Sea Launch to Top Atlas

The upcoming 4/25/05 Zenit 3SL launch by Sea Launch
will boost the 6 metric ton Spaceway 1 satellite
directly to geosynchronous transfer orbit using a
single Block DMSL upper stage burn. I think this
is the first time Sea Launch has done this profile.

At any rate, Spaceway 1 will, if successful,
slightly better the previous commercial comsat mass
record established last month by Inmarsat 4-F1,
which was launched atop Atlas V AV-004 from Cape
Canaveral.

This record, in turn, is set to be beat in June
when 6.1 ton Spaceway 2 is boosted to orbit by an
Ariane 5ECA from Kourou.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:
The upcoming 4/25/05 Zenit 3SL launch by Sea Launch
will boost the 6 metric ton Spaceway 1 satellite
directly to geosynchronous transfer orbit using a
single Block DMSL upper stage burn. I think this
is the first time Sea Launch has done this profile.

At any rate, Spaceway 1 will, if successful,
slightly better the previous commercial comsat mass
record established last month by Inmarsat 4-F1,
which was launched atop Atlas V AV-004 from Cape
Canaveral.


The launch was a success, but the press release is
a failu

"http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q2/nr_050426s.html"

"Sea Launch Company, LLC, headquartered in Long Beach,
Calif., and marketed through Boeing Launch Services
(www.boeing.com/launch), is the world's most reliable
heavy-lift commercial launch service."

I have to disagree. There are at least two heavy-lift
commercial launchers with better records than Zenit 3SL
at present, as follows.

[1] [2] [3] [4]
------------------------------------
Proton-M/Briz-M 7(0) 1.00 .89
Atlas V 5(0) 1.00 .86
Zenit 3SL/DMSL 16(2) .88 .83
Ariane 5G(+,S) 19(3) .84 .81
Delta IV-M 3(0) 1.00 .80 [5]
H-IIA 7(1) .86 .78
Ariane 5-ECA 2(1) .50 .50
Delta IV-H 1(1) .00 .33 [5]
------------------------------------

[1] Launcher
[2] No. Launches(No. Failures)
[3] Realized Rate
[4] First level Bayesian estimate of mean predicted
[5] Not currently offered for commercial launch
probability of success for for next launch attempt
(k+1)/(n+2) where k is the number of successful
events and n is the number of trials.

- Ed Kyle

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but they probably don't count one
of the Sea Launch failures on the grounds that the satellite made it to the
correct orbit.
In that case they'd get 0.94 realized rate, 0.88 Bayesian, and still lose to
Proton.

Murray Anderson

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ed Kyle wrote:
The upcoming 4/25/05 Zenit 3SL launch by Sea Launch
will boost the 6 metric ton Spaceway 1 satellite
directly to geosynchronous transfer orbit using a
single Block DMSL upper stage burn. I think this
is the first time Sea Launch has done this profile.

At any rate, Spaceway 1 will, if successful,
slightly better the previous commercial comsat mass
record established last month by Inmarsat 4-F1,
which was launched atop Atlas V AV-004 from Cape
Canaveral.


The launch was a success, but the press release is
a failu

"http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q2/nr_050426s.html"

"Sea Launch Company, LLC, headquartered in Long Beach,
Calif., and marketed through Boeing Launch Services
(www.boeing.com/launch), is the world's most reliable
heavy-lift commercial launch service."

I have to disagree. There are at least two heavy-lift
commercial launchers with better records than Zenit 3SL
at present, as follows.

[1] [2] [3] [4]
------------------------------------
Proton-M/Briz-M 7(0) 1.00 .89
Atlas V 5(0) 1.00 .86
Zenit 3SL/DMSL 16(2) .88 .83
Ariane 5G(+,S) 19(3) .84 .81
Delta IV-M 3(0) 1.00 .80 [5]
H-IIA 7(1) .86 .78
Ariane 5-ECA 2(1) .50 .50
Delta IV-H 1(1) .00 .33 [5]
------------------------------------

[1] Launcher
[2] No. Launches(No. Failures)
[3] Realized Rate
[4] First level Bayesian estimate of mean predicted
[5] Not currently offered for commercial launch
probability of success for for next launch attempt
(k+1)/(n+2) where k is the number of successful
events and n is the number of trials.

- Ed Kyle

Murray Anderson wrote:
Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but they probably don't
count one
of the Sea Launch failures on the grounds that the satellite made it
to the
correct orbit.
In that case they'd get 0.94 realized rate, 0.88 Bayesian, and still
lose to
Proton.

You may be right, but I think they should count
the Apstar 5 flight as a launch vehicle failure.
Otherwise, they're deluding themselves about the
true reliability of their vehicle.

According to Airclaims Ltd, the Apstar 5 flight
was a failure. [*see text below]

"www.airclaims.com/Downloads/PressReleases/SpaceLauncherYear2004.pdf"

I think most people in the industry (except for
the good folks at Boeing who wrote the press
release that started our conversation) see Proton
as the most reliable big (~5+ ton to GTO) comsat
launcher flying today. There have been 313 Proton
launches (all types) but only 52 Zenit launches
(all types, including 16 Sea Launch Zenit 3SL/DMSL
vehicles). Since 1-1-2000, there were 44 Proton
launches with one in-orbit upper stage failure.
During the same period, there were only 18 Zenit
flights with two failures (one an in-flight upper
stage failure). Compared to Proton, Zenit is a
newbie that is still being broken in. And, with the
new Briz-M storable-propellant upper stage
replacing the troublesome Energia Blok DM, Proton
reliability should improve.

During the Apstar 5 mission, the DMSL third stage
shut down 54 seconds early due to a poorly
understood electrical problem, leaving the payload
transfer orbit apogee 15,000 km low. Apstar 5 made
it to geosync on its own, but the launch vehicle
suffered a failure.

*[text from airclaims press release]

"The overall launch vehicle failure rate,
having run very low up to the end of 2004,
suddenly increased with the maiden flight
undershoot failure of the Boeing Delta IV Heavy
launch swiftly followed by the third stage
failure of a Ukrainian Tsyklon 3 rocket.
Consequently 2004 concluded as an 'averageyear'
with four launcher related failures out of 54
flights (7.4%). The other two launcher-related
failures were the SHAVIT in September which
dropped Israeli OFEQ 6 spy satellite into the
Mediterranean Sea and thepremature shutdown of
a Boeing Sea Launch ZENIT 3-SL (Sea Launch) in
June, (caused by a short in the fuel system
electronics), that almost stranded the APSTAR 5
(TELSTAR 18) commercial communications satellite."

- Ed Kyle

I'd count it as half a failure, and try to do that consistently. There was
an Ariane flight like that, I believe.
If you include the Proton Block-DM flights, of course it's no contest.
Since the beginning of 1991 there have been 119 Proton launches with 7
failures, giving 0.94 achieved success. That's inferior to the Atlas record
in the same period, but Atlas has gone through extensive hardware change in
the period (I to II to II to V). The Proton first stage has a particularly
good record, the last failure being in 1982, with 216 subsequent flights
without failure.

Murray Anderson

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...
Murray Anderson wrote:
Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but they probably don't
count one
of the Sea Launch failures on the grounds that the satellite made it
to the
correct orbit.
In that case they'd get 0.94 realized rate, 0.88 Bayesian, and still
lose to
Proton.

You may be right, but I think they should count
the Apstar 5 flight as a launch vehicle failure.
Otherwise, they're deluding themselves about the
true reliability of their vehicle.

According to Airclaims Ltd, the Apstar 5 flight
was a failure. [*see text below]

"www.airclaims.com/Downloads/PressReleases/SpaceLauncherYear2004.pdf"

I think most people in the industry (except for
the good folks at Boeing who wrote the press
release that started our conversation) see Proton
as the most reliable big (~5+ ton to GTO) comsat
launcher flying today. There have been 313 Proton
launches (all types) but only 52 Zenit launches
(all types, including 16 Sea Launch Zenit 3SL/DMSL
vehicles). Since 1-1-2000, there were 44 Proton
launches with one in-orbit upper stage failure.
During the same period, there were only 18 Zenit
flights with two failures (one an in-flight upper
stage failure). Compared to Proton, Zenit is a
newbie that is still being broken in. And, with the
new Briz-M storable-propellant upper stage
replacing the troublesome Energia Blok DM, Proton
reliability should improve.

During the Apstar 5 mission, the DMSL third stage
shut down 54 seconds early due to a poorly
understood electrical problem, leaving the payload
transfer orbit apogee 15,000 km low. Apstar 5 made
it to geosync on its own, but the launch vehicle
suffered a failure.

*[text from airclaims press release]

"The overall launch vehicle failure rate,
having run very low up to the end of 2004,
suddenly increased with the maiden flight
undershoot failure of the Boeing Delta IV Heavy
launch swiftly followed by the third stage
failure of a Ukrainian Tsyklon 3 rocket.
Consequently 2004 concluded as an 'averageyear'
with four launcher related failures out of 54
flights (7.4%). The other two launcher-related
failures were the SHAVIT in September which
dropped Israeli OFEQ 6 spy satellite into the
Mediterranean Sea and thepremature shutdown of
a Boeing Sea Launch ZENIT 3-SL (Sea Launch) in
June, (caused by a short in the fuel system
electronics), that almost stranded the APSTAR 5
(TELSTAR 18) commercial communications satellite."

- Ed Kyle

Murray Anderson wrote:
I'd count it as half a failure, and try to do that consistently.
There was
an Ariane flight like that, I believe.

I count these "partial" failures as failures simply
because they fall short of being called successes.

In the case of the Sea Launch Apstar 5 launch, for
example, the early DMSL stage shutdown cost the
satellite a delta-v of about 345 meters/second.
Apstar 5 must have had enough contingency propellant
to allow it to recover from the launching error
without shortening its planned lifetime (but its
potential for an extended life has almost certainly
been reduced).

Other comsats would not have been so lucky. As I
understand it, typical designs provide a total
lifetime delta-v of less than 1,000 meters/sec for
station keeping over the course of a 15-year planned
lifetime.

I haven't been able to find a partial success/failure
figure of merit that I can be comfortable with. The
Apstar 5 launch vehicle, for example, only provided
roughly 96% of the planned total delta-v. Could we
say it was 96% successful? That doesn't work because
the launcher could have provided 75% of the planned
total delta-v (and been "75% successful") and still
failed to make orbit! And we certainly wouldn't
call a launcher that blew up one minute into flight
"5% successful"!

- Ed Kyle

"Ed Kyle" writes:

I haven't been able to find a partial success/failure
figure of merit that I can be comfortable with. The
Apstar 5 launch vehicle, for example, only provided
roughly 96% of the planned total delta-v. Could we
say it was 96% successful? That doesn't work because
the launcher could have provided 75% of the planned
total delta-v (and been "75% successful") and still
failed to make orbit! And we certainly wouldn't
call a launcher that blew up one minute into flight
"5% successful"!

How about "percent of desired payload performance obtained"?
For comsats, at least, this seems pretty intuitive. For Apstar
5, for example, if the rocket performed perfectly they'd get 20
years of revenue, but because of the shortfall they'll only
get 15 years. (Numbers made up for ease of arguement).
In this case it would count as 75% successful. Similarly,
the utility of an imaging or recon satellite is directly
proportional to the service life, even if the products are
not sold per hour.

Science missions are harder to call. Some do fine from wrong
orbits (Hipparcos?). On others (interplanetary missions) if
the rocket does not perform perfectly, the entire mission is
a failure.

Lou Scheffer

Ed Kyle wrote:

Murray Anderson wrote:

I'd count it as half a failure, and try to do that consistently.
There was an Ariane flight like that, I believe.

I count these "partial" failures as failures simply
because they fall short of being called successes.

You're unreasonably pessimistic, IMO.

In the case of the Sea Launch Apstar 5 launch, for
example, the early DMSL stage shutdown cost the
satellite a delta-v of about 345 meters/second.
Apstar 5 must have had enough contingency propellant
to allow it to recover from the launching error
without shortening its planned lifetime (but its
potential for an extended life has almost certainly
been reduced).

Other comsats would not have been so lucky.

So while the mission was a success it should count as a failure, because
if the launch vehicle had been flying a different mission it wouldn't have
succeeded? That doesn't make sense.

I haven't been able to find a partial success/failure
figure of merit that I can be comfortable with.

Generally I use the criterion that if the payload made it into an oper-
ational orbit under its own power it's a success, and it's a failure if
it didn't. I'm not the only one to use this, since I picked it up from
someone (but don't recall who).

So the first Pegasus launch was a success, since the payload wasn't
particular about what orbit it needed and could operate just fine from
the one it got put into. The first Titan IV Milstar mission was a
failure, since though the payload made orbit, it couldn't operate from
the orbit it made nor get into an operational orbit under its own power.
Also, the Intelsat VI launch was a failure for this reason, since while
it did eventually reach an operational orbit, it required the intervention
of a shuttle crew to do so.

It's not a perfect metric, since the pass/fail mark depends on whether
non-fatal anomalies happen to robust payloads or to "fragile" ones. But
I haven't seen one I like better at this stage of the industry's evo-
lution. (Eventually dispatch reliability will have to enter into it but
not yet, in my opinion.)

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
ups.com...

I count these "partial" failures as failures simply
because they fall short of being called successes.


I haven't been able to find a partial success/failure
figure of merit that I can be comfortable with. The
Apstar 5 launch vehicle, for example, only provided
roughly 96% of the planned total delta-v. Could we
say it was 96% successful? That doesn't work because
the launcher could have provided 75% of the planned
total delta-v (and been "75% successful") and still
failed to make orbit! And we certainly wouldn't
call a launcher that blew up one minute into flight
"5% successful"!

We wrestled with this several years ago when we re-worked the AIAA launch
vehicle guide. We came up with the following definitions: (approximately,
from memory - they're in the "How To Use This Book" section if you want to
look them up).

To qualify as a success, a launch vehicle must deliver the payload intact to
its intended orbit, within normal or predicted tolerances.

A partial failure was defined as a mission which did not meet the criteria
for success, but in which the spacecraft is delivered to an orbit from which
it can still perform all or part of its mission, for example because the
unplanned orbit is tolerable or because on-board propulsion can be used to
get it to the correct orbit.

Anything else is a failure.

We applied these criteria to nearly every launch vehicle failure that's ever
happened (the exceptions being from the handful of launch vehicle families
that retired long before the book came out), and they work pretty well.
There are still some grey areas, particularly demo flights which
underperform while carrying dummy payloads owned by the same organization
that operates the launch vehicle. It can be difficult to objectively define
a partial vs full failure in that case.

We also decided that we needed to provide sufficient descriptions of each
failure/partial failure so that people could make up their own minds about
how they wanted to classify a given mission. Writing the failure summaries
was one of the most interesting parts of the project.

Josh Hopkins

Michael Kent wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

In the case of the Sea Launch Apstar 5 launch, for
example, the early DMSL stage shutdown cost the
satellite a delta-v of about 345 meters/second.
Apstar 5 must have had enough contingency propellant
to allow it to recover from the launching error
without shortening its planned lifetime (but its
potential for an extended life has almost certainly
been reduced).

Other comsats would not have been so lucky.

So while the mission was a success it should count as a failure,
because
if the launch vehicle had been flying a different mission it wouldn't
have
succeeded? That doesn't make sense.


It makes sense if you are an insurance underwriter
(or a satellite manufacturer or owner) who needs to
know the true performance record of these launch
vehicles. If you are an underwriter, you would
record this as a launch vehicle failure because it
would have resulted in a loss claim for most
satellites.

Many sats would have made GEO in this instance but
suffered a loss of lifetime due to depleted station-
keeping propellant. One reason Apstar 5 didn't lose
lifetime is that it had an announced 13-year lifetime
rather than the 15 years listed by many other sats.

Although Apstar 5 happily made it to its station on
orbit (a mission success for Apstar 5), the launch
vehicle unquestionably suffered a serious failure.
This failure cannot be ignored by those who take on
the substantial financial risk of the satellite trade.

As I wrote previously, insurance trade publications
have listed the Apstar 5 flight as a launch vehicle
failure.
"www.airclaims.com/Downloads/PressReleases/SpaceLauncherYear2004.pdf"

- Ed Kyle