3 ms·

> The reusable feature of SpaceX is a business mistake, as noted by both ULA and ESA. The ESA analysis was perfectly correct, for the launch rates they were pr

> The reusable feature of SpaceX is a business mistake, as noted by both ULA and ESA. The ESA analysis was perfectly correct, for the launch rates they were projecting. Since then, SpaceX has unveiled plans and started filling out a constellation of 42000 satellites. That rather increased launch rates, to the point where SpaceX launched more than half of all the mass to orbit last year. If they stick to their schedule, they will launch 75% this year. This changes the math of how profitable reuse is.

hef19898 6y ago
Which just moved the goal post, didn't it? I mean Starlink is, in some sense, artificially created demand by SpaceX themselves. As oppossed to ESA, Ariane Space and others that depend on government launches and commercial business from third parties.
- Tuna-Fish 6y ago
  Well, it is demand they created themselves. It also has a path to being so wildly profitable it probably exceeds all the other revenue from space by all other companies put together. It has been known since the 60's that if launch rates go way up, the cost per launch can be made to go way down. It has been known since the 90's that there is market for a massive internet constellation, but it won't be profitable at current launch prices. Neither problem could be solved, because they depended on each other, and required massive, tens-of-billions-of-dollars level of investment. You can't really spend big money to make a very efficient launch system that is not suitable for current market and hope that customers will come. And you cannot really spend big money to build the infrastructure to turn out satellites like cars when the launch costs would still sink the whole project. SpaceX managed to collect enough private funding, that they could do tackle both problems at the same time. If they succeed, they will be the most profitable aerospace company the world has ever seen. Which is probably why they have so little trouble raising the funding.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    Then we agree to disagree. SpaceX is private funding, Ariane Space and others government contracts. Which SpaceX is also getting, by the way. To me, Starlink is for SpaceX what self-driving taxis are for Tesla. And whether Starlink is actually profitable, after SpaceX moved that question on to them, can be further pushed out by raising VC money for Starlink. This plays on so many levels, every VC pumped start-up plays this with so many markets and competitors. Maybe money really is to cheap and plenty full in general since 2008.
    - Tuna-Fish 6y ago
      > To me, Starlink is for SpaceX what self-driving taxis are for Tesla. The difference is that self-driving taxis is very clearly in the far future, with major technical and regulatory hurdles, whereas Starlink, while still in the beta, now has tens of thousands of paying customers in a dozen countries, and more are added constantly. Given that the user terminals work, the satellites work, and they seem to be executing well in scaling the system, it's very hard to see a future where it won't be wildly profitable.
  - nickik 6y ago
    SpaceX tackled started re-usability before Starlink and they had figured it out before Starlink launches even started. Even without Starlink SpaceX would have done re-usability. The claim that they are linked is simply not correct. SpaceX was totally convinced of re-usability and said it was a huge benefit to them before Starlink. All the leaders of SpaceX said this public-ally, Elon, Shotwell, Mueller and Königsman. Multiple analysts and cost estimations have also indicated that their savings are quite large. Yet I guess some people rather believe everybody in SpaceX is simply laying and all these analysts are wrong because they rather believe the competitors of SpaceX.
Gravityloss 6y ago
It all depends on the market elasticity. Let's say your gadget costs 100,000 and only sells 50,000 per year. So, someone can say it doesn't make sense to try to do the capital investment to build a factory that churns out cheap gadgets that only cost 35,000 - because the market is only 50,000 per year. That wouldn't be a good analysis. Of course, the market size is different if the price point is different. Satellites are expensive partly because launches are expensive. For example, you can't easily launch another satellite if your old one fails, so you spend a lot of money trying to make sure your satellite is very reliable. Now, there are new satellite manufactures doing them in a more agile way, using as much off the shelf components as possible. They sell the data on the internet. Your satellite project doesn't last twenty years like it would with NASA or ESA or the militaries. More likely only a few, and you iterate a lot, making upgrades to successive satellites, meaning more revenue with every, better, satellite. Typically these companies use shared launches (many satellites from different companies on the same launch), managed by a launch aggregator. They use vehicles like the Indian PSLV. Source: Finnish Satellite Workshop, attended a few times. https://spaceworkshop.fi/ https://spaceworkshop.fi/
nickik 6y ago
> The ESA analysis was perfectly correct, for the launch rates they were projecting. Can you prove that they were 'perfectly correct'. In my opinion historically ESA cost estimations have been utterly terrible. And those estimations were based on technology and cost available to ESA. In fact literally all the leaders of SpaceX, not just Musk, basically said this analysis is wrong. Even at 12 launches per year, SpaceX would have wanted to to re-usability.

hef19898 6y ago

Which just moved the goal post, didn't it? I mean Starlink is, in some sense, artificially created demand by SpaceX themselves. As oppossed to ESA, Ariane Space and others that depend on government launches and commercial business from third parties.

Tuna-Fish 6y ago
Well, it is demand they created themselves. It also has a path to being so wildly profitable it probably exceeds all the other revenue from space by all other companies put together. It has been known since the 60's that if launch rates go way up, the cost per launch can be made to go way down. It has been known since the 90's that there is market for a massive internet constellation, but it won't be profitable at current launch prices. Neither problem could be solved, because they depended on each other, and required massive, tens-of-billions-of-dollars level of investment. You can't really spend big money to make a very efficient launch system that is not suitable for current market and hope that customers will come. And you cannot really spend big money to build the infrastructure to turn out satellites like cars when the launch costs would still sink the whole project. SpaceX managed to collect enough private funding, that they could do tackle both problems at the same time. If they succeed, they will be the most profitable aerospace company the world has ever seen. Which is probably why they have so little trouble raising the funding.
- hef19898 6y ago
  Then we agree to disagree. SpaceX is private funding, Ariane Space and others government contracts. Which SpaceX is also getting, by the way. To me, Starlink is for SpaceX what self-driving taxis are for Tesla. And whether Starlink is actually profitable, after SpaceX moved that question on to them, can be further pushed out by raising VC money for Starlink. This plays on so many levels, every VC pumped start-up plays this with so many markets and competitors. Maybe money really is to cheap and plenty full in general since 2008.
  - Tuna-Fish 6y ago
    > To me, Starlink is for SpaceX what self-driving taxis are for Tesla. The difference is that self-driving taxis is very clearly in the far future, with major technical and regulatory hurdles, whereas Starlink, while still in the beta, now has tens of thousands of paying customers in a dozen countries, and more are added constantly. Given that the user terminals work, the satellites work, and they seem to be executing well in scaling the system, it's very hard to see a future where it won't be wildly profitable.
- nickik 6y ago
  SpaceX tackled started re-usability before Starlink and they had figured it out before Starlink launches even started. Even without Starlink SpaceX would have done re-usability. The claim that they are linked is simply not correct. SpaceX was totally convinced of re-usability and said it was a huge benefit to them before Starlink. All the leaders of SpaceX said this public-ally, Elon, Shotwell, Mueller and Königsman. Multiple analysts and cost estimations have also indicated that their savings are quite large. Yet I guess some people rather believe everybody in SpaceX is simply laying and all these analysts are wrong because they rather believe the competitors of SpaceX.

Gravityloss 6y ago

It all depends on the market elasticity. Let's say your gadget costs 100,000 and only sells 50,000 per year. So, someone can say it doesn't make sense to try to do the capital investment to build a factory that churns out cheap gadgets that only cost 35,000 - because the market is only 50,000 per year. That wouldn't be a good analysis. Of course, the market size is different if the price point is different. Satellites are expensive partly because launches are expensive. For example, you can't easily launch another satellite if your old one fails, so you spend a lot of money trying to make sure your satellite is very reliable. Now, there are new satellite manufactures doing them in a more agile way, using as much off the shelf components as possible. They sell the data on the internet. Your satellite project doesn't last twenty years like it would with NASA or ESA or the militaries. More likely only a few, and you iterate a lot, making upgrades to successive satellites, meaning more revenue with every, better, satellite. Typically these companies use shared launches (many satellites from different companies on the same launch), managed by a launch aggregator. They use vehicles like the Indian PSLV. Source: Finnish Satellite Workshop, attended a few times. https://spaceworkshop.fi/ https://spaceworkshop.fi/

nickik 6y ago

> The ESA analysis was perfectly correct, for the launch rates they were projecting. Can you prove that they were 'perfectly correct'. In my opinion historically ESA cost estimations have been utterly terrible. And those estimations were based on technology and cost available to ESA. In fact literally all the leaders of SpaceX, not just Musk, basically said this analysis is wrong. Even at 12 launches per year, SpaceX would have wanted to to re-usability.