Total Members Voted: 21
Voting closed: 02/25/2025 10:35 am
I don't think it's a silly metric. If you're a customer of launch as opposed to a SpaceX or Blue Origin employee (or amazing people), it reflects how available those vehicles actually are for anything beyond Blue and SpaceX's constellations.
I don't think it's a silly metric. If you're a customer of launch as opposed to a SpaceX or Blue Origin employee (or amazing people), it reflects how available those vehicles actually are for anything beyond Blue and SpaceX's constellations.~Jon
Quote from: jongoff on 12/08/2025 08:34 pmI don't think it's a silly metric. If you're a customer of launch as opposed to a SpaceX or Blue Origin employee (or amazing people), it reflects how available those vehicles actually are for anything beyond Blue and SpaceX's constellations.~Jon"Availability" is still a silly metric to compare Starship vs. New Glenn, because customers don't really care what rocket they ride as long as their other requirements (price, timing, reliability, etc) are met. They will happily ride F9/FH instead of Starship, unless F9/FH can't meet their needs - and there are very few cases of that. There's no rational reason to compare New Glenn only to Starship (while inexplicably exclude all the stuff Starship is custom designed to launch), and not compare it to the vehicles it is actually competing against, which are Vulcan and Falcon.Which company will deploy more "commercial" payloads, or more properly, more external payloads, in the next 5 years?
I do think Starship will eventually completely replace Falcon for general payload launches, but that's going to take more than 5 years. Starship will cannibalize some Falcon business before that, but not all of it. Probably not even most of it.