 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space History / July 2009Sea Launch has filed for bankruptcy
Filed for Chapter 11 on Monday: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=28522 This is really sad, as they did come up with a very clever concept for the whole operation, but I guess the payloads just weren't there to make it work from a economic point of view. Pat > Filed for Chapter 11 on Monday: > http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=28522 > This is really sad, as they did come up with a very clever concept for the > whole operation, but I guess the payloads just weren't there to make it > work from a economic point of view. They only did the equatorial launches in order to try to compete with ArianeSpace - but it's bound to be a more expensive operation (more mobile infrastructure than ArianeSpace). Along with fewer customers overall, it was only a matter of time. Damned shame all the same. > Filed for Chapter 11 on Monday:http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=28522 > This is really sad, as they did come up with a very clever concept for > the whole operation, but I guess the payloads just weren't there to make > it work from a economic point of view. > > Pat If there's no official or unofficial concern about solid boosters polluting our environment, then there's no further need of Sea Launch. ~ BG > Filed for Chapter 11 on Monday: Watch closely to see if they can restructure the terms of their liabilities to stretch them out. I wonder if the recent economic collapse caused them to loose enough flight bookings to make its run-out plan not workable? Perhaps with some debt forgiveness or re-negotiation they can come out intact. Since they cannot rely on larger payloads to offset costs, aren't they highly sensitive to launch rates / payload bookings? If the world economy swings back might they be in a good position? Watch to see if in six months they move from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7. Let's hope not. Dave > > Filed for Chapter 11 on Monday: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Dave If there's no official or unofficial media taking notice, and otherwise a lack of general populous concern about such multiple and spendy solid boosters polluting the living bejesus out of our frail environment, then there's no further need of Sea Launch. In other words, with a sufficient number of solid boosters (mostly expendables), we could launch everything from the Antarctic south pole and it wouldn’t hardly matter. ~ BG > Watch closely to see if they can restructure the terms of their liabilities > to stretch them out. I wonder if the recent economic collapse caused them [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Watch to see if in six months they move from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7. > Let's hope not. They have another article about this with more details now; apparently the explosion during launch in 2007 caused some customers to jump ship, and the world financial crisis didn't help either. So now they are around 1.5 billion dollars in the hole: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0906/24sealaunch/ Surprisingly, they have been losing launches to Proton, so one ex-Soviet booster is taking business away from another ex-Soviet booster. Pat > > Watch closely to see if they can restructure the terms of their liabilities > > to stretch them out. I wonder if the recent economic collapse caused them [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and the world financial crisis didn't help either. > So now they are around 1.5 billion dollars in the hole:http://spaceflight now.com/news/n0906/24sealaunch/ > Surprisingly, they have been losing launches to Proton, so one ex-Soviet > booster is taking business away from another ex-Soviet booster. > > Pat If cost and continued pollution were no object; why do we need Sea Launch? Small but powerful and extremely capable satellites can be launched from a Russian submarine. Otherwise, strap on a few more SRBs and launch from Antarctica if you like. ~ BG MODERATOR'S COMMENT: We're drifting from the technical into policy. I'll allow this last post, but let's get this back to sci.space.tech after all. GdM >Filed for Chapter 11 on Monday: >http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=28522 >This is really sad, as they did come up with a very clever concept for >the whole operation, but I guess the payloads just weren't there to make >it work from a economic point of view. ....I suspect it had more to do with the pad EPIC FAIL. Prior to this I heard they were doing otay insofar as balancing the books go. OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >> Filed for Chapter 11 on Monday: >> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=28522 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > heard they were doing otay insofar as balancing the books go. > If you check the follow-up posting I made, that was one of the main reasons...after the one blew on the pad, their customers started jumping ship on them, and headed for Proton instead. Pat >If you check the follow-up posting I made, that was one of the main >reasons...after the one blew on the pad, their customers started jumping >ship on them, and headed for Proton instead. ....That post showed up from nowhere, and was posted weeks ago. Dunno where that came from. OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.