By Amanda L. Kazdoy

Several new commercial launchers are creating an atmosphere of stiff competition. To create a truly competitive edge, launch services providers must furnish reliable and cost-effective vehicles. Each company in this segment of the industry, both newcomers and veterans alike, are tackling these issues and looking ahead to the future needs of their customers.

The new launch providers include Sea Launch, Kistler Aerospace and Rotary Rocket. The incumbent launchers are Arianespace, Boeing, China Great Wall and International Launch Services (ILS).

Sea Launch

Boeing Co.-led Sea Launch offers a launcher that will deliver payloads from a launch platform seated upon a converted ocean oil rig, positioned in the waters near Christmas Island. The company successfully completed its first test mission on March 27, 1999, which launched a demonstration satellite.

The most unique feature of the Sea Launch project is the site from where it will launch-the equator. The Odyssey launch platform will be located 1,500 miles south of Hawaii and 230 miles east of Christmas Island. "It maximizes our payload weight to orbit, by using the earth’s rotation to provide us with a running start to orbit," explains Allen Ashby, Sea Launch president and general manager. Another unusual characteristic is that all launch preparation is administered while the vehicle is horizontal; when the launcher is erect, it is fully integrated.

Sea Launch’s booster is a Russian-Ukrainian-U.S. rocket called Sea Launch Zenit 3SL. This vehicle is a three-stage rocket, the third-stage sharing design traits similar to a Proton’s fourth stage. Having always relied on a four-stage launch, this three-stage configuration is a new way of working for the Proton. "We have three stages now that allow us to offer one of the largest lift capabilities into geosynchronous orbit, between an Ariane 4 and an Ariane 5," Ashby says. "It puts us slightly ahead of a Proton." Ashby says Sea Launch is able to boost more into GEO orbit than the existing Proton, given its more advantageous launch site at the equator.

Other changes made to the vehicle include a new flight control computer, which, according to Ashby, corrects the problem that resulted in a launch failure for another Zenit launcher last year, which was carrying 12 Globalstar satellites. This new flight control system is named "Biser 3." Structurally, the first stage has been strengthened, as has the rocket itself in order to withstand the slight wave action of the launch platform, the Odyssey. "Every stage of the launch is monitored with the wave action factored in," Ashby says.

For ensuring greater reliability, Sea Launch also has taken the behavior of the sea into consideration. In the water, a buoy at the equator produces daily updates of the ocean conditions and the wind speeds.

Ashby notes, however, that since the company’s last reported business plan, there have been some changes. Sea Launch was originally going to launch Panamsat’s Galaxy 11 satellite as its first launch, but Panamsat has pulled out. "We understand their business decision," Ashby says. Due to their past mishaps, the company does not want to take a risk on a new vehicle, he adds.

Ashby believes being adverse to risk concerning new vehicles is a popular feeling in the satellite industry due to the many failures that have occurred during the past year. "This has been true for other satellite owners; they are more risk adverse, they’re saying ‘go prove it,’" he says. "So the consequences for us are some of the satellite owners that we had contracts for through Hughes have also made some changes."

Sea Launch thus turned to a demonstration launch for its first attempt. The demonstration payload Sea Launch used, according to Ashby, replicated in size and in certain characteristics the Galaxy 11 or Hughes 702. "We didn’t have to change the analysis in the building of the flight tapes that we need to fly the rocket," he says. Preparing the rocket on the ground, prior to launch, is the greatest challenge with launching a new rocket, Ashby says.

Sea Launch is focused on its first commercial flight planned for August for Hughes Space and Communications, but the payload was not identified at presstime. Sea Launch also had three ICO satellites contracted, but two of them were pulled, which brings the company’s contract with Hughes to 11 satellites instead of 13. And as it stands, the company still has a contract with XM Satellite Radio for a summer 2000 launch, and with Thuraya for a spring 2000 launch.

"Our concentration right now," Ashby says, "is to go out and have a successful launch and prove to the satellite community what a reliable, economic system Sea Launch is."

Kistler Aerospace

Newcomer Kistler Aerospace is developing a low-cost, reusable launch vehicle for low earth orbit commercial customers. Kistler’s launch vehicle is the two-stage, 120-foot K-1, and is one of the first reusable rockets on the market, according to Debra Facktor Lepore, Kistler’s manager of payload systems. Both stages of the K-1 vehicle return to earth through a soft landing that uses parachutes and air bags. This system allows the K-1 to safely return to the launch site where it is prepared for re-launch, according to Lepore. Kistler plans to build a fleet of five K-1 vehicles, and each K-1 is designed to fly 100 times.

"The ultimate objective of Kistler as a launch service is to provide the most cost-effective and responsive delivery of satellite payloads to low earth orbit," Lepore says. However, she points out that Kistler will not be manufacturing launch vehicles as its main business. "The only reason we’re building this vehicle is because we can’t go down the street and buy exactly what we need." To build the rocket, six prime contractors and 19 subcontractors have been contracted to design and assemble the vehicle according to Kistler’s specifications. After the components are delivered, Kistler integrates the vehicle and provides the launch service. Among Kistler’s contractors are Northrop Grumman Corp., Lockheed Martin Michoud Space Systems, Gencorp Aerojet, Alliedsignal Aerospace, Draper Laboratory, Irvin Aerospace Inc. and Oceaneering Thermal Systems.

The fact that Kistler is a privately financed company, and thus at the mercy of the investment community, has slowed the company’s progression. Kistler’s first test launch is planned to take place at its launch facility in Woomera, Australia, early next year. Two more test flights are to follow before commercial operations begin. And Kistler has received a permit to build a launch site in Nevada.

Kistler’s target market is the commercial satellite sector launching to low earth orbit for narrow and broadband telecommunications satellites and other payloads, Lepore says. In addition, Kistler maintains the company’s launch operations will be extremely low-cost, highly reliable and feature flexible scheduling and turnaround. "We have very great flexibility with our fleet of vehicles, and a K-1 can be turned around in nine days," she says.

Lepore added that once the company has its fleet well established, it will be able to have a three-day response time to replace a failed satellite in orbit, providing more flexibility to a customer. "We have tremendous capacity with that turnaround capability," she says. "We’re ultimately looking at in excess of 50 flights per year from each site."

As far as ensuring reliability with the K-1, Lepore says, there is an onboard health monitoring system that provides notification of a failure or anomaly.

By using proven technology and streamlining operations to design and build a completely reusable vehicle, Lepore says, Kistler will be providing a low-cost solution. "The whole idea of developing a reusable vehicle that can be flown many, many times using the same hardware is low cost," she says.

Rotary Rocket

Rotary Rocket’s director of business development, Geoffrey Hughes, says thinking in terms of commercial aviation standards may help launchers provide a better, more dependable and reliable service. Rotary Rocket’s launcher, the Roton C-9, is a piloted, fully reusable, commercial launcher that will serve the low earth orbit market. It is a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle designed to deliver 7,000 pounds to orbit. Commercial service is expected to begin in 2000.

"People do not realize it, but the safer a vehicle is to operate, the cheaper it is to operate," he says. "This is because it spends less time, and hence money, during stand-down times while problems are fixed. Also, customers do not want to fly on vehicles which are unsafe." Hughes and Rotary Rocket are especially concerned about safety because the company’s launch vehicle, the Roton, will not only deliver payloads but also carry passengers.

Key to ensuring these factors, Hughes says Rotary Rocket designs the vehicle from the outset by having redundant systems and fail-safe components. Similar to a commercial airliner, he says, they have multiple engines, multiple computers, multiple electrical circuits, etc. It enables the vehicle to keep flying or abort intact and land safely, Hughes says.

Also similar to commercial airliners, Rotary Rocket plans to reduce cost by having a completely reusable vehicle. "Commercial aviation would not be viable today if the aircraft were thrown away after every flight," he says. "In the event of an in-flight anomaly, in virtually all instances, the vehicle can be recovered safely."

Rotary Rocket will be targeting the commercial telecommunications market for LEO, MEO and GEO, he says. The company will accommodate it by building the Roton large enough to fly 80 percent or more of the commercial spacecraft in each of these categories. Hughes also claims that the company will fly the spacecraft for a small fraction of its competitors’ price.

Arianespace

Arianespace’s Jean-Marie Luton, president and CEO, says being competitive is a key element to serving any market. "The question is: How can you offer the competitive launcher to customers? One way is to do a double launch," he says. "If you ask our competitors, it’s clearly going in that direction." In addition to the workhorse Ariane 4, Arianespace’s newest series, the Ariane 5, will be capable of double launches.

Luton is in agreement with the other launch providers about reliability being a focal point in the industry and notes the success of the Ariane 4 launchers in this regard. "Our Ariane 4 launch vehicle has proven to be more flexible and more reliable than ever to the great satisfaction of our customers," he says. "It is clear that this question of reliability has been put in front."

In terms of ensuring reliability, Doug Heydon, Arianespace Inc.’s president says, "The reliability issue is very complex, but the short answer is that we follow rigid procedures and checks to ensure that every step is done correctly in preparing for launch, and we check hundreds of telemetry data points from every flight to check and detect any shifts in performance that might indicate potential problems."

Arianespace’s resume includes making 10 Ariane 4 launches in 11 months, as well as three launches in one month, including Ariane 503 last October, Luton says. He says this demonstrates the company’s operational flexibility to compensate for satellite manufacturing delays.

Arianespace’s major milestone, however, will be to become commercially qualified to offer the Ariane 5 to the marketplace. As of presstime Arianespace was scheduled to execute its first commercial launch this summer. According to Heydon, the launch is contingent on the availability of the second payload, which is experiencing technical delays. Different from its predecessors, the Ariane 5 has a new cryogenic first stage and a restartable cryogenic upper stage.

"Ariane 5 will basically be able to perform any type of mission in any type of orbit," Luton says. "Its large frame, its compatibility with all satellite platforms, as well as its performance, build and reliability give the launcher a true, all-mission capability."

Arianespace is currently using its Ariane 4, and will begin to use the Ariane 5 soon. The Ariane 4 will be used for single launches until 2003, and will not be continued after that.

In terms of cost-reduction, Luton expects to reduce the cost of the Ariane 5 by half; however, the first series is not representative of the cost. "As the numbers in production increase, the cost per unit will decrease," he says. However, he also says that in order to ensure reliability, there might be some additional costs.

"I can understand that the market needs to have lower cost, but sometimes we should not be in the position to reduce quality, its real value, which we have to maintain," he says. "So that is a limit that we have to take into account in our management in the future, and that we have already done."

Boeing Co.

The Boeing Co. is marketing its new Delta 4 as a more "robust" vehicle. "Robust refers to your ability to adapt to a wider range of circumstances," says Bob Cowls, Boeing’s sales director of Delta launch services, "the ability of the rocket to fly at higher levels of wind than the current Delta."

The Delta 4 family is built around a common booster core, which is larger than that of the current Delta rockets and isn’t as susceptible to launch delays due to weather, according to Walt Rice, Boeing spokesperson.

Cowls says that robust also refers to the ability of the launcher to adapt to last-minute scheduling changes, which is important to Boeing’s customers.

"The commercial sector is absolutely focused on hitting the market first and shortening the launch campaign and adapting to schedule changes," he says. Historically, a launch campaign may be three or four years long, with high predictability in terms of scheduling, which makes the Delta 4 an attractive alternative, Cowls says.

Boeing intends to have a paying customer on every flight, according to Cowls, including the first scheduled launch in 2001.

The other Delta vehicles, the 2 and 3, will be continued as long as the market demand is there, Cowls says. "I’d say between the Delta 4 family and the Delta 2 and 3, we expect, over time, that the Delta 4 will cause the phasing out of the Delta 3," he says. According to Cowls the Delta 3 was a transition vehicle between the Delta 2 and the new family of Delta 4s. By most accounts, the Delta 3 has not been successful due to two highly publicized failures.

Regardless, Rice says, the Delta 3 did serve its purpose. "It filled a market need during a time period when we didn’t have a new vehicle like Delta 4, which is new, top to bottom," Rice says.

Adds Cowls, "Delta 3 introduced technology, specifically cryogenic, that was crucial to the Delta 4, and it addressed a market that was requiring heavier lift capability that we weren’t able to handle with the Delta 2."

As for the Delta 2, it is able to accommodate lower-end launches, and will be continued as long as there’s a demand for lighter payload rockets. "It’s not as clear cut for the Delta 2, because Delta 2 has the capability not just to hit the lower end of the Delta 4 capability," he says, "but can actually be configured to go below that." The Delta 2, he adds, has also played an important, historical role in the launching of satellites, which included launching Iridium and Globalstar satellites.

Cowls says a major challenge in designing a new rocket is being able to anticipate what the market’s needs will be four or five years from now. He says the Delta 4 will hit that target by bringing more capability that runs the full gamut from 2 metric tons to 13 metric tons and also has a broad fairing envelope. Boeing expects at least 10 years of use with the Delta 4.

In addition to the new launcher, Boeing built a new 1.2 million-square-foot production facility in Alabama, which is designed to produce a nominal output of 40 Delta 4 boosters per year.

In terms of cost-reduction, Cowls says it is all a matter of supply and demand. "To the extent that the supply exceeds the demand, you’re going to feel market pressure to bring your costs down," he says. "I’d say it is questionable that this may be happening in the next three or four years." He also says trying to anticipate the market pressure, thus reducing their launch cost, is what launch companies have to do in order to be competitive in the industry.

China Great Wall

After a series of highly publicized launch failures, China Great Wall shut down operations in order to dedicate time and energy to correcting the problems plaguing the vehicle. Since the the company’s mishaps, however, it has completed 14 successful launches, "which has identified the Long March with its high reliability and well shows that the Long March series of launch vehicles has been out of the shadow cast by its launch failures confronted in 1996," says Youguang Liu, deputy general manager of the space division at China Great Wall.

The Long March is capable of carrying out a variety of satellites for a variety of applications, especially for polar and sun-synchronous orbit missions, says Liu. He says it’s flexible due to its ability to send many types of satellites to different orbits from different launch sites.

And in terms of cost, Liu says that since the vehicle has a storable propellant for all three of its stages, the launch services cost is low. Furthermore, he maintains the vehicle is reliable due to the use of proven technologies and hardware inherited in the launcher’s design process.

Recovering from an unsuccessful past, the company’s improving track record, Liu says, is due to a renewed practice of quality control improvement and correct measures and actions taken with the Long March vehicles. And thus, Liu says, the company now is serving its market adequately and will continue to do so with the Long March vehicles.

"China Great Wall is confident of further developing its market share with the Long March, not only in the GEO satellite systems, but also in some LEO systems," Liu says. He is confident that the LM 3B is "one of the main forces for our current launch services market."

China’s Long March rocket has been the vehicle of choice to boost many Asian spacecraft into orbit-a trend Liu believes will continue as the Asian economic crisis begins to subside. "The Asian market should remain open to the Long March because of the region’s cultural and economic background," he says. And some customers are beginning to contact and to resume talks with China Great Wall. As a result, Liu expects some new satellite programs to come out of these talks soon.

For the future, China Great Wall is looking toward the heavier launch market and developing some new launch systems based on mature launchers for both LEO and GTO missions, Liu says. These new systems include LM 2E(A) and LM 3B(A). "According to our analysis and forecast, we believe that these upcoming systems will be very competitive in the heavy and powerful satellite launch market beyond 2000," he says. "So we have initiated our design efforts not only on the paper, but also in some test and design works."

International Launch Services

ILS President Will Trafton has goals similar to those of the other launch providers: reliability and capability. ILS’ newest additions include the Atlas 3 series, the Atlas 5 series, and a new Proton M (upgraded from the Proton K). The Proton M includes a new Breeze M upper stage that incorporates a digital avionics system and has an additional external propellant tank. The first Breeze M configuration will fly on the Proton K in the middle of this year. And the first Proton M/Breeze M will fly in late 1999 or early 2000.

The Atlas 3A is designed to boost about 4,000 kg and the 3B, which incorporates a 5.5-foot tank in the Centaur upper stage and also can fly with either a single or dual engine Centaur, can boost 4,500 kg. The Atlas 3A uses only one engine on the Centaur. The 3 series incorporates an R180 engine, and customers will have a choice of a single or dual engine Centaur upper stage for the 3B. The 3 series is a transitional vehicle that will take ILS from the 2 series to the 5 series.

The Atlas 5, Trafton says, will help ILS cover its market requirements for the next 10 years. "In the Atlas 5 series we’ve given the customer a choice of 3-, 4-, or 5-meter fairings," he says. And the Atlas 5 can fly with any number of solid rocket boosters from zero to five. The boosters are 60 inches in diameter, 58 feet in length.

As of presstime, the Atlas 3A was scheduled to launch in June, and 3B is to follow in 2000.

The Proton rocket is evolving into the Proton M/Breeze M, which includes the Breeze M upper stage, which will allow the Proton family of rockets’ to launch 5,500 kg to geosynchronous transfer orbit. Structurally, the Breeze M has a stronger payload interface, so it can carry heavier spacecraft than the previous stage, the Block DM, and there also has been a weight reduction in the first three stages of Proton, Trafton says. This allows the Proton M to deliver 22,000 kg into LEO versus 20,900 kg with the Proton K.

ILS’ Proton Chief Engineer Eric Laursen says the Breeze M has many advantages over the older Block DM upper stage. Among them are a greater structural load carrying capability and its compact size. However, ILS will continue to offer the Block DM, and customers will have their choice of upper stage. In all, ILS will be offering two four-stage launch vehicle configurations of the Proton, the Proton M/Block DM and the Proton M/Breeze M, in addition to multiple configurations of the Atlas 5. "We will also offer a variant of the Proton M/Breeze M that uses the Breeze M core and not the Breeze M external propellant tank," Laursen says. "This variant is intended for the big LEO constellation segment of the market.

ILS saw that satellites were getting heavier and larger, which prompted the company to design the Breeze M configuration and the Atlas 5. "We’re responding to what we see our market requiring," Trafton says. "Today, if you can’t offer a customer a 5-meter fairing, you’re not being very competitive." Trafton adds, "If you’re in the business of launching big LEOs, you need the big fairing and the lift capability to get multiple satellites on one rocket."

Among the current rockets ILS is using, the Atlas 2 and the 2AS are sold out and will not be continued. "The objective here is to bring the Atlas 5 on line as quickly as possible," he says. The Atlas 5 is being offered on the marketplace right now.

As far as cost-effectiveness, Trafton says "If you can’t get down there where you need to be [so that you are] competitive, then you are probably not going to be in this business very long," he says. But, "you can’t sacrifice quality and reliability here. We all still want 100 percent mission success."

Technology Transfer Issue

The technology transfer issue has been the cause of some launch delays and cancellations in recent months, and has ignited much debate. The repercussions of the U.S. government’s decision to put the export control regime in the hands of the State Department are still being felt throughout the industry.

Sea Launch, due to technology transfer problems, was shut down for three months last year because the company needed to make some internal corrections on how it conducted export control, says Sea Launch’s Ashby.

"We always had recognized the need to protect sensitive technology," he says. "I think the most difficult thing for me is that even in all this there was never, ever, a real concern on the part of the technology. We never exceeded the type of technology that we could exchange. It’s not an easy problem."

ILS’ Trafton pointed out a positive side to the transfer issue, regarding the signing of the technology safeguards agreement. "That was key to us," he says. "We were having to get State Department approval for each satellite we shipped to Baikonur, and with the signing of this agreement, that’s no longer necessary. So we’re very pleased that the Secretary of State, Madeline Albright herself, went over to Russia and literally solved this one for us."

According to China Great Wall’s Liu, the technology transfer issue aroused much hostility in China’s government and the populace regarding the trade of satellite launch services between China and the United States, resulting in the discussion of satellite export license issues. "Actually, launching the U.S.-built spacecraft has nothing to do with technology transfer," he says. "This is an American internal-party struggle with a strong political nature, which impacted not only China’s launch services, but also the European spacecraft manufacturers and the world space community. We are confident that the current situation will not last too long, since Sino-U.S. relations have always gone on in a healthier way. And the more important point is that it is of mutual benefit for the two countries to cooperate in the field of space technology."

Amanda L. Kazdoy is Assistant Editor of Via Satellite.

---