Author Topic: Sea Launch Future (Read 155148 times)

Space Ghost 1962 · « **Reply #140 on:** 04/04/2016 09:49 pm »

And the money could have worked - at the time, given enough launches. The launch system and provider worked as intended.

Given current market - no, even with flawless launches. If reusable first stage happens on similar payloads, much more difficult.

The money didn't work because the failures/failure rate did not decline fast enough, for the stream of payloads to grow enough to build enough demand for flight frequency to generate a viable business.

D_Dom · « **Reply #141 on:** 04/05/2016 02:14 am »

Demand for flight frequency, wonder how many launch service providers have managed that aspect of the business? My two cents, all of them, some better than others. Never going to be enough to reuse first stages on similar payloads, the economics are going to have to pay.

baldusi · « **Reply #142 on:** 04/05/2016 03:48 pm »

A launch failure usually means a 6 to 12 month stand down. Sea Launch had a probability of failure of 10%. And needed what, 5? launches per year to break even? So, that would mean that they would have a 41% percent of (at least) one failure per year.
This would mean a 41% probability of a delay of 11.75 months (ICO was 6 months, Apstar was 13, NSS8 was 14 and Intelsat 27 was 14), or an average of roughly 5 months per year. That would leave an average of 40 days between launches. I understand the campaign was more like 60 days. And they couldn't ever fill the manifest to achieve the 5 launches. I simply don't see it as a viable option. Not unless some government added a couple of launches per year as a base.

schaban · « **Reply #143 on:** 04/05/2016 04:10 pm »

well, Russia government certainly would help with launches: that could be even a condition in selling agreement.

it could be even a possible sign that Russian are sure that they will get Zenit rockets from Ukraine either via totally overtaking it or via some kind of truce...

Kryten · « **Reply #144 on:** 04/05/2016 05:49 pm »

SpaceNews reports that Boeing have filed a motion to prevent the sale.

Space Ghost 1962 · « **Reply #145 on:** 04/06/2016 12:05 am »

Quote from: Kryten on 04/05/2016 05:49 pm

SpaceNews reports that Boeing have filed a motion to prevent the sale.

No surprise.

Lar · « **Reply #146 on:** 04/06/2016 12:24 am »

Quote from: elvis on 04/04/2016 05:37 pm

I argue the failure was the lack of a government entity to pay the upkeep between launches. Lots of countries involved, but no government contracts.

We don't need any new launch providers that require a government to subsidize them in order to be viable. At least I hope we never do again.

Space Ghost 1962 · « **Reply #147 on:** 04/06/2016 12:40 am »

Quote from: Lar on 04/06/2016 12:24 am

Quote from: elvis on 04/04/2016 05:37 pm
I argue the failure was the lack of a government entity to pay the upkeep between launches. Lots of countries involved, but no government contracts.

We don't need any new launch providers that require a government to subsidize them in order to be viable. At least I hope we never do again.

Lar, that's unfortunately a bit naive.

Consider that letting AF gaining insight into all launches on vehicles it may need to risk flying NSS payloads on. And that they will, in some form, pay for such. That's by definition a "subsidy".

So are other government needs. Like keeping certain CRS/CC capabilities going.

We are a long way from a full up competitive, "open" market with providers coming and going all the time. Launch is still too small.

Into that already substantial "crack" will be other "wedges" that will make it wider. Done so by unique definitions of "need". In this threads case, a unique (possibly perverse) definition of "national security" need.

Kabloona · « **Reply #148 on:** 04/06/2016 12:50 am »

Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/06/2016 12:05 am

Quote from: Kryten on 04/05/2016 05:49 pm
SpaceNews reports that Boeing have filed a motion to prevent the sale.
No surprise.

The good news for Boeing is it seems the courts are sympathetic to their claims. Unfortunately that still leaves the whole enterprise in limbo.

ethan829 · « **Reply #149 on:** 04/06/2016 01:58 am »

What are the odds that SpaceX wants to use Odyssey as a BFR landing platform?

ChrisWilson68 · « **Reply #150 on:** 04/06/2016 02:24 am »

Quote from: ethan829 on 04/06/2016 01:58 am

What are the odds that SpaceX wants to use Odyssey as a BFR landing platform?

What advantage would SpaceX get from using Odyssey over a bigger barge on the model of the existing ASDSs? I would think Odyssey would have higher operating costs without providing any additional functionality SpaceX would need for a landing-only platform.

mn · « **Reply #151 on:** 04/06/2016 02:40 am »

Quote from: baldusi on 04/05/2016 03:48 pm

A launch failure usually means a 6 to 12 month stand down. Sea Launch had a probability of failure of 10%. And needed what, 5? launches per year to break even? So, that would mean that they would have a 41% percent of (at least) one failure per year.
...

Given enough time I would expect the failure rate to drop over time, they just ran out of time before they can start seeing those improvements.

Unless you think the platform/vehicle was fundementaly flawed and the failure rate would not improve with time.

Lars-J · « **Reply #152 on:** 04/06/2016 02:59 am »

Quote from: Kryten on 04/05/2016 05:49 pm

SpaceNews reports that Boeing have filed a motion to prevent the sale.

But.. Why? Do they think they'll get a better offer?

ChrisWilson68 · « **Reply #153 on:** 04/06/2016 03:30 am »

Quote from: Lars-J on 04/06/2016 02:59 am

Quote from: Kryten on 04/05/2016 05:49 pm
SpaceNews reports that Boeing have filed a motion to prevent the sale.

But.. Why? Do they think they'll get a better offer?

The current Russian owners of Sea Launch have a judgement against them in U.S. court. Boeing can probably have the ships seized as long as they're in the U.S. and owned by the company they have a judgement against. So the ships have essentially zero value for the current Russian owners. They could sell them to this Russian billionaire for less than scrap value and he could scrap them. The billionaire makes a profit, the current Sea Launch owners get more than they would from handing the ships over to Boeing, and Boeing can't go after any of it. They can't get cash that's in Russia and if the sale goes through the ships are no longer owned by an entity they have a judgement against, so Boeing can no longer have them seized.

kq6ea · « **Reply #154 on:** 04/06/2016 09:59 pm »

We'll just have to wait and see if the U.S. Marshals show to lock-down the facility....

RanulfC · « **Reply #155 on:** 04/12/2016 05:42 pm »

Quote from: Lar on 04/06/2016 12:24 am

Quote from: elvis on 04/04/2016 05:37 pm
I argue the failure was the lack of a government entity to pay the upkeep between launches. Lots of countries involved, but no government contracts.

We don't need any new launch providers that require a government to subsidize them in order to be viable. At least I hope we never do again.

Uhm which "launch providers" are you thinking do NOT require some government subsidies to operate?

Randy

Mike Jones · « **Reply #156 on:** 05/19/2016 10:03 pm »

According to Anatoly Zak on Twitter, Boeing wins case against its former Sea Launch partners: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sealaunch.html

Boeing wins case against Sea Launch partners

On May 12, 2016, judge Andre Birotte of the Central District of California, ordered RKK Energia to pay Boeing and its business unit, Boeing Commercial Space Company, BCSC, a total of $322.49 million in owed investments and interest.

The same ruling ordered KB Yuzhnoe and its production partner Yuzhmash, (both based in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine) to pay a total of $193.44 million.

The total sum owed by Russian and Ukrainian space industry in the Sea Launch debacle thus reached $515.93 million.

I doubt that Boeing will be able to collect so much money, especially from Yuzhnoye, which is almost bankrupt.
I did not find another source to confirm yet but it seems that Sea Launch is now officially dead.

kq6ea · « **Reply #157 on:** 05/19/2016 10:37 pm »

Twice a week when I drive to San Pedro from Long Beach I see the ships sitting there.

It's really sad that it's come to this, as the venture was quite a place to work at.

zubenelgenubi · « **Reply #158 on:** 05/25/2016 08:36 pm »

Quote from: Mike Jones on 05/19/2016 10:03 pm

According to Anatoly Zak on Twitter, Boeing wins case against its former Sea Launch partners: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sealaunch.html
<snip>

A question for those with more knowledge of international law than myself:
Can RKK Energia, KB Yuzhnoe, and Yuzhmash ignore the ruling in an American court?
Are there any punitive measures that can be enforced upon them?

If Yuzhnoe declares bankruptcy, would Boeing receive a portion of their assets in partial payment?

baldusi · « **Reply #159 on:** 05/26/2016 12:05 am »

The assets are berthed in California. The local authorities will do whatever a local judge says.