Neutron vs F9R and SS etc

[edzieba]

F9R rideshare aren't all bad for Electron. Alot companies use it to test satellite design then switch to dedicated launches on Electron. If there are any issues with producton satellites, Electron will wait until customer is ready then deliver satellite to it target orbit.. F9 launches with or without your satellite. More important satellite isn't earning revenue waiting for another free F9 slot.

Both LVs and mission profiles have there place and complement each our.

Then there are companies who have tried to save launch costs with Transporter/Bandwagon, and then been burned by the limitations of rideshare missions vs dedicated missions. e.g. ATMOS Space Cargo's Phoenix 1, which was a re-entry demonstrator mission that, because of a last-minute change to Bandwagon-3's trajectory, could not gather re-entry test data (because the entry corridor was moved away from the pre-arranged tracking stations) and was inserted into a non-survivable entry angle (from one that was previously within design limits).

If your payload just needs to be in any orbit and has no time constrains on getting there, rideshares are a perfect fit. The further your requirements stray from just "in space", the more attractive dedicated launch looks.

[seb21051]

So just to set some perspective for this discussion:

How many sats has RL launched, vs how many using Transporter/Bandwagon?

I find around 66 launches for RL, Transporter is up to #13, and Bandwagon is at #3. I have yet to dig in and get accurate totals.

Also, will RL attempt to increase its hoisted tonnage once Neutron is flying, in both single and ride-share modes? At the purported $50m per launch? Is that RL's lowest profitable price? Have the Literati tried to figure out what RL's breakeven price is? Obviously, the more they fly the lower their break even point should be.

The one aspect one has to recognize is that ride-share launches are likely not very profitable.

The one I used as an example, Transporter 12, had 131 sats for a total mass of 2,000kg. Multiply that by $6K5 per kg yields around $13m. Very likely barely breaking even, if not a loss. How low would RL be willing to go in the $/kg race (to the bottom)?

[Yggdrasill]

The one aspect one has to recognize is that ride-share launches are likely not very profitable.

The one I used as an example, Transporter 12, had 131 sats for a total mass of 2,000kg. Multiply that by $6K5 per kg yields around $13m. Very likely barely breaking even, if not a loss. How low would RL be willing to go in the $/kg race (to the bottom)?

I think that estimate is a bit low. At $325k for up to 50 kg, that is at best $6.5k, but a lot of the payloads are less than 50 kg, meaning a higher cost per kg.

Just looking at the payloads integrated in the fairing, I would guess they had something like 30 paid slots, at $325k each, plus 9 larger satellites at a combined ~1.7 tons or $11 million. That would be a total of something like $21 million.

You might think it's dumb not to just max out the slot to 50 kg, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense if it's a satellite that's sharing a common design with satellites launched on other vehicles. And there's the fact that bigger satellites are more expensive. $325k to orbit is still quite cheap for a 10 or 20 kg satellite, and usually a small part of the total cost.

[TrevorMonty]

There maybe case for RL doing equivalent of Transporter missions using Neutron. Not so much for profit but to attract customers. If they have good experience more like to pick RL over SpaceX in future.

[seb21051]

There maybe case for RL doing equivalent of Transporter missions using Neutron. Not so much for profit but to attract customers. If they have good experience more like to pick RL over SpaceX in future.

So call it the "Loss leader"?

[wannamoonbase]

There maybe case for RL doing equivalent of Transporter missions using Neutron. Not so much for profit but to attract customers. If they have good experience more like to pick RL over SpaceX in future.

RL seems to be more financially aware and constrained than many other established launch providers.  I don't think they would do something at a loss, especially if they have a fix number of flights that could be used for a profitable paying customer.

[rpapo]

...especially if they have a fix[ed] number of flights that could be used for a profitable paying customer.

Agreed, but this also shows how much reuse (even partial) has changed the equation.  Reuse reduces the time before your next rocket is ready to go, and launching more frequently reduces the amount of general overhead (fixed costs) that must be spread over each launch.  Which, in turn, makes it possible to charge less for things like Transporter and Bandwagon.

So the faster RL can start reusing equipment, the better for them.

[DeimosDream]

The one aspect one has to recognize is that ride-share launches are likely not very profitable.

The one I used as an example, Transporter 12, had 131 sats for a total mass of 2,000kg. Multiply that by $6K5 per kg yields around $13m. Very likely barely breaking even, if not a loss. How low would RL be willing to go in the $/kg race (to the bottom)?

I think that estimate is a bit low. At $325k for up to 50 kg, that is at best $6.5k, but a lot of the payloads are less than 50 kg, meaning a higher cost per kg.

Just looking at the payloads integrated in the fairing, I would guess they had something like 30 paid slots, at $325k each, plus 9 larger satellites at a combined ~1.7 tons or $11 million. That would be a total of something like $21 million.

Looking at the fairing picture and cross checking against the user guide I see:
1x 750kg CakeTopper. Pricing is "contact SpaceX" so mass might be cheaper than $6.5K/kg, but if the $/kg rate is the same as for smaller sats then that is a $4.9M launch fee.

3x cubic sections, $1.95M minimum for first 300kg per plate. I see one or two empty plates for payloads that might have rebooked at 10%, so about $20M?

1x hexagonal section, sold at $325K for first 50kg on a quarter plate. It looked fully booked, so $7.8M.

1x cubesat section, no price information given but the payload guide suggests they are sold in sets of 3. No price given, but 3x 12U cubesats are notionally 72kg and adapters are probably at least 10kg each. SpaceX charges $1M for half a hex plate with a SpaceX provided 15" separation system. I doubt a set of 3x 12U cubesats can fly for less.


So, $39M for the launch? If F9 rideshares are flying close to at-cost and if a $55M Neutron is truly 50% gross profit then Neutron may well be competitive.

[M.E.T.]

So just to set some perspective for this discussion:

How many sats has RL launched, vs how many using Transporter/Bandwagon?

I find around 66 launches for RL, Transporter is up to #13, and Bandwagon is at #3. I have yet to dig in and get accurate totals.

Also, will RL attempt to increase its hoisted tonnage once Neutron is flying, in both single and ride-share modes? At the purported $50m per launch? Is that RL's lowest profitable price? Have the Literati tried to figure out what RL's breakeven price is? Obviously, the more they fly the lower their break even point should be.

The one aspect one has to recognize is that ride-share launches are likely not very profitable.

The one I used as an example, Transporter 12, had 131 sats for a total mass of 2,000kg. Multiply that by $6K5 per kg yields around $13m. Very likely barely breaking even, if not a loss. How low would RL be willing to go in the $/kg race (to the bottom)?

Beck has said they are aiming to each 50% GP with Neutron once it is flying 20+ times a year. (I think he said twice a month, so 24 per year, but might have been 20).


Anyway, with a ticket price of $55M per launch that implies a cost of around $27.5M - but only once they have a high flight rate (20+), which enables economies of scale.

Until then, the cost will be much higher. Most likely close to the full $55M for the first few launches.

Also, they don’t project reaching 10 flights per year until year 5, so calculate for yourself when 20+ annual flights will be reached. Not before the 2030’s that’s for sure.

Until then, Neutron’s break even is much higher than $27M.

[edzieba]

Until then, Neutron’s break even is much higher than $27M.

In isolation.

Rocketlab are setting themselves up as a one-stop-shop for missions. You give them an instrument/payload/etc (or even give them the specs and they can manufacture it), and they provide the spacecraft bus that provides power and pointing and telemetry; the datalinks, ground terminals, and data processing; launch; stationkeeping, and eventually deorbit.
The more Rocketlab can in-source, the more attractive they can make their offering. If they have to contract out launch - for example - then even if an alternative provider can provide a slightly lower price/kg vs. Neutron's internal cost/kg, they then need to factor in the added overhead of contracting out part of their service (i.e. sticker price now has two profit margins added to it) along with the increased risk exposure that comes with any external supplier.

[wannamoonbase]

Until then, Neutron’s break even is much higher than $27M.

The cost of development will take years to payback, maybe a decade.

The real benefit maybe when they can combine services.

I'm really excited to see Neutron fly and be success.  Just the staging alone will be space flight epicness.

[edzieba]

Until then, Neutron’s break even is much higher than $27M.

The cost of development will take years to payback, maybe a decade.

The real benefit maybe when they can combine services.

I'm really excited to see Neutron fly and be success.  Just the staging alone will be space flight epicness.

Rocketlab used a SPAC to provide development funding (cash lump-sum), not debt-financing. There is nobody to 'pay back'.

[TrevorMonty]

Until then, Neutron’s break even is much higher than $27M.

The cost of development will take years to payback, maybe a decade.

The real benefit maybe when they can combine services.

I'm really excited to see Neutron fly and be success.  Just the staging alone will be space flight epicness.

Rocketlab used a SPAC to provide development funding (cash lump-sum), not debt-financing. There is nobody to 'pay back'.

They are also selling shares for additional funds for M&A. This dilutes existing shares but in return the new M&A will add to RL's over all value so it kind cancels out.

[trimeta]

Until then, Neutron’s break even is much higher than $27M.

The cost of development will take years to payback, maybe a decade.

The real benefit maybe when they can combine services.

I'm really excited to see Neutron fly and be success.  Just the staging alone will be space flight epicness.

Rocketlab used a SPAC to provide development funding (cash lump-sum), not debt-financing. There is nobody to 'pay back'.

A video from Eager Space on this topic.