Relativity's Tim Ellis says on a #satshow panel this morning he hears concerns from customers about a lack of available medium- to heavy-lift in 2024-27; demand grows and issues about new vehicles entering service and ramping up. Launch prices escalating as a result.
SpaceX indicated a few years ago that they could manufacture 40 boosters a year. They could add about 10 boosters and probably double their current launch rate. They may have to build some booster barns near launch sites.
SpaceX is able to charge a quite profitable price for F9 launches even at their really high launch rates. Probably $60M depending on mission profile. With competition, the price of F9 could drop to $30M, maybe lower. So from the customer’s perspective there IS a shortage, and even at 100 launches per year, the demand is even higher than SpaceX can easily handle as most of those are Starlink (Starlink gen2 using Falcon 9 needs like 5 times the launch rate of gen1).And Starship isn’t being offered for very cheap (yet). Can’t do China or Russia. Vulcan hasn’t launched and it’ll take years before the launch rate ramps up and early capacity is already spoken for & likely will never be quite as cheap as what SpaceX can charge a healthy profit margin for their Falcon 9 because Vulcan isn’t (as) reusable. No one exactly knows when New Glenn will be ready, for whatever reason their pace is slow even though they’ve been working on it forever with substantial funding.From the customer’s perspective there absolutely is a shortage. There are 3 companies racing for that, RocketLab, Relativity, Firefly, plus maybe ABL. First to launch AND ramp flightrate will win a sizable revenue stream (although SpaceX makes it tough to be very profitable… but efficient markets have low profits!!!).
Asked whether Amazon would consider owning a rocket system to support its launches, Limp said, “I would never say never to a question like that” but that the company looks for acquisitions in areas “where you can have something that’s differentiated and it’s something where it’s not well-served.”Limp noted that it’s a different scenario than something like “Prime Air,” the company’s cargo airline, as that was a situation in which the company’s forecast for e-commerce growth was higher than transportation providers like FedEx or UPS or USPS believed.“We were just using a lot of the excess capacity ... only then when it stopped becoming well served did we look at it,” Limp said. “There was a shift in it being well-served for our needs. Right now, I don’t see that from a rocket perspective. There is a lot of launch out there.”
Better for Amazon to use a few launch companies to give redundancy and keep their pricing competitive. I can them see flying with whoever will give them best service and willing to give new entrants a try.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/15/2023 04:42 pm Better for Amazon to use a few launch companies to give redundancy and keep their pricing competitive. I can them see flying with whoever will give them best service and willing to give new entrants a try.If so, then why not SpaceX? As a publicly-traded company, I would think they owe to to their shareholders to use the lowest-price and most reliable LV. Did ULA give them a better deal, or did SpaceX decline to give them a bulk discount? counting on an LV that has never flown to provide 38 launches in its first five years seems to be very aggressive.
New launch companies like to make this claim.
"For the first time in 30 years there is a global shortage in launch capability," @ulalaunch CEO Tory Bruno says at #SATShow. Due to withdrawal of Russian Soyuz from the market following invasion of Ukraine & launch of megaconstellations. "The shortage will last about a decade."
That doesn’t make it true, though.If Starship starts alleviating Starlink pressure from 2024 that’s gonna free up an awful lot of F9 capacity. Certainly by 2025, which is the earliest possible timeframe for a new competitor to enter the market.
Amazon like everyone else will eventually call up the folks with the highest availability and the cheapest cost for orbital launches.
If Starship starts alleviating Starlink pressure from 2024 that’s gonna free up an awful lot of F9 capacity. Certainly by 2025, which is the earliest possible timeframe for a new competitor to enter the market.
Moderator: Is there enough launch capacity?Hofeller: When we were launching Iridium it was once a month, it was unheard of. Now at twice a week, "and it's not crazy to think that the boss will push for more."
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 03/15/2023 05:03 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 03/15/2023 04:42 pm Better for Amazon to use a few launch companies to give redundancy and keep their pricing competitive. I can them see flying with whoever will give them best service and willing to give new entrants a try.If so, then why not SpaceX? As a publicly-traded company, I would think they owe to to their shareholders to use the lowest-price and most reliable LV. Did ULA give them a better deal, or did SpaceX decline to give them a bulk discount? counting on an LV that has never flown to provide 38 launches in its first five years seems to be very aggressive.From article.“I don’t have any religious issue not to buy capacity from SpaceX, they’re a very reliable rocket, but the Falcon 9 economically wasn’t the best rocket for us,” Limp explained.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/15/2023 05:22 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 03/15/2023 05:03 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 03/15/2023 04:42 pm Better for Amazon to use a few launch companies to give redundancy and keep their pricing competitive. I can them see flying with whoever will give them best service and willing to give new entrants a try.If so, then why not SpaceX? As a publicly-traded company, I would think they owe to to their shareholders to use the lowest-price and most reliable LV. Did ULA give them a better deal, or did SpaceX decline to give them a bulk discount? counting on an LV that has never flown to provide 38 launches in its first five years seems to be very aggressive.From article.“I don’t have any religious issue not to buy capacity from SpaceX, they’re a very reliable rocket, but the Falcon 9 economically wasn’t the best rocket for us,” Limp explained.That is…very difficult to believe.Even F9 at full expendable price of $65M is surely cheaper than anything ULA could have offered? What am I missing here?
Who is going to manufacture all this payload mass that's going to overwhelm the post-SpaceX-steamroller launch industry?