4 ms·

SpaceX is already doing pretty good on launch cadence and they are gone to be way better before 2020 because they are building launch sites like crazy. Neither

by nickik 10y ago

SpaceX is already doing pretty good on launch cadence and they are gone to be way better before 2020 because they are building launch sites like crazy. Neither Arianspace or ULA will be able to keep up (they are simply not expanding their launch sites at the same rate). You have a point on reliability, but I would ask you to consider that both Arianspace and ULA is pushing hard to get a new launch vehicle. There is no way, they would be doing that if they thought reliability was their big money maker. Additionally with their new rockets, that reliability will be mostly gone. Vulcan and Arian 6 need to build up a record as well, and that will be hard because they will both be very limited in launch cadence just because they don't actually have enough commercial flights.

ethbro 10y ago
I made a similar comment before, but the launch cadence is key in that it enables new markets. If it takes two years to get your heavy launch payload scheduled then of course a ~$10M price difference is dwarfed by making sure nothing goes wrong on your end. If SpaceX can reschedule you in a much tighter timeline, for a competitive or cheaper price, then simply building two payloads and skipping some of the exhaustive QA starts to make sense in a way it simply didn't before. And as the market shifts to that kind of thinking, there's more business for rocket companies that can provide a quicker cadence, which allows them to grow farther, which reduces costs, etc. And anyone who doesn't have a reusable product or expandability to match isn't able to take advantage of the new market reality.
greglindahl 10y ago
Arianspace and ULA are building new rockets to reduce costs. So there's a datapoint for how those 2 companies balance reliability vs cost. Note that Atlas V had zero failures when it was young. So there's proof that new development doesn't necessarily hurt reliability. You're correct that the track record of reliability will be absent for the first couple of dozen launches, which will be quite a while for at least Arianspace.
- valuearb 10y ago
  The Atlas V was built off the Atlas 3, so it wasn't totally starting from scratch. They kept the RD-180 engine, rebuilt the booster, and added strap-ons. Also the Atlas program has about 40 years of experience on SpaceX. But I should point out they've also maintained their glittering track record while regularly upgrading their rockets, so they've shown it can be done.

by nickik 10y ago

ethbro 10y ago

I made a similar comment before, but the launch cadence is key in that it enables new markets. If it takes two years to get your heavy launch payload scheduled then of course a ~$10M price difference is dwarfed by making sure nothing goes wrong on your end. If SpaceX can reschedule you in a much tighter timeline, for a competitive or cheaper price, then simply building two payloads and skipping some of the exhaustive QA starts to make sense in a way it simply didn't before. And as the market shifts to that kind of thinking, there's more business for rocket companies that can provide a quicker cadence, which allows them to grow farther, which reduces costs, etc. And anyone who doesn't have a reusable product or expandability to match isn't able to take advantage of the new market reality.

greglindahl 10y ago

Arianspace and ULA are building new rockets to reduce costs. So there's a datapoint for how those 2 companies balance reliability vs cost. Note that Atlas V had zero failures when it was young. So there's proof that new development doesn't necessarily hurt reliability. You're correct that the track record of reliability will be absent for the first couple of dozen launches, which will be quite a while for at least Arianspace.

valuearb 10y ago
The Atlas V was built off the Atlas 3, so it wasn't totally starting from scratch. They kept the RD-180 engine, rebuilt the booster, and added strap-ons. Also the Atlas program has about 40 years of experience on SpaceX. But I should point out they've also maintained their glittering track record while regularly upgrading their rockets, so they've shown it can be done.