United Kingdom-based research firm Airclaims Ltd. said, based on launch industry history, there is a high chance of failure for the upcoming Ariane 5 ECA launch next month. Arianespace, however, is not going along with those conclusions.

“Our records show that a second flight following a maiden failure has got a 40 percent failure rate,” Airclaims space analyst David Todd told Satellite News. “For example, the first flight of the Ariane 5G was a total failure. That occurred in June 1996. The second flight that occurred on Oct. 30, 1997, [the rocket] undershot its target orbit by 9,000 kilometers, although it was a test flight. Had it been a genuine commercial flight, the satellite would have had to use its on-board fuel to make a correction. The third flight of the Ariane 5G was a complete success.”

Todd added, “If the Ariane 5 ECA does fail, it really will hit the Arianespace business plan. I suspect Vega might get cancelled. I cannot see the point of Vega. It will never operate profitably and there is no market for it really — not at the prices it will be charging. Although I have read there is a possibility of them scrapping the Ariane 5 rocket and just running the Soyuz rocket, I don’t think that is likely. Ariane 5 will continue as it is strategic and a pan-European project. They will fly it until it works properly.”

Arianespace CEO Jean-Yves Le Gall responded, “Arianespace deals in facts, not research data. We are sure of Arianespace’s future, which extends well beyond Flight 164. For Flight 164, this mission has undergone a meticulous preparation phase and we have total confidence in the success of this upcoming flight. During its quarter-century of operations, Ariane launchers have had a low failure rate. In addition, there have been no back-to-back failures in the history of Ariane missions, so if you look at the numbers from this point of view, our ‘success’ rate is 100 percent.”

In response to Todd’s comments about Vega, Le Gall added, “Arianespace’s business plan is the most solid in the launch services industry. In addition to the heavy-lift Ariane 5 ECA, Arianespace will continue the operation of its Ariane 5 Generic launcher — which has demonstrated its maturity mission after mission, and we also have the mission assurance resources of the Launch Services Alliance, for which Arianespace was one of the founding members. The launcher family with which Arianespace will maintain its leadership in the future is based on three cornerstone elements: Ariane 5, Soyuz and Vega, all of which are part of our long-term strategy.”

Market Conditions

While all eyes will be on Arianespace throughout the next couple weeks, the research by Airclaims indicates how difficult market conditions are for launch companies at the moment. According to its research, 2004 was the worst year for space launches since 1961. According to Airclaims data, there were only 54 launches in 2004. To put that number into perspective, in 1990 there were 121 launches and was also only the second time in 14 years that there were under 60 launches.

Todd said the numbers may have bottomed out now. “2004 will probably be the worst,” he said. “It will probably pick up slightly, but not dramatically. We are not surprised that trends of decreasing numbers has happened since 1990. The completion of the low Earth orbit constellations such as Iridium and Globalstar meant there was going to be only a few more launches to replenish them, and there was not going to be any more mass launches after constel-lations like Teledesic and SkyBridge got cancelled. In addition, you had Iridium and Globalstar themse-lves having financial difficulties that initially delayed their replen-ishments. Having been sold at a knockdown price, they are now being operated at a profit, and replenishment missions have now restarted.”

The statistics in 2004 certainly made for grim reading. According to Airclaims, there were only 12 commercial GEO satellites launched on 12 flights last year. This compares to 17 payloads launched on 13 flights in 2003.

Monitoring Performance

Todd also gives his appraisal of the performance of some of the other main launch vehicles. He comments, “Boeing‘s Delta 4 pulled out of commercial space activity probably because its launch price could not compete with the other rockets in the commercial market. Market conditions have been tough with very low prices offered by launch providers as they competed for market share.

He added, “The Sea Launch operat-ion, which became the main Boeing commercial effort, uses a cheap-to-produce Zenit 3-SL rocket from the Ukraine. However, its operating costs are complicated by its equatorial oilrig launch platform logistics. Under Boeing’s management, Sea Launch can be made to work profitably, so long as they achieve a flight rate of five launches per year or more. But they are finding this hard to do. Last year, due to delays, they only achieved three launches. There are now moves to launch the Zenit 3 rocket from Baikonaur in Kazakhstan (where Proton is also launched from), though if it is launched from this higher latitude location then its payload capability will drop significantly.”

Todd also noted that the “ILS-operated Lockheed Martin Atlas 5 has a small slice of the commercial market, but the ILS operation is actually more dependent on its stablemate, the cheap-to-operate, Russian-produced Proton M. Atlas’s main bread and butter are EELV military launches and the rocket’s prospects improved significantly after Boeing’s Delta 4 was suspended from bidding for these contracts following a commercial spying scandal involving Lockheed Martin’s pricing data.”

—Mark Holmes (David Todd, Airclaims, [email protected]; Mario De Lépine, Arianespace, [email protected])