Коммерческие запуски на ГСО

[mescalito]

В википедии :

Although the ESC-B development has been put on hold in 2005, the Vinci project has not been cancelled: at a lower pace, the engine is still being developed. In 22 December 2006, Snecma announced a new ESA contract for Vinci rocket engine long-duration and re-ignition testing.

[Humorist]

Даешь ЕвроКазсат!

      ESA Signs For Small GEO Satellite Platform

            The Small Geostationary Satellite initiative is aimed at the
            development of a small, European, general-purpose telecommunications
            satellite platform, capable of supporting
            !!! a payload mass of up to 300 kg and payload power of 3 kW,
            МОЖНО ЛИ ПО ЭТИМ ДАННЫМ как-то соотнести спутник на этой платформе
            с Кахсатом, Ямалом?

По характеристикам полезной нагрузки мощности потребления Казсат в 2 раза меньше заявленных ESA характеристик малого КА, у казсата примерно 150 кг и 1.35 кВт
эти европейские характеристики блище к средним аппаратам т.е. Ямалу.

[Разъём]

В НК, №3/2007 в статье ""Этапы модернизации РБ Фрегат" (А. Копик) для Протон М и Ангара 5
указывается двухступенчатый РБ: ДМ+Фрегат.

Где бы можно было бы ознакомиться со статьей ""Этапы модернизации РБ Фрегат" (А. Копик, НК, №3/2007). К сожалению доступа к бумажной версии журнала в настоящий момент не имеется.

[Олигарх]

Даешь ЕвроКазсат!

      ESA Signs For Small GEO Satellite Platform

            The Small Geostationary Satellite initiative is aimed at the
            development of a small, European, general-purpose telecommunications
            satellite platform, capable of supporting
            !!! a payload mass of up to 300 kg and payload power of 3 kW,
            МОЖНО ЛИ ПО ЭТИМ ДАННЫМ как-то соотнести спутник на этой платформе
            с Кахсатом, Ямалом?

По характеристикам полезной нагрузки мощности потребления Казсат в 2 раза меньше заявленных ESA характеристик малого КА, у казсата примерно 150 кг и 1.35 кВт
эти европейские характеристики блище к средним аппаратам т.е. Ямалу.

The Space Review: When bad launches happen to good companies        

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/847/1
       
       
      When bad launches happen to good companies
      by Jeff Foust
      Monday, April 9, 2007
     
Over the last decade the commercial launch industry has experienced a
      series of ups and downs. The industry was doing quite well in the late
      1990s, riding the telecom boom and the development of several large
      constellations of low Earth orbit communications satellites. The boom went
      bust early this decade, and the industry went into the doldrums, with a
      sharp drop in launch demand and even the withdrawal of vehicles like the
      Delta 4, which Boeing took off the commercial launch market because prices
      had dropped dramatically in response to the low demand. In the last couple
      of years, though, the market has improved, with increased demand and
      rising prices (see "Is the launch industry on the rebound?", The Space
      Review, February 20, 2006).

      Overlaid on those long-term trends, though, are events that have
      short-term, but serious, effects on the industry, most notably launch
      failures. No vehicle is immune from them (although Lockheed Martin/United
      Launch Alliance would likely happily point out their long unbroken record
      of successful Atlas launches), and they can happen at any time.
      Arianespace had a setback when the inaugural Ariane 5 ECA failed in late
      2002, and International Launch Services (ILS) suffered a failure of the
      Proton M last year. Now it's Sea Launch's turn, with the dramatic failure
      of its Zenit-3SL in late January on its floating launch pad in the Pacific
      Ocean. What sort of impact will such a failure have on an industry that
      already has tight manifests and increasing prices?

      Sea Launch rights itself
      In the immediate aftermath of the failure, the situation looked grim for
      Sea Launch. A webcast of the launch—copies of which spread across the
      Internet thanks to video-sharing sites like YouTube—showed the Odyssey
      launch platform engulfed in a fireball as the Zenit-3SL appeared to fall
      back onto the platform an instant after liftoff. However, the vessel
      survived the explosion in remarkably good shape, with the only major
      damage the loss of a 250-tonne steel flame deflector. Rob Peckham,
      president and general manager of Sea Launch, said during a panel session
      at the Satellite 2007 conference in Washington a few weeks after the
      accident that all the Odyssey needed was "parts and paint".
      The investigation into the launch failure is ongoing, although Sea Launch
      confirmed in a press release last week that the failure was caused by an
      "anomaly" in the vehicle's first stage engine that caused it to shut down
      (Russian media reports last month indicated that the shutdown was caused
      by some kind of particulate contamination in the engine, a detail not
      included in the Sea Launch release.) The announcement, though, didn't
      indicate when the overall investigation would be complete, echoing
      Peckham's comments in the February forum. "We're going to leave no stone
      unturned, and we're going to get to the bottom of this," he said. "When is
      that going to be? I don't know." Peckham did say that he hoped to carry
      out two more launches this year, with the return to flight launch in
      October.
           
      The Sea Launch investigation has not only forced it to stand down, it has
      also delayed the introduction of the Land Launch service, which would use
      a nearly-identical variant of the Zenit-3SL, the Zenit-3SLB, to launch
      smaller satellites from the Baikonur Cosmodrome. These delays have caused
      several customers to change their launch plans. SES Americom moved its
      AMC-21 satellite from Land Launch to Arianespace in February, and HNS
      followed in March, shifting its large Spaceway 3 satellite from Sea Launch
      to Arianespace. Just last week, Intelsat announced that it was moving two
      satellites planned for separate Land Launch flights onto a single Ariane
      5. What's noteworthy about the shifts is that, despite continued
      statements from the industry about full manifests, both HNS and Intelsat
      were able to secure Ariane launches for later this year.
     
Even before the Sea Launch failure, though, there were concerns in the
      industry about schedule slips for both Sea Launch and Land Launch, which
      Peckham blamed on supply chain issues in Russia and Ukraine. "Customer
      interest in Sea Launch and Land Launch last year and the year before was
      more than we had anticipated, and it was more than our factories could
      handle," he said. "We feel as bad as anyone for the delays we have caused
      specifically on the Land Launch program." He said that they are ramping up
      production "in a methodical fashion", but claimed the delays were not the
      result of bad planning. "We would never go out and offer anything that we
      did not firmly believe that we could deliver."

      Tough times for new entrants
      With strong demand and—at least temporarily—constrained supply, the
      present would seem to provide a golden opportunity for companies to enter
      or reenter the commercial launch market. However, Boeing has shown little,
      if any, interest in bringing the Delta 4 back, focusing on government
      sales though the new United Launch Alliance joint venture. However, SpaceX
      has shown an interest of trying to crack the market in a couple years with
      its Falcon 9 vehicle under development, which promises to be considerably
      less expensive than existing vehicles. That lower cost, though, won't
      necessarily translate into customer interest, even in the current market.

      During the Satellite 2007 panel session, Gwynne Shotwell, vice president
      of business development for SpaceX, asked DirecTV senior vice president
      James Butterworth whether he would be interested in a Falcon 9 at a price
      of $35 million a launch. Butterworth was noncommittal, at best.

!!! "DirecTV is not driven by the price of either the launch vehicle or the satellite,"
      he said. "What DirecTV is
!!! really most interested in, both from our launch
      vehicle providers and from our satellite providers, is quality,
      reliability, and on-time delivery."
   
  "A new entrant is fine," he continued. "I still marvel at the number of
      people who try to become launch vehicle manufacturers. If you can come up
      with a vehicle that can loft our payloads, we will definitely talk with
      you."
!!!! However, he added, "my guess is that you won't be at that price when
      you're ready to launch."
           
      New launch vehicles entering the commercial market also face another
      hurdle: getting launch insurance at affordable rates. Shotwell said she
      hoped that the first insured launch of the Falcon 9 (which will be the
      second flight overall; the first launch will not be insured) would be able
      to get insurance at a premium of somewhere around 15-16 percent. Chris
      Kunstadter, vice president of XL Insurance, had a one-word initial
      response: "Interesting." Statistics have shown that the first and second
      launches of new vehicles traditionally have had high failure rates, which
      he said would mean higher insurance premiums. "First launch, second
      launch, out through the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth launch are generally
      riskier—we have to recognize that—and that is reflected in the rates."
     
 Customer concerns
      As the commercial launch market has shifted in the last few years from a
      buyers' to a sellers' market, launch customers have started to feel the
      pinch,
!!! and not just in increased launch prices.

Schedule slips in
      particular have caused grumbling among satellite operators as they try to
      figure out how long they'll have to wait for a launch or even who is in
      the queue ahead of them.

      A few years ago, Arianespace, Sea Launch, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
      (which markets the Japanese H-2A rocket) created the Launch Services
      Alliance to provide mutual backup services should one company's vehicle
      encounter problems, in much the same way ILS, prior to last fall, provided
      its own mutual backup between the Atlas and Proton vehicles. Butterworth,
      though, was unimpressed with the Alliance. "As far as I know, I think
      we're the only 'victim' of the Alliance to date. It didn't do anything for
      us. It's nice on paper and everything, but it didn't advance our launch
      date a minute."

      Butterworth argued for more transparency among launch services providers,
      so that they know who is scheduled to launch, and when. "If we actually
      had some transparency in who's on the manifests, heck, I could go to the
      other operators and offer to buy their slot or swap slots with them," he
      said.

      Jean-Yves Le Gall, CEO of Arianespace, said such an approach wouldn't work
      for his company, given uncertainties regarding exactly which satellites
      will be ready for launch and when. "The launch manifest I have in front of
      me today is a launch manifest which deals with the next two flights, a
      four- or five-month prediction," he said. Beyond that, "we have a number
      of satellites which are supposed to arrive, but we will see when they
      really arrive."

      Those problems are magnified for smaller satellite operators, who launch
      spacecraft less frequently and don't have the same resources as big
      companies like DirecTV. Paul Brown-Kenyon, COO of Malaysian satellite
      operator Measat, noted the problems his company had both with delays in
      their most recent launch, Measat-3, and with their next satellite,
      Measat-1R.
"For a small operator, being able to launch a satellite on time
      is critically important. We haven't got the flexibility of a large
      operator to move customers around."
       
      Brown-Kenyon was particularly concerned about the Measat-1R delays, which
      could have posed problems for the company had the Measat-3 launch failed
      as an existing satellite in orbit reached the end of its life. "You can't
      assume anything anymore, in terms of manufacturing schedules or launch
      schedules. You need to literally put in two, three, four years of margin
      to replace an asset just in case, in case there's an issue on the
      manufacturing side, an issue on the launch side, or you need to replace a
      satellite because of a launch failure. For a small operator, you can't
      work with that type of risk."

      Launch providers have also complained about delays, in this case in the
      delivery of satellites from manufacturers.
That problem, though, appears
      to have diminished recently.
"Satellites are being delivered in accordance
      with their schedules," said Peckham. "But that is a complete change from
      the reality we lived in in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003."

      While the industry remains highly competitive, Peckham said he has seen a
      show of support for Sea Launch as it tries to get back onto its feet after
      its January launch failure. "The outpouring of support that we've received
      has been heartwarming," Peckham said. "Everybody up here takes a risk," he
      said, referring to the conference panel that included not only launch
      companies, but also satellite operators, manufacturers, and insurers. "We
      need to keep doing this as a team, as an industry... We have to be in this
      together, we have to stay in it together, to continue to succeed."



      Jeff Foust (jeff@thespacereview.com) is the editor and publisher of The
      Space Review. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site and the Space
      Politics and Personal Spaceflight weblogs. Views and opinions expressed in
      this article are those of the author alone, and do not represent the
      official positions of any organization or company, including the Futron
      Corporation, the author's employer.

[Олигарх]

В НК, №3/2007 в статье ""Этапы модернизации РБ Фрегат" (А. Копик) для Протон М и Ангара 5
указывается двухступенчатый РБ: ДМ+Фрегат.

Где бы можно было бы ознакомиться со статьей ""Этапы модернизации РБ Фрегат" (А. Копик, НК, №3/2007). К сожалению доступа к бумажной версии журнала в настоящий момент не имеется.

Report: Boeing considering commercial Delta 4 launches
Posted: Sat, Apr 28 10:35 AM ET (1435 GMT)

 Boeing is considering returning the Delta 4 launch vehicle to the commercial market to help make up
 for weak government launch schedules, the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.
 According to the article, the Air Force is asking Boeing to try and sell the Delta 4 commercially
 to make up for a shortfall in government launches later this decade, thus reducing the costs that
 would have to be shouldered by the government for its missions.
 
 While government Delta 4 launches are now run by the United Launch Alliance,
 the Boeing-Lockheed Martin joint venture that also operates the Atlas 5,
 commercial launches of the Delta 4 would be managed by Boeing Launch Services.
 
  Boeing withdrew the Delta 4 from the commercial market in mid-2003, citing weak launch demand.
   A company official said at a 2005 conference that Boeing was planning to return the Delta 4
   to the commercial market that year, but the company quickly backed away from those claims.
Related Links:
 Wall Street Journal article (subscription required)



Indian rockets in global launch market - India PRwireMon, 30 Apr 2007 09:44:02

India is now in the multi-billion dollar global launch market after the
successful launch of an Italian satellite that was put into polar orbit by an
Indian rocket earlier this month.

India is the fifth after the US, Russia, Ukraine and the European Space Agency
(ESA) to have the capability of launching spacecraft of any kind into polar and
geo-stationary orbits, officials of the Indian Space Research Organisation
(ISRO) say.

'Since the April 23 launch of AGILE (the Italian astronomical satellite), there
have been some enquiries for our launch services. We are in talks with a couple
of customers. It is too early to disclose (their identity). The process may take
a couple of months,' ISRO chairman G. Madhavan Nair told IANS over the telephone
from Thiruvananthapuram.

By launching the 352 kg AGILE, using a four-stage 2.3-tonne polar satellite
launch vehicle (PSLV-C8), inclined at an angle of 2.5 degree to the equator,
ISRO has demonstrated its expertise to put a satellite into an equatorial
circular orbit of 550 km.
'The 44-metre PSLV-C8 mission was unique in many respects. It was for the first
time a core-alone rocket was flown without the six strap-on motors of the first
stage. It was our first major commercial launch contract that was won against
stiff international competition,' Nair pointed out.

The ISRO's launch facility, christened the Satish Dhawan Space Centre, is
located at Sriharikota in Andhra Pradesh, about 90 km from Chennai and off the
Bay of Bengal. The SHAR range boasts of two launch pads for PSLV and GSLV
(geo-synchronous launch vehicle) rockets that carry payloads into polar and
geo-stationary orbits.
'Besides the Italian space agency, members of the space club were highly
appreciative of our launch capabilities. Prospective customers find our launch
technology reliable. The feedback has been encouraging to take up more
commercial launches,' Nair stated.

Asked whether ISRO has bagged a contract to launch an Israeli satellite in polar
orbit, as reported in a section of the media, Nair said it would be unfair to
name any country or customer when no such deal had been finalised yet.
'We are in talks with some customers. It would not be prudent to name any of
them at a time when discussions are on. Suffice it to say we are in the global
market for a share of the launch pie,' Nair asserted.
Unconfirmed reports mentioned that ISRO is set to launch a 300 kg Israeli
satellite named Polaris that is intended to take pictures of earth through cloud
and rain round the clock. The Israeli space agency is reported to be keen on a
PSLV with a core alone configuration (without strap-on booster motors in the
first state), similar to the PSLV-C8 used by ISRO for launching the Italian
satellite.
Even as the Indian space agency pitches for commercial launches, Nair said the
organisation was currently focusing on launching the Insat-4CR into the
geo-stationary orbit, using the GSLV Mark-II in August-September.

'The Insat-4CR will be followed by two PSLV launches to put Cartosat-2A and six
small satellites from Canada into the polar orbit. The latter will be a
full-fledged commercial launch,' Nair added.
According to K.R. Sridhar Murthi, executive director of Antrix Corporation Ltd,
the marketing agency of ISRO, India is braced for snapping up lucrative
contracts to launch payloads in sub-two tonne class (polar orbit) and sub-three
tonne class (geo-synchronous orbit).

'The market for launching satellites is estimated to be about $1.5 billion per
annum. We are in the race for bagging a couple of satellites for commercial
launches in the next 12-18 months,' Murthi said.
For the AGILE launch, Antrix charged the Italian space agency a whopping $29,000
per kg, as the scientific satellite had to be put into a specific orbit of about
550 km at an inclination of 2.5 degrees to the equator.
'It was a difficult orbit at a low inclination. That is why we have charged a
premium though international rates for launching a satellite vary between
$10,000-15,000 per kg for polar orbits and over $20,000 per kg for
geo-stationary orbits,' Murthi disclosed.
The launch costs from Sriharikota are estimated to be 30-35 percent cheaper than
from other launch pads worldwide.
- By Fakir Balaji

[Олигарх]

Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | Orbital wins major contract with SES AMERICOM
       
 
      Orbital wins major contract with SES AMERICOM
      ORBITAL SCIENCES NEWS RELEASE
      Posted: May 8, 2007

      DULLES, VA - Orbital Sciences Corporation continues to lead the global
      market for
      !!! smaller-sized geosynchronous (GEO) communications satellites
      with an announcement today that it has received an order from SES AMERICOM
      for as many as five new satellites over a multi-year period.
 
      Orbital stated that SES AMERICOM of Princeton, NJ, has placed a firm order
      for two new satellites, the first designated as AMC-5R and the second a
      ground spare that will be launched to another orbital location as a future
      replacement satellite. Deliveries of the first two satellites are
      scheduled for mid- and late-2009, respectively. In addition to the two
      satellites that Orbital will immediately begin constructing, the contract
      gives SES AMERICOM the option to order up to three more identical
      satellites over the next few years.
 
      The AMC-5R and the identical ground spare spacecraft will be hybrid
      satellites, each carrying 24 active C-band and 24 Ku-band transponders of
      36 MHz capacity each. Some of the channels in each band will also be
      cross-strapped, enabling new service capability. Each spacecraft will
      generate approximately five kilowatts of payload power and will have two
      deployable reflectors.
 
    ...
 
      Orbital's commercial satellite business has experienced rapid growth over
      the past several years. Including the new SES AMERICOM order, the company
      currently has
      !!! 12 commercial GEO spacecraft in various stages of design,
      production and testing at its Dulles, VA satellite manufacturing facility.
      To accommodate this growth, earlier this year Orbital completed an
      expansion of its manufacturing plant that, together with other facility
      improvements, has increased its manufacturing throughput capacity by over
      30% as compared to one year ago.
      Mr. Mike Larkin, Orbital's Senior Vice President of its Space Systems
      Group, who was instrumental in securing and negotiating the new contract
      with SES AMERICOM, summarized the significance of the new order, stating,
      "This new contract for the AMC-5R and ground spare satellites greatly
      expands Orbital's relationship with the SES Global family of satellite
      services companies. With SES AMERICOM's AMC-21 platform and SES New Skies'
      NSS-9 spacecraft, which were ordered last year, now well along in their
      design and manufacturing phases, we are delighted to be able to play an
      expanded role in SES Global's spacecraft fleet strategy for the future."
      About Orbital
      Orbital develops and manufactures small rockets and space systems for
      commercial, military and civil government customers. ...
     
      1. У сегмента легких спутников есть перспективы!
      Возможно, России (ЦиХ! остальные?) удастся войти в этот сегмент мирового рынка ...

      Что касается доставки таких спутников, то российские (или с российским участием) возможности
      таковы:
      а) попутный груз для Протона (Как Экспресс МД-1);
      б) Союз 2/Фрегат СБ - контролируется Starsem/Arianspace и будет использоваться
      в основном для научных и правительственных запусков, для коммерческих очень ограниченно;
      в) Зенит-3 из Байконура - контролируется Боингом и по антисоветскому
       то есть антиILSовскому соглашению Боинга, Arianspace и японцев именно Зениту-3,
       а не Союз/Фрегат, должны доставаться легкие спутники;
     
      Все эти возможности ограничены, но пока больше, наверное, и не нужно.  
      Но если сегмент будет развиваться, то желателен полностью свой РН для этого сегмента.
     
      Ангара-3? Вообще, каковы ее перспективы? В статье Маринина про Плесецк Ангара-3 как
       таковая не упоминается. Упоминается тяжелая Ангара-5, легкая - это точно Ангара-1 (и Ангара-3?),
       для каждой свой старт.
      Может для этого сегмента подойдет Ангара 1.2 с ТТУ и Бриз-м (и 12КРБ/15КРБ?)?
     
      2. Другой аспект.
       
      Доставка ГПО vs ГТО
      У ЦиХ есть один контракт на запуск спутника Orbital массой, если не ошибаюсь, около 2,7 тонн.
      И я читал, что поскольку Протон М/Бриз может такую массу доставить прямо на ГСО, то этот
      спутник и будет выведен практически на ГСО. При этом для спутника будет сэкономлено много
      топлива, которое обычно тратится на переход с ГПО на ГСО (кажется, около 40-50% от
      всей массы спутника), выигрыш для владельцев спутника очевиден - сэкономленное топливо позволит
      продлить его жизнь на ГСО.
      Почему почти все основные спутниковые платформы разработаны для вывода на ГПО?
      Это Исторически, это стало стандартом и владельцы спутников не привязаны к 1-2 провайдерам запусков.
     
      Возможно ли возникновение на международном рынке сегмента запусков на ГСО?
      Так запускаются все российские спутники - Протоном. Кажется, недавно японцы запустили так свой спутник.
      Delta 4 Heavy в своем первом запуске должна была выести свою основную ПЕ на почти ГСО.
      Со стороны нескольких провайдеров запусков в принципе все готово.  
     
     Но, я думаю, чтобы владельцы спутников пошли на прямые запуски на ГСО, должны появиться спутниковые платформы
     без ЖРД! Только на ЭРД!  Таких ведь сейчас нет?

[Разъём]

б) Союз 2/Фрегат СБ - контролируется Starsem/Arianspace и будет использоваться
в основном для научных и правительственных запусков, для коммерческих очень ограниченно;
в) Зенит-3 из Байконура - контролируется Боингом и по антисоветскому  
то есть антиILSовскому соглашению Боинга, Arianspace и японцев именно Зениту-3,
а не Союз/Фрегат, должны доставаться легкие спутники;

Мягко выражаясь - это все не правда. Arianspace борется за эти заказы, в том числе и для Союза. Одна из основных идей запуска Союза с Куру - это взять на себя часть рынка ПН на ГПО до 3 тонн.
В соглашении по Альянсу между SL, японцами и Arianspace нет ничего о разделе рынка. Там говориться только о том, что в случае невозможности запуска одним из РН альянса, другой РН может его подстраховать. Как была между ними конкурентная борьба за заказы, так она и осталась. Т.е. Зенит-3SLB является прямым конкурентом Союза на Куру.
Не надо выдумывать то, что не существует...

[ratte07]

Сейчас РН и платформы делают одни и те же фирмы. И зачем им нужен прямой вывод на ГСО? Подарок ГКНПЦ? Довыведение с помощью ДУ КА - это дополнительная ступень. Прямой вывод - возможно лучший удельный импульс ЖРД РБ (если РБ водородный). Не факт, что масса ПН будет больше во втором случае, в особенности для неводородных РБ.

[Feol]

Сейчас РН и платформы делают одни и те же фирмы. И зачем им нужен прямой вывод на ГСО? Подарок ГКНПЦ? Довыведение с помощью ДУ КА - это дополнительная ступень. Прямой вывод - возможно лучший удельный импульс ЖРД РБ (если РБ водородный). Не факт, что масса ПН будет больше во втором случае, в особенности для неводородных РБ.

Почему одни и те же фирмы? Не всегда.

[ratte07]

Сейчас РН и платформы делают одни и те же фирмы. И зачем им нужен прямой вывод на ГСО? Подарок ГКНПЦ? Довыведение с помощью ДУ КА - это дополнительная ступень. Прямой вывод - возможно лучший удельный импульс ЖРД РБ (если РБ водородный). Не факт, что масса ПН будет больше во втором случае, в особенности для неводородных РБ.

Почему одни и те же фирмы? Не всегда.

Боинг и Локхид делают. ИМХО, этого достаточно.

[Humorist]

Сейчас РН и платформы делают одни и те же фирмы. И зачем им нужен прямой вывод на ГСО? Подарок ГКНПЦ? Довыведение с помощью ДУ КА - это дополнительная ступень. Прямой вывод - возможно лучший удельный импульс ЖРД РБ (если РБ водородный). Не факт, что масса ПН будет больше во втором случае, в особенности для неводородных РБ.

Почему одни и те же фирмы? Не всегда.

Боинг и Локхид делают. ИМХО, этого достаточно.

ты назвал америкосов, а европейцы? Астра, Алкатель-Аления?!

[Feol]

Сейчас РН и платформы делают одни и те же фирмы. И зачем им нужен прямой вывод на ГСО? Подарок ГКНПЦ? Довыведение с помощью ДУ КА - это дополнительная ступень. Прямой вывод - возможно лучший удельный импульс ЖРД РБ (если РБ водородный). Не факт, что масса ПН будет больше во втором случае, в особенности для неводородных РБ.

Почему одни и те же фирмы? Не всегда.

Боинг и Локхид делают. ИМХО, этого достаточно.

Боинг и Локхид - понятия абстрактные. Речь идет о конкретных коллективах разработчиков. Например, поглощение Хьюза Боингом не означает, что тот коллектив, который назывался Хьюзом и проектировал спутники, сразу научился проектировать ракеты и самолеты.

[Старый]

Да и у американцев Лорал Спейс Системз - не последнее колесо в телеге.

[Олигарх]

Да и у американцев Лорал Спейс Системз - не последнее колесо в телеге.

Продолжая про Orbital:

The Commercial Satellite Business Resumes Its Ascent Into Orbit
http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/070509/newamer.html?.v=1
       
      The Commercial Satellite Business Resumes Its Ascent Into Orbit
      Wednesday May 9, 7:00 pm ET
      Ben Steverman

Making rockets and satellites may seem like an exciting space-age world
      where clever scientists test technology's limits every day.
      The reality is more mundane. Buyers of space gear are a lot like car buyers.
!!! They care most about reliability. To get it, customers will pay a
      higher price or forgo a high-tech doodad. They ask: Will your rocket carry
      my priceless satellite safely into orbit? Will your satellite operate for
      15 years without a hitch?
               
      Orbital Sciences (NYSE:ORB - News) can usually answer yes, analysts say.
!!! "How good is it to fly in a cheap rocket if it doesn't get where it's
      supposed to?" said Howard Rubel, an analyst at Jefferies & Co.
      "That's why Orbital is so proud of its string of successes," he said.

Orbital has built almost 600 satellites and rockets since 1982. There aren't many buyers
for satellites and rockets, so repeat business is important.
!!! "You're only as good as your last mission," said Barron Beneski, head of investor relations.
     
 Smaller Rockets

Orbital mostly builds smaller rockets and satellites.
!!! It's the only firm in the world to focus exclusively on this niche,
says Paul Nisbet of aerospace experts JSA Research.
It leaves the large satellites, or the powerful, high-altitude rockets,
to big competitors like Boeing (NYSE:BA - News).

!!! Small is a relative term. Orbital's satellites are
!!! typically 3,000 to 4,000 pounds. ТО ЕСТЬ 1200-1600 кг

"We specialize and focus in a particular niche," Beneski said. "We don't seek
to compete against the big guys in all of the market areas."
As a result, it has won big shares of the smaller, but global, markets.
 
Orbital estimates it had !!!    65% of the market for small launch vehicles, or rockets, in 2006.
It had !!!   half the market for small communication satellites.

Most of Orbital's private customers buy satellites. Several years ago, the market for commercial satellites
!!! nearly collapsed along with the technology. Orbital lost almost $8 per share in earnings in 2000.  
!!!    Now private satellite demand is returning. Most are used for TV, phone, Internet and other communication needs.

      Rather than big satellites, many are choosing Orbital's smaller products.
      Buyers want to avoid adding too much capacity too quickly. Plus, many want
      small satellites to focus on communication to a particular region, Nisbet says.

!!! Less than a third of customers are private satellite operators.
!!! Most other sales come from the U.S. government. ...

So how hard is it to estimate Orbital's future earnings? "In the short run it's easy to predict," Rubel said.
Orbital makes long-term contracts with its buyers. It has a total backlog of $3.7 billion over the next 10 years.
But, Rubel added, "in the long run, one has no economic basis for predicting it other than government budgets."...

    Politics can influence Orbital earnings.
     
The U.S. missile defense program is a lucrative and growing part of its sales. ...
     
      New Products
     
Orbital is working on other new products. A high-altitude aerial unmanned vehicle
is on the drawing board, Thompson said, though he wouldn't elaborate.

Also, he said the firm is looking at !!!  making medium-sized rockets, especially
if larger competitors end up abandoning this niche. ...

[Старый]

Орбитал Сайенс хотя и использует в рекламной кампании тезис о том что она делает "малые спутники", реально эта стратегия провалилась. Чтоб сохранить заказчиков компания вынуждена всё более увеличивать размеры своих геостационарных спутников. Продав всего 4 платформы Стар-1 она вынуждена была её бросить и разработать вдвое более крупную Стар-2.
 Хотя Орбитал называет их "малыми" но по стартовой массе Стар-1 аналогичен BSS-376 а Стар-2 - BSS-601.
 На этом примере мы видим что попытка Орбитала занять нишу освободившуюся после ухода боинговской 376-й провалилась. На рынке просто не осталось заказчиков которым можно впарить такую рухлядь.
 И сейчас компании приходится на рынке собирать крошки со стола оставшиеся после 601-й платформы, то есть пытаться найти заказчиков "чуть левее" её ниши.
 Реально как мы видим заказчиками на эту платформу являются клиенты желающие без увеличения размеров заменить свои старые 376-е и 601-е платформы первых выпусков.
 Для ПН подобного класса на рынке уже даже не осталось ракет, поэтому их запускают в качестве "довеска" на Ариане-5. Как я уже говорил масса спутников росла так быстро что даже вновь созданная Ариан-5G не могла уже поднять два нормальных спутника, тут вот и подошёл "спутник-недомерок".
 
 Вобщем история "малых геостационаов" Орбитала наилучшим образом демонстрирует ситуацию с размерами геостационарных связных спутников.

[Старый]

Кстати, эти же орбиталовские недомерки претендуют и на запуки Союз-Фрегатами и Зенитами-СЛБ с Байконура. Нормальный спутник оттуда можно вывести только Протоном, а недомеркам приходится искать друг друга.

[Лютич]

Кстати, эти же орбиталовские недомерки претендуют и на запуки Союз-Фрегатами и Зенитами-СЛБ с Байконура. Нормальный спутник оттуда можно вывести только Протоном, а недомеркам приходится искать друг друга.

Дык. Тут вот ходят разговоры, что с переходом на новое поколение мобильников потребуются ГСОшники с двумя не менее чем 50-метровыми раскладными "лопухами". Можно прикинуть, каков будет их вес, если экспериментальный "Кику" c 38-метровыми лопухами и уменьшенным количеством транспондеров весил почти 6 тонн.

[Fakir]

50 и 38 метров - это что? Радиус или один из поперечных размеров?

[Лютич]

Поперечный размер, разумеется - они имеют и будут иметь форму многоугольников (шестиугольников).

[Fakir]

Старый, а на основании чего сделаны выводы о спутниках Орбитал Сайенс-а и их роли в русской революции?