Could NewSpace's new reusable launchers be cheaper per kg to orbit than the Falc

[Tywin]

Could NewSpace's new reusable launchers be cheaper per kg to orbit than the Falcon-9?

Vote for these options, or specify in the comments why you don't think they can outperform the Falcon-9.

[Metalskin]

Would have been nice if there was an option of "I don't know" or "Too early to say right now".

In product development, generally speaking, first pathfinders are normally replaced by those who follow, as those who follow can build in the lessons from the get go, and may think up other ideas that may improve the product or make it cheaper.

However this is space, so I'm not really sure if it's far to compare launch products with consumer goods.

[jongoff]

I wish I could select more than one option. Because while I don't necessarily think all of them will be cheaper than Falcon 9, I think both Nova and Neutron have good shots at it. Less convinced that Eclipse or Terran-R will be noticeably cheaper, though they might come close or match it (if they fly long enough and frequent enough).

~Jon

[Tywin]

I wish I could select more than one option. Because while I don't necessarily think all of them will be cheaper than Falcon 9, I think both Nova and Neutron have good shots at it. Less convinced that Eclipse or Terran-R will be noticeably cheaper, though they might come close or match it (if they fly long enough and frequent enough).

~Jon

Yes is a shame, than we can only select one option in the polls...

[laszlo]

Cheaper than Falcon 9 now or when it first became operational?

Corrected for inflation, yes?

In product development, generally speaking, first pathfinders are normally replaced by those who follow, as those who follow can build in the lessons from the get go, and may think up other ideas that may improve the product or make it cheaper.

However this is space, so I'm not really sure if it's far to compare launch products with consumer goods.

DC-3 vs. B-247D is a good analogy - bleeding edge tech, transportation system. The principle applies to rockets as well as to consumer goods.

[jongoff]

I wish I could select more than one option. Because while I don't necessarily think all of them will be cheaper than Falcon 9, I think both Nova and Neutron have good shots at it. Less convinced that Eclipse or Terran-R will be noticeably cheaper, though they might come close or match it (if they fly long enough and frequent enough).

~Jon

Yes is a shame, than we can only select one option in the polls...

I can't remember for sure, but I think there's an option in the poll setup that allows people to select multiple options.

~Jon

[thespacecow]

Another meaningless poll.

What do you mean by "cheaper per kg"? Are you talking about price, or cost? What price? What cost?

What is the kg, is it maximum advertised capacity or max demonstrated capability, or actual payload on a contract?

[jebbo]

SpaceX have a considerable gross margin right now, so as competitors increase their cadence, I'm pretty sure they will start to lower prices. Whether any of the above can achieve a lower launch cost in the short term feels unlikely.

But regardless, the emergence of high cadence competitors will reduce costs to end users, and significantly.

BTW I suspect the 1st high cadence competitors will be Chinese.

Note: as SpaceX has increased cadence, they have increased the number of non-Starlink launches, showing there is significant unfulfilled demand, even at current pricing.

--- Tony

[DanClemmensen]

SpaceX have a considerable gross margin right now, so as competitors increase their cadence, I'm pretty sure they will start to lower prices. Whether any of the above can achieve a lower launch cost in the short term feels unlikely.

But regardless, the emergence of high cadence competitors will costs to end users, and significantly.

BTW I suspect the 1st high cadence competitors will be Chinese.

Note: as SpaceX has increased cadence, they have increased the number of non-Starlink launches, showing there is significant unfulfilled demand, even at current pricing.

--- Tony

Yes. To rephrase, SpaceX (F9) appears to be constrained by cadence, not demand. They will not lower their prices until they see a reduction in their demand, i.e., their non-Starlink order book begins to decrease. It's hard to predict if this will occur before Starship reaches full operation.

Once Starship Pez is in full service, SpaceX will shift all Starlink to Starshjip. This will free up F9, more or less tripling the available non-Starlink F9 launch opportunities. Whether or not SpaceX chooses to reduce price to increase demand is unknown, especially because they will also be developing a general-cargo version of Starship, which will becomes available an unknown time (2 years?) after Pez Starship. If F9 is still highly profitable they may choose to delay their F9 price adjustments until then. Since Starship is far, far lower cost, they logically should drop the price for Starship and increase the price for F9 at that time to accelerate the EOL of F9.

wildly speculative and unsupported timeline:
  First operational Pez deployment: mid-2026
  Pez at full cadence (i.e., last F9 Starlink launch): mid-2027
  operational general-cargo Starship: mid-2028
  F9 EOL (except specialty payloads like Dragon): mid-2029.

[lightleviathan]

I can't answer with more than 1 in the poll itself so I'll answer with a reply. I think Neutron and Nova will be cheaper. Nova is the only fully reusable launcher here, so that's one factor in its favor. Comparatively, Neutron is a partially reusable optimised to its logical conclusion, along with it being made by the only other US launch company with real cadence. That's another real benefit!

We'll have to see for New Glenn; if it gets a reusable upper stage then it could be more cost effective but we just don't know. Just looking at its construction from the EA factory tour video, manufacturing NG looks to be extremely expensive.

Eclipse effectively is just Falcon with slightly better engines and more expensive tankage, but it's tied to a legacy aerospace company so I'm not quite sure there. Firefly is quite an impressive company but to date their other launcher hasn't been particularly reliable.

Terran R has many expensive, outsourced parts and frankly strange design choices (aluminum, different construction for 1st and 2nd stages, methalox GG engines). Terran 1 has virtually no commonality with Terran R, so that's another big hurdle. If they get to full reuse then that could be a winning design, for there's no fully reusable launcher with a 5m PLF currently in-development (as far as we know), but that's another hypothetical.

[Kaputnik]

As others have said, Rocketlab and Stoke currently look the most promising.
BO might offer very competitive pricing but subsided by Bezos's deep pockets. He's in a position to write off development costs and offer the vehicle at a lower price than his rivals. I'm not sure what the market looks like for such a big vehicle though.

[AmigaClone]

I can see two or three of the orbital launch vehicles listed in the poll eventually being able to launch commercial payloads for less than SpaceX currently charges its external customers.

On the other extreme, I can see the possibility of one or more launch vehicles in the poll being retired before reaching that milestone. It would not be unlikely for one or more vehicles in the list above being retired before it can launch the number of times indicated by its current contracted payloads.

[Tywin]

I can see two or three of the orbital launch vehicles listed in the poll eventually being able to launch commercial payloads for less than SpaceX currently charges its external customers.

On the other extreme, I can see the possibility of one or more launch vehicles in the poll being retired before reaching that milestone. It would not be unlikely for one or more vehicles in the list above being retired before it can launch the number of times indicated by its current contracted payloads.

Which companies are you thinking?

[AmigaClone]

I can see two or three of the orbital launch vehicles listed in the poll eventually being able to launch commercial payloads for less than SpaceX currently charges its external customers.

On the other extreme, I can see the possibility of one or more launch vehicles in the poll being retired before reaching that milestone. It would not be unlikely for one or more vehicles in the list above being retired before it can launch the number of times indicated by its current contracted payloads.

Which companies are you thinking?

Not any particular company - just remembering the number of NewSpace projects that have never left the ground. I also vaguely recall some projects that had impressive projections but the reality never came close to matching those projections.

[Tywin]

Do we know how much is the Kg to orbit of Falcon-9 now for customer?

[spacenut]

SpaceX's rates are just a little lower than ULA's Vulcan and left over Atlas V's.  Then they reuse the boosters to launch Starlinks.  The more the launches per booster, the cheaper the $/kg.  However SpaceX is a private company and do not have to disclose the actual overall costs.

Now, when some "new space" booster begin to be reused, they may offer cheap rates, but not below their costs to launch.  Neutron is going to use liquid hydrogen on a small expendable upper stage.  So is New Glenn to begin with.  Don't know about others.  Liquid hydrogen is more expensive to use than liquid methane or kerosene.  Kerosene being the cheapest rocket fuel.  Liquid hydrogen the highest ISP.  Liquid methane, higher ISP than kerosene but lower than hydrogen.  Thus you need a lot of thrust on the first stage to get the second stage up and speeding along before stage separation.  Methane is a compromise between hydrogen and kerosene.  It is cleaner burning also so easier to recondition a booster or second stage for reuse. 

So, we don't yet really know until all new reusable rockets are fully operational. 

[TrevorMonty]

SpaceX's rates are just a little lower than ULA's Vulcan and left over Atlas V's.  Then they reuse the boosters to launch Starlinks.  The more the launches per booster, the cheaper the $/kg.  However SpaceX is a private company and do not have to disclose the actual overall costs.

Now, when some "new space" booster begin to be reused, they may offer cheap rates, but not below their costs to launch.  Neutron is going to use liquid hydrogen on a small expendable upper stage.  So is New Glenn to begin with.  Don't know about others.  Liquid hydrogen is more expensive to use than liquid methane or kerosene.  Kerosene being the cheapest rocket fuel.  Liquid hydrogen the highest ISP.  Liquid methane, higher ISP than kerosene but lower than hydrogen.  Thus you need a lot of thrust on the first stage to get the second stage up and speeding along before stage separation.  Methane is a compromise between hydrogen and kerosene.  It is cleaner burning also so easier to recondition a booster or second stage for reuse. 

So, we don't yet really know until all new reusable rockets are fully operational.

Neutron is methane for both stages.
NG & Stoke Nova are methane for booster, hydrogen for 2nd stage.

[DanClemmensen]

Kerosene being the cheapest rocket fuel. 

Do you have a source for this?  RP-1 price versus Rocket-grade Methane?

I'm sure the trade-off depends a lot on the supply method and the volume. For example, an on-site Methane liquefaction plant is expensive but removes the need to use trucks.