3 ms·

You have no clue what you are talking about. The reality is ISRO and RocketLab play in a totally different market. Neither can compete against dedicated small

by nickik 7y ago

You have no clue what you are talking about. The reality is ISRO and RocketLab play in a totally different market. Neither can compete against dedicated small sat launches from SpaceX. That is a fact that the CEO of RocketLab and many other small launcher CEO have admitted. And comparing those tiny rockets to Falcon 9 is a joke. ULA cheapest Atlas with no other extra service might be 100M$ but that gives a 60M$ Falcon 9. And just btw, ULA has no commercial flights anyway, and their military flights are much more expensive. That is not close by any definition. For the most part the only reason ULA has any flights at all, is because both NASA and DoD pick them to keep multiple providers in the market. Arianespace is not as cheap as ULA per rocket, maybe with Ariane 6 that will change. Ariane 5 costs 200M$ and launching one only makes sense if you can stack two big Geosats. 10x was wrong, but nobody is close in any practical sense.

Rebelgecko 7y ago
> You have no clue what you are talking about. If you're going to make personal attacks, you should at least strive to be factually correct with your own claims. > ULA has no commercial flights anyway, and their military flights are much more expensive. That is not close by any definition. False. ULA has launched commercial flights in the past[1] and have more on their future manifest. It's true that their launches for the government are more expensive, but that is also the case with SpaceX's government launches: they charged about $90 million each for the most recent GPS-3 flights[2]. Since government payloads are typically uninsured, you also need to take that into account that higher premiums with SpaceX aren't reflected in those launch costs (because the risk is assumed by the gov directly) > And comparing those tiny rockets to Falcon 9 is a joke. Rocket Lab is winning contracts that would've previously gone to SpaceX (either directly or through a rideshare provider like Spaceflight (RIP)). They're targeting a different market but there is still some overlap. Pound for pound Rocketlab is still more expensive, but there's value in being able to choose your own orbit instead of being stuck with wherever your ridebuddies want to go. Anyone who has used Uber Pool or Lyft Line is familiar with this phenomenon. > Ariane 5 costs 200M$ (sic) No. An Ariane 5 costs around €100 million. Unless you got really unlucky with the exchange rate that isn't 200 million USD. > For the most part the only reason ULA has any flights at all, is because both NASA and DoD pick them to keep multiple providers in the market. I think that is unlikely. ULA would certainly have fewer flights if the DOD wasn't trying to ensure the viability of multiple EELV/NSSL launch vehicles, but they would definitely still have some. In particular the payloads that no other American launch vehicle is physically capable of delivering (e.g. when it comes to requirements like big fairing, and horizontal integration. There's also a number of orbits that a Falcon 9 can't hit with the sorts of heavy payloads that the IC likes to send via GTO or even direct to GEO-- it will be interesting to see how that changes now that the Heavy is certified) > 10x was wrong Agreed. It's hard to make a totally apples to apples comparison, but based off of recent awards[3] they are certainly within the same order of magnitude. ULA costs maybe 50% more, but it's hard to judge how the different launch providers affect the mission capabilities. e.g. if ULA is able to send something direct to GEO and get closer to the desired apogee, the bus might save a year's worth of propellant. For a constellation like SBIRS where each satellite costs just shy of $1 billion, another year of capability is nothing to sneeze at [1]: A random example here https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/jupiter-2.htm https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/jupiter-2.htm [2]: https://www.losangeles.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1113835/spacex-awarded-contract-for-gps-iii-3-launch-services/ https://www.losangeles.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1... [3]: https://spacenews.com/air-force-awards-739-million-in-launch-contracts-to-ula-and-spacex/ https://spacenews.com/air-force-awards-739-million-in-launch...
- nickik 7y ago
  > False. ULA has launched commercial flights in the past[1] Lets be clear here. Before SpaceX showed up the US had about 0% of the commercial launch market. And yes, ULA had a couple of commercial launches, but incredibly few, you could probably count all the commercial launches in the post-2000 on one hand. What you say is true, Falcon 9 is also more expensive for the DoD as well. But we are still talking about 40M plus in difference minimum. > Rocket Lab is winning contracts that would've previously gone to SpaceX I would disagree with that. Maybe a few rideshares (tiny, tiny market) but more likely those would launch on ISRO rocket or one from China. > No. An Ariane 5 costs around €100 million. Unless you got really unlucky with the exchange rate that isn't 200 million USD. Whats your evidence for that? That would price would make Ariane 5 dominate in the GTO missions and they clearly are not. If that were their price they would not have thrown away the Ariane 5 to replace it with Ariane 6. Btw, they officially said that Ariane 6 would be around 100M and it has less performance then Ariane 5. That would be a pretty stupid thing to do if the Ariane 5 were 100M$ as the Ariane 6 is less performant then 5. I have done this research a few years ago, and I can't send you reference to the price, but I am 100% sure its much more then 100M$. > In particular the payloads that no other American launch vehicle is physically capable of delivering The DoD has already certified that they can fly all orbits that the DoD requires. However your argument is correct for a small number of launches. Mostly those that require a larger fairing or vertical integration. SpaceX is adding the larger fairing and a vertical integration bay, they are now already allowed to compete for all future DoD launches. Until the last contract handout, ULA absolutely was the only provider so many of the flights on their books are from that. But on those alone ULA could not survive. We will see how the EELV2 turns out. I think the evidence is pretty clear that SpaceX is by far the cheapest and it seems they are making the best margin as well. Sorry if my initial statement was rude.
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-arianespace-asia/europes-arianespace-takes-on-spacex-by-cutting-ariane-5-rocket-launch-price-idUSKCN1PH0Q9 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-arianespace-asia/europes-...

by nickik 7y ago

Rebelgecko 7y ago

> You have no clue what you are talking about. If you're going to make personal attacks, you should at least strive to be factually correct with your own claims. > ULA has no commercial flights anyway, and their military flights are much more expensive. That is not close by any definition. False. ULA has launched commercial flights in the past[1] and have more on their future manifest. It's true that their launches for the government are more expensive, but that is also the case with SpaceX's government launches: they charged about $90 million each for the most recent GPS-3 flights[2]. Since government payloads are typically uninsured, you also need to take that into account that higher premiums with SpaceX aren't reflected in those launch costs (because the risk is assumed by the gov directly) > And comparing those tiny rockets to Falcon 9 is a joke. Rocket Lab is winning contracts that would've previously gone to SpaceX (either directly or through a rideshare provider like Spaceflight (RIP)). They're targeting a different market but there is still some overlap. Pound for pound Rocketlab is still more expensive, but there's value in being able to choose your own orbit instead of being stuck with wherever your ridebuddies want to go. Anyone who has used Uber Pool or Lyft Line is familiar with this phenomenon. > Ariane 5 costs 200M$ (sic) No. An Ariane 5 costs around €100 million. Unless you got really unlucky with the exchange rate that isn't 200 million USD. > For the most part the only reason ULA has any flights at all, is because both NASA and DoD pick them to keep multiple providers in the market. I think that is unlikely. ULA would certainly have fewer flights if the DOD wasn't trying to ensure the viability of multiple EELV/NSSL launch vehicles, but they would definitely still have some. In particular the payloads that no other American launch vehicle is physically capable of delivering (e.g. when it comes to requirements like big fairing, and horizontal integration. There's also a number of orbits that a Falcon 9 can't hit with the sorts of heavy payloads that the IC likes to send via GTO or even direct to GEO-- it will be interesting to see how that changes now that the Heavy is certified) > 10x was wrong Agreed. It's hard to make a totally apples to apples comparison, but based off of recent awards[3] they are certainly within the same order of magnitude. ULA costs maybe 50% more, but it's hard to judge how the different launch providers affect the mission capabilities. e.g. if ULA is able to send something direct to GEO and get closer to the desired apogee, the bus might save a year's worth of propellant. For a constellation like SBIRS where each satellite costs just shy of $1 billion, another year of capability is nothing to sneeze at [1]: A random example here https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/jupiter-2.htm https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/jupiter-2.htm [2]: https://www.losangeles.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1113835/spacex-awarded-contract-for-gps-iii-3-launch-services/ https://www.losangeles.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1... [3]: https://spacenews.com/air-force-awards-739-million-in-launch-contracts-to-ula-and-spacex/ https://spacenews.com/air-force-awards-739-million-in-launch...

nickik 7y ago
> False. ULA has launched commercial flights in the past[1] Lets be clear here. Before SpaceX showed up the US had about 0% of the commercial launch market. And yes, ULA had a couple of commercial launches, but incredibly few, you could probably count all the commercial launches in the post-2000 on one hand. What you say is true, Falcon 9 is also more expensive for the DoD as well. But we are still talking about 40M plus in difference minimum. > Rocket Lab is winning contracts that would've previously gone to SpaceX I would disagree with that. Maybe a few rideshares (tiny, tiny market) but more likely those would launch on ISRO rocket or one from China. > No. An Ariane 5 costs around €100 million. Unless you got really unlucky with the exchange rate that isn't 200 million USD. Whats your evidence for that? That would price would make Ariane 5 dominate in the GTO missions and they clearly are not. If that were their price they would not have thrown away the Ariane 5 to replace it with Ariane 6. Btw, they officially said that Ariane 6 would be around 100M and it has less performance then Ariane 5. That would be a pretty stupid thing to do if the Ariane 5 were 100M$ as the Ariane 6 is less performant then 5. I have done this research a few years ago, and I can't send you reference to the price, but I am 100% sure its much more then 100M$. > In particular the payloads that no other American launch vehicle is physically capable of delivering The DoD has already certified that they can fly all orbits that the DoD requires. However your argument is correct for a small number of launches. Mostly those that require a larger fairing or vertical integration. SpaceX is adding the larger fairing and a vertical integration bay, they are now already allowed to compete for all future DoD launches. Until the last contract handout, ULA absolutely was the only provider so many of the flights on their books are from that. But on those alone ULA could not survive. We will see how the EELV2 turns out. I think the evidence is pretty clear that SpaceX is by far the cheapest and it seems they are making the best margin as well. Sorry if my initial statement was rude.
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-arianespace-asia/europes-arianespace-takes-on-spacex-by-cutting-ariane-5-rocket-launch-price-idUSKCN1PH0Q9 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-arianespace-asia/europes-...