First Quarter 2018 Launch Report: China & USA Battle for Lead
A SpaceX Falcon Heavy begins its first flight. (Credit: NASA)
by Douglas Messier
Managing Editor
The world’s launch providers have been extremely busy in the first quarter of 2018, with 31 orbital launches thus far. This is more than one third of the 90 launches conducted last year.
China leads the pack with 10 successful launches. The United States is close behind with a total of nine launches with one failure. The tenth American launch is scheduled for Monday afternoon from Florida.
| ORBITAL LAUNCHES | ||||
| NATION | SUCCESSES |
FAILURES |
PARTIAL FAILURES |
TOTAL |
| China | 10 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
| United States | 8 | 1 | 0 | 9 |
| Russia | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Japan | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| India | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| New Zealand | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Europe | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| TOTALS: | 29 | 1 | 1 | 31 |
Russia — the traditional leader in launches — is in third place with five flights, followed by Japan with three, India with two, and Europe and New Zealand with one apiece. (A Soyuz launch from Kourou is included under Russian launches).
The one failure this year occurred in January when a SpaceX Falcon 9 launched a secret military payload code named Zuma. Although there is some uncertainty about the fate of the satellite, the bulk of the information that has become public indicates the payload failed to separate from the second stage and burned up in the Earth’s atmosphere.
SpaceX says that Falcon 9 performed as planned. That would leave responsibility on Northrop Grumman, which supplied the satellite and the payload adapter that connected it to the booster. Northrop Grumman has not commented for the record on the classified mission.
The other launch mishap involved an Ariane 5 rocket that placed two satellites in the wrong orbits in January. The partial failure was blamed on a programming error that sent the booster off course. The satellites were able to reach their intended orbits using onboard propulsion.
Launches by Booster
Soyuz rocket takes off from French Guiana on March 9, 2018. (Credit: Arianespace)
China’s Long March 2 family and SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets each flew five times during the first three months of 2018. Russia launched different variants of its venerable Soyuz booster four times, with China’s Long March 3B flying three times and United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Atlas V launching twice.
| LAUNCHES BY BOOSTER | |||||
| LAUNCH VEHICLE |
NATION |
SUCCESSES |
FAILURES | PARTIAL FAILURES |
TOTALS |
| Long March 2 (C,D) | China | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Falcon 9 | USA | 4 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Soyuz | Russia | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Long March 3B | China | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Atlas V | USA | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Long March 11 | China | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Long March 4C | China | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GSLV Mk. II | India | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| PSLV | India | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Epsilon | Japan | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| H-IIA | Japan | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| SS-520 | Japan | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Electron | New Zealand | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Soyuz-2-1v | Russia | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Delta IV | USA | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Falcon Heavy | USA | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Ariane 5 | Europe | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| TOTALS: | 29 | 1 | 1 | 31 | |
The highlight of the first quarter was SpaceX’s maiden launch of its Falcon Heavy rocket in February. The rocket, which is composed of three Falcon 9 first stages with 27 engines, launched a Tesla Roadster with a mannequin dressed in a spacesuit into deep space.
SpaceX also reached a milestone with its 50th Falcon 9 launch on March 6 by orbiting the Hispasat 30W-6 communications satellite.
Rocket Lab successfully flew its Electron booster for the first time in January from New Zealand. The inaugural launch of the small-satellite rocket failed in June 2017.
Japan successfully launched the SS-520 rocket with a CubeSat aboard in February. The maiden launch of the microsat launcher had failed the previous year.
SpaceX is attempting to launch Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy boosters around 30 times this year. The total would be significant increase over the 18 launches the company conducted in 2017. Additional launches planned by ULA, Orbital ATK and other companies could boost the American total above 40.
China is also looking to launch more than 40 times this year. The Chinese government has 36 launches on the manifest, with a number of private companies planning launches as well.
Launches by Primary Payloads
The GOES-S satellite being lowered into a thermal vacuum chamber. (Credit: Lockheed Martin)
The 31 launches carried a total of 54 primary payloads and dozens of smaller secondary ones into space. Eleven launches had military spacecraft aboard, with eight flights carrying Earth observation payloads and six others with civilian communications satellites. China launched six Beidou navigation satellites aboard three rockets.
| LAUNCHES BY PRIMARY PAYLOADS | |||||||
| NATION |
CHINA |
EUROPE |
INDIA |
JAPAN |
NEW ZEALAND |
RUSSIA |
USA |
| Communications | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||
| Defense | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |
| Earth Observation | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| ISS Crew & Resupply | 2 | ||||||
| Meteorological | 1 | ||||||
| Navigation | 3 | ||||||
| Promotional | 1 | ||||||
| Science | 1 | ||||||
Other significant payloads launched this year included:
- Russian ISS Progress resupply and Soyuz crew flights;
- American GOES-S weather satellite;
- two prototypes for SpaceX’s Starlink global broadband satellite network;
- Tesla Roadster, which became the first terrestrial car in outer space; and,
- Chinese Seismo-Electromagnetic Satellite (CSES), which is studying the studying the correlation between atmospheric events and seismic activities.
Launches by Spaceport
SpaceX assembly hangar at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. (Credit: SpaceX)
America’s Cape Canaveral Air Force Station was the busiest spaceport during the first quarter with five launches. Florida hosted six launches when you add in the Falcon Heavy flight from the adjoining Kennedy Space Center. The other three U.S. launches flew from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
| ORBITAL LAUNCHES BY LOCATION | |||||
| LAUNCH SITE | NATION |
SUCCESSES |
FAILURES | PARTIAL FAILURES |
TOTALS |
| Cape Canaveral Air Force Station | USA |
4 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Jiuquan | China | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Xichang | China | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Vandenberg | USA | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Baikonur | Kazakhstan (Russia Leased) |
2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Satish Dhawan | India | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Taiyuan | China | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Uchinoura | Japan | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Kourou* | Europe | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Kennedy Space Center | USA | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Tanegashima | Japan | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Plesetsk | Russia | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Mahia Peninsula | New Zealand | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Vostochny | Russia | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| TOTALS: | 29 | 1 | 1 | 31 | |
| * Includes one Russian Soyuz launch from Kourou. | |||||
China conducted four launches apiece from its Jiuquan and Xichang launch centers. The nation’s two other launches lifted off from the Taiyuan spaceport.
The Baikonur Cosmodrome has hosted only two launches thus far, a small number for a spaceport that has traditionally led the world in flights. Russia has conducted one flight apiece from Plesetsk, Vostochny and the European spaceport in Kourou.
India’s Satish Dhwan, Japan’s Uchinoura and Europe’s Kourou spaceports hosted two launches apiece during the first quarter. Japan’s Tanegashima and New Zealand’s Mahia Peninsula each saw one launch each.
Space Station Support Flights
The Progress 69 resupply ship is pictured just moments from docking to the space station. (Credit: NASA)
There were two support missions flown to the International Space Station during the first quarter. The first was a Russian Progress resupply mission launched in February, the second a crew flight in March.
| ISS SUPPORT MISSIONS |
|||||
| DATE | NATION |
LAUNCH VEHICLE |
MISSION |
MISSION TYPE |
OUTCOME |
| 2/13/18 | Russia | Soyuz | Progress 69P | Resupply | Success |
| 3/21/18 | Russia | Soyuz | ISS 54S | Crew | Success |
SpaceX is set to launch a Dragon cargo ship to ISS on Monday afternoon aboard a Falcon 9 booster.
Suborbital Launches
Black Brant IX rocket lifts off with ASPIRE experiment. (Credit: NASA)
There have been six civilian suborbital launches thus far this year.
| SUBORBITAL LAUNCHES | ||||
| DATE | LAUNCH VEHICLE |
PAYLOAD(S) |
LAUNCH SITE | RESULT |
| 1/19/18 | Black Brant IX | DXL-3 (Astronomy) | Poker Flats (Alaska) | Success |
| 1/26/18 | Terrier-Improved Orion | Super Soaker (Atmospheric) | Poker Flats (Alaska) | Success |
| 1/26/18 | Terrier-Improved Orion | Super Soaker (Atmospheric) | Poker Flats (Alaska) | Success |
| 1/26/18 | Terrier-Improved Orion | Super Soaker (Atmospheric) | Poker Flats (Alaska) | Success |
| 3/25/18 | Terrier-Improved Malemute | USIP (Student Payloads) | Wallops Island | Success |
| 3/31/18 | Black Brant IX | ASPIRE (Supersonic Parachute) | Wallops Island | Success |
Four missions were launched from the Poker Flats range in Alaska in January, with two others conducted from Wallops Island in Virginia. The ASPIRE flight at the end of March tested a supersonic parachute that will be used on the Mars 2020 mission.
Why is F9 listed with a failure?
The mission was a failure.
Failure as far as we are likely to ever know was not on part of f9 so it’s not counted against the vehicle, post launch activities do not suggest it to be on part of F9 either, as falcon did not have a standdown.
Neither grummen nor the gov have listed it officially as mission failure.
And they might never admit it. At least until some years from now.
It’s Grumman. Northrop Grumman.
Reports are payload burned up in atmosphere. That’s a failure. Payload didn’t get to where it needed to go, as far as we know. Launches are not deamed sucesses until payload deployment.
Who is at fault for that is a matter for SpaceX, NG and USG. It’s also a question of whether SpaceX had to stand down to address a problem. SpaceX said no and didn’t.
Fact is we don’t know what happened with Zuma and we likely never will therefore we can’t list it as a failure or a success as it is unlikely to be a vehicle failure in f9 concerned records it’s a success in overall records it’s neither because we don’t know
I’m convinced based on media reports quoting sources who knew about the mission that the satellite burned up. The reports are credible.
Sounds like a Schrodinger’s cat launch …..
Basically
Launches aren’t deemed successful until payload is deployed. In this case, the bulk of evidence says that didn’t happen.
There is no bulk of evidence, all we have is rumors that it didn’t deploy or was DOA and SpaceX’s official statement that Falcon 9 preformed its mission successfully, backed with not being ordered to stand down, if there was a problem it wasn’t with their hardware or software, as such it’s not classified as a failure on thier system, its considered an other. Unless we get official word it could be considered a success or a failure depending on who you ask so for the sake of record keeping it isn’t factored in as a launch for failure rate calculations and instead listed as “other”
The media reports quoting Congressional and govt and industry sources are persuasive to me. You’re free to disagree.
They are vague and congressiomals have reason to blame SpaceX therefore are biased
The sources aren’t going to lie about whether the mission failed or not. As for the orbital ID number, I would point you to this:
https://allthingsnuclear.or…
The relevant section is this:
Jonathan McDowell makes two important points in his Jan 17 Space Report that I missed. One, a successful mission would likely have had two entries in the Space Track catalog—the payload as well as the final stage, which was scheduled to complete an orbit before being de-orbited. And two, that the catalog entries for classified national security satellites are not as a rule updated when those satellites become defunct or de-orbit. So the continued presence of the USA 280 entry doesn’t necessarily indicate anything except that an object from this launch made it into orbit, at least briefly.
It also doesn’t mean it DID deorbit or become defunct as for reasons to lie,
1 shade SpaceX
2 what spy satellite? (Plausible deniability)
3 everyone loves drama.
My point was that the sources aren’t going to lie about the satellite failing to blame SpaceX. They might lie to cover up the fact that it’s in orbit, but the evidence is against that.
Evidence is also against it being a failure on part of f9 because it wasn’t their payload adapter it’s mission ended when it gave the adapter the signal to deploy,
“Evidence is also against it being a failure on part of f9…”
Yes. You’ve said this 10 or 12 times already. You’ve made the point. We get it. The story doesn’t say the Falcon 9 failed. it says the launch failed. OK?
I’m puzzled by these comments. Why wouldn’t those responsible for the failure, or their paid lackeys, lie about who is responsible?
Surely it would be better to look at the behaviour of those with strong motivation not to believe SpaceX, such as the DoD planning future national launches, NASA planning manned flights. And their behaviour is consistent with the launch itself being successful.
Their behavior is also consistent with what sources said happened during the launch: the satellite failed to separate and ended up in the atmosphere. If the problem was with the payload adapter, and SpaceX is not going to use that adapter for future flights, then there would be no problem with continuing with launches because they’ve had no trouble with the system they normally use. That’s what I believed happened.
It is he said she said and we don’t know WHO said Zuma failed in the first place, therefore cannot know if they had some sort of agenda
Go back and look. I remember a Congressman who was briefed confirming on the record confirming the satellite had failed and that he thought SpaceX and NG were going to have a long discussion about exactly who was to blame over it.
I don’t have time to go look that up. Since you’re insistent that nobody confirmed anything, you find it. I’ve spent too much time on this already.
Does that include test launches with no cargo?
If there’s no payload, then you evaluate the launch on how well the stages performed in relation to the goals. Test launches are, by nature, to see what works and what doesn’t, so even a failure can be valuable.
In any event, most launches to orbit have a payload, even if it’s an inert mass simulator. So, you can evaluate what happens to that.
Since it was a secret mission, was the payload supposed to deploy? All I have read about is just rumors? Everyone assumes that Zuma was supposed to deploy from the second stage. Some payloads doesn’t have to deploy from the second stage to be tested in an orbital plane or a ballistic trajectory that reaches on the other side of the planet.
And what about that FH launch?
Center stage didn’t reach barge so was that launch a failure?
Payload in orbit but not advertised one.
GSat 6A maybe lost/maybe not
Is there really an Intl definition of launch/mission success/failure?
Falcon Heavy delivered payload to deep space. Failure to recover core stage didn’t affect that.
GSAT 6A appears to be spacecraft failure. No evidence booster was at fault. The spacecraft hasn’t been declared a loss yet; there’s still a chance they can recover communications.
No evidence f9 was at fault with Zuma either
You’re missing the forest for the trees. You’re so busy trying to defend Elon and SpaceX against something the article doesn’t say that you’re not focused on the actual outcome of the flight. Again, if the satellite ends up stuck to the second stage and burns up, that’s a launch failure.
My point is it isn’t an f9 failure even if it was a failure the official status of Zuma is “we are not at liberty to discuss the matter”
He is not saying it was F9 failure. He is saying that F9 launched Zuma, and preponderance of evidence indicates that Zuma failed. The fact that Northrup did not point fingers after first 5 minutes would seem to indicate they failed.
But the article implies it was f9
Yes it does. And no SX official have said that Zuma was a launch failure. The classification system is wrong. Anyway a good article for debate, Doug. I am sure that you expected all this. Way to keep it interesting.
For the 10th time, the article does not say that. It does not imply that. Please stop this. Just stop.
They lost contact after payload deployment as far as I know. Satellite was in middle of series of burns of own propulsion system when contact was lost. That indicates spacecraft failure unless evidence surfaces it was damaged during launch.
The way I word it? I gave description of what govt and industry sources said happened to the satellite. Again, a launch isn’t successful until deployment of satellite into intended orbit. The sources say that didn’t happen. The fault may lie with the payload adapter NG supplied, not with the booster itself.`
F9 haven’t had a launch failed this year. Stage 2 was in orbit already when signal for Zuma came to separate. So, there was no launch failure associated with it. You might want to list it as an on orbit mission failure or unknown. But, then, if the object of the mission was to sow confusion, which is possible with the DOD, then the mission was a success. Musk did say that Zuma was SX’s most important payload for the DOD. As far as I am concerned, the Congressmen was in on the confusion. Launch failure is totally misleading.
I’m ending comments on this because I can’t spend the next week responding to the same erroneous claims with the same answers I’ve given over and over again. This is something I never do, but I’ve had enough of this.