US Commercial Launch business who picks it up?

[Prober]

U.S. Sanctions Putting the Brakes on Russia-bound Satellite Shipments

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/40340us-sanctions-putting-the-brakes-on-russia-bound-satellite-shipments

This caught my eye:

“This is going to be a huge problem for the entire industry if the sanctions are not lifted soon,” said one official planning a launch on Russian territory this year. “If the Russian Proton rocket is not going to be available, then it’s an industry problem, not just a problem for a couple of companies.

Ariane’s manifest is full,and so is SpaceX’s. Sea Launch is not a full option at this stage.”

So what US Firms are going to pick this business up?

Boeing  http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/bls/index.page?
Orbital  http://www.orbital.com/LaunchSystems/SpaceLaunchVehicles/
LM  http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/what-we-do/space/launch.html
Others?
Possible US launch time available:  Kodiak Launch Complex, Vandenberg, The Cape, Wallops
Let's open this up.....

[Prober]

Now to add some fuel to this thread....
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26990.555

June 19 – Meteor-M No. 2, MKA-PN2 (Relek), M3MSat, Ukube-1, SkySat-2, TechDemoSat-1, AISSat-2, DX-1, Baumanets-2, Venta-1 – Soyuz-2-1B/Fregat-M – Baikonur 31/6 – 16:25 UTC
The Canadian government removed M3MSat from this launch due to the Ukraine-crisis.

http://www.comdev.ca/images/finance/CDV_-_M3M_-_April_24_2014_v2.pdf

==============

Anyone wish to do a list of possible payloads available?

[Coastal Ron]

I think ULA recently received a commercial launch contract, and satellite companies have said they have no problem flying on either Atlas V or Delta IV - depending on price.

And that's really the issue with ULA, is the price.  ULA's business model is, from what I can see, fully oriented towards maximizing their profitability by pricing their products to their largest customer (i.e. the U.S. Government).  If they want to offer their launchers to the commercial market, they would have a hard time offering commercially competitive prices to one customer, and not offering the same pricing to another.

But if customers are looking for non-Russian alternatives, I think ULA might pick up a few orders.  And ironically they could fulfill them with the Russian powered Atlas V!

I think this will also be a great opportunity for SpaceX to push Falcon Heavy more, since the Falcon 9 has been showing how reliable and capable it is, and SpaceX in general has shown that they do actually do what they say the plan to do.  So I think this could be a great opportunity to snag some Falcon Heavy orders, and those will help with getting Falcon Heavy certified for Air Force launches.

[notsorandom]

India and Japan. The PSLV although smaller has pretty reliable record and a good price. The ISRO will eventually get the kinks worked out of the GSLV. Also the GSLV III should show up in the next few years. Japan recently got a commercial launch for it's H-IIA. It is also a proven vehicle and is able to send roughly the same payload to GTO as the Proton.

ULA definitely has the ability to build and produce at a faster rate. They are not as cheep as the Proton but if cost is less of an issue they can meet the demand.

[punder]

And, as Musk noted in his presser yesterday, will the US allow ULA to buy engines from Russia given the potential sanction violations? It seems hard to imagine that they would if things continue on their current course.

For many years, the Iran Nonproliferation Act has been waived routinely for NASA's convenience.  The current Administration, in particular, pursues individual laws aggressively, and chooses to ignore others completely, based on political calculation.  And so far they have gotten away with this behavior quite handsomely.

So my guess is... no problem for ULA.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX will have 3 east coast pads in about 2 years. I think they'll have the capability at that time. In the mean time, well, yeah, it's a problem if companies didn't have enough foresight to pick a domestic (or at least non-Russian) launch provider. Geopolitical risk is always an issue. Same deal with China, honestly. They're growing bolder and more powerful. Who knows if they'll move on Taiwan in 5 years time? I mean, probably not (and I think EVERYONE hopes not right now, in China, Taiwan, Japan, etc), but it must be included in any risk assessment. and if you didn't include that in your risk assessment, then you have no one to blame but yourself (okay, and Putin).

But for the next couple years (until SpaceX's manifest opens up a bit), ULA is also an option. They'll gladly launch for you, at the right price. Orbital Sciences can do so as well (for R7-class payloads).

[clongton]

I wonder:

Is it too large a stretch to include ISS bound astronauts as "U.S. components scheduled for launch this year from Russian territory, including the Russian-run Baikonur Cosmodrome"?

[ChrisWilson68]

SpaceX plans to refly a stage next year.  Having desperate former Proton customers around might make it easier for them to find customers for early flights of F9 using used stages.

[Prober]

Guys going way off topic.....

Thread is US  or USA Commercial Launch Business pickups

Remember the last Delta II is around and waiting for a pickup order out of Vandenberg

The Cape is loaded, but sure it could handle a few more launches......Vandenberg looks empty and in need of some commercial launches.

[Zed_Noir]

I think ULA recently received a commercial launch contract, and satellite companies have said they have no problem flying on either Atlas V or Delta IV - depending on price.

...[snip]...

But if customers are looking for non-Russian alternatives, I think ULA might pick up a few orders.  And ironically they could fulfill them with the Russian powered Atlas V!

...[snip]...

Maybe with the Delta-IV. The Atlas and it's limited RD-180 are going to be reserve for USAF & NRO tasks if the political climate deteriorated IMO.

[Zed_Noir]

SpaceX will have 3 east coast pads in about 2 years. I think they'll have the capability at that time. In the mean time, well, yeah, it's a problem if companies didn't have enough foresight to pick a domestic (or at least non-Russian) launch provider. Geopolitical risk is always an issue. Same deal with China, honestly. They're growing bolder and more powerful. Who knows if they'll move on Taiwan in 5 years time? I mean, probably not (and I think EVERYONE hopes not right now, in China, Taiwan, Japan, etc), but it must be included in any risk assessment. and if you didn't include that in your risk assessment, then you have no one to blame but yourself (okay, and Putin).

Yeah, it appears SpaceX will be the one to benefit most over the coming few years if current geopolitical trends continue. They are poised to meet the demand with tremendous cost savings, so it's not a matter of satellite operators settling for a more expensive launch provider like ULA.

Where will the third east coast launch pad be, Georgia?

Currently the third SpaceX East coast  pad will be at South Texas.

If there i s demand, maybe a fourth East coast pad at Wallops. Taking over the Antares pad. Since Orbital will likely not be able to find a non-Russian engine for their LV if geopolitics intervenes.

[JBF]

If there i s demand, maybe a fourth East coast pad at Wallops. Taking over the Antares pad. Since Orbital will likely not be able to find a non-Russian engine for their LV if geopolitics intervenes.

They will never take over the Antares Pad, where did you hear this? Orbital currently has 3 bids for replacement engines 2 Russian and 1 American.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX will have 3 east coast pads in about 2 years. I think they'll have the capability at that time. In the mean time, well, yeah, it's a problem if companies didn't have enough foresight to pick a domestic (or at least non-Russian) launch provider. Geopolitical risk is always an issue. Same deal with China, honestly. They're growing bolder and more powerful. Who knows if they'll move on Taiwan in 5 years time? I mean, probably not (and I think EVERYONE hopes not right now, in China, Taiwan, Japan, etc), but it must be included in any risk assessment. and if you didn't include that in your risk assessment, then you have no one to blame but yourself (okay, and Putin).

Yeah, it appears SpaceX will be the one to benefit most over the coming few years if current geopolitical trends continue. They are poised to meet the demand with tremendous cost savings, so it's not a matter of satellite operators settling for a more expensive launch provider like ULA.

Where will the third east coast launch pad be, Georgia?

Currently the third SpaceX East coast  pad will be at South Texas.

If there i s demand, maybe a fourth East coast pad at Wallops. Taking over the Antares pad. Since Orbital will likely not be able to find a non-Russian engine for their LV if geopolitics intervenes.

Not sure if I agree with that assessement. Orbital has other options, including using the "Pegasus II" (i.e. Stratolaunch) as a ground-launched vehicle. Remember, they have quite a lot of NK-33s. Something like over 20 of them. That's 10 launches, so they have enough engines for a couple other non-Cygnus flights in the next couple years. And Aerojet-Rocketdyne /would/ really like to make a successor to their NK-33/AJ-26, but again I don't think it'll matter in 2 years.

So again, I really think this is an exaggerated issue. The companies just want to use the cheaper Russian launches. But it's critical that the US maintain the ability to use economic pressure instead of having to use force.

And again, you still have Atlas V in the next couple years. And Delta IV.

[Zed_Noir]

If there i s demand, maybe a fourth East coast pad at Wallops. Taking over the Antares pad. Since Orbital will likely not be able to find a non-Russian engine for their LV if geopolitics intervenes.

They will never take over the Antares Pad, where did you hear this? Orbital currently has 3 bids for replacement engines 2 Russian and 1 American.

My speculation. If the geopolitics goes South. The Russian engines will not be available. The American engine is currently a paper engine that might be available in more than 3 years and $1B, presuming it's the Aerojet AJ-1E6.

[edkyle99]

SpaceX plans to refly a stage next year.  Having desperate former Proton customers around might make it easier for them to find customers for early flights of F9 using used stages.

Except that Falcon 9 v1.1 can't lift a Proton class GTO payload.  It can only lift a little more than half of a Proton's worth to GTO that is 1,500 m/s from GEO.  Proton can lift 6.1 tonnes or more to that orbit.  It is EELV or nothing, and of those really only Atlas 5 with four or five boosters (Delta 4 Heavy costs too much) - but if Proton is put out of business will Russia want to keep supporting Atlas 5 with engines?

 - Ed Kyle

[ChrisWilson68]

If there i s demand, maybe a fourth East coast pad at Wallops. Taking over the Antares pad. Since Orbital will likely not be able to find a non-Russian engine for their LV if geopolitics intervenes.

They will never take over the Antares Pad, where did you hear this? Orbital currently has 3 bids for replacement engines 2 Russian and 1 American.

The 2 Russian bids are irrelevant to the post you're replying to, which says, "find a non-Russian engine for their LV if geopolitics intervenes."  Which leaves one American bid, and we don't know if the terms of that bid are such that Antares can be commercial viable.  Even with cheap Russian engines, Antares seems to be only marginally commercially viable at best.

[edkyle99]

  Even with cheap Russian engines, Antares seems to be only marginally commercially viable at best.

If the U.S. stops U.S. satellites from flying Proton, "commercially viable" changes.  But, of course, Antares cannot handle Proton class payloads and neither can Falcon 9 v1.1. 

 - Ed Kyle

[friendly3]

SpaceX plans to refly a stage next year.  Having desperate former Proton customers around might make it easier for them to find customers for early flights of F9 using used stages.

Except that Falcon 9 v1.1 can't lift a Proton class GTO payload.  It is EELV or nothing, and of those really only Atlas 5 with four or five boosters - but if Proton is put out of business will Russia want to keep supporting Atlas 5 with engines?

 - Ed Kyle

Don't forget that SpaceX will launch SES-9 and SES-10 in GTO, both weighing about 5,300 kilograms, on two Falcon 9 v1.1. So it seems SpaceX can lift a Proton class GTO payload with the current v1.1, maybe not the heaviest ones but sure a lot of them.

[ChrisWilson68]

SpaceX plans to refly a stage next year.  Having desperate former Proton customers around might make it easier for them to find customers for early flights of F9 using used stages.

Except that Falcon 9 v1.1 can't lift a Proton class GTO payload.  It is EELV or nothing, and of those really only Atlas 5 with four or five boosters - but if Proton is put out of business will Russia want to keep supporting Atlas 5 with engines?

As you know, and have been told repeatedly, but seem intent on ignoring, just because the very top end of one launch vehicle's payload range isn't in another vehicle's range doesn't mean all payloads from the first vehicle can't fly on the second.

There are many GEO payloads that can fly on Falcon 9.  Some of those are currently slated for Proton.  If Proton becomes less desirable or unavailable, those payloads could shift to Falcon 9.

[edkyle99]

SpaceX plans to refly a stage next year.  Having desperate former Proton customers around might make it easier for them to find customers for early flights of F9 using used stages.

Except that Falcon 9 v1.1 can't lift a Proton class GTO payload.  It is EELV or nothing, and of those really only Atlas 5 with four or five boosters - but if Proton is put out of business will Russia want to keep supporting Atlas 5 with engines?

 - Ed Kyle

Don't forget that SpaceX will launch SES-9 and SES-10 in GTO, both weighing about 5,300 kilograms, on two Falcon 9 v1.1. So it seems SpaceX can lift a Proton class GTO payload with the current v1.1, maybe not the heaviest ones but sure a lot of them.

Those are going subsynchronous.  Falcon 9 v1.1 can only lift maybe 3.5 tonnes to GEO minus 1,500 m/s (so far it has only demonstrated less than 3.2 tonnes).  Proton M/Briz M can lift more than 6.1 tonnes to this orbital energy, and an upgraded version is increasing that to more than 6.3 tonnes.

Here's a list of GTO (GEO-1,500 m/s) capabilities.

1.  Delta 4 Heavy        11.4 tonnes
2.  Ariane 5 ECA         10.0 tonnes
3.  H-2B-304            ~7.0 tonnes
4.  Atlas 551            6.7 tonnes
5.  Atlas 541            6.3 tonnes
6.  Proton M/Briz M      6.1 tonnes
7.  Zenit 3SL            6.1 tonnes
8.  Delta 4 5,4          5.8 tonnes  
    H-2A-204            ~4.5 tonnes
    Falcon 9 v1.1       ~3.5 tonnes
    Soyuz 2.1b/Freg      3.0 tonnes (Kourou)

So if the comsats get knocked off Proton, there really is only one non-Russian powered alternative that has a reasonable price.  Kourou is going to have to get busy.

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

As you know, and have been told repeatedly, but seem intent on ignoring, just because the very top end of one launch vehicle's payload range isn't in another vehicle's range doesn't mean all payloads from the first vehicle can't fly on the second.

There are many GEO payloads that can fly on Falcon 9.  Some of those are currently slated for Proton.  If Proton becomes less desirable or unavailable, those payloads could shift to Falcon 9.

Last year's ILS Proton payloads weighed between 4.9 and 6.1 tonnes, with an average of more than 5.7 tonnes.  All of them were completely out of Falcon 9's range.  Falcon 9 is closer to being Soyuz-class than Proton-class.

 - Ed Kyle

[Vultur]

Those are going subsynchronous.  Falcon 9 v1.1 can only lift maybe 3.5 tonnes to GEO minus 1,500 m/s (so far it has only demonstrated less than 3.2 tonnes).

So what kind of GTO (minus what m/s) will it launch the over 5 tonne SES sats to?

[su27k]

If we're talking this year, shouldn't everyone have a backup launch provider? If so, they can switch to backup?

If we're talking about 2 years out, I would think FH would come into the picture and take up the slack.

[Coastal Ron]

Last year's ILS Proton payloads weighed between 4.9 and 6.1 tonnes, with an average of more than 5.7 tonnes.  All of them were completely out of Falcon 9's range.  Falcon 9 is closer to being Soyuz-class than Proton-class.

This situation will be an opportunity for SpaceX to garner Falcon Heavy orders, since Falcon Heavy has a lot more flight heritage at this point before it's first flight than the Falcon 9 v1.0 did, and Falcon 9 had a lot of orders before it first flew.

But that would only happen if the current customers using or planning to use the Proton want yet another backup in case their normal ones are not available (i.e. they get overbooked because other customers are abandoning Proton too).

Still, I bet SpaceX sales people are working the phones right now trying to sell Falcon Heavy as the logical alternative to the Proton, regardless if there is a political crisis or not.

[baldusi]

Those are going subsynchronous.  Falcon 9 v1.1 can only lift maybe 3.5 tonnes to GEO minus 1,500 m/s (so far it has only demonstrated less than 3.2 tonnes).

So what kind of GTO (minus what m/s) will it launch the over 5 tonne SES sats to?

1,800m/s one and more the second.

[Prober]

SpaceX plans to refly a stage next year.  Having desperate former Proton customers around might make it easier for them to find customers for early flights of F9 using used stages.

is put out of business will Russia want to keep supporting Atlas 5 with engines?

 - Ed Kyle

Ed I see this as a plus.....We can make the RD-180 and with some commercial sales we can get the launch rates up for the engine.

[Prober]

  Even with cheap Russian engines, Antares seems to be only marginally commercially viable at best.

If the U.S. stops U.S. satellites from flying Proton, "commercially viable" changes.  But, of course, Antares cannot handle Proton class payloads and neither can Falcon 9 v1.1. 

 - Ed Kyle

Not just the Proton Ed.....this one would have gone on Soyuz.

The Canadian government removed M3MSat from this launch due to the Ukraine-crisis.

I count 4-5 payloads atm up for grabs and that was a quick look see.

[Vultur]

Those are going subsynchronous.  Falcon 9 v1.1 can only lift maybe 3.5 tonnes to GEO minus 1,500 m/s (so far it has only demonstrated less than 3.2 tonnes).

So what kind of GTO (minus what m/s) will it launch the over 5 tonne SES sats to?

1,800m/s one and more the second.

Ah, thanks.

Interestingly SpaceX website claims 4850 kg to 27 degree GTO for the Falcon 9, but doesn't clarify further that I can see...

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

[baldusi]

Those are going subsynchronous.  Falcon 9 v1.1 can only lift maybe 3.5 tonnes to GEO minus 1,500 m/s (so far it has only demonstrated less than 3.2 tonnes).

So what kind of GTO (minus what m/s) will it launch the over 5 tonne SES sats to?

1,800m/s one and more the second.

Ah, thanks.

Interestingly SpaceX website claims 4850 kg to 27 degree GTO for the Falcon 9, but doesn't clarify further that I can see...

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

185x35768x27deg is a 1,800m/s deficit GTO. But SpaceX stated that they had reserved 300kg of performance for design margin, and thus they can do 5.1tonnes (one of SES) at that GTO and the 5.3tonnes will go lower (subsynchronous GTO). SES stated the first will have a bit extra fuel to compensate the extra delta-v deficit of 1,800. And the second will use a mixture of electric and chemical to take 3 months to GSO.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I also think that all the performance numbers on SpaceX website are with first stage reuse. They have higher margins if they don't reuse. Musk also mentioned once that the engines are only operating at 85% of their maximum performance right now. All that makes me believe that there are still margins in the F9 1.1 that will allow them to take a larger bite of the market, even if it means that that particular F9 wont be reused.

[Prober]

Looking at the list...
just can't see Dnepr flying.   http://www.kosmotras.ru/

PAZ – Dnepr – Dombarovskiy 370/13   

http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/37628commercial-earth-observation-european-radar-satellite-operators-see

Something from Orbital or LM ? 
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/athena.html
================
KompSat-3A – Dnepr – Dombarovskiy 370/13

http://www.wmo-sat.info/oscar/satellites/view/481

==============================

June 19 – KazEOSat-1, Deimos-2, SkySat-3, Hodoyoshi-3, Hodoyoshi-4, BugSat-2, BugSat-3, SaudiSat-4, UNSA-SAT 1, ESTELLE, AprizeSat- 9, AprizeSat-10, UniSat-6, Tigrisat, AeroCube6, ANTELSAT, Lemur-1, Serpens, BRITE-Toronto, BRITE-Montreal, NanosatC-Br1 – Dnepr – Dombarovskiy 370/13

===============================

August – Asnaro-1, Hodoyoshi-1, ChubuSat-1, TSUBAME, QSAT-EOS – Dnepr – Dombarovskiy 370/13 (or autumn)
 

[Prober]

If we're talking this year, shouldn't everyone have a backup launch provider? If so, they can switch to backup?

If we're talking about 2 years out, I would think FH would come into the picture and take up the slack.

Where do you find a list of the backups.....would be very interesting to know.

[baldusi]

Those are going subsynchronous.  Falcon 9 v1.1 can only lift maybe 3.5 tonnes to GEO minus 1,500 m/s (so far it has only demonstrated less than 3.2 tonnes).  Proton M/Briz M can lift more than 6.1 tonnes to this orbital energy, and an upgraded version is increasing that to more than 6.3 tonnes.

Here's a list of GTO (GEO-1,500 m/s) capabilities.

1.  Delta 4 Heavy        11.4 tonnes
2.  Ariane 5 ECA         10.0 tonnes
3.  H-2B-304            ~7.0 tonnes
4.  Atlas 551            6.7 tonnes
5.  Atlas 541            6.3 tonnes
6.  Proton M/Briz M      6.1 tonnes
7.  Zenit 3SL            6.1 tonnes
8.  Atlas 431            5.8 tonnes 
9.  Delta 4 5,4          5.8 tonnes
10. Delta IV 4,4         5.7 tonnes
    H-2A-204            ~4.5 tonnes
    Falcon 9 v1.1       ~3.5 tonnes
    Soyuz 2.1b/Freg      3.0 tonnes (Kourou)

So if the comsats get knocked off Proton, there really is only one non-Russian powered alternative that has a reasonable price.  Kourou is going to have to get busy.

 - Ed Kyle

I took the liberty of adding the Atlas 431. Not only is cheaper, but Proton-M has a 4m fairing, thus you don't need a 5m fairing. Also, since Delta IV is now based of the 5,4 core, actually launching a M+(4,4) should cost basically nothing. An its performance would be pretty close to a 5,4. And again, with a 4m fairing, is no problem on the commercial world. The problem with Delta IV is not only price, but lead time (36months), which is unacceptable in the commercial world. I still believe that a Common Avionics M+(4,4) should have been price competitive, but for some reason it isn't.