3 ms·

Odd that the other comments don't even mention ULA and Arianespace. SpaceX definitely dominates the competitive market but there is some more nuance than that.

Odd that the other comments don't even mention ULA and Arianespace. SpaceX definitely dominates the competitive market but there is some more nuance than that. In head to head competition ULA won a larger share of NSSL launches than SpaceX. Obviously a lot of people think this will result in taxpayers overspending and was not a really fair competition. ULA and Arianespace have had more success against SpaceX for GEO than LEO missions, though I believe that has lessened over time. GEO is more competitive because SpaceX uses RP1 for its upper stage which is not as efficient as the others that use hydrogen.

Rebelgecko 4y ago
IIRC ULA's accuracy is also a bit better, so for an expensive payload going high up it can be worth it to spend a bit more if it means your $1b payload is gonna last a few more years before running out of fuel. There's also the whole vertical vs horizontal integration thing
- mlindner 4y ago
  That's somewhat incorrect, and accuracy of the sort you're talking about only really matters for vehicles without any on-board propulsion, which is a rare thing on military satellites. The accuracy certainly doesn't save you "years" of propulsion.
nordsieck 4y ago
> Obviously a lot of people think this will result in taxpayers overspending and was not a really fair competition. Part of this is due to SpaceX bidding Starship for NSSL phase 1 (development) and getting rejected by the Airforce, while ULA, Blue Origin, and Orbital ATK (now Northrup Grumman) got development money for their respective rockets. This meant that SpaceX had to amortize the cost to develop vertical integration, a larger fairing, etc. over their NSSL phase 2 (operational) bid. > ULA and Arianespace have had more success against SpaceX for GEO than LEO missions, though I believe that has lessened over time. GEO is more competitive because SpaceX uses RP1 for its upper stage which is not as efficient as the others that use hydrogen. From what I understand, this is mostly ArianeGroup. ULA does some high energy missions, but they're mostly for NASA/DoD. I'm sure they're hoping to improve their commercial competitiveness with Vulcan, though.
panick21_ 4y ago
Many GEO missions were bid so far in advance that they were booked on Ariane many years before. There is also some reason to believe that some of the European GEO missions were given insentives in various ways to fly on Arianespace. And then finally Arianespace simply had to sell all the Ariane 5s that were left. The Ariane 5 had at base something close to competitive in a very niche market of dual GEO launches and had to go away. ULA won a larger share of NSSL but have done almost no commercial contracts ever. The slightly larger share of NSSL probably has more to do with the existing relationship and the long history and understanding of airforce processes. However, ULA is already going to miss their target launch dates for NSSL. So the reality is that Arianespace and ULA are closer to being state entities then anything else. In terms of actually BUILDING rockets and engines they are not even playing in remotely the same league as SpaceX. Ariane 6 is a slightly upgraded Ariane 5 and cost a huge amount more then the whole Falcon program including reusability and the Heavy (including Marlin development). And Ariane 6 given its further delays is probably adding another couple 100 million on top of what is already committed. A follow up to the Ariane 6 will likely not show up until more then a decade. So while these are big players, I don't think they are actually endangers competitors, more like big niches. > GEO is more competitive because SpaceX uses RP1 for its upper stage which is not as efficient as the others that use hydrogen. This is actually not true. SpaceX second stage is perfectly capable of doing what it needs and cheaper to produce.

Rebelgecko 4y ago

IIRC ULA's accuracy is also a bit better, so for an expensive payload going high up it can be worth it to spend a bit more if it means your $1b payload is gonna last a few more years before running out of fuel. There's also the whole vertical vs horizontal integration thing

mlindner 4y ago
That's somewhat incorrect, and accuracy of the sort you're talking about only really matters for vehicles without any on-board propulsion, which is a rare thing on military satellites. The accuracy certainly doesn't save you "years" of propulsion.

nordsieck 4y ago

> Obviously a lot of people think this will result in taxpayers overspending and was not a really fair competition. Part of this is due to SpaceX bidding Starship for NSSL phase 1 (development) and getting rejected by the Airforce, while ULA, Blue Origin, and Orbital ATK (now Northrup Grumman) got development money for their respective rockets. This meant that SpaceX had to amortize the cost to develop vertical integration, a larger fairing, etc. over their NSSL phase 2 (operational) bid. > ULA and Arianespace have had more success against SpaceX for GEO than LEO missions, though I believe that has lessened over time. GEO is more competitive because SpaceX uses RP1 for its upper stage which is not as efficient as the others that use hydrogen. From what I understand, this is mostly ArianeGroup. ULA does some high energy missions, but they're mostly for NASA/DoD. I'm sure they're hoping to improve their commercial competitiveness with Vulcan, though.

panick21_ 4y ago

Many GEO missions were bid so far in advance that they were booked on Ariane many years before. There is also some reason to believe that some of the European GEO missions were given insentives in various ways to fly on Arianespace. And then finally Arianespace simply had to sell all the Ariane 5s that were left. The Ariane 5 had at base something close to competitive in a very niche market of dual GEO launches and had to go away. ULA won a larger share of NSSL but have done almost no commercial contracts ever. The slightly larger share of NSSL probably has more to do with the existing relationship and the long history and understanding of airforce processes. However, ULA is already going to miss their target launch dates for NSSL. So the reality is that Arianespace and ULA are closer to being state entities then anything else. In terms of actually BUILDING rockets and engines they are not even playing in remotely the same league as SpaceX. Ariane 6 is a slightly upgraded Ariane 5 and cost a huge amount more then the whole Falcon program including reusability and the Heavy (including Marlin development). And Ariane 6 given its further delays is probably adding another couple 100 million on top of what is already committed. A follow up to the Ariane 6 will likely not show up until more then a decade. So while these are big players, I don't think they are actually endangers competitors, more like big niches. > GEO is more competitive because SpaceX uses RP1 for its upper stage which is not as efficient as the others that use hydrogen. This is actually not true. SpaceX second stage is perfectly capable of doing what it needs and cheaper to produce.