Only 3 ESPA rings was shown in the image of the smallsat adapter. If there is enough customer demand for rides, SpaceX could add a few more ESPA rings to accommodated.Which brings up how much mass could be launched on a F9 into a SSO orbit from SLC-4E at VAFB that allows the recovery of the core returning to the launch site?
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 08/07/2019 04:13 amOnly 3 ESPA rings was shown in the image of the smallsat adapter. If there is enough customer demand for rides, SpaceX could add a few more ESPA rings to accommodated.Which brings up how much mass could be launched on a F9 into a SSO orbit from SLC-4E at VAFB that allows the recovery of the core returning to the launch site?I don't think mass should me much of an issue, each ring with four of the heaviest satellites should come in under 1.5t and sell for $18M. So a pretty full launch with 16 large satellites for $72M should only come in around 6t. So given the prices, I don't think they expect to exceed 5-7t per flight.
Quote from: Mandella on 08/07/2019 03:51 am...Well no. When one business lowers prices followed by a bunch of others lowering prices that's called competition, and is actually the opposite of collusion.I'm not claiming actual collusion occurred here, but incumbents deliberately dropping prices collectively to snuff out upstarts before they can become profitable (since they themselves are profitable enough to survive selling at margin or even at a loss for a period of time, then raising prices again) is a known tactic.
...Well no. When one business lowers prices followed by a bunch of others lowering prices that's called competition, and is actually the opposite of collusion.
Quote from: Asteroza on 08/07/2019 03:59 amQuote from: Mandella on 08/07/2019 03:51 am...Well no. When one business lowers prices followed by a bunch of others lowering prices that's called competition, and is actually the opposite of collusion.I'm not claiming actual collusion occurred here, but incumbents deliberately dropping prices collectively to snuff out upstarts before they can become profitable (since they themselves are profitable enough to survive selling at margin or even at a loss for a period of time, then raising prices again) is a known tactic.You don't claim actual evil intent, just that it's totally evil intent? Not possible that SpaceX sees a business opportunity to improve their profits from an underutilize pad now that they can RTLS at VAFB?
Quote from: mme on 08/07/2019 07:58 pmQuote from: Asteroza on 08/07/2019 03:59 amQuote from: Mandella on 08/07/2019 03:51 am...Well no. When one business lowers prices followed by a bunch of others lowering prices that's called competition, and is actually the opposite of collusion.I'm not claiming actual collusion occurred here, but incumbents deliberately dropping prices collectively to snuff out upstarts before they can become profitable (since they themselves are profitable enough to survive selling at margin or even at a loss for a period of time, then raising prices again) is a known tactic.You don't claim actual evil intent, just that it's totally evil intent? Not possible that SpaceX sees a business opportunity to improve their profits from an underutilize pad now that they can RTLS at VAFB?A single company, on their own, even in a commanding position, if it isn't in a true monopoly/oligopoly market situation, is considered socially not evil to undercut competitors (this is treated as aggressive business tactics) though it may be considered by some as underhanded. Accidental collusion between major players is certainly possible, based on reactions to rumors about competitor business plans, but that would be considered entirely coincidental and not evil (most treat this as the capitalist virtuous spiral pressure to lower prices). Actual price fixing cartel collusion is considered socially a general evil, and usually legally considered equivalent to monopoly/antitrust rule violations. SpaceX trying to improve their OPEX at VAFB via forcibly opening up the rideshare market with scheduled services like a cargo liner they may have done on their own, but the rumors spread and the other majors felt forced to follow suit and announce at the SmallSat conference at the same time at comparable pricing. For the non-SpaceX incumbents, this would be a easy way to strangle the small launchers in their crib since the incumbents have the cash reserves to wait it out. The part that feels subjectively evil to the uninformed is the similarity in pricing for announcements that were done in rapid succession, which has the appearance of being prearranged between competitors rather than a pricing response to a competitor announcement with the implied business lag/delay for that response.
It can be viewed as intending to gut RocketLabs et al.It could also be viewed as trying to encourage development of satellite partners they will need in the future.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/05/2019 06:26 pmSpaceX clearly think there’s a market worth addressing here, which is quite a change from when Falcon 1 was abandoned because they couldn’t find enough customers for it! Of course ride share is quite different from having your own dedicated launch, so SpaceX will need to be price competitive. I’m not up on pricing from likes of RocketLab, Virgin Orbit, Firefly etc. How does this SpaceX offer compare?I believe Rocket Lab charges ~$5M for a 150kg payload to SSO, putting their per kg price at ~$33,333. At $2.25M for the same payload and orbit, SpaceX is only charging $15k per kilogram, which is undercutting RocketLab by more than half. Didn't really think they'd become competitors, but it looks like SpaceX just went for the jugular.EDIT: To add to that, it really depends on how often SpaceX launches these missions. RocketLab has Electrons going up every quarter at least, with intent to speed up the process. I think there are three scheduled Falcon rideshares under SpaceX's new program, at one a year. Not sure how much effort SpaceX will really put into it; the low cost should get them a decent stream of revenue, but I think RocketLab will still be the one to go to if you want to get your payload into orbit faster.
SpaceX clearly think there’s a market worth addressing here, which is quite a change from when Falcon 1 was abandoned because they couldn’t find enough customers for it! Of course ride share is quite different from having your own dedicated launch, so SpaceX will need to be price competitive. I’m not up on pricing from likes of RocketLab, Virgin Orbit, Firefly etc. How does this SpaceX offer compare?
Rocket Lab is left between the rock of great demand for smallsat launches makes their competition far more compelling and the hard place of if the demand isn't very great they don't get to launch often enough to be financially viable.Also, Rocket Lab currently has the dedicated smallsat launch market to itself. There are dozens of other start-ups trying to get into that business. Spread that market among a number of companies and it becomes even harder to survive.
What do you think about the competition? SpaceX is entering the smallsat launch market. There are dozens of companies trying to build vehicles like Electron.Ultimately, I think an increase in launch opportunities is good for everybody. It stimulates more opportunities, and it enables people to get on orbit more often. The limitation for SpaceX, obviously, is that they're flying once a year to one particular orbit. Generally, the kind of customer that's flying on Electron is not looking to rideshare—they're looking for a dedicated service and all of the massive advantages that gives you. So, you know, from Rocket Lab's perspective, we don't see any challenge or impact to our business. It's a very different customer that will fly on us versus a Falcon 9. But what I would say is there are quite a lot of launch vehicles in the 1,000kg payload range that are under development at the moment, and I think that's going to be a real challenge for those guys. Basically their model is rideshare, and when you're going head-to-head with an established player like SpaceX, you know, that has proven flight credibility and opportunities, that will be a real challenge.
He says that, but I think a reusable Electron could actually knock on SpaceX's door for cost to launch these small birds. Particularly if they figure out reusable upper stage (think HIAD) down the road.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/08/2019 02:46 pmHe says that, but I think a reusable Electron could actually knock on SpaceX's door for cost to launch these small birds. Particularly if they figure out reusable upper stage (think HIAD) down the road.SpaceX just launched 60 Starlink satellites at an internal cost of perhaps $35m - probably down to $30m going forward, with fairing recovery achieved.That’s $500k per satellite. Rocketlab can’t match that. That’s a tenth of their best price currently.Rocketlab’s niche is one-off sats that have unique launch requirements. But if volumes grow, then those one-off satellites will be joined by others, and once they exceed a certain number, SpaceX will be there to launch them as a group.And if the numbers grow enough to justify a regular SpaceX launch every 3 months, well, how many satellites need to launch so urgently that they can’t wait a coupleof months for the next cheap bulk launch?So Rocketlab’s business model only works when satellite numbers aren’t too large. Their model is therefore self limiting, pradoxically hoping that the market doesn’t grow too much, with a hard ceiling imposed by SpaceX’s looming presence.And all of the above is not even considering Starship’s potential. It is just with F9 booster and fairing recovery.So Beck can make the diplomatic statements about competition being good for all, but the reality is that of COURSE SpaceX is a critical threat to them.Edited to add:A threat not necessarily to their existence as a small provider of niche services with maybe one launch a month - and resultant annual revenue of maybe $50-100m. But to their potential to grow significantly beyond that.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/08/2019 02:46 pmHe says that, but I think a reusable Electron could actually knock on SpaceX's door for cost to launch these small birds. Particularly if they figure out reusable upper stage (think HIAD) down the road.SpaceX just launched 60 Starlink satellites at an internal cost of perhaps $35m - probably down to $30m going forward, with fairing recovery achieved.That’s $500k per satellite. Rocketlab can’t match that. That’s a tenth of their best price currently.