Author Topic: What does SpaceX need to do to win more GTO orders than Ariane?  (Read 9700 times)

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48178
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81685
  • Likes Given: 36941
The following tweet got me curious about the GTO markets' perception of SpaceX:

Quote
Peter B. de Selding ‏@pbdes  37m37 minutes ago
Arianespace(5): 13 openly competed GTO sat launch contracts signed in 2016. We won 7 (inc 2 unnamed), SpaceX got 3, ILS 2, China 1.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/816630210518990850

Are there technical reasons (eg faring size, vertical integration, payload capacity?) why Arianespace is currently winning more GTO orders than Space X? Or is it about lack of SpaceX schedule dependability?

Is it enough for SpaceX to make significant progress with their backlog this year, and get FH operational, or is there more to it than that?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Almost entirely backlog. If you booked a ride with SpaceX now, you probably wouldn't launch until 2020.
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
It's not "schedule reliability" as much as SpaceX being booked solid.
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 kato

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 14
why Arianespace is currently winning more GTO orders than Space X?
Arianespace never won less commercial GTO orders than SpaceX - they tied in 2014 at SpaceX's peak. On the open competed market, between the two SpaceX's share dropped from 50% in 2014 via 40% in 2015 to 30% in 2016.

That said, if you're looking at what's ordered for Arianespace - for the five disclosed ones - then:
- one jumped off the Falcon Heavy wagon from a contract signed in 2015 (ViaSat-2)
- one jumped off the Falcon Heavy wagon from a contract signed in 2014 (Inmarsat's HellasSat-3)
- one is from a customer that had signed its previous three orders in 2014 with SpaceX (JCSAT-17 for JSAT)
- one is a short-notice order (GSAT-11, launch within next six months - and too heavy for Falcon 9)
- one is a long-term default Arianespace customer (Intelsat with Intelsat 39)

As such, SpaceX's problem isn't that it's losing in direct competition for new orders - it's that it's losing signed contracts to its competition. If it hadn't lost the two Falcon Heavy contracts its share between the two companies would have remained at 2015 levels.

Offline dlapine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • University of Illinois
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 312
Hmmm, can I ask why SpaceX needs to win more GTO orders than Ariane at this point in time? If they are booked solid for 2-3 years, wouldn't they need to win more orders for future flights by EOY 2018?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
SpaceX isn't "booked solid" in 2019, unless that's when they end up doing the launches on their 2018 manifest.  They also recently added a flight in early 2018.  SpaceX needs to prove this year that they can increase their flight rate.  If they can finish 2017 only a couple months behind schedule then they'll probably start winning more orders again.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 211
I agree with the statements here.
For SpaceX to win more orders, four things should happen.
1) SpaceX should fulfill what it has promised to do. Otherwise customers move to competitors.
If I'm not mistaken SpaceX is more then a year behind on it's launch schedule.
2) Launch slots have to become available. currently the backlog is only slipping, it hardly slinks.
3) SpaceX has to increase it's reliability. 1/10 launches failing with satellites costing at least twice as much as launches is not a good case.
4) I thing the horizontal payload integration is a negative aspact of SpX launch offering. So vertical payload integration should become available.

A GEO Comsat cost's between 200-400mln dollar. The possibly 40mln saved by choosing SpaceX, is easily lost on additional insurance cost, longer stowage and lost revenue. The ULA Rocket builder shows hidden cost's not included in the launch price on SpX website.

I do want to mention that Arianespace has an overbooked backlog. I can't see how they could launch 15 Comsats with 6 Ariane 5 launches in 2017. So possibly an additional eight Ariane 5 launch, additional Soyuz launches or some payloads will slip to 2018. Or possibly some <4mT payloads move to Atlas V or SpX (I think SpX won't even keep up with their schedule, so a small chance that they will win orders)
The Comsat launch market was very small in 2016. Only 13 launches to GEO ordered, only Arianespace launched 10 in 2016. So all providers saw their backlog slinking in 2016. So launches sliping isn't such a bad thing for the launch providers. It is a bad thing for the clients and the industry as a whole.

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4433
SpaceX isn't "booked solid" in 2019, unless that's when they end up doing the launches on their 2018 manifest.  They also recently added a flight in early 2018.  SpaceX needs to prove this year that they can increase their flight rate.  If they can finish 2017 only a couple months behind schedule then they'll probably start winning more orders again.

The manifest shows 32 flights booked for this year and 16 in 2018. They'd have to fly twice a month over two years to catch up in full.

Let's say they achieve 18 flights per year, which I think is generous. That would put them into 2019 with a 12-flight backlog which, combined with the 5 flights already booked that year, means 2019 is nearly 'booked solid' already.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48178
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81685
  • Likes Given: 36941
Hmmm, can I ask why SpaceX needs to win more GTO orders than Ariane at this point in time? If they are booked solid for 2-3 years, wouldn't they need to win more orders for future flights by EOY 2018?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that they need to win more at this point. I'm just interested in understanding why they haven't, especially as I'd thought orders had been more even in other years (which other posts have addressed).

Offline nicp

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • Retired software engineer.
  • UK
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 1341
Perhaps they should learn Shepard's prayer.
For Vectron!

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
How does SpaceX get more GTO orders?

Fly consistently, frequently and reliably. 

Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Are there technical reasons (eg faring size, vertical integration, payload capacity?) why Arianespace is currently winning more GTO orders than Space X? Or is it about lack of SpaceX schedule dependability?
Looking at the actual flight record, SpaceX has to date only launched a single payload weighing more than 5 tonnes to GTO.  On that flight (SES 9), the first stage downrange landing failed, and the orbit was further from GEO in delta-v than the usual Ariane 5 orbit.

Meanwhile, Ariane 5 ECA routinely boosts more than 9.8 tonnes of actual satellite mass to GTO (GEO-about 1,500 m/s), with one of the usual two satellites often weighing more than 6 tonnes.

That, and the reliability issues, may be explanation enough.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 01/04/2017 08:15 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
The manifest shows 32 flights booked for this year and 16 in 2018. They'd have to fly twice a month over two years to catch up in full.

Let's say they achieve 18 flights per year, which I think is generous. That would put them into 2019 with a 12-flight backlog which, combined with the 5 flights already booked that year, means 2019 is nearly 'booked solid' already.

You're just pulling numbers out of thin air.  If SpaceX can't achieve a rate higher than that some of their customers will need to find other rides.  SpaceX is aiming for a rate higher than 18 per year.  Whether they will achieve it remains to be seen.

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4433
The manifest shows 32 flights booked for this year and 16 in 2018. They'd have to fly twice a month over two years to catch up in full.

Let's say they achieve 18 flights per year, which I think is generous. That would put them into 2019 with a 12-flight backlog which, combined with the 5 flights already booked that year, means 2019 is nearly 'booked solid' already.

You're just pulling numbers out of thin air.

The only assumed number above is 18 flights/year. Everything else comes from this manifest maintained on NSF.

Quote
If SpaceX can't achieve a rate higher than that some of their customers will need to find other rides.  SpaceX is aiming for a rate higher than 18 per year.
Yes, of course they will, and yes of course they are.

2014: 6 launches
2015: 7 launches (6 months of stand-down)
2016: 8 launches (4 months of stand-down)

I think 18 launches is a reasonable target. But the real point is: to clear their backlog SpaceX needs 18 launches/year... over three years.

Quote
Whether they will achieve it remains to be seen.
Indeed.
« Last Edit: 01/04/2017 09:46 pm by dglow »

Offline kato

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 14
That, and the reliability issues, may be explanation enough.
The capability lack is only decisive to a limited extent. SpaceX is losing its share of the light market consistently as well, losing its dominant position in that field to Arianespace this year (roughly - 2014: 70%, 2015: 60%, 2016: 40%).

In my opinion consumer confidence is waning due to SpaceX simply not generating enough flights in that section, and - by customers - being though increasingly unlikely to be able to do so in the next 2-3 years. Half the flights - in current numbers - are effectively tied to the more fixed NASA contracts, and the intended expansion of launch opportunities has not materialized; in fact the sole real expansion was in breaking into the SSO market with launches from Vandenberg instead.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
I fail to see how it's "consumer confidence." People just want their satellites to launch soon, and SpaceX's has won so many that their manifest is super long.
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 Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
I suspect that fundamentally what SpaceX needs to do is 1) learn how to handle helium, and 2) convince the world that it has learned.  It's had three prominent failures involving pressurized helium that have severely dented the flight rate.

EDIT:  Altered the first sentence which had said that SpaceX needed to do one fundamental thing and then went on to list two.  Doh!
« Last Edit: 01/05/2017 12:17 pm by Proponent »

Offline intrepidpursuit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
  • Orlando, FL
  • Liked: 561
  • Likes Given: 400
I think the answer to the original question is simple. Fly 15-18 times in 2017.

Getting FH off the ground would help with certain contracts as well, though at this point I hope their ambition is to just start flying regularly and successfully. If they deprioritize FH and stage reflight this year but pull off at least a flight a month I would be happy. With 2 1/2 pads and production problems seemingly in hand, they need to start flying like this is a mature platform and company. Save further innovation until block 5 is the only rocket flying and prop loading looks easy again. That shouldn't take long.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
The one item some miss is that Ariane is dual manifested and F9 is not. So 7 contracts equals 3.5 launches which is the same number of launches that the new contracts 4 for SpaceX. This is also shows up in the available launch slots. 12 launch slots/yr for Ariane and 18(cores manufactured/yr) for SpaceX. If SpaceX can successfully re-fly 1st stages then the effective flight rate will go up beyond 18. Of those 18 available launch slots of SpaceX are 4 CRS and 2 CC. Also several polar launches per year ~4 on average/yr reduces the available number of slots/yr to 10. This is compared to the number of sat slots for Ariane of 24 (12 dual manifested launches). Now add in for SpaceX a couple of NASA and DOD ~4 total and there is only 4 slots remaining/yr.

So the idea that the available slots is what is holding back contracts to SpaceX has merit. Until such time as SpaceX can increase flight rate above just 8 to near 20 and to be able to re-fly 1st stages then new contracts will stay limited since the available launch dates are getting farther into the future.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
I fail to see how it's "consumer confidence." People just want their satellites to launch soon, and SpaceX's has won so many that their manifest is super long.
Yes, and that combined with stand-downs, has already resulted in customers walking away to the competition. Others will follow in the coming year IMO. SpaceX is simply not flying regularly enough. The frequency is not so much the problem. Arianespace has flown at most 12 flights per year, for years now (that's A5, Vega and Euro-Soyuz combined). Some of their customers have been waiting for many years to get their payloads orbited. They stuck with Arianespace because Arianespace is launching regurlarly. SpaceX is not launching regularly (yet).

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1