Author Topic: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?  (Read 11015 times)

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48151
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81636
  • Likes Given: 36932
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1635631190991421441

Quote
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.

I’m a bit surprised by this. I get concern over new launch vehicles, such as when will New Glenn be ready, Vulcan ramp-up is uncertain and already has a busy manifest etc. But F9 and FH? I’d be surprised, given the successful ramp-up, if Starlink is starting to squeeze number of flights available for customers?

Or is demand actually increasing even faster given number of constellations looking to launch?
« Last Edit: 03/14/2023 12:45 pm by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?
« Reply #1 on: 03/14/2023 01:28 pm »
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!!!).
« Last Edit: 03/14/2023 01:31 pm by Robotbeat »
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 RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2457
  • Liked: 2412
  • Likes Given: 10225
Re: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?
« Reply #2 on: 03/14/2023 02:06 pm »
I'm sure that Ellis and his customers are trying to convince themselves that there is a launch capacity issue, but SpaceX is in position to flood the market with capacity.  This is true, even if you set aside Starship.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?
« Reply #3 on: 03/14/2023 02:37 pm »
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. 

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5485
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4316
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?
« Reply #4 on: 03/14/2023 03:08 pm »
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.
I think the Hawthorne plant runs boosters and USs on the same line with the same workforce. More boosters means less USs. I have no idea what the cost ratio is (in work hours and/or time on the line). Can they build ten boosters a year and also build 100 USs per year? 10 boosters is 90 Merlins versus the 100 Merlins needed for the 100 USs.

Boosters and USs may not be the limiting factors on launch rate. They are also constrained by launch and recovery operations and by range availability.

Offline freddo411

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Liked: 1197
  • Likes Given: 3417
Re: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?
« Reply #5 on: 03/14/2023 03:10 pm »
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!!!).

Very tidy description of the current state of the market.  You might add that Vulcan is probably highly oversubscribed for *years* by mil and Amazon launches

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Liked: 2912
  • Likes Given: 508
Re: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?
« Reply #6 on: 03/15/2023 02:38 am »
New launch companies like to make this claim. 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.
« Last Edit: 03/15/2023 02:40 am by M.E.T. »

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2457
  • Liked: 2412
  • Likes Given: 10225
Re: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?
« Reply #7 on: 03/15/2023 03:26 pm »
Amazon apparently disagrees with Ellis...

Quote
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.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/14/amazon-first-look-project-kuiper-satellite-internet-antennas.html

Offline TrevorMonty

 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.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5485
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4316
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?
« Reply #9 on: 03/15/2023 05:03 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.

Offline TrevorMonty

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.

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 597
Re: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?
« Reply #11 on: 03/15/2023 05:30 pm »
It wasn't so many years ago when launch manifest backlogs were years long and satellite operators had to book launch service way in advance or wait in line. There's hardly any backlogs anymore. What we have today is companies like Maxar and Boeing arguing with each other via FCC filings about who is responsible for payload delays.

The customers that have traditionally formed the backbone of the medium/heavy launch sector are still mired in supply-chain hell without any bright light at the end of the tunnel. Ambitious startups like Terran Orbital and York Systems that seemed like they were focused on churning out affordable payload mass have pivoted toward lower-volume but higher-margin military applications. Who is going to manufacture all this payload mass that's going to overwhelm the post-SpaceX-steamroller launch industry?

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48151
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81636
  • Likes Given: 36932
Re: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?
« Reply #12 on: 03/15/2023 05:52 pm »
New launch companies like to make this claim.

Not just new ones:

https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1636073228786450434

Quote
"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.

Yes, although it remains to be seen how big an if that is.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?
« Reply #13 on: 03/15/2023 06:09 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.
Read that Amazon is open to using SpaceX to deploy Kuiper. Especially after their former CEO is no longer around to dictate things. Plus the realization that the shareholders could blame them for the extra premium launches once they are in charge.

It is always my thinking that if there is a shortfall of brought launch capacity. Amazon like everyone else will eventually call up the folks with the highest availability and the cheapest cost for orbital launches.

Offline TrevorMonty



Amazon like everyone else will eventually call up the folks with the highest availability and the cheapest cost for orbital launches.

Read post #8 and quote from it in #11.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2457
  • Liked: 2412
  • Likes Given: 10225
Re: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?
« Reply #15 on: 03/15/2023 07:22 pm »
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.

Setting Starship aside, F9 could launch well more often than it is.

Quote
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."

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1635298445828276225

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?
« Reply #16 on: 03/15/2023 08:04 pm »
 I never cared for the "What if" threads, but I do wonder what things would be like if one speck of dust in the wrong place had kept F1-4 from getting up and the company had gone under.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Liked: 2912
  • Likes Given: 508
Re: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?
« Reply #17 on: 03/15/2023 10:18 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?
« Last Edit: 03/15/2023 10:19 pm by M.E.T. »

Offline ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1565
  • Likes Given: 770
Re: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?
« Reply #18 on: 03/15/2023 10:29 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?
Nothing.  You are missing nothing.  He may have no "religious" issues but unless SpaceX didn't want to say no so they said some ridiculous $$$ number...this is a lie.

Spread it around to other companies...I'll believe that.  Saying the cheapest rocket $$$/kg currently launching is not "economically" the best choice?  I flat don't believe that.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
  • Liked: 1084
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Medium to heavy launch capacity issue for next few years?
« Reply #19 on: 03/15/2023 11:16 pm »
Who is going to manufacture all this payload mass that's going to overwhelm the post-SpaceX-steamroller launch industry?

Anyone with a real mass production satellite assembly line.

So that OneWeb sat factory, and the SpaceX Starlink line. But they are dedicated to their own megaconstellations so are unlikely to accommodate anyone else's work.


Almost everyone else is still borderline bespoke manufacturing from a mature design due to numbers. Big mass sat makers aren't configured for mass production due to the heavy tilt towards gold plating and documentation exceeding payload mass. Small sat bus makers generally don't come from a mass manufacturing background and simply lack the numbers and floorspace (they are bespoke, but could throw existing production styles away due to less sunk costs, and scale up though).

But, any space-adjacent company with a core competency and recent history of semi-flexible electronics mass manufacturing, preferably in the consumer electronics industry, would have an advantage, provided they have available factory space.

Strangely enough, there is at least one company that might fit the above statement, Canon Electronics Inc., who is dabbling with space stuff.

An avionics manufacturer might work, but many are still borderline bespoke manufacturing, and lack factory floorspace.

Boeing has the mass manufacturing background from aircraft assembly lines and has vacant factory space, but that is not quite mass electronics manufacturing (and current Boeing outsources so much that they may have lost their electronics core competency).


Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0