Lockheed Martin Commercial Guaranteed Launch

[newpylong]

Oh no, I am certainly not trolling. I agree, at this point the chance of failure will only decrease.

I am just making the point that you never know what can happen... failures certainly occur in the middle of a good string. Let's hope this is not the case.

[Robotbeat]

Oh no, I am certainly not trolling. I agree, at this point the chance of failure will only decrease.

I am just making the point that you never know what can happen... failures certainly occur in the middle of a good string. Let's hope this is not the case.

Indeed, I was merely making a probabilistic statement.

As I edited in my above post, even for a currently very reliable vehicle like Ariane 5, early failures do seem much, MUCH more common than later failures. I would say that the risk of a SpaceX failure in the next two years is probably greater than an Ariane 5 failure, especially if we include the Falcon Heavy test launch.


BTW, I think the reason SpaceX avoided early launch failures with Falcon 9 is their /extensive/ ground-testing program that they put in place after their 3 consecutive failures for Falcon 1. They test the /crap/ out of their rockets, now.

[edkyle99]

Boeing doesn't market the Delta IV because it's operated by ULA, which Boeing co-owns. For commercial payloads, there's no reason for Boeing not to point customers to the cheaper and more provably-reliable Atlas V, which they also co-own through their stake in ULA.

Delta IV is no longer Boeing, it's ULA. Atlas V is now just as much Boeing as Delta IV is.

Boeing Launch Services markets Delta 2 and Delta 4 for commercial launches.  At least it says it does.
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/bls/

BLS would not sell rides on Atlas 5.  Only Lockheed Martin's commercial launch service entity does that.

ULA builds and launches the rockets.  Boeing and Lockheed co-own ULA, and share the costs/expenses of the company for government contracts, but do not share earnings on commercial launches when and if they occur.  There has to be some kind of cost sharing arrangement via. ULA for this to happen.

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

Boeing doesn't market Delta IV because it was busy selling commercial launches thru ILS Sea Launch.

That (the Sea Launch part - there is no "ILS Sea Launch") might have been true a few years ago, but no longer.  Boeing lost its shirt when Sea Launch declared bankruptcy.  Boeing is suing its former Sea Launch partners for hundreds of millions of dollars.  Notice that there are no Boeing built satellites on the Sea Launch manifest?  The next Sea Launch mission could be its last, at least out of Long Beach.

"ILS" was International Launch Services which used to be partly owned by Lockheed Martin.  Lockheed Martin sold its share several years back.  ILS is now entirely Russian-owned.

 - Ed Kyle

[MP99]

If LM needs to re-fly a payload, ISTM some costs don't repeat. And, of course, LM only loses cost, not retail price.

I'm guessing payload integration will be much reduced, with perhaps a clause that re-flight is for the same payload.

And, if paying flights are already covering overheads for the year of the re-flight I'm not sure if they would need to account for them as part of costs for this flight?

But, ISTM this is largely a marketing exercise. Aren't Atlas capturing part of the commercial market because they're seen as a safe pair of hands after some launch failures recently? This is highlighting their confidence in their product.

Cheers, Martin

[beancounter]

When do you reckon SpaceX will match ULA?