Who will compete with SpaceX? The last two and next two years.

[JBF]

Unless I missed it another reliability enhancement from my viewpoint is SpaceX's elimination of pyrotechnics.  Since they can't be tested, they appear less reliable than a mechanical action that can be flight pre-tested.
Now add to this menu the unique capability to examine flown hardware for wear & deterioration.

Nit: Pyrotechnics can be tested, and have been tested repeatedly for years.  Whether their elimination contributes to higher reliability--or other factors such as the ability to examine flown hardware on a regular basis--should eventually be seen in the overall LV reliability.  Certainly seems intuitive that such would increase reliability, but still a bit early to call as the data is limited.

Individual pyrotechnics can only be tested to destruction; once you fire one off there is no reusing it. What is done is lot testing.

[savuporo]

The assumption is that F9 has a launch rate of ~24/yr, Atlas V ~9/yr, and Ariane 5 ~7/yr. In total number of launches all three will nearly be equal in 2020.

I thought F9 won't be flying in current form much longer and get replaced by yet another version?

[Coastal Ron]

The assumption is that F9 has a launch rate of ~24/yr, Atlas V ~9/yr, and Ariane 5 ~7/yr. In total number of launches all three will nearly be equal in 2020.

I thought F9 won't be flying in current form much longer and get replaced by yet another version?

As far as Elon Musk has said publicly, the upcoming Falcon 9 Block 5 will be the last major version of the Falcon 9, and that they plan on flying it for quite a while. Sure, the ITS is being developed, but near-term it supposed to be focused on BEO needs. So the Falcon 9 will likely be around for a while.

[philw1776]

Appreciate the info  re: pyrotechnics

[matthewkantar]

Is ULA, by cutting so many personnel, setting itself up for a failure in the next year or so?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Is ULA, by cutting so many personnel, setting itself up for a failure in the next year or so?

Not likely. ULA less personnel though does mean for less scheduling flexibility since more personnel may be shared between launch pads and even east/west coast sites. Less people "sitting on their hands" drawing the "subsidy" because there will no longer be the "subsidy". This then may make scheduling launches on both coasts with close to same dates not possible.

[Jcc]

Is ULA, by cutting so many personnel, setting itself up for a failure in the next year or so?

Not necessarily, but developing a new rocket (Vulcan) does increase risk considerably.

[Space Ghost 1962]

ULA is actually improved by a tighter footprint (can quibble about organizational hierarchy). In high similarity missions, as with any provider.

Where the risks rise for any provider is in specialized missions. In these cases they can "back fill" with former employees brought in on consulting agreements.

From a competitive standpoint you want to resemble your rival in ways that accentuate your strengths. Suspect one's strengths will be volume of launches, while the other will be in breadth of capabilities.

Likely this leads to an "apples vs oranges" assessment. Which means its difficult to judge as competition, because its not "head to head".

[Coastal Ron]

Is ULA, by cutting so many personnel, setting itself up for a failure in the next year or so?

The next year or two I would say no from a customer demand standpoint (I have no idea about safety), since the U.S. Government still wants to rely on ULA as not only a sole source provider for some payloads, but also because the U.S. Government has a desire to keep competition now that it has it.

So for the next year or so ULA can depend on a certain level of customer demand. However once Atlas V and Delta IV M/H are gone, and Vulcan is the new launcher in the world, the question becomes whether they will be able to capture enough U.S. Government demand AND commercial customers to provide the profit level ULA's parents want.

And who knows, maybe by that point in time ULA's parents will be OK with negative profit. Or maybe not. But it's way too early to know, so sticking just to the next two years I think SpaceX will continue to keep making inroads into ULA's demand territory, although it may be slow progress due to the increasing requirements each level of payloads has.

[kaa]

The first Ariane 5 ECA launch failed (11 Dec 2002) so why does it have a reliability upper limit of 1 ?

Here are the 95% confidence intervals and point estimates for the reliability of several launch vehicles.  Generally the tighter confidence intervals correspond to more launches.  These statistics provide insight.  It can be said, for example, that the Merlin 1D-powered Falcon 9 is currently likely less reliable than Atlas 5 or Ariane 5 ECA, but there is a chance (because the intervals overlap the point estimates) that it could end up being as reliable as those launchers.  There is also a chance that it ends up in the Titan 4/Proton M/Briz M range. 

The calculations (using Adjusted Wald Method) come from this marvelous site:  https://measuringu.com/wald/

 - Ed Kyle

[ChrisWilson68]

Here are the 95% confidence intervals and point estimates for the reliability of several launch vehicles.  Generally the tighter confidence intervals correspond to more launches.  These statistics provide insight.  It can be said, for example, that the Merlin 1D-powered Falcon 9 is currently likely less reliable than Atlas 5 or Ariane 5 ECA, but there is a chance (because the intervals overlap the point estimates) that it could end up being as reliable as those launchers.  There is also a chance that it ends up in the Titan 4/Proton M/Briz M range. 

The calculations (using Adjusted Wald Method) come from this marvelous site:  https://measuringu.com/wald/

Sad.  It's been pointed out before on these threads multiple times to Ed that this is a misapplication of statistics, but he keeps energetically re-posting the nonsense.

These statistical models are based on assumptions that are wildly unrealistic for rockets, including an assumption about the prior distribution of reliability levels and an assumption that the reliability doesn't change over time (i.e. that nobody ever learns from a failure or fixes the root cause of that failure).

Blindly plugging in a formula where it doesn't apply does not give valid results.

[Jimmy Murdok]

Here are the 95% confidence intervals and point estimates for the reliability of several launch vehicles.  Generally the tighter confidence intervals correspond to more launches.  These statistics provide insight.  It can be said, for example, that the Merlin 1D-powered Falcon 9 is currently likely less reliable than Atlas 5 or Ariane 5 ECA, but there is a chance (because the intervals overlap the point estimates) that it could end up being as reliable as those launchers.  There is also a chance that it ends up in the Titan 4/Proton M/Briz M range. 

The calculations (using Adjusted Wald Method) come from this marvelous site:  https://measuringu.com/wald/

Sad.  It's been pointed out before on these threads multiple times to Ed that this is a misapplication of statistics, but he keeps energetically re-posting the nonsense.

These statistical models are based on assumptions that are wildly unrealistic for rockets, including an assumption about the prior distribution of reliability levels and an assumption that the reliability doesn't change over time (i.e. that nobody ever learns from a failure or fixes the root cause of that failure).

Blindly plugging in a formula where it doesn't apply does not give valid results.

Well, it's simple formula, an approximation to reality. But do the job and it is clearly exposed. Do not pretend to be otherwise. You can add other factors on top of that, but will be difficult to keep apples to apples. SpaceX is adding new features every flight and constantly increasing the risk --> subcooled propellant caused last explosion and decreasing risk by experience, so outcome is difficult to evaluate. Their failures are recent so they have to be considered. In Russia they have a good history of loosing reliability over time. With enough flights and no failures F9 will shorten the bar end increase reliability over Atlas. At some point in the future you can show the calculations with Block V and go for clean sheet, but will stay as stable as Atlas or Ariane with only minor tweaks?

Do you have a better alternative?

[AncientU]

The statistical method provided by Ed has value, just must be careful to avoid using it as an absolute predictor.  The perfect Atlas V record to date doesn't say the next launch won't be a failure -- it does say that such a failure is less likely statistically than a failure on the next Falcon or Proton launch. 

Let's avoid the naive thinking that quantifying something statistically is any kind of final/solid answer.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Is ULA, by cutting so many personnel, setting itself up for a failure in the next year or so?

Not likely. ULA less personnel though does mean for less scheduling flexibility since more personnel may be shared between launch pads and even east/west coast sites. Less people "sitting on their hands" drawing the "subsidy" because there will no longer be the "subsidy". This then may make scheduling launches on both coasts with close to same dates not possible.

This article makes my point.
http://spacenews.com/cape-canaveral-facilities-prepare-for-hurricane-irma/

ULA slip launch on west coast because it was sharing personnel from the east coast.

[AncientU]

Is ULA, by cutting so many personnel, setting itself up for a failure in the next year or so?

Not likely. ULA less personnel though does mean for less scheduling flexibility since more personnel may be shared between launch pads and even east/west coast sites. Less people "sitting on their hands" drawing the "subsidy" because there will no longer be the "subsidy". This then may make scheduling launches on both coasts with close to same dates not possible.

This article makes my point.
http://spacenews.com/cape-canaveral-facilities-prepare-for-hurricane-irma/

ULA slip launch on west coast because it was sharing personnel from the east coast.

From another thread:

Question: Isn't ULA required to maintain a two-coast launch capability as funded under ELC contract?  They appear to have cut manning so severely that any slip becomes a two-coast domino effect...

From Tory Bruno last year:

There has been a tremendous amount of rhetoric and misinformation regarding a contract my company has with the Air Force, commonly referred to as “ELC.” The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Launch Capability contract ensures safe, reliable and on-time launch services for our country’s most critical national security space satellites.

...

ELC has very specific scope. As I said, it transports the boosters to the launch site.  It assembles them together and mates the satellite. ELC maintains, prepares and refurbishes the pad, which takes a beating with every launch. It buys the rocket fuel, pays the range fees, and rolls us out to the pad. ELC pays for my engineers who design a unique trajectory for every flight and for my mission assurance team who scrub and scrutinize every part on the rocket, as well as every line of software to make sure our mission success record continues. It pays for the team you see in mission control making the big moment happen, as well as the labs and infrastructure that allows all of them to do their jobs.

...
The Government Accountability Office has certified that this two-prong approach has avoided launch delays and will save taxpayers $4.4 billion.

emphasis mine

Anyway, the potential slips from unanticipated events (Boeing damaging an antenna on TDRSS-M causing knock-on launch schedule slips, Irma delaying a west coast launch and potentialls other subsequent launches, etc.) will not improve their competitive position WRT SpaceX.  The smooth OTV-5 launch ahead of Irma's arrival might have some asking why the USAF is paying so much more for traditional rides..

[AncientU]

Ariane reports a total (multi-year) manifest of 17 flights for Ariane V.
Two left this year for a total of six, seven next year, eight in out years.

Planning a capability of 11-12 Ariane 6 launches per year.


From Ariane thread:

http://www.arianespace.com/press-release/arianespace-announces-two-new-launches-bringing-its-order-book-to-53-launches-17-for-ariane-5-27-with-soyuz-and-nine-utilizing-vegavega-c/

The VA239 mission for Intelsat 37e and BSAT 4a, currently scheduled as from September 29.

[MichaelBlackbourn]

This just crossed my Twitter feed.... Interesting design...

https://www.chinaspaceflight.com/satellite/Linkspace/Linkspace.html

[SmallKing]

This just crossed my Twitter feed.... Interesting design...

https://www.chinaspaceflight.com/satellite/Linkspace/Linkspace.html

Just a concept. That small company has no funds, no technology, no debut launch date...

[Coastal Ron]

This just crossed my Twitter feed.... Interesting design...

https://www.chinaspaceflight.com/satellite/Linkspace/Linkspace.html

Looks like a small-sat launcher, so not a direct competitor to SpaceX. But from an industry standpoint, it's good to see there is some copying starting to happen.

[MichaelBlackbourn]

Yeah. From 'thats impossible' to 'of course your startup rocket design has legs' in a handful of years.   Pretty cool.