Atlas V and Delta IV vs. Ariane V

Atlas V and Delta IV vs. Ariane V by Analyst on 15 Feb, 2007 06:55
My question is: Why are both EELVs not competive with Ariane V in the commercial market? And to withdraw from a market (Delta IV) is the same as not being competitive, because if you are, you don't withdraw.

Ariane V launches about 8 to 10 heavy comsats per year, not counting the occasional military or scientific sats. Atlas launched about 6 since 2002, Delta IV one. Very often international comsat operators turn to Ariane V. Why? It can't be payload capacity.

Costs? I understand why Proton or Zenit are cheaper (labour costs). The US military paid (partially) for EELV development and does so for some launch infrastructure, ESA (or "Europe") supported Ariane V development and still does. Labour costs should be about the same. So what are the reasons?

Analyst
#1 by Skyrocket on 15 Feb, 2007 10:07
You have already cited the reson: "ESA (or "Europe") supported Ariane V development and still does"
#2 by Analyst on 15 Feb, 2007 11:10
No I haven't. LM and Boeing are supported (and I said this in my post) by the government big time too: Development costs, infrastructure, a number of military and NASA launches. Look at the DOD EELV budgets in the last ten years. It's not that US vehicles are developed with private money nor are they operated in such a way.

It is always easy to point fingers, but government support in Europe (and not in the US) can't be the reason.

Analyst
#3 by Jim on 15 Feb, 2007 11:34
Each contractor was given $500M and then the Buy 1 orders. Each contractor contributed between 1-3 billion (LM on the low end and Boeing on the high end). Infrastructure support was only started this year

Ariane V total development was paid for by ESA.

NASA launches don't count.
#4 by Analyst on 15 Feb, 2007 11:52
So the reason is that government support in Europe for Ariane V is higher than in the US?

You say NASA does not count. Maybe. But NASA is forced by law to use US launchers, ESA often uses cheaper Russian vehicles. So NASA, by definition a government sponcered agency, brings EELVs some business and this should help to reduce per unit cost, thus make EELVs more competitive. Therefore, at least indirect, NASA launches help EELVs, and yet they don't seem to be competitive in the international comsat market.

Analyst
#5 by Jim on 15 Feb, 2007 13:55
NASA's JWST is flying on Ariane V.

NASA launches don't count because there are so few of them
#6 by Skyrocket on 15 Feb, 2007 14:33
Quote
Jim - 15/2/2007 3:55 PM

NASA's JWST is flying on Ariane V.

JWST is technically an ESA launch
#7 by edkyle99 on 15 Feb, 2007 15:12
Quote
Analyst - 15/2/2007 1:55 AM

My question is: Why are both EELVs not competive with Ariane V in the commercial market?

Analyst

Ariane has a lot going for it in the commercial launch market. First, Ariane is almost entirely dedicated to the geosynchronous commercial satellite market. The EELVs are dedicated, first and foremost, to their U.S. government customer(s). This means that Arianespace has become a specialist in prioritizing its commercial comsat customers, while the EELV providers must prioritize their U.S. government customers over any commercial customers.

Second, Ariane is launched from a near-equatorial launch site, which gives it a substantial advantage in geosynchronous missions over Cape Canaveral. If an Atlas V could be launched from Kourou, it would be able in theory to haul about 25% more payload to geosynchronous transfer orbit than it does from the Cape. Since every kilogram to GTO costs something like $20,000 these days, each Ariane 5 ECA is going to have something in the neighborhood of a $50 million advantage over an equivalent Cape Canaveral-based competitor.

If there were a competitor, that is. Currently, no U.S. launch vehicle offered for commercial business - indeed none offered for commercial launches in the world - can haul as much to GTO as Ariane 5 ECA. Atlas V 551 can only haul 6.7-ish tonnes to a Kourou-equivalent GTO. Ariane 5 ECA can boost nearly 10 tonnes, which means that it can carry two big commercial comsats simultaneously.

Third, the U.S. EELV government, and geography, conspire against EELVs by forcing them to launch from both Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg AFB. The Cape handles GTO and other non-polar missions while Vandenberg handles the near-polar launches. That means that the EELVs require twice as much launch infrastructure as Ariane, which can fly to GTO *and* near-polar orbits from just one launch pad at Kourou.

Fourth, the Pentagon insistence on maintaining two EELV options halves the number of launches performed by each, which doubles (on top of the dual pad cost addition) the per-launch fixed costs of each launch. This, in addition to the geographic advantages, is why the only U.S. launch vehicle that could match or beat Ariane 5 ECA in payload haul (Delta IV Heavy) probably costs 150% as much to fly as an Ariane 5 ECA.

Fifth, a commercial launch out of Cape Canaveral must not only wait out the notorious Florida weather, but must also compete for launch slots with Pentagon and NASA. Guess who wins that competition? It is also likely that commercial customers have more paperwork and fee obstacles to deal with at the Cape than they do at Kourou.

IMO, the only way to attempt to compete with Ariane for GTO business would be to fly from an equatorial launch site while garnering an equivalent amount of government support. (All launchers are subsidized, to some extent, by governments.) But even then, good luck competing for narrow-margin business against a successful, entrenched competitor.

- Ed Kyle
#8 by Jim on 15 Feb, 2007 15:15
Sealaunch is almost that competitor
#9 by edkyle99 on 15 Feb, 2007 15:18
Quote
Jim - 15/2/2007 10:15 AM

Sealaunch is almost that competitor

Yes, and it appears to have made inroads on Arianespace business in recent years. It offers a dedicated launch for each customer, which may give it an advantage in some cases. Reliability, or the perception of reliability, is going to be a critical factor for both Sea Launch and Arianespace as this competition evolves.

- Ed Kyle
#10 by sandrot on 15 Feb, 2007 15:29
Could Atlas V be "sea launchable"?
#11 by Jim on 15 Feb, 2007 15:46
Quote
sandrot - 15/2/2007 11:29 AM

Could Atlas V be "sea launchable"?

SeaLaunch was designed around the Zenit
#12 by sandrot on 15 Feb, 2007 15:55
I was not implying Sea Launch had to do it. Possibly another interested company?
#13 by Jim on 15 Feb, 2007 16:04
Quote
sandrot - 15/2/2007 11:55 AM

I was not implying Sea Launch had to do it. Possibly another interested company?

The "SeaLaunch" concept is built aound the Zenit. Another LV could not use the existing facilities.

As for launching an Atlas off an ocean platform? Of course, given enough money.

Zenit was designed to be handled horizontally and erected at the pad. Atlas is stacked
Zenit uses RP-1 and LOX Atlas also needs LH2
#14 by quark on 16 Feb, 2007 02:18
Quote
Analyst - 15/2/2007 12:55 AM

My question is: Why are both EELVs not competive with Ariane V in the commercial market? And to withdraw from a market (Delta IV) is the same as not being competitive, because if you are, you don't withdraw.

Ariane V launches about 8 to 10 heavy comsats per year, not counting the occasional military or scientific sats. Atlas launched about 6 since 2002, Delta IV one. Very often international comsat operators turn to Ariane V. Why? It can't be payload capacity.

Costs? I understand why Proton or Zenit are cheaper (labour costs). The US military paid (partially) for EELV development and does so for some launch infrastructure, ESA (or "Europe") supported Ariane V development and still does. Labour costs should be about the same. So what are the reasons?

Analyst

There are a number of reasons some of which have been stated below. Certainly, the cost to build and launch an Ariane V (per kg of delivered payload) is not less than Atlas. However, the PRICE charged to customers is almost always less. How can that be? It's quite simple. Arianespace is not required to operate as a business and return shareholder value. Its charter is to keep a full manifest and to provide access to space for Europe. It's a point of pride for France in particular and CNES is a major shareholder.

Take a look at their balance sheet for the last several years. They suffered yearly losses in the hundreds of millions. Recently they undertook a "recapitalization" where the losses were written off and operating capital reestablished. They also obtained an "infrastructure sustainment" arrangement similar to what the EELV contractors got last year. In business terms, Arianespace was bankrupt and went through restructure.

On the Atlas side, Lockheed was not willing to consistently sell at a loss to keep up with Ariane. And neither was Boeing. Better to focus on the USG market while picking up the rare commercial.

The future may be brighter for both Atlas and Delta. They both now have infrastructure sustainment contracts and market prices are increasing (more demand and tighter supply). Arianespace is under pressure to deliver better financials so they will keep prices elevated as well.

Bottom line, if the launch market were free from governmental influence (on both sides of the Atlantic) Atlas and even Delta would compete very well with Ariane.
#15 by meiza on 16 Feb, 2007 12:32
Free from goverment influence - does that mean EELV:s wouldn't launch any NRO, government weather or NASA satellites by default either? That everybody in the world would just go to the cheapest bidder? (Reliability is an issue of course.) Then probably everybody would launch with Soyuz and Proton...

I think it's not only a "national pride" question but also important politically for EU to have independent space launch capability.

A thought excercise: Is the cost lower to keep launching comsats with some subsidy or only launch the one government payload per year? I don't know.

For EELV:s it seems that there are so many government payloads that they suffice alone.
#16 by edkyle99 on 16 Feb, 2007 14:45
Quote
quark - 15/2/2007 9:18 PM
Bottom line, if the launch market were free from governmental influence (on both sides of the Atlantic) Atlas and even Delta would compete very well with Ariane.

I have to disagree with this assertion. If the market were free from governmental influence, and if we assume that the cost to build the hardware was about the same in the U.S. and Europe, then Ariane would win the GTO business hands down due to the substantial physics boost provided by the geographical location of Kourou. For the same payload, a launch vehicle from Kourou can be quite a bit smaller/lighter, and therefore less costly, than a launch vehicle flown from Cape Canaveral.

- Ed Kyle
#17 by jongoff on 16 Feb, 2007 16:56
Ed,
Quote
I have to disagree with this assertion. If the market were free from governmental influence, and if we assume that the cost to build the hardware was about the same in the U.S. and Europe, then Ariane would win the GTO business hands down due to the substantial physics boost provided by the geographical location of Kourou. For the same payload, a launch vehicle from Kourou can be quite a bit smaller/lighter, and therefore less costly, than a launch vehicle flown from Cape Canaveral.

I'm not so sure. You're glossing over a whole bunch of other factors that I think could sway things one way or another. The "physics benefit" from Kourou, while useful, isn't quite such an overwhelming advantage as you seem to portray it. You have to add the cost of maintaining a tropical launch site, shipping stuff across the Atlantic, and a whole slew of other costs. Would Ariane V come out ahead once all things were considered? What with the points that quark made, I kind of doubt it.

~Jon
#18 by kevin-rf on 17 Feb, 2007 02:03
You also forgot the added cost of a LH first stage vs a smaller Kero first stage used on say the Atlas V (For example).
#19 by William Graham on 17 Feb, 2007 21:01
Quote
edkyle99 - 15/2/2007 4:18 PM

Quote
Jim - 15/2/2007 10:15 AM

Sealaunch is almost that competitor

Yes, and it appears to have made inroads on Arianespace business in recent years. It offers a dedicated launch for each customer, which may give it an advantage in some cases. Reliability, or the perception of reliability, is going to be a critical factor for both Sea Launch and Arianespace as this competition evolves.

- Ed Kyle

One interesting thing to note about the reliability issues is that Arianespace have the advantage of only having to worry about their own rocket's reliability. With Sea Launch, they could be affected by the failure of a Zenit 2, or, to some extent, an Atlas.

Returning to the main issue under discussion, this works the other way as well. A problem with a Zenit could affect the Atlas. (As in the case of the recent NSS-8 incident)
Also, an upper stage engine failure could ground both the Atlas and Delta, as they use the RL-10 engines.