn't benefit anyone - and sounds more like Soviet era planning.

Yep, given a choice, no matter how limited, humans still feel the same level of satisfaction as long as they have the freedom to choose.

Given the choice between two poor products, well that opens up a bad can of worms.
I'm no socialist, or soviet, and I do like my freedom, it's just seems like a lot of hoopla over a few features, that if built-in and "standard" would not require any effort of thought. Automation is a good thing in alot of products.

I hate going to a car dealer, asking for electric door locks and windows, and being told, those are not standard features, they cost extra, and we need to special order them, or upgrade your requirements. It's just BS, smoke and mirrors.

If every model (LV or Car) came standard with all the bells and whistles, but not fancy eye candy, then making an informed decision gets very easy, and you can concentrate on your payload (Sattelite, space station, passengers, cargo, what ever) 10 weight classes, defined broadly, would help narrow your choice base.

[Darren_Hensley]

I agree with you to the point that the world should act as one agency. In that we don't need multiple rockets in multiple countries making the same size payload go up. It's just stupid.

Why not?  Why should launch vehicles be any different than trains, planes and automobiles?  The marketplace and national needs determine what gets produced.  How many fighter planes do the same thing?  Tanks?  Cargo ships?  Airliners?

Your list is just nonsense.  There shouldn't be anymore restrictions on launch vehicles than on other modes of transportation.   We got to stop with the space cadet type of thinking. Just because it is space related doesn't mean it is any more special.  ICBM's will not be eliminated.  Deal with it.

Jim I'm a realist, with vision, and common sense. It's just an opinion, with thought behind it. Just because everyone does not think like you, doesn't make those thoughts any less sensable, or devalued.

The marketplace is fickle, National needs to seek solutions on a global level if "WE the world" would just sell these types of things to each other. The marketplace doesn't know what it wants.

I know ICBMs and warheads will never be eliminated. I'm a 20 year USAF vet of two wars. I don't just "Deal with it" I live with it, everyday, and I gave you and everyone else in the US the right to debate it. (but in another thread)

Basically above, I'm just saying what the title of the thread says, "Lets trim the fat" building redundant new types of LVs just for the sake of it, is not practical on any level, especially when we have a such a large variety to choose from already.

I'm sure you don't run out and buy a new car, plane, tank, or train every year, just because it's newer? THere has to be a significant improvement, or age factor involved when I buy a new car. I certainly don't throw away my car after I drive it once. I'm all for building reusable LV's. But we don't need so many models that do basically the same thing, herf a payload into space.

[Jim]

Jim I'm a realist, with vision, and common sense.

The list says otherwise

[Jim]

I know ICBMs and warheads will never be eliminated. I'm a 20 year USAF vet of two wars. I don't just "Deal with it" I live with it, everyday, and I gave you and everyone else in the US the right to debate it.

You did me no favors.  I don't know what has happened in the last 20 years, we had more grounded people back when I served (especially in national security space) and they didn't talk nonsense.

[Jim]

My point is why be presented with too many decision points in the LV process. Find one that will lift your object, buy it, launch it!. Move on to other things like what your payload can do, and how much does it weigh, what orbit do you need and so on... If everything is man rated all the better. It would mean more reliability, and redundancy, and safety were already built in.

Two competing LVs, who cares, maybe it's the launch sites and mission controls that need to compete?

Just thinking out of the box here...

It isn't thinking out of the box when you don't know what the box is
launch site is driven by orbital requirements and mission control supplied by the payload provider.
There is more to LV selection than performance.
Man rating does not necessarily equate to redundancy or more reliability.

[Jim]

The marketplace is fickle, National needs to seek solutions on a global level if "WE the world" would just sell these types of things to each other.

No,  that is an opinion not shared by many.

[rcoppola]

The marketplace is fickle, National needs to seek solutions on a global level if "WE the world" would just sell these types of things to each other.

No,  that is an opinion not shared by many.

A respectful thank you to you both for your service. As for a glut of LVs? That seems like a question in search of a reason to be asked.

[oiorionsbelt]

Rather than trying to eliminate all the different rockets in the same class I would rather see them all working toward a single goal. Manned and unmanned exploration of the solar system.

[spectre9]

The problem is there is a mentality of "space program = rockets"

So countries that have space programs spend all their money on rockets and then have no money left over for anything else.

It's not the fault of governments it's the fault of the space agencies and the engineers that want continuous development projects.

[QuantumG]

Rockets are built for reasons other than a "space program".

[Windbourne]

.....
If I had my way, the Delta IV, Atlas V, and Antares would be eventually cancelled. The United States would then have Mitsubishi build a factory in the United States to build the H-2A/B. Critical parts would be built in Japan, and stockpiled in the United States. Japan would perform upgrades, like man rating, of the rocket design. Production of many parts could also be stopped, including the RS-68A, and the RL-10. Development of Atlas V, and Delta IV software could cease. Launch pads would be closed. All the better to focus on the J-2X, RS-25E, and maybe F-1B.

What advantage is there for America to kill our space program?
Absolutely none.
Delta is the world's current heavy lifter.
And SpaceX's falcon is the lowest cost lifter going.
Falcon 9 is already man rated, and atlas is currently being upgraded.
Falcon Heavy will be out next year and when it is, it will not only be the world's heavy lifter, but it will also deliver the lowest costs / kg.

It sounds to me like Europe, Japan, South Korea, Iran, and China should drop their programs and go with the cheapest systems going.

[Mader Levap]

It sounds to me like Europe, Japan, South Korea, Iran, and China should drop their programs and go with the cheapest systems going.

It was explained already multiple times here why it will never happen. Basically, everyone want to have native launch capability, regardless of cost.

Iran, and China

This part about Iran & China ordering launches from SpaceX is pretty hilarious.

[bioelectromechanic]

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.

You're talking about NORTH Korea.
South Korea is a wonderful country.

[llanitedave]

Yeah, it's hard to take people's geopolitical visions seriously if they know nothing about geography.

[dkovacic]

It sounds to me like Europe, Japan, South Korea, Iran, and China should drop their programs and go with the cheapest systems going.

It was explained already multiple times here why it will never happen. Basically, everyone want to have native launch capability, regardless of cost.

Iran, and China

This part about Iran & China ordering launches from SpaceX is pretty hilarious.

Of course that major powers in the world will keep their launchers to retain space access independence and military capability. But this government/military seems to be around 50% of launches (and I think that the trend is going towards more commercial satellites with time).
So SpaceX should have around 10-15% share of launch world market in 2014 and 2015. Once they start commercial crew and win over some military LV contracts, their market share could easily grow to over 25% after 2017. Which means that the number of launches will drop significantly for Ariane and Proton, driving their true costs up.

So if I could speculate, all existing launch families will continue to exist for the next ten years.
Chinese LV will retain the similar share, since they have significant and expanding space program.
ULA will retain several launches per year, because USG would not want to have all eggs in one basket (again:).
Ariane and Soyuz/Proton will be the big losers, staying without many commercial launches especially to GEO.