5 ms·

I've been following the SpaceX trainspotting (rocketspotting?) community for a while; in the process I've read bits and pieces about the launch industry in gene

I've been following the SpaceX trainspotting (rocketspotting?) community for a while; in the process I've read bits and pieces about the launch industry in general. The heavy-lift launch market is, indeed, an easy one to compete in; Bezos is slow out of the gate, and the rest of the competition comes from some truly wacko engineering organizations. The car industry already optimized its products and processes for cost and efficiency, while the (American) competition seems not to have even tried. (The European and Russian programs have their own handicaps, and India is doing just fine in the adjacent medium-lift market.)

kuschku 9y ago
And it's not like SpaceX revolutionized the launch market yet — a decade and 10 billion USD later they're still launching for similar prices as Arianespace. The only reason the launch market seems to be easy to compete in is because the US launch market has historically been a prime example of corruption.
- annerajb 9y ago
  The importance is the cost. they are lower priced on reused flights with a 10-20million discount. Regular non reused flights they are about the same price as competitors (if you count 20millions less the same) New design launching in three weeks would reduce cost even further price will go down maybe by 10 million but cost should go down by around 50 million
  - nkoren 9y ago
    > about the same price as competitors Um, no? The competitors have had to drop their prices very substantially in recent years, due to competition from SpaceX. Yet they're still somewhere between 50%-300% more expensive. That's far from "about the same price".
    - kuschku 9y ago
      I suggest taking a look at launch prices for a single satellite in an Ariane 5 dual launch, which is cheaper than any non-reused launches SpaceX offers.
      - nkoren 9y ago
        A whole Ariane5 launch costs between $165M and $220M. Divide that by two satellites and it's still more expensive, per satellite, than a Falcon 9 (at $63M) -- and the satellites can't be nearly as heavy. There are instances of the lower berth being sold for as little as $60M, but that is for fairly modest satellites (relative to what an F9 can carry), and is only possible because it's being heavily subsidized by the upper berth. There's no comparison.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    The cost od the lower bay on an Ariane 5 is 60 million USD. The cost of a launch on Falcon 9 is 62 million USD. That's not 20 million less, that's 2 million more — ofc, finding a second satellite to launch with is with Ariane more time consuming, so you'll not be as agile. And if SpaceX cuts the cost of a non-reusable launch (previously 62mm) by 50mm, to 12mm, that'd be a breakthrough. If you meant to say that they cut the cost of reusable launches (previously 30mm) by 500mm (aka paying people for launching), then lol.
    - makomk 9y ago
      On the other hand, SpaceX's launch delays have historically cost companies quite a bit due to not having their satellites available when they'd promised their paying customers they would.
    - walls 9y ago
      If you launched with a second satellite on the Falcon 9, wouldn't it only be 30 million? Seems weird to compare launching multiple payloads with launching one.
      - greglindahl 9y ago
        SpaceX has launched a pair of comsats twice, it was organized by Boeing. However, Boeing hasn't succeeded in selling any more of these pairs. Arianespace has had a lot more success in convincing customers to fit into the upper berth/lower berth size/mass limits.
    - dmoy 9y ago
      It is a bit disingenuous to neglect to mention that a5'd lower bay payload is half the size of a f9 payload.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      The PRICE of the lower bay on Ariane 5 is around $60mm, because of SpaceX. That's not a signal that Arianespace is doing great competing with SpaceX, it's a sign that Arianespace had to lower their price to compete.
- azernik 9y ago
  No they're not? SpaceX launch prices are in the range of $60M, while Ariane 5 prices are around double to triple that. Ariane was competitive back when Falcon 9 performance was lower, and splitting capacity 50/50 in an Ariane 5 rideshare gave you similar payload to orbit; these days, it's a very different story.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Falcon 9 launches are only around 60MM if the first stage can be recovered, which limits performance. A dual Ariane 5 launch provides the same performance for the same price. I agree that the reused prices are starting to significantly affect the market, but otherwise it's pretty much the same, for pretty much the same cost.
    - azernik 9y ago
      Falcon 9 was already charging in that range for its early (lower-performance) versions before it got reusability working; customers have talked about the reusability discount being in the 30% range. $90-100M for 22T to orbit is still quite an advantage.
    - nickik 9y ago
      Dual deployment also increases your cost. It requires that you have two cosutmers who want to go to the same place at the same time. This often causes significant delayes and increases the planning effort of all the companies innvolved. Another problem is that this model does not work for many costumers because there simply is no other cosutmer who wants to go to the same place at the same time. Arianespace had many problems with this and in their new rocket they are moving away from that idea because of that. > Falcon 9 launches are only around 60MM if the first stage can be recovered I'm pretty sure that is false. I think all cosumters pay 60MM no matter what SpaceX does with the booster. Their early reusable rockets gave costumers a 10% discount from that 60MM but it seems that this is no longer the case.
- sambull 9y ago
  They seem to be landing them also and reusing them. That seems like a big leap in the launch market maybe even the only competitor that is reusable
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Technologically, I agree, but they haven't brought the price down yet, and they have to significantly rework their engines to improve their turnaround times. Arianespace has prototypes of fully reusable engines ready now as well, and is moving into early testing. While the US launch market was disrupted, SpaceX hasn't reduced prices yet, hasn't made it easier to launch for small companies (which would be necessary for a startup boom in space), and other competitors are only a few years behind.
    - nkoren 9y ago
      > SpaceX hasn't reduced prices yet You keep repeating this, but it's completely untrue. Today an Ariane 5 will cost you $10,000/kg to $14,000/kg to LEO, but you can get a Falcon 9 to LEO for $2,800/kg. That's already a very substantial price reduction, and that's before the economics of reusability has kicked in.
    - twtw 9y ago
      Are you talking about the Promotheus engine? Everything I've read about Arianespace's plans indicate that they aren't terribly interested in reusability. Ariane 6, which is slated for first launch until at least 2020, will be initially expendable. The mentions of Adeline or using Promotheus on Ariane6 seem to be only speculative at this point. Given that they will only maybe start working on reuse after the expendable Ariane6 is launching, they seem to be more than a few years behind. More like a decade.
      - kuschku 9y ago
        Remember that they've spent years already on Prometheus — Arianespace moves slow, but they constantly move forward.
- ufmace 9y ago
  It seems a bit funny to blame the US launch market specifically for "corruption" when every other launch market in the world behaved in essentially the same way. While the US launch market is not a perfect model of market principles, efficient operation, and fair competition, it's also the only one where it was possible for an outsider to found a new company to do things in a different way.
  - OGquaker 9y ago
    Aversion to risk. A $billion+ gift each year from Uncle Sam to 'maintain' a launch capability and 'free' pads from Harris-Vandenberg and PAFB kept Boeing/Lockheed in the game without risking 'Investors' deposits. For that $billion and cost+ launches, US gets an average of one Delta launch a year and a few 60year-old Atlas cost+ launches with filthy thyroid killing strap-ons. Since actually RISKING 'Investors' deposits with un-tested hardware is 'fiducially irresponsible' for any 'Public Corporation', unless DOD or NASA covers ALL costs, the US space game stopped at Reagan. ATK-Orbital are cleaning out the back stockroom, P&W-Rocketdine just walked away.
- pooya13 9y ago
  Do you suggest that they drop their price when they don't have to? They have a backlog that they are usually way behind on if anything their price point should be higher. And reusing an orbital first stage was first achieved by SpaceX so I would call them revolutionary.
  - solarkraft 9y ago
    > They have a backlog that they are usually way behind on if anything their price point should be higher. They haven't yet forwarded reusability savings to customers significantly it seems. I agree that it would be smart for them to increase prices purely on a demand basis, but could imagine that they want to save image with the public and their customers.
- nickik 9y ago
  > The only reason the launch market seems to be easy to compete in is because the US launch market has historically been a prime example of corruption. That is mostly false. Almost all government have historically given precidents to individual companies. The US for a long time actually had more competition then Europe and it is already more competitive now. Europe has Arianespace and it has a monopoly and gets massive amount of public funding. That is actually more corrupt compared to the US. The reality is that SpaceX could never have existed in Europe. If Musk was from France, he would be some guy with a few good ideas somewhere deep inside of ESA or Arianespace.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    I read this as 'US launch market is not corrupt because EU's is more corrupt.' Maybe the US launch market was still corrupt, even if worse exists.
    - nickik 9y ago
      Of course it was corrupt, as I pointed out. All nations had the same basic policy outlook on this. But only in the US you could have SpaceX. In Europe, Russia, China, India there simply couldn't be such company at the moment.

kuschku 9y ago

And it's not like SpaceX revolutionized the launch market yet — a decade and 10 billion USD later they're still launching for similar prices as Arianespace. The only reason the launch market seems to be easy to compete in is because the US launch market has historically been a prime example of corruption.

annerajb 9y ago
The importance is the cost. they are lower priced on reused flights with a 10-20million discount. Regular non reused flights they are about the same price as competitors (if you count 20millions less the same) New design launching in three weeks would reduce cost even further price will go down maybe by 10 million but cost should go down by around 50 million
- nkoren 9y ago
  > about the same price as competitors Um, no? The competitors have had to drop their prices very substantially in recent years, due to competition from SpaceX. Yet they're still somewhere between 50%-300% more expensive. That's far from "about the same price".
  - kuschku 9y ago
    I suggest taking a look at launch prices for a single satellite in an Ariane 5 dual launch, which is cheaper than any non-reused launches SpaceX offers.
    - nkoren 9y ago
      A whole Ariane5 launch costs between $165M and $220M. Divide that by two satellites and it's still more expensive, per satellite, than a Falcon 9 (at $63M) -- and the satellites can't be nearly as heavy. There are instances of the lower berth being sold for as little as $60M, but that is for fairly modest satellites (relative to what an F9 can carry), and is only possible because it's being heavily subsidized by the upper berth. There's no comparison.
- kuschku 9y ago
  The cost od the lower bay on an Ariane 5 is 60 million USD. The cost of a launch on Falcon 9 is 62 million USD. That's not 20 million less, that's 2 million more — ofc, finding a second satellite to launch with is with Ariane more time consuming, so you'll not be as agile. And if SpaceX cuts the cost of a non-reusable launch (previously 62mm) by 50mm, to 12mm, that'd be a breakthrough. If you meant to say that they cut the cost of reusable launches (previously 30mm) by 500mm (aka paying people for launching), then lol.
  - makomk 9y ago
    On the other hand, SpaceX's launch delays have historically cost companies quite a bit due to not having their satellites available when they'd promised their paying customers they would.
  - walls 9y ago
    If you launched with a second satellite on the Falcon 9, wouldn't it only be 30 million? Seems weird to compare launching multiple payloads with launching one.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      SpaceX has launched a pair of comsats twice, it was organized by Boeing. However, Boeing hasn't succeeded in selling any more of these pairs. Arianespace has had a lot more success in convincing customers to fit into the upper berth/lower berth size/mass limits.
  - dmoy 9y ago
    It is a bit disingenuous to neglect to mention that a5'd lower bay payload is half the size of a f9 payload.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    The PRICE of the lower bay on Ariane 5 is around $60mm, because of SpaceX. That's not a signal that Arianespace is doing great competing with SpaceX, it's a sign that Arianespace had to lower their price to compete.
azernik 9y ago
No they're not? SpaceX launch prices are in the range of $60M, while Ariane 5 prices are around double to triple that. Ariane was competitive back when Falcon 9 performance was lower, and splitting capacity 50/50 in an Ariane 5 rideshare gave you similar payload to orbit; these days, it's a very different story.
- kuschku 9y ago
  Falcon 9 launches are only around 60MM if the first stage can be recovered, which limits performance. A dual Ariane 5 launch provides the same performance for the same price. I agree that the reused prices are starting to significantly affect the market, but otherwise it's pretty much the same, for pretty much the same cost.
  - azernik 9y ago
    Falcon 9 was already charging in that range for its early (lower-performance) versions before it got reusability working; customers have talked about the reusability discount being in the 30% range. $90-100M for 22T to orbit is still quite an advantage.
  - nickik 9y ago
    Dual deployment also increases your cost. It requires that you have two cosutmers who want to go to the same place at the same time. This often causes significant delayes and increases the planning effort of all the companies innvolved. Another problem is that this model does not work for many costumers because there simply is no other cosutmer who wants to go to the same place at the same time. Arianespace had many problems with this and in their new rocket they are moving away from that idea because of that. > Falcon 9 launches are only around 60MM if the first stage can be recovered I'm pretty sure that is false. I think all cosumters pay 60MM no matter what SpaceX does with the booster. Their early reusable rockets gave costumers a 10% discount from that 60MM but it seems that this is no longer the case.
sambull 9y ago
They seem to be landing them also and reusing them. That seems like a big leap in the launch market maybe even the only competitor that is reusable
- kuschku 9y ago
  Technologically, I agree, but they haven't brought the price down yet, and they have to significantly rework their engines to improve their turnaround times. Arianespace has prototypes of fully reusable engines ready now as well, and is moving into early testing. While the US launch market was disrupted, SpaceX hasn't reduced prices yet, hasn't made it easier to launch for small companies (which would be necessary for a startup boom in space), and other competitors are only a few years behind.
  - nkoren 9y ago
    > SpaceX hasn't reduced prices yet You keep repeating this, but it's completely untrue. Today an Ariane 5 will cost you $10,000/kg to $14,000/kg to LEO, but you can get a Falcon 9 to LEO for $2,800/kg. That's already a very substantial price reduction, and that's before the economics of reusability has kicked in.
  - twtw 9y ago
    Are you talking about the Promotheus engine? Everything I've read about Arianespace's plans indicate that they aren't terribly interested in reusability. Ariane 6, which is slated for first launch until at least 2020, will be initially expendable. The mentions of Adeline or using Promotheus on Ariane6 seem to be only speculative at this point. Given that they will only maybe start working on reuse after the expendable Ariane6 is launching, they seem to be more than a few years behind. More like a decade.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Remember that they've spent years already on Prometheus — Arianespace moves slow, but they constantly move forward.
ufmace 9y ago
It seems a bit funny to blame the US launch market specifically for "corruption" when every other launch market in the world behaved in essentially the same way. While the US launch market is not a perfect model of market principles, efficient operation, and fair competition, it's also the only one where it was possible for an outsider to found a new company to do things in a different way.
- OGquaker 9y ago
  Aversion to risk. A $billion+ gift each year from Uncle Sam to 'maintain' a launch capability and 'free' pads from Harris-Vandenberg and PAFB kept Boeing/Lockheed in the game without risking 'Investors' deposits. For that $billion and cost+ launches, US gets an average of one Delta launch a year and a few 60year-old Atlas cost+ launches with filthy thyroid killing strap-ons. Since actually RISKING 'Investors' deposits with un-tested hardware is 'fiducially irresponsible' for any 'Public Corporation', unless DOD or NASA covers ALL costs, the US space game stopped at Reagan. ATK-Orbital are cleaning out the back stockroom, P&W-Rocketdine just walked away.
pooya13 9y ago
Do you suggest that they drop their price when they don't have to? They have a backlog that they are usually way behind on if anything their price point should be higher. And reusing an orbital first stage was first achieved by SpaceX so I would call them revolutionary.
- solarkraft 9y ago
  > They have a backlog that they are usually way behind on if anything their price point should be higher. They haven't yet forwarded reusability savings to customers significantly it seems. I agree that it would be smart for them to increase prices purely on a demand basis, but could imagine that they want to save image with the public and their customers.
nickik 9y ago
> The only reason the launch market seems to be easy to compete in is because the US launch market has historically been a prime example of corruption. That is mostly false. Almost all government have historically given precidents to individual companies. The US for a long time actually had more competition then Europe and it is already more competitive now. Europe has Arianespace and it has a monopoly and gets massive amount of public funding. That is actually more corrupt compared to the US. The reality is that SpaceX could never have existed in Europe. If Musk was from France, he would be some guy with a few good ideas somewhere deep inside of ESA or Arianespace.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  I read this as 'US launch market is not corrupt because EU's is more corrupt.' Maybe the US launch market was still corrupt, even if worse exists.
  - nickik 9y ago
    Of course it was corrupt, as I pointed out. All nations had the same basic policy outlook on this. But only in the US you could have SpaceX. In Europe, Russia, China, India there simply couldn't be such company at the moment.