Author Topic: Who will compete with SpaceX? The last two and next two years.  (Read 148784 times)

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3030
  • Liked: 532
  • Likes Given: 604
Could you please provide a short summary of Roscosmos' views ?

They plan to compete with SpaceX using new rocket, Soyuz-5. First flight is expected in 2022.  :o
And where will SpaceX be in five years?

I dunno, SpaceX will probably graciously wait for Roscosmos, doing nothing.  ;)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31283
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9570
  • Likes Given: 299

Overall, SpaceX has taken market share away from nearly everyone in the business over the last two years. 


ULA hasn't lost any to Spacex yet.

I'm not sure how you can defend that statement.

Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the GPS satellites, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.

Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the X-37 missions, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.

And the Air Force in on record wanting competition, meaning ULA will continue to lose market share to SpaceX vs when they were a monopoly. The evidence is clear.

wrong, ULA can't lose what they can't compete for

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4279
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1431
  • Likes Given: 1
Soyuz 5 being a 100% Made in Russia Zenit launcher, I just don't see how this plan could work

Soyuz 5, aka Fenix/Phoenix, is a family of methalox launchers.

5.0: 3t
5.1: 9t
5.2: 16.5t. (FH style, w/identical side boosters)
5.3: 26t

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz5.html
« Last Edit: 07/04/2017 07:51 PM by docmordrid »
DM

Online Mike Jones

  • Member
  • Posts: 88
  • Latvia
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 2
I think they changed their plans recently on soyuz 5 definition
https://www.google.fr/amp/tass.com/science/951046/amp
http://tass.com/science/952323

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3030
  • Liked: 532
  • Likes Given: 604

Overall, SpaceX has taken market share away from nearly everyone in the business over the last two years. 


ULA hasn't lost any to Spacex yet.

I'm not sure how you can defend that statement.

Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the GPS satellites, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.

Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the X-37 missions, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.

And the Air Force in on record wanting competition, meaning ULA will continue to lose market share to SpaceX vs when they were a monopoly. The evidence is clear.

wrong, ULA can't lose what they can't compete for

Also, losing ELC contract (expires in 2019) has nothing to do with SpaceX. ULA just decided, on its own, that it doesn't need $800m per year anymore.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3454
  • California
  • Liked: 2691
  • Likes Given: 1700
Soyuz 5 being a 100% Made in Russia Zenit launcher, I just don't see how this plan could work

Soyuz 5 is what they should have done 10 years ago, when they had more resources. But they put off new development thinking that Angara would solve all problems, and now that Angara is turning out to be much more expensive and troublesome they are in quite a pickle. The budget isn't really there for a rapid Soyuz 5 development (even though they have all the pieces they should need), so most likely they'll just keep flying Soyuz and Proton.

Online Mike Jones

  • Member
  • Posts: 88
  • Latvia
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 2
Does ELC funding to ULA stop at the end of September 2018 or 2019 ?

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4797
  • Liked: 2878
  • Likes Given: 4043
Could you please provide a short summary of Roscosmos' views ?

Quote
Komarov said the volume and value of SpaceX’s launch contracts present “a serious challenge, not only for us, but for all traditional producers of rocket and space technology…. I think in the future this technology will be used. The only question is when. There are serious doubts that we can do it with the present level of materials and rocket engines.”

And with a bit of denial showing...

Quote
Komarov listed the tradeoffs involved in rocket reuse, including the need to carry substantial extra fuel, reducing payload-carrying capability, to power the stage back to Earth. The stresses on materials during atmospheric reentry will mean high maintenance and repair costs, he suggested.

Komarov said he assumes that SpaceX and others planning to reuse their rocket stages will be able to cut their prices by 15-20% and that the reductions will not go much beyond this in the next five years.

emphasis mine
« Last Edit: 07/04/2017 10:39 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 777

Overall, SpaceX has taken market share away from nearly everyone in the business over the last two years. 


ULA hasn't lost any to Spacex yet.

I'm not sure how you can defend that statement.

Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the GPS satellites, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.

Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the X-37 missions, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.

And the Air Force in on record wanting competition, meaning ULA will continue to lose market share to SpaceX vs when they were a monopoly. The evidence is clear.

wrong, ULA can't lose what they can't compete for

If you are talking about OTV-5 (because there was no reason ULA couln't compete for the GPS launch), then the only reason ULA didn't lose it would be if the USAF wouldn't have needed it if SpaceX didn't exist. That is, it's merely make-work or a demo mission for SpaceX.

If the USAF has a real mission need for OTV-5, it would have gone to ULA by default.

Offline RDMM2081

  • Member
  • Posts: 95
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 40

Overall, SpaceX has taken market share away from nearly everyone in the business over the last two years. 


ULA hasn't lost any to Spacex yet.

I'm not sure how you can defend that statement.

Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the GPS satellites, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.

Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the X-37 missions, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.

And the Air Force in on record wanting competition, meaning ULA will continue to lose market share to SpaceX vs when they were a monopoly. The evidence is clear.

wrong, ULA can't lose what they can't compete for

If you are talking about OTV-5 (because there was no reason ULA couln't compete for the GPS launch), then the only reason ULA didn't lose it would be if the USAF wouldn't have needed it if SpaceX didn't exist. That is, it's merely make-work or a demo mission for SpaceX.

If the USAF has a real mission need for OTV-5, it would have gone to ULA by default.

This necro quote isn't fair.

BUT... I seem to recall ULA not bidding on this GPS launch because this was the one they "couldn't validate the necessary accounting processes" or some such.  Either way, I do agree in principle, ULA, whether couldn't, can't, won't or didn't, undoubtedly has to count this as lost business due to SpaceX being in business.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3533
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2083
  • Likes Given: 2460

Overall, SpaceX has taken market share away from nearly everyone in the business over the last two years. 


ULA hasn't lost any to Spacex yet.

I'm not sure how you can defend that statement.

Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the GPS satellites, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.

Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the X-37 missions, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.

And the Air Force in on record wanting competition, meaning ULA will continue to lose market share to SpaceX vs when they were a monopoly. The evidence is clear.

wrong, ULA can't lose what they can't compete for

If you are talking about OTV-5 (because there was no reason ULA couln't compete for the GPS launch), then the only reason ULA didn't lose it would be if the USAF wouldn't have needed it if SpaceX didn't exist. That is, it's merely make-work or a demo mission for SpaceX.

If the USAF has a real mission need for OTV-5, it would have gone to ULA by default.

This necro quote isn't fair.

BUT... I seem to recall ULA not bidding on this GPS launch because this was the one they "couldn't validate the necessary accounting processes" or some such.  Either way, I do agree in principle, ULA, whether couldn't, can't, won't or didn't, undoubtedly has to count this as lost business due to SpaceX being in business.

Nobody believed the accounting excuse.  The Air Force even called them on it.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4797
  • Liked: 2878
  • Likes Given: 4043

Overall, SpaceX has taken market share away from nearly everyone in the business over the last two years. 


ULA hasn't lost any to Spacex yet.

I'm not sure how you can defend that statement.

Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the GPS satellites, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.

Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the X-37 missions, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.

And the Air Force in on record wanting competition, meaning ULA will continue to lose market share to SpaceX vs when they were a monopoly. The evidence is clear.

wrong, ULA can't lose what they can't compete for

ULA can expect at best 50% of the NSS plus NASA launch contracts to be awarded/flown over the next five years (excluding block buy, which was not competed).

A reasonable person would say that they have lost 50% of their monopoly market share.
« Last Edit: 07/04/2017 11:08 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 777
ULA can expect at best 50% of the NSS plus NASA launch contracts to be awarded/flown over the next five years (excluding block buy, which was not competed).

A reasonable person would say that they have lost 50% of their monopoly market share.
Are you counting NASA crew and cargo deliveries over the next 5 years, or just NASA spacecraft? ULA never had a monopoly on the former, though they did on the latter at one point.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4797
  • Liked: 2878
  • Likes Given: 4043
ULA can expect at best 50% of the NSS plus NASA launch contracts to be awarded/flown over the next five years (excluding block buy, which was not competed).

A reasonable person would say that they have lost 50% of their monopoly market share.
Are you counting NASA crew and cargo deliveries over the next 5 years, or just NASA spacecraft? ULA never had a monopoly on the former, though they did on the latter at one point.

Yes, I am including them; cargo and crew launches were/are competed NASA launches. ULA and its parent companies essentially had a monopoly on all USG launches when SpaceX entered the market.  They still have a significant share... though dropping toward 50%.

SpaceX manifest plus potential wins:
9 more CRS-1
6 CRS-2 (initial award -- subsequent awards likely)
3 crew demos (including in flight abort)
6 crew transports
4 USAF (including STP-2, 2 GPS-III, OTV-5)
1 NASA (TESS, probably a couple others will be added)
a share (maybe >50%) of the 12 or so remaining Phase 1A NSS launches
a share (50% plus/minus) of the Phase 2 NSS launches (initially 20 launches)

Total (about) 40-50 USG-paid launches out to 2024. 

ULA will be pressed to win/launch more than that number even including the remaining block buy launches.  Even if they do manage to break 50%, it is disingenuous to say ULA/Boeing/LM haven't lost a huge chunk of market share to SpaceX.  And this doesn't include the fate of SLS/Orion...
« Last Edit: 07/05/2017 12:43 AM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27022
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6914
  • Likes Given: 4875
This thread is already a year and 4-5 months old. It's already almost finished.
...
What do the next two years look to reveal -- more of the same or end of the SpaceX market share growth?
This thread was started in February 2016. In 2015 (ending just 2 months before), SpaceX got 6 successful launches. In 2016, it was 8. Now they've already had 9 and the year is barely halfway through, putting them on track for 18 or more this year. ULA has only done 4 launches but has just 11 planned (vs 12 in 2015).

SpaceX has continued to grow in marketshare but has not yet made a huge reduction in ULA launch rate. HOWEVER, ULA has seen /enormous/ reductions in its workforce in that time while SpaceX has continued to grow. Both of these actions are indicative of future marketshare expectations. (ULA trimming down so they can remain profitable as an equal peer for natsec launches to SpaceX, but not really trying to compete otherwise.)

It looks more and more like SpaceX will have about triple the launch rate in 2017 as it had in 2015. Global launch rates are roughly the same. That means marketshare has also tripled, or /probably/ will by the two year anniversary of this thread. (I give about a 25-30% chance of a failure before then.)
« Last Edit: 07/05/2017 01:03 AM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4797
  • Liked: 2878
  • Likes Given: 4043
Flight-proven rockets are just entering the picture, too.  Should improve SpaceX's competitive position, and remove the restraint of core production to allow a shorter queue.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31283
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9570
  • Likes Given: 299
It is assumed in many circles that there will be a failure in less than a year

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31283
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9570
  • Likes Given: 299
ULA can expect at best 50% of the NSS plus NASA launch contracts to be awarded/flown over the next five years (excluding block buy, which was not competed).

A reasonable person would say that they have lost 50% of their monopoly market share.
Are you counting NASA crew and cargo deliveries over the next 5 years, or just NASA spacecraft? ULA never had a monopoly on the former, though they did on the latter at one point.

Yes, I am including them; cargo and crew launches were/are competed NASA launches. ULA and its parent companies essentially had a monopoly on all USG launches when SpaceX entered the market.  They still have a significant share... though dropping toward 50%.

SpaceX manifest plus potential wins:
9 more CRS-1
6 CRS-2 (initial award -- subsequent awards likely)
3 crew demos (including in flight abort)
6 crew transports
4 USAF (including STP-2, 2 GPS-III, OTV-5)
1 NASA (TESS, probably a couple others will be added)
a share (maybe >50%) of the 12 or so remaining Phase 1A NSS launches
a share (50% plus/minus) of the Phase 2 NSS launches (initially 20 launches)

Total (about) 40-50 USG-paid launches out to 2024. 

ULA will be pressed to win/launch more than that number even including the remaining block buy launches.  Even if they do manage to break 50%, it is disingenuous to say ULA/Boeing/LM haven't lost a huge chunk of market share to SpaceX.  And this doesn't include the fate of SLS/Orion...

CRS-1 missions don't count.  ULA was frozen out of them.
And SpaceX is only going to get a few non critical NSS missions
« Last Edit: 07/05/2017 01:22 AM by Jim »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3533
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2083
  • Likes Given: 2460
ULA can expect at best 50% of the NSS plus NASA launch contracts to be awarded/flown over the next five years (excluding block buy, which was not competed).

A reasonable person would say that they have lost 50% of their monopoly market share.
Are you counting NASA crew and cargo deliveries over the next 5 years, or just NASA spacecraft? ULA never had a monopoly on the former, though they did on the latter at one point.

Yes, I am including them; cargo and crew launches were/are competed NASA launches. ULA and its parent companies essentially had a monopoly on all USG launches when SpaceX entered the market.  They still have a significant share... though dropping toward 50%.

SpaceX manifest plus potential wins:
9 more CRS-1
6 CRS-2 (initial award -- subsequent awards likely)
3 crew demos (including in flight abort)
6 crew transports
4 USAF (including STP-2, 2 GPS-III, OTV-5)
1 NASA (TESS, probably a couple others will be added)
a share (maybe >50%) of the 12 or so remaining Phase 1A NSS launches
a share (50% plus/minus) of the Phase 2 NSS launches (initially 20 launches)

Total (about) 40-50 USG-paid launches out to 2024. 

ULA will be pressed to win/launch more than that number even including the remaining block buy launches.  Even if they do manage to break 50%, it is disingenuous to say ULA/Boeing/LM haven't lost a huge chunk of market share to SpaceX.  And this doesn't include the fate of SLS/Orion...

CRS-1 missions don't count.  ULA was frozen out of them.

Wrong.  Anyone could bid on CRS.  If SpaceX hadn't existed, it's possible a team that was using Atlas V could have won the missions that SpaceX actually won for CRS.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4797
  • Liked: 2878
  • Likes Given: 4043
If frozen out is the criterion, remove the block buy and CRS-1... conclusion will be the same.
« Last Edit: 07/05/2017 01:47 AM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Tags: