3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition#2010-2020s:_Competition_and_pricing_pressure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition#2010-2020s:_Competition_and_pricing_pressure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competitio... If you only consider US-allied launches, SpaceX represents a staggering 92% of market share. There are lots of space companies. They are not price competitive. At all. It costs $2720/kg to launch payload with Falcon 9. The next closest, US-allied launch vehicle costs $9,167/kg. Falcon Heavy will extend the lead to $1500/kg. You're not going to compete in building a constellation of satellites using launches that cost 3.5-6.1x the price (depending on when they get to launching vs readiness of Heavy) The AST SpaceMobile BlueWalker 3 weighs 1500kg. They want to launch 243 satellites. The price difference between using Falcon 9 and Ariane 5G is $2.4B. AST SpaceMobile's market cap is $675M.

LeifCarrotson 3y ago
There's opportunity to differentiate on commsat technologies like switching and antennas, on offering different targets for latency/bandwidth vs price, planet-side downlink stations, and coverage at different latitudes: In particular, satellite-to-smartphone links, specifically optimized for lower-bandwidth, higher-latency, lower-power, lower-cost long-tail coverage. Fly a little higher, so you don't have to refuel as often, customers just trying to send a text can tolerate a little latency. The Starlink terminal is great for grid-tied residential/RV/ship-sized home internet. It runs in the Ku and Ka bands at something like 65 watts. It's astonishing that they can get some functionality with their T-mobile partnership, but for the most part, it's not optimized for that. What fraction of Starlink (or, hypothetically, AST SpaceMobile) expenditures is satellite launch cost per kg? The ATT market cap is $120B, if they can partner with/aquihire a $675M satellite company to stay competitive then even a $2.4B extra expense is not a huge deal. Sure, Starlink could do the same, but ATT has a lot of inertia. SpaceX won't knock them out of the market just by flying another set of satellites a little higher with some lower-bandwidth antennas. If I could get voice and text anywhere on the planet (namely, in the woods in northern Michigan, population density ~1 person per square mile, or offshore on Lake Michigan, population density ~0 per square mile), that would be a game changer. Specifically, everyone knows that the cell networks lie about their coverage maps, this would let them genuinely say they have coverage everywhere. I'm currently using Garmin InReach for off-grid connectivity, not sure I'd dump that hardware and network for an esoteric feature that runs on my less-reliable glass slab, but a lot more people have glass slabs than InReach.
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  Direct to cell
harry8 3y ago
Given this, why doesn’t spaceX jack up its prices? I mean it could double them on these numbers and still be less than half the competition. I’m not into cult of Elon but he’s no fool. What else is going on here?
- MrLeap 3y ago
  SpaceX gets to grow the industry while capturing the business of every new entrant who wouldn't have considered launching something to space at higher price points.
- mmbop 3y ago
  That’s a great question. I would guess that part of the answer is that the cost is a massive differentiator for them. If costs were higher, competitors would probably not launch on SpaceX rockets. They were also not a “safe” choice until recently. They’ve also been able to capture the market and put enormous pressure on their competitors. I’m certain there are other reasons. I’d love to hear an actual business person weigh in on this.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    Without knowing more about the market, I suspect that - other than at SpaceX - commercial customers don't pay list price. It's pretty well known nobody pays anywhere close to list price for airplanes from Boeing and Airbus. I've heard discounts as much as 40-50% for planes but the actual numbers are pretty closely guarded. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if this were happening in the launch business. I'm probably not an "actual business person" though, for whatever definition you're using :)
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      Globalstar said they paid 64 million
- pengaru 3y ago
  Sounds like the usual undercut the competition until there's nobody left, then exploit your monopoly as you wish until someone comes along and does the same thing to you.

LeifCarrotson 3y ago

There's opportunity to differentiate on commsat technologies like switching and antennas, on offering different targets for latency/bandwidth vs price, planet-side downlink stations, and coverage at different latitudes: In particular, satellite-to-smartphone links, specifically optimized for lower-bandwidth, higher-latency, lower-power, lower-cost long-tail coverage. Fly a little higher, so you don't have to refuel as often, customers just trying to send a text can tolerate a little latency. The Starlink terminal is great for grid-tied residential/RV/ship-sized home internet. It runs in the Ku and Ka bands at something like 65 watts. It's astonishing that they can get some functionality with their T-mobile partnership, but for the most part, it's not optimized for that. What fraction of Starlink (or, hypothetically, AST SpaceMobile) expenditures is satellite launch cost per kg? The ATT market cap is $120B, if they can partner with/aquihire a $675M satellite company to stay competitive then even a $2.4B extra expense is not a huge deal. Sure, Starlink could do the same, but ATT has a lot of inertia. SpaceX won't knock them out of the market just by flying another set of satellites a little higher with some lower-bandwidth antennas. If I could get voice and text anywhere on the planet (namely, in the woods in northern Michigan, population density ~1 person per square mile, or offshore on Lake Michigan, population density ~0 per square mile), that would be a game changer. Specifically, everyone knows that the cell networks lie about their coverage maps, this would let them genuinely say they have coverage everywhere. I'm currently using Garmin InReach for off-grid connectivity, not sure I'd dump that hardware and network for an esoteric feature that runs on my less-reliable glass slab, but a lot more people have glass slabs than InReach.

inemesitaffia 3y ago
Direct to cell

harry8 3y ago

Given this, why doesn’t spaceX jack up its prices? I mean it could double them on these numbers and still be less than half the competition. I’m not into cult of Elon but he’s no fool. What else is going on here?

MrLeap 3y ago
SpaceX gets to grow the industry while capturing the business of every new entrant who wouldn't have considered launching something to space at higher price points.
mmbop 3y ago
That’s a great question. I would guess that part of the answer is that the cost is a massive differentiator for them. If costs were higher, competitors would probably not launch on SpaceX rockets. They were also not a “safe” choice until recently. They’ve also been able to capture the market and put enormous pressure on their competitors. I’m certain there are other reasons. I’d love to hear an actual business person weigh in on this.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  Without knowing more about the market, I suspect that - other than at SpaceX - commercial customers don't pay list price. It's pretty well known nobody pays anywhere close to list price for airplanes from Boeing and Airbus. I've heard discounts as much as 40-50% for planes but the actual numbers are pretty closely guarded. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if this were happening in the launch business. I'm probably not an "actual business person" though, for whatever definition you're using :)
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    Globalstar said they paid 64 million
pengaru 3y ago
Sounds like the usual undercut the competition until there's nobody left, then exploit your monopoly as you wish until someone comes along and does the same thing to you.