Failure of commercialization of space in the 90's

More on the other commercial booster (Soyuz II)

Uprated Soyuz booster designed for commercial customers. Upgraded engines, modern avionics, reduced non-Russian content. Can be used with either Ikar or Fregat upper stages.

Changes were limited to:

The first and second stage engines featured improved performance with new injectors and mixture ratio.
The third stage engine performance was increased.
The launch vehicle was equipped with a new control system allowing in-flight orbital plane change (whereas all earlier R-7 derived vehicles flew a fixed trajectory, with the launch table rotated before launch to the appropriate azimuth).

A new, larger-diameter fairing (3.65 meters in diameter) was used.
The standard fourth stage was the Fregat orbital module.

LEO Payload: 7,800 kg. to: 240 km Orbit. at: 51.8 degrees. Liftoff Thrust: 422,640 kgf. Liftoff Thrust: 4,144.70 kN. Total Mass: 310,000 kg. Core Diameter: 2.95 m. Total Length: 43.40 m. Launch Price $: 40.00 million. in 1999 price dollars. Cost comments: $ 30 to 50 million price per launch quoted ca. 1999 by Starsem.

Look at these R-7 types:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html Scroll down

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/onega.htm 14 tons to LEO
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/e ... _sum.shtml This project went defunct once Soyuz was going to Kourou. This booster was to use four NK-33/43 class engines for its first stage--and we may see a combination of this Aurora booster and the Onega/Yamal booster in years to come--far outclassing Falcon:

http://www.apsc2orbit.com/auroralaunch/ ... aunch.html
http://www.apsc2orbit.com/auroralaunch/ ... ystem.html


Here are two Russian rockets more in the Falcon's class:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/dnepr.html .....Falcoln V class
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ur100n.html ....Falcon I class (Musk's biggest competitor overseas as Eurokot.

Well, she hasn't actually FLOWN that mission yet, but neither has Falcon V, so I suppose that it's a fair comparison.

All of which is noise unless we have real data about what the typical commercial payload is going to look like, weigh, and where it will need to go.

You know, I don't recall EVER having seen such an analysis, ANYWHERE.

Anyone out there have any reference on the payload types/mission profiles of commercial launch activity for the past 10 years?

That changes from year to year. Here are some noble attempts to fill the fickle payload market--the Low Cost Launch Vehicle projects:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/lclv.htm

There should be some information at the bottom of each listing )after you click on it) that may answer some of your questions.

The orbital version of Dream Chaser looks to use hybrid boosters like these:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/indhicle.htm
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/a ... 53,00.html

It's customer could be the USMC for its SUSTAIN/HOT EAGLE program.

Misc:

Iran has solids
http://www.spacewar.com/news/iran-05zm.html

Giant Comsat
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/internet-05zzx.html
Huge Comsat
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/launchers-05zzt.html
Starsem
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/launchers-05zzu.html

Hello, skymik,

you wrote



Ariane is no example of a governmental rocket/vehicle - it is produced by the private company or trust EADS. This means that a significant portion of the launch price is controlled privately - only the charge for using the launch complex in Kourou is governmental. So Ariane is not run by ESA or any government - ESA and/or governments buy an Ariane only!!!

Ariane has been developed by governments but once Ariane proved to work the governments hurried to privatize the production and further development of Ariane by founding Arianespace which a few years later became a part of EADS like Airbus and others too.



The scale causing or providing economies of scale doesn't have anything to do with prices - prices are completely independent of costs unless there is market power on the side of the producers. The demanders decide if the price is too high or acceptable and they consider the relation between launch price and the value of the payload to be launched.



The essential and important fact is not that there still isn't big demand for launch - essential and important are the reasons why there is no such demand. Demand is dependent of several factors - one factor is the price Elon Musk is reducing, other factors are the weight, the size and the amount of the payloads to be launched. This means that demand, production and the market(s) are structured and if the structure of production doesn't fit into the structure of demand the the demand doesn't buy rockets/launches. I remember an article quoting Elon Musk pointing this out in short - he is working to meet the structur of demand. The XPRIZE Foundation, Virgin Galactic, Burt Rutan and the other XPRIZE- and ASP-teams are doing so too.



Hello, SawSS1June21,

you wrote



This is a very important point - Musk is working on his own vision and his engineers share that vision. This is a huge motivation - much stronger than in the case to produce a vehicle/rocket for the vision of someone else, NASA or the government.

skymik, these visioneerdom etc. means that Musk and the others are driven by the look into the future - into a future of several years, one decade and several decades. This is valid regarding each entrepreneur like Musk, Rutan etc. - the present doesn't count because it is there and it can't be worked on. They are searching for the potential demand - what's obvious presently is the actual demand only. What can be seen because of orders etc. is actual demand and doesnt say anything about potential demand - so they don't care about the present actual demand and take the risk. They wouldn't be entrepreneurs else - nor pioneers. Without such people the world still would be in the stone age. You'll find some answers by
looking for what Musk and the other say concerning future in interviews and quotes.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)