4 ms·

> If the internet service business doesn't generate revenue the launcher side will see a majority of its launch manifest evaporate Can you clarify this? I don'

by apeace 6y ago

> If the internet service business doesn't generate revenue the launcher side will see a majority of its launch manifest evaporate Can you clarify this? I don't know much about it but can't see how they relate.

mlyle 6y ago
SpaceX has launched 21 times so far this year. 12 were Starlink. About half of SpaceX's launch manifest is launching their own satellites for Starlink.
- 1123581321 6y ago
  Is there any elasticity to that demand, i.e., has SpaceX priced launches to only attract 12 so far this year, or would they still only attract that many if they lowered the price?
  - kanox 6y ago
    There is almost no elasticity in current market: DOD, NASA and traditional GTO comsat launches are few in number and not particularly sensitive to price. Payloads routinely cost several times the price of a launch so cheaper launches have little impact. The satellite service business is much larger than the launch business and this is why SpaceX is attempting to enter.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      > Payloads routinely cost several times the price of a launch so cheaper launches have little impact. Little immediate impact. Of course, if launch gets way cheaper, the things you do to maximize longevity, fault-tolerance, and mass efficiency start to matter less... That is, payloads are expensive in part because launch is expensive.
  - nickik 6y ago
    The problem is that the main business of SpaceX and Arianespace was GEO sats. Those have been in a slump and fewer launches existed. Maybe that will pick back up, but the largest part of that were for Internet and after that TV, both don't seem like huge growth markets. Small sats have become so powerful, that on a SpaceX Rideshare you can deploy basically a whole constellation in one shot potentially. Most sats today are no longer that large and heavy that you have dedicated launches. Many of their launches are government, both domestic and foreign. SpaceX has not reduced the price 'that much' in the last couple of years. They were already the cheapest on the market and opted for more profit, so they could have better cashflow when going into Starship and Starlink. What also has to be considered is that even that 12 is a pretty large number. Large rockets usually didn't fly that at the rate SpaceX flies them. The sat market is slow the respond, 4 years are very little in it. Hopefully people will come up with more great ideas how to use the capability SpaceX offers.
- nuccy 6y ago
  Two of those 12 launches also delivered other satellites, i.e. part of startlink satellites were replaced with matting hardware and those satellites.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    OK, yes. Two of the launches had 58/60 Starlink and another very small satellite, and one had 57/60, so there were 3 launches that were only each 95% of a full Starlink launch. :P
    - martinald 6y ago
      I imagine the other sats didn't pay 5% of the launch price though...
      - mlyle 6y ago
        Rideshare has established market pricing. For 125kg smallsats, it's about $1M; so on a launch that carried 3 of these, the user probably paid $2-4M. Falcon 9 launch prices are about $62M. So, Skysat probably paid 3-7% of the rate for an entire launch. Indeed, see https://spacenews.com/spacex-rideshare-program-putting-downward-pressure-on-prices/ https://spacenews.com/spacex-rideshare-program-putting-downw...
        Cogito 6y ago
        $62m is the retail price. It's likely the cost to launch is significantly lower, especially as they are often the 3rd/4th/5th/6th (has there been a 6th yet?) launch of a booster. Assuming the $62m pricetag covers the cost of the booster, the marginal cost of the Starlink launches is recovery of booster and fairings + refurbishment of booster and fairings + stage 2 + fuel + operations. A smallsat rideshare may well be paying a significant portion of those costs.
        mlyle 6y ago
        He said "price" not "launch cost". Yes, SpaceX probably has OK margins, but when we're considering how much of SpaceX's manifest is Starlink, this is not really relevant. There's been 9 launches + 3 launches that are 5% not Starlink = 9.15 launches worth of non-Starlink revenue. And even having this different argument you're triyng to have, SpaceX's margins are not so good that collecting 5% of nominal market price will put them in the black for that launch... That's just fantasy.

by apeace 6y ago

mlyle 6y ago

SpaceX has launched 21 times so far this year. 12 were Starlink. About half of SpaceX's launch manifest is launching their own satellites for Starlink.

1123581321 6y ago
Is there any elasticity to that demand, i.e., has SpaceX priced launches to only attract 12 so far this year, or would they still only attract that many if they lowered the price?
- kanox 6y ago
  There is almost no elasticity in current market: DOD, NASA and traditional GTO comsat launches are few in number and not particularly sensitive to price. Payloads routinely cost several times the price of a launch so cheaper launches have little impact. The satellite service business is much larger than the launch business and this is why SpaceX is attempting to enter.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    > Payloads routinely cost several times the price of a launch so cheaper launches have little impact. Little immediate impact. Of course, if launch gets way cheaper, the things you do to maximize longevity, fault-tolerance, and mass efficiency start to matter less... That is, payloads are expensive in part because launch is expensive.
- nickik 6y ago
  The problem is that the main business of SpaceX and Arianespace was GEO sats. Those have been in a slump and fewer launches existed. Maybe that will pick back up, but the largest part of that were for Internet and after that TV, both don't seem like huge growth markets. Small sats have become so powerful, that on a SpaceX Rideshare you can deploy basically a whole constellation in one shot potentially. Most sats today are no longer that large and heavy that you have dedicated launches. Many of their launches are government, both domestic and foreign. SpaceX has not reduced the price 'that much' in the last couple of years. They were already the cheapest on the market and opted for more profit, so they could have better cashflow when going into Starship and Starlink. What also has to be considered is that even that 12 is a pretty large number. Large rockets usually didn't fly that at the rate SpaceX flies them. The sat market is slow the respond, 4 years are very little in it. Hopefully people will come up with more great ideas how to use the capability SpaceX offers.
nuccy 6y ago
Two of those 12 launches also delivered other satellites, i.e. part of startlink satellites were replaced with matting hardware and those satellites.
- mlyle 6y ago
  OK, yes. Two of the launches had 58/60 Starlink and another very small satellite, and one had 57/60, so there were 3 launches that were only each 95% of a full Starlink launch. :P
  - martinald 6y ago
    I imagine the other sats didn't pay 5% of the launch price though...
    - mlyle 6y ago
      Rideshare has established market pricing. For 125kg smallsats, it's about $1M; so on a launch that carried 3 of these, the user probably paid $2-4M. Falcon 9 launch prices are about $62M. So, Skysat probably paid 3-7% of the rate for an entire launch. Indeed, see https://spacenews.com/spacex-rideshare-program-putting-downward-pressure-on-prices/ https://spacenews.com/spacex-rideshare-program-putting-downw...
      - Cogito 6y ago
        $62m is the retail price. It's likely the cost to launch is significantly lower, especially as they are often the 3rd/4th/5th/6th (has there been a 6th yet?) launch of a booster. Assuming the $62m pricetag covers the cost of the booster, the marginal cost of the Starlink launches is recovery of booster and fairings + refurbishment of booster and fairings + stage 2 + fuel + operations. A smallsat rideshare may well be paying a significant portion of those costs.
        mlyle 6y ago
        He said "price" not "launch cost". Yes, SpaceX probably has OK margins, but when we're considering how much of SpaceX's manifest is Starlink, this is not really relevant. There's been 9 launches + 3 launches that are 5% not Starlink = 9.15 launches worth of non-Starlink revenue. And even having this different argument you're triyng to have, SpaceX's margins are not so good that collecting 5% of nominal market price will put them in the black for that launch... That's just fantasy.