World rocket glut? Cut rocket models to save money?

[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.