Author Topic: SpaceX vs Blue Origin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better? Thread 1  (Read 566855 times)

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
NG will use partial reuse basically right from the start, like they did with NA.

It's FULL reuse that will take time.

I repeat: NG is planned for *full* reuse.

I think the market response to cheaper launches will take just as long, if not longer, than full reuse. The only way it might not is if LEO constellations take off really fast, but even those take years of planning and building.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14159
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
It's not even that the market will declare a winner, but that I can easily see SpaceX and Blue Origin serving different markets with each producing a system that better serves its own market while competing for other markets.

I can't see an expendable system successfully competing with a rapidly reusable RTLS system.  Even if the RTLS system is "too large".

The analogy to A380 vs. 787 is irrelevant, since both systems are equally reusable.  If A380 was reusable and B787 was say 25% expendable per flight, then B787 would be a non-starter, even if it was "sized just right".

The only way for NG to succeed right now is if SH/SS fails to deliver, or has a series of accidents that delays it by several years.
The problem with your logic is that NG is planned to be mostly reusable from the start and fully reusable later. It should be able to compete.

It will be able to compete because the market total revenue isn't growing fast enough for SpaceX to just slash prices to the point where they are running thin margins. Also because there are no other low cost fully reusable systems set to enter the market any time soon, which means that BFR is only competing with partially reusable systems like NG.

Once another low cost fully reusable system is flying, the partially expendable systems will be in the same position what the fully expendable systems will be in when NG starts partial reuse (which is still some 3 years away). All of this takes time.

SpaceX is demonstrating that it can make its own market.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Soyuz will launch 10 OneWeb seats at a time. NG will launch 80 at a time. One web must get ~ 450 launched by ~ end of year 2023 to keep the full constellation license valid. If NG starts launching twice a year in 2022 for total of 4 or 320 sats Soyuz must launch 3 times a year starting this year. To get to full deployment by EOY 2026 another total of 6 NG launches is needed. 2 per year. After that for replacement and expansion the launches just for OneWeb will continue at 2 every year.

Now Starlink and it's affect on SpaceX launches is more significant. A conservative number for Starship launch of sats is ~165 (3 orbit planes). After Apr 2024 SS would have to launch 12 times in 3 years or at least 4 times a year just to put up and do replacements on the first 4400 constellation. For the larger 12000, launch rate would end being at least 12 per year.

If these broadband constellation business cases are successful then launch rates for both will likely increase a lot. This would likely be at the 7 to 10 year after first One Web launch or ~ after 2026. With NG or NA launching 10 or more times per year with LEO constellation sats and SS launching 25 or more times for similar sats.

This will be the initial main market for these large launchers in the 2020s. In the 2030s something else may overtake this market as the main driver.

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 166
Soyuz will launch 10 OneWeb seats at a time. NG will launch 80 at a time.

The plan was for 36 satellites per Soyuz. I don't know if the number has been reduced now that the constellation will consist only of 600 sats, but the 10 sats was always only for the initial launch. (Which has now been reduced to 6 sats).

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Soyuz will launch 10 OneWeb seats at a time. NG will launch 80 at a time.

The plan was for 36 satellites per Soyuz. I don't know if the number has been reduced now that the constellation will consist only of 600 sats, but the 10 sats was always only for the initial launch. (Which has now been reduced to 6 sats).
Looking up Soyuz Fergat to high inclination and a high LEO orbit the sats per launch is likely to be < 20. Max to the 280 km circular is 7800kg. Enough for 36 plus deployer. But higher inclinations SSO is only 4500kg. Now going to a higher orbit such as a transfer orbit with apogee at 1000km the payload capability is likely less than 4000 kg. So the 36 number is not accurate for the orbit.

But you are also probably correct that the number is likely significantly more than 10. More like 20.

How this would affect NG is that to replace 1 NG flight is 4 Soyuz. Soyuz production may not support an added increase of this amount. Much less a total of 10 flights in 1 year.
« Last Edit: 01/20/2019 10:42 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Soyuz once launched dozens of times per year.
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 Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 9683
NG will use partial reuse basically right from the start, like they did with NA.

It's FULL reuse that will take time.

I repeat: NG is planned for *full* reuse.

That is possibly true (maybe even probable), but we don't KNOW that. Blue has not released anything about a reusable upper stage. Perhaps NA is the one that is planned to be fully reusable. We don't know.

On the other hand, to the extent the new approach SpaceX is taking with Starship on reusable second stages/space ships is successful (Austenitic stainless steel, transpiration cooling of high-temp reentry surfaces, belly-flop (large area reentry cross sections), spaceshipyard test article construction methodologies, etc.), ...

... then SpaceX is essentially doing "AdTech" development work that will point the way to cheaper/better/faster reusable second stages that Blue, and other entrants into the space, can choose to follow.

Same phenomenon as the Wright Brothers success with three-axis control and powered flight.  Once it was demonstrated, the early Whitehead approaches and the approach of Langley were discarded.  All can learn and copy (and then improve) new innovations of human technology once the existence proof has been provided.
Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
NG will use partial reuse basically right from the start, like they did with NA.

It's FULL reuse that will take time.

I repeat: NG is planned for *full* reuse.

That is possibly true (maybe even probable), but we don't KNOW that. Blue has not released anything about a reusable upper stage. Perhaps NA is the one that is planned to be fully reusable. We don't know.
Wrong, they have. It has been shown in New Glenn literature. Their plan is not NA full reuse but NG.
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 envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
NG will use partial reuse basically right from the start, like they did with NA.

It's FULL reuse that will take time.

I repeat: NG is planned for *full* reuse.

That is possibly true (maybe even probable), but we don't KNOW that. Blue has not released anything about a reusable upper stage. Perhaps NA is the one that is planned to be fully reusable. We don't know.
Wrong, they have. It has been shown in New Glenn literature. Their plan is not NA full reuse but NG.

Are you referring to the "initially expendable" upper stage slide? That's not exactly the same as showing full reuse.

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1953
  • Likes Given: 1144
NG will use partial reuse basically right from the start, like they did with NA.

It's FULL reuse that will take time.

I repeat: NG is planned for *full* reuse.

That is possibly true (maybe even probable), but we don't KNOW that. Blue has not released anything about a reusable upper stage. Perhaps NA is the one that is planned to be fully reusable. We don't know.
Wrong, they have. It has been shown in New Glenn literature. Their plan is not NA full reuse but NG.

Are you referring to the "initially expendable" upper stage slide? That's not exactly the same as showing full reuse.
It does imply that full reuse is eventually coming.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
It does imply that full reuse is eventually coming.

True, but it tells us nothing about how distant those plans are, or if they will ever come to fruition.  :) Just like SMART reuse on Vulcan. Or full reuse of F9. (remember the video?)

Offline Cheapchips

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1030
  • UK
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 1931
New Glenn's Telesat LEO launch win is interesting.  SpaceX have of course put themselves in the position of competing with their own potential customers.  Blue now have business from two of Starlink's competitors.
« Last Edit: 01/31/2019 02:51 pm by Cheapchips »

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 5381
It does imply that full reuse is eventually coming.

True, but it tells us nothing about how distant those plans are, or if they will ever come to fruition.  :) Just like SMART reuse on Vulcan. Or full reuse of F9. (remember the video?)
New Glenn can afford a pretty big payload hit for full reusability.  It could cut its max payload in half and match F9 performance to LEO. I think that makes development of full reusability easier for New Glenn than the F9.

And unlike ULA, Blue believes in reusable rockets, can afford the development and does not need to convince 2 boards of director to spend the money.

Clearly that's no guarantee whether or when they will develop it, but I think it makes it more likely.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Liked: 2912
  • Likes Given: 508
Sorry if this has been covered before, but what is the estimated cost of New Glenn’s second stage, which will presumably be expended in the initial years of operation?

I think the Falcon 9 second stage is estimated to cost around $10-12m with the fairing another $6m or so. Given that New Glenn has a significantly larger and more capable upper stage, it will presumably cost a lot more than that.

Even if you add just 50% to the cost of the F9’s upper stage and fairing, that means that would bring the cost of New Glenn’s expendable parts to the $30m range.

So, until it achieves upper stage and fairing recovery, around $30m and probably closer to $40m would be a lower limit for New Glenn’s cost per launch. And given BO’s glacial pace of progress, does anyone think they will achieve either of these next steps (2nd stage or fairing recovery) before 2025 at the earliest, assuming an initial 2021 New Glenn launch date?

Even by conservative estimates, by 2025 Starship should be flying in fully reusable format to LEO and the Moon, even if Mars is still a bit further in the future.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2019 06:54 am by M.E.T. »

Offline DJPledger

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 33568
NG is smashing FH out of the park on launch contracts. Looks like Blue have hit a home run with the 7m fairing. Telesat explicitly said they chose NG because of it's 7m fairing. Looks like Blue's approach is a winner by offering more payload volume capability than anyone else can currently offer.

If SH/SS fails then Blue will do the mopping up.

Offline HeartofGold2030

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • England
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 2
NG is smashing FH out of the park on launch contracts. Looks like Blue have hit a home run with the 7m fairing. Telesat explicitly said they chose NG because of it's 7m fairing. Looks like Blue's approach is a winner by offering more payload volume capability than anyone else can currently offer.

If SH/SS fails then Blue will do the mopping up.

Telesat were never going to launch with SpaceX in the first place due to Starlink, just like OneWeb aren't. It's pretty easy to comprehend why those two wouldn't want to rely on their satellite-internet competition for launch services, it's Arianespace and ULA who are the real losers here.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14159
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
NG is smashing FH out of the park on launch contracts. Looks like Blue have hit a home run with the 7m fairing. Telesat explicitly said they chose NG because of it's 7m fairing. Looks like Blue's approach is a winner by offering more payload volume capability than anyone else can currently offer.

If SH/SS fails then Blue will do the mopping up.
That's why NG is such a tragic story...  Arriving to market only to realize it came equipped to do battle with the wrong rocket.

NG will launch only leftovers, which will limit its flight rate.

Vulcan and A6 - yes, they are not even tragic... They are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern...
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline TrevorMonty

Sorry if this has been covered before, but what is the estimated cost of New Glenn’s second stage, which will presumably be expended in the initial years of operation?

I think the Falcon 9 second stage is estimated to cost around $10-12m with the fairing another $6m or so. Given that New Glenn has a significantly larger and more capable upper stage, it will presumably cost a lot more than that.

Even if you add just 50% to the cost of the F9’s upper stage and fairing, that means that would bring the cost of New Glenn’s expendable parts to the $30m range.

So, until it achieves upper stage and fairing recovery, around $30m and probably closer to $40m would be a lower limit for New Glenn’s cost per launch. And given BO’s glacial pace of progress, does anyone think they will achieve either of these next steps (2nd stage or fairing recovery) before 2025 at the earliest, assuming an initial 2021 New Glenn launch date?

Even by conservative estimates, by 2025 Starship should be flying in fully reusable format to LEO and the Moon, even if Mars is still a bit further in the future.
Reuseable US will most likely have payload bay like  BFS so no fairing. The expendable US will still be needed for high performance missions and ones requiring volume of 7m fairing.


Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
NG is smashing FH out of the park on launch contracts. Looks like Blue have hit a home run with the 7m fairing. Telesat explicitly said they chose NG because of it's 7m fairing. Looks like Blue's approach is a winner by offering more payload volume capability than anyone else can currently offer.

If SH/SS fails then Blue will do the mopping up.
That's why NG is such a tragic story...  Arriving to market only to realize it came equipped to do battle with the wrong rocket.

NG will launch only leftovers, which will limit its flight rate.

Vulcan and A6 - yes, they are not even tragic... They are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern...

New Glenn is pretty well positioned to be converted to full reuse and compete with BFR, should that become necessary in the mid-to-late 2020s. Particularly if Blue can squeeze a little more thrust out of BE-4, stretch both stages, and add a 3rd BE-3 to the upper stage for landings.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
New Glenn is pretty well positioned to be converted to full reuse and compete with BFR, should that become necessary in the mid-to-late 2020s.

What evidence do we have for that, or is that speculation on your part?

If you are speculating, please describe what led you to believe that.

Quote
Particularly if Blue can squeeze a little more thrust out of BE-4, stretch both stages, and add a 3rd BE-3 to the upper stage for landings.

So far we know that SpaceX has given up on recovering the Falcon 9 upper stage, and instead is focused on creating a full-sized spaceship that can carry cargo to space and then land cargo on a wide variety of planets.

What makes you think a 2nd stage can be built to effectively do what SpaceX thinks a whole spaceship is needed to do?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1