So we do expect to see a steady reduction in prices, and we already have reduced prices from where they were, from about $60 million to about $50 million for a re-flown booster.
Quote from: Lars-J on 05/17/2018 07:07 pmEd, that was from the Elon Musk Q&A with reporters before the block 5 launch, here is a transcript: https://gist.github.com/theinternetftw/5ba82bd5f4099934fa0556b9d09c123eQuote So we do expect to see a steady reduction in prices, and we already have reduced prices from where they were, from about $60 million to about $50 million for a re-flown booster. Caleb Henry of Space News, who wrote the article I referenced, actually asked the question that triggered this answer from Elon, yet Caleb interpreted it as a early-user discount rather than an actual long-term, official price reduction. If reuse does reduce costs, I would expect to see an official price reduction for all launches. - Ed Kyle
Ed, that was from the Elon Musk Q&A with reporters before the block 5 launch, here is a transcript: https://gist.github.com/theinternetftw/5ba82bd5f4099934fa0556b9d09c123eQuote So we do expect to see a steady reduction in prices, and we already have reduced prices from where they were, from about $60 million to about $50 million for a re-flown booster.
10 reuses of the same block 5 booster along with 24hr turnaround set for 2019 is very impressive. They’ll prove the 10x and refurb plan long before they actually need it (if they ever do).Even if he doesn’t agree with it as strategy, Elon is building a huge (candy filled) moat around the launch business.
Am wondering about the claim in this article that "Due to the Block 5’s reusability, SpaceX has lowered the standard price of a Falcon 9 launch from $62 million to about $50 million."According to Space News, the reduction was "discounts to some early customers of Falcon 9 rockets with used first stages to ease their acceptance". http://spacenews.com/spacex-targeting-24-hour-turnaround-in-2019-full-reusability-still-in-the-works/Does NSF have a source for what appears to be a claim that "SpaceX has lowered the standard price" going forward? The SpaceX web site still lists the $62 million price. - Ed Kyle
SpaceX has given discounts to some early customers of Falcon 9 rockets with used first stages to ease their acceptance, particularly among risk-averse satellite operators who might otherwise be reluctant to launch a spacecraft costing $100 million or more on rocket booster already subjected to the rigors of launch and landing.Musk said SpaceX lowered prices from “about $60 million to about $50 million for a reflown booster,” and expects “to see a steady reduction in prices” going forward.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/17/2018 07:32 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 05/17/2018 07:07 pmEd, that was from the Elon Musk Q&A with reporters before the block 5 launch, here is a transcript: https://gist.github.com/theinternetftw/5ba82bd5f4099934fa0556b9d09c123eQuote So we do expect to see a steady reduction in prices, and we already have reduced prices from where they were, from about $60 million to about $50 million for a re-flown booster. Caleb Henry of Space News, who wrote the article I referenced, actually asked the question that triggered this answer from Elon, yet Caleb interpreted it as a early-user discount rather than an actual long-term, official price reduction. If reuse does reduce costs, I would expect to see an official price reduction for all launches. - Ed KyleThat might be a reasonable expectation. FYI, the full question and answer looked like this:Caleb Henry, SpaceNews: Hey Elon. Question about the price range that you talked about long term for the Falcon 9. You mentioned five to six million dollars. When do you project being able to provide those prices?Elon Musk: Yeah. I do want to emphasize that those are long term marginal cost of flight. So those aren't prices, they're margin cost of flight, long term. Meaning it would take, I don't know, three years or so to get there. And then we are going to need to, we still have a bunch of fixed costs to cover, that need to be divided over that number of flights. And we need to recover the development costs of recovery. And pay for BFR. And pay for the Starlink constellation. So we do expect to see a steady reduction in prices, and we already have reduced prices from where they were, from about $60 million to about $50 million for a re-flown booster. ...(taken from this transcript)
Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/17/2018 07:32 pm(snip)If reuse does reduce costs, I would expect to see an official price reduction for all launches. - Ed KyleThat might be a reasonable expectation. FYI, the full question and answer looked like this:Caleb Henry, SpaceNews: Hey Elon. Question about the price range that you talked about long term for the Falcon 9. You mentioned five to six million dollars. When do you project being able to provide those prices?Elon Musk: Yeah. I do want to emphasize that those are long term marginal cost of flight. So those aren't prices, they're margin cost of flight, long term. Meaning it would take, I don't know, three years or so to get there. And then we are going to need to, we still have a bunch of fixed costs to cover, that need to be divided over that number of flights. And we need to recover the development costs of recovery. And pay for BFR. And pay for the Starlink constellation. So we do expect to see a steady reduction in prices, and we already have reduced prices from where they were, from about $60 million to about $50 million for a re-flown booster. ...(taken from this transcript)
(snip)If reuse does reduce costs, I would expect to see an official price reduction for all launches. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: abaddon on 05/17/2018 08:14 pmThere is no ambiguity or conflict here, I do not believe your interpretation is correct.Screen capture from just now. - Ed Kyle
There is no ambiguity or conflict here, I do not believe your interpretation is correct.
Quote from: Ludus on 05/17/2018 07:51 pm10 reuses of the same block 5 booster along with 24hr turnaround set for 2019 is very impressive. They’ll prove the 10x and refurb plan long before they actually need it (if they ever do).Even if he doesn’t agree with it as strategy, Elon is building a huge (candy filled) moat around the launch business.They've already created a massive barrier to entry and this isn't going to make it any easier.Ross.
Twenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?
Quote from: aero on 05/17/2018 08:32 pmTwenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?Certainly would be. But where do you find that referenced?
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 05/17/2018 08:46 pmQuote from: aero on 05/17/2018 08:32 pmTwenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?Certainly would be. But where do you find that referenced?Here!http://www.spacex.com/falcon9
Quote from: aero on 05/17/2018 08:50 pmQuote from: RedLineTrain on 05/17/2018 08:46 pmQuote from: aero on 05/17/2018 08:32 pmTwenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?Certainly would be. But where do you find that referenced?Here!http://www.spacex.com/falcon9I still see 22.8 metric tons to LEO. Has been that way for a long while.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 05/17/2018 08:52 pmQuote from: aero on 05/17/2018 08:50 pmQuote from: RedLineTrain on 05/17/2018 08:46 pmQuote from: aero on 05/17/2018 08:32 pmTwenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?Certainly would be. But where do you find that referenced?Here!http://www.spacex.com/falcon9I still see 22.8 metric tons to LEO. Has been that way for a long while.Yes, 50,000+ lbs.= 25 tons. So not new, I guess I haven't kept abreast of the performance numbers.
Those are numbers with the 1.71klbf Merlin rating. The current Block 5 is 1.9klbf, so something closer to 24 tonnes to LEO.
Quote from: AncientU on 05/17/2018 08:59 pmThose are numbers with the 1.71klbf Merlin rating. The current Block 5 is 1.9klbf, so something closer to 24 tonnes to LEO.What's your source for the current Block 5 at 1.9 klbf? According to the Musk press call linked above, it's still 1.71 klbf, with maybe room to get to 1.73 klbf.
QuoteMust: [sic] Merlin engine thrust increased by 8%. Might be a little more room there. #SpaceX #Falcon9 #Block5https://twitter.com/spacebrendan/status/994649013914914818Edit to add:QuoteFalcon 9 Block 5 will see an 8 percent increase in thrust over older Block 4 models. Thrust-to-weight ratio even better than it was before, Musk says, which was already the best in the world for previous models.https://twitter.com/emrekelly/status/994649234841526278QuoteMusk: Merlin rocket engine thrust increased by 8 percent, to 190,000 lbf.https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/994649495861432321
Must: [sic] Merlin engine thrust increased by 8%. Might be a little more room there. #SpaceX #Falcon9 #Block5
Falcon 9 Block 5 will see an 8 percent increase in thrust over older Block 4 models. Thrust-to-weight ratio even better than it was before, Musk says, which was already the best in the world for previous models.
Musk: Merlin rocket engine thrust increased by 8 percent, to 190,000 lbf.
Quote from: dlapine on 05/17/2018 09:09 pmAs dglow noted, the discussion is about Elon said, not what the webmaster at SpaceX has updated or not. The website prices have always been a starting point for discussion with their customers, not an order form. If I happened to have $50M burning a hole in my pocket and a payload in orbit, that's the price I'd start with in discussions with the SpaceX sales force. "What Elon Said" has often been, as I see it, a loose representation of a set of goals/ideas bouncing around in his head rather than a PR-certified truth about what is happening right now. I tend to put more weight in "What Gwynn Said" when it comes to hard facts. It does seem clear from the interview and the Space News story that SpaceX reduced prices to incentivize the early re-flown booster launches, which were essentially experiments. I await hard evidence that the company has or will be officially cutting its standard launch prices as a result of cost savings from first stage reuse. - Ed Kyle
As dglow noted, the discussion is about Elon said, not what the webmaster at SpaceX has updated or not. The website prices have always been a starting point for discussion with their customers, not an order form. If I happened to have $50M burning a hole in my pocket and a payload in orbit, that's the price I'd start with in discussions with the SpaceX sales force.
"What Elon Said" has often been, as I see it, a loose representation of a set of goals/ideas bouncing around in his head rather than a PR-certified truth about what is happening right now. I tend to put more weight in "What Gwynn Said" when it comes to hard facts.
It isn't just me. As I noted in my original post, Caleb Henry of Space News reported a different interpretation of Elon's statement than NasaSpaceFlight.
On February 6 Hans Koenigsmann said SpaceX was going to phase out discounts for reused boosters.http://spacenews.com/dont-expect-deep-discounts-on-preflown-spacex-boosters/
MOUNTAIN VIEW, California – SpaceX customers should not expect deep discounts when they opt to launch satellites on previously flown boosters instead of new ones, at least not initially, said Hans Koenigsmann, vice president of build and flight reliability for Hawthorne, California-based SpaceX.Although SpaceX intends to decrease launch costs over time, it will not immediately offer significant discounts on preflown boosters while it recovers its investment in the technology it is developing to make rockets reusable, including its “navy” of drone ships and telemetry boats, Koenigsmann said Feb. 6 at the Small Satellite Symposium here.Plus, there may be no reason to offer steep discounts on rockets with previously flown boosters because “I’m not sure that booster has any wear and tear on it that makes it worse,” Koenigsmann said.
Quote from: envy887 on 05/18/2018 12:24 amOn February 6 Hans Koenigsmann said SpaceX was going to phase out discounts for reused boosters.http://spacenews.com/dont-expect-deep-discounts-on-preflown-spacex-boosters/QuoteMOUNTAIN VIEW, California – SpaceX customers should not expect deep discounts when they opt to launch satellites on previously flown boosters instead of new ones, at least not initially, said Hans Koenigsmann, vice president of build and flight reliability for Hawthorne, California-based SpaceX.Although SpaceX intends to decrease launch costs over time, it will not immediately offer significant discounts on preflown boosters while it recovers its investment in the technology it is developing to make rockets reusable, including its “navy” of drone ships and telemetry boats, Koenigsmann said Feb. 6 at the Small Satellite Symposium here.Plus, there may be no reason to offer steep discounts on rockets with previously flown boosters because “I’m not sure that booster has any wear and tear on it that makes it worse,” Koenigsmann said.You dropped the adjectives he used every time he talked about discounts. I read this as we "we no longer need to entice people to fly reused boosters because we've proven them reliable." So there is no drastic discount. I bet SES paid a lot less than $50 million for that first flight.All of this is consistent with dropping price to $50 million and then charging a premium if you insist on a new booster that SpaceX does not need to otherwise build.
...people always ask the question, "so how much does it cost less now, because I want to go fly a previously flown booster?", and the answer is, well, you know, actually, no.
Didn't Elon say they invested something like $1 billion in developing reusability? That's a huge chunk of change to recoup. No wonder they're not in any hurry to cut their own throats.
On February 6 Hans Koenigsmann said SpaceX was going to phase out discounts for reused boosters.
Quote from: kraisee on 05/17/2018 08:00 pmQuote from: Ludus on 05/17/2018 07:51 pm10 reuses of the same block 5 booster along with 24hr turnaround set for 2019 is very impressive. They’ll prove the 10x and refurb plan long before they actually need it (if they ever do).Even if he doesn’t agree with it as strategy, Elon is building a huge (candy filled) moat around the launch business.They've already created a massive barrier to entry and this isn't going to make it any easier.Ross.There’s a pretty big opening for people in the 1 ton payload market. Well below Falcon 9.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/18/2018 02:08 pmQuote from: kraisee on 05/17/2018 08:00 pmQuote from: Ludus on 05/17/2018 07:51 pm10 reuses of the same block 5 booster along with 24hr turnaround set for 2019 is very impressive. They’ll prove the 10x and refurb plan long before they actually need it (if they ever do).Even if he doesn’t agree with it as strategy, Elon is building a huge (candy filled) moat around the launch business.They've already created a massive barrier to entry and this isn't going to make it any easier.Ross.There’s a pretty big opening for people in the 1 ton payload market. Well below Falcon 9. But what could a F9 launch cost with such a launch if they can price in RTLS, fairing recovery and maybe upper stage?I've been pondering the idea of how F9 prices could get broken down by performance required. Low performance with full reuse of all components upto expendable or just the booster recovery on an ASDS.Seems there is lots of room for SpaceX to break things down and customize effort to customer requirements.Edit: Cadence is a hugely important part of lower the fix costs per vehicle. Plus the closer they get a to launch on demand capability then they'll really put the final squeeze on other commercial providers.
Quote from: envy887 on 05/18/2018 12:24 amOn February 6 Hans Koenigsmann said SpaceX was going to phase out discounts for reused boosters.And that's fine, but that was in February, and it's May. Elon's statement is much more recent and it is more definitive.It may be proven wrong, but right now, it's the best information we have, and it is very specific about numbers ($60 million new, $50 million previously flown) instead of vague qualifiers.
I get that you really want to not believe it, but the information we have directly from the CEO of the company, which is not contradicted by any other information from anyone else, tells us that the price for a previously flown booster is now $50 million.So, you're (currently, with actual evidence, until proven otherwise) wrong.The only evidence you have here for your opinion is that you don't trust Elon. Period.
There is nothing inconsistent between what Hans said and Elon said. Hans didn't say prices would be steady, just that used and new boosters wouldn't be different.
"We may be able to get down to a marginal cost for a Falcon 9 launch down, fully considered, down under $5 million or $6 million."https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/11/full-elon-musk-transcript-about-spacex-falcon-9-block-5.htmlI think this is the "best case" re-use cost Elon envisions for the Falcon 9 including RTLS, Fairing recovery/re-use, and some mythical second stage recovery/re-use.
Maybe just $5m. But a reusable launcher in the 1 ton range could get a per launch cost below $1m.
It’s because customers are used to a leisurely pace and can’t get their payloads to the launch site on time. I think it’s going to take a whole lotta work on the payload side to increase launch cadence appreciably. And that the Falcons will be twiddling their thumbs waiting for payloads to show up. It’s not just Iridium. Lots of launches have been slipping right. By a lot.
If you like, try working out just how many launches you'd need to fly to make 10x as much profit compared to the original investment needs, assuming $100m development (ramped-up over five years), $20m annual operational fixed costs after that, and $5m per flight with 40% margin (things get much, much worse assuming smaller launchers at $1m price with 40% margin). The numbers are eye opening. For a start, I can tell you that it can't realistically be done in 7 years.
FYI, I consider RocketLab to have made it in under the wire already, and perhaps Virgin One and Firefly, and Blue are definitely in the running, but anyone else who is not already in, is effectively already out - they just don't know it. Unless of course they can find that rare "sugar daddy" who's willing to pay lots and lots of big bills without looking at the bottom line for at least a decade.
If only SpaceX was planning something that they could launch to keep the flight rate up.. hmm. (The initial part constellation should start launching in a year or two, right?)
I’m getting hung up on the “increase launch cadence” part. Let’s have an example. Iridium NEXT 5 launched from Vandy on 3/30. Right before launch, Iridium NEXT 6 was scheduled for late April. Then, after launch it slipped to 5/10 and now it’s 5/22. The pad doesn’t need nearly two months between launches, and SpaceX has launched within two weeks. So what’s the reason why the launch has slipped three weeks?It’s because customers are used to a leisurely pace and can’t get their payloads to the launch site on time. I think it’s going to take a whole lotta work on the payload side to increase launch cadence appreciably. And that the Falcons will be twiddling their thumbs waiting for payloads to show up. It’s not just Iridium. Lots of launches have been slipping right. By a lot.
Agreed. Now they all like to say that the small-sat market will *explode*... But even if that is true, that doesn't mean that small-sat launchers will see much business, it could all go to the bigger or existing players.
Wasn't that the premise behind the Orbital Pegasus development?I think it now holds the record for the most expensive ELV in terms of $/lb to orbit of any vehicle.
This is probably my favorite subject. Lowering launch costs and prices. I believe that once BLK 5 starts its rapid launch and hardly any refurbish phase the prices will be reorganized by recovery option. RTLS $50M. ASDS $55M. EXP $62M.
Ultimately, all this depends on how elastic the market for launches is ... if it's inelastic, this whole thing is futile as numbers won't go up. Personally, I think it *will* become elastic, but right now is just as constrained by essentially custom-built payloads, lovingly handcrafted.Hence, I think the opportunity for fast followers is huge: they could end up being well-placed, with lower costs, right when demand picks up.--- Tony
Flight rate has been picking up over last 6-8 years. It is working toward 120 orbital launches this year, nearly double what it was 10-15 years ago.
Constellation launches will add to that, and several small-sat launchers are coming on line for the low mass/cost end of the market. We also may start launching toward the Moon(Chinese are in the process today)... If this isn't market elasticity, what will it look like?
Yes, launch rate is clearly increasing, but I don't think this is to do with a drop in price (i.e. elasticity). To me it seems more to do with [...] new applications that are viable with the current price structure (constellations etc).
Quote from: jebbo on 05/21/2018 06:53 amYes, launch rate is clearly increasing, but I don't think this is to do with a drop in price (i.e. elasticity). To me it seems more to do with [...] new applications that are viable with the current price structure (constellations etc).I agree with your reasoning except for this.New constellations are viable thanks to launch price reduction. Iridium's Matt Desch confirmed this. Market is already showing elasticity.Also I bet next year we'll break the 150 launches barrier. It will be the year with the most successful launches in spaceflight history.
Quote from: AbuSimbel on 05/21/2018 11:56 amQuote from: jebbo on 05/21/2018 06:53 amYes, launch rate is clearly increasing, but I don't think this is to do with a drop in price (i.e. elasticity). To me it seems more to do with [...] new applications that are viable with the current price structure (constellations etc).I agree with your reasoning except for this.New constellations are viable thanks to launch price reduction. Iridium's Matt Desch confirmed this. Market is already showing elasticity.Also I bet next year we'll break the 150 launches barrier. It will be the year with the most successful launches in spaceflight history.Yes, breaking that 1960s-80s plateau would be absolute confirmation.
Wait, why discount Iridium? That is a preview of the new constellations flying. If there is a big increase in launch rate over the next few years, it’ll be due to these new constellations.
A few points:1. I've updated my post to add the numbers since 2000 without China, as I think the bulk of the increase since ~2000-2005 is to do with new entrants.2. I'd be astonished (but pleasantly surprised) if the rate exceeded 150 next year. At present it is unclear if the jump this year is a blip or a real change in slope. I'm hopeful it is sustainable, but remain cautious!3. I discounted Iridium, largely because it is a relatively small number of launches in the grand scheme of thingsEdit: on the decline from the late '80s, I'm pretty sure this is to do with the end of the cold war, so I don't really think it's depressing that we have yet to exceed the previous maximum. One other thing I'd like to see is a kilogrammes to orbit per year (but I don't have the time to create such a thing).--- Tony
...I think the trend is here to stay, and will improve.
* One could as easily fit present data with an exponential... starting at low point in 2003-2005.
Quote from: AncientU on 05/21/2018 11:59 amQuote from: AbuSimbel on 05/21/2018 11:56 amAlso I bet next year we'll break the 150 launches barrier. It will be the year with the most successful launches in spaceflight history.Yes, breaking that 1960s-80s plateau would be absolute confirmation.A bit sad when you put it like this but yeah
Quote from: AbuSimbel on 05/21/2018 11:56 amAlso I bet next year we'll break the 150 launches barrier. It will be the year with the most successful launches in spaceflight history.Yes, breaking that 1960s-80s plateau would be absolute confirmation.
Also I bet next year we'll break the 150 launches barrier. It will be the year with the most successful launches in spaceflight history.
Overall (and for the 1st time ever), I'm very optimistic but I don't think it is at all certain and definitely relies on robust commercial not government demand.--- Tony
Ultimately, all this depends on how elastic the market for launches is ... if it's inelastic, this whole thing is futile as numbers won't go up. Personally, I think it *will* become elastic, but right now is just as constrained by essentially custom-built payloads, lovingly handcrafted.
Quote from: jebbo on 05/20/2018 07:54 pmUltimately, all this depends on how elastic the market for launches is ... if it's inelastic, this whole thing is futile as numbers won't go up. Personally, I think it *will* become elastic, but right now is just as constrained by essentially custom-built payloads, lovingly handcrafted.I suspect this is an unstated motivation behind the Starlink project. Those satellites will be mass produced and once that is up and running you can think about diversifying into other market segments.
What if warfighters could install an antenna on their F-16s, much like homeowners do on their roofs, and establish a commercial internet connection, allowing them to send critical battlefield information rapidly to the rest of the force? The U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is about to find out.The Air Force is finally catching on to a revolution in the commercial small satellite world. Feb. 22 SpaceX launched a Falcon 9 rocket carrying two experimental satellites from Vandenberg AFB, California,...>To explore the art of the possible, AFRL is planning to contract with at least one commercial internet provider for a set of antennas that can be mounted onto Air Force test aircraft, Beal says. The team will then fly the aircraft, a Beechcraft C-12J based at Holloman AFB, New Mexico, directly under the associated satellites and establish a communications path.
Quote from: jebbo on 05/21/2018 12:21 pmA few points:1. I've updated my post to add the numbers since 2000 without China, as I think the bulk of the increase since ~2000-2005 is to do with new entrants.2. I'd be astonished (but pleasantly surprised) if the rate exceeded 150 next year. At present it is unclear if the jump this year is a blip or a real change in slope. I'm hopeful it is sustainable, but remain cautious!3. I discounted Iridium, largely because it is a relatively small number of launches in the grand scheme of thingsEdit: on the decline from the late '80s, I'm pretty sure this is to do with the end of the cold war, so I don't really think it's depressing that we have yet to exceed the previous maximum. One other thing I'd like to see is a kilogrammes to orbit per year (but I don't have the time to create such a thing).--- TonyAdd in SpaceX, and you have pretty much all of the increase since it began to increase.
Quote from: kraisee on 05/17/2018 08:00 pmQuote from: Ludus on 05/17/2018 07:51 pm10 reuses of the same block 5 booster along with 24hr turnaround set for 2019 is very impressive. They’ll prove the 10x and refurb plan long before they actually need it (if they ever do).Even if he doesn’t agree with it as strategy, Elon is building a huge (candy filled) moat around the launch business.They've already created a massive barrier to entry and this isn't going to make it any easier.Ross....It will be interesting to see what other countries and companies try to do if they want to stay in the commercial space launch game. For other players to change their mindset on how they develop launchers won't be easy. They don't have the right people with the right attitude. I can only imagine the discussions in the boardrooms around the world when they hear what the new pricing is. None of these other players believed SpaceX could pull this off so they sat back and waited for SpaceX to fail. Complacency is never a good strategy.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 05/17/2018 08:34 pmQuote from: kraisee on 05/17/2018 08:00 pmQuote from: Ludus on 05/17/2018 07:51 pm10 reuses of the same block 5 booster along with 24hr turnaround set for 2019 is very impressive. They’ll prove the 10x and refurb plan long before they actually need it (if they ever do).Even if he doesn’t agree with it as strategy, Elon is building a huge (candy filled) moat around the launch business.They've already created a massive barrier to entry and this isn't going to make it any easier.Ross....It will be interesting to see what other countries and companies try to do if they want to stay in the commercial space launch game. For other players to change their mindset on how they develop launchers won't be easy. They don't have the right people with the right attitude. I can only imagine the discussions in the boardrooms around the world when they hear what the new pricing is. None of these other players believed SpaceX could pull this off so they sat back and waited for SpaceX to fail. Complacency is never a good strategy.All the other extant launch providers had every opportunity for the past 6+ years to hear about, learn from, and choose (or not) to emulate or innovate around, the quite clearly publicly-stated strategy of Musk. This is not a "barrier to entry" as the term is usually understood in economics. There are not laws that say only Elon Musk and SpaceX could follow a strategy of reuse. Laws and regulation that favor incumbents are the traditional sort of barriers to entry by new innovators that we see.(Blue Origin has obviously chosen to follow a similar strategy; they are merely working on gradatim-time favored by Bezos.) The other legacy companies are getting beaten fairly and squarely in the market, by competitive pressures, as buyers of launch services are, gradually, filling SpaceX order book and reducing the total number of commercial launches contracted for the legacy competition.
It may not quite be a classical barrier to entry, but SpaceX was able to sell $60 million rides on an expendable medium rocket and get lots of free test launches until they had a not-so-medium, not-so-expendable rocket.Followers will not be able to charge anything like those prices, so much of the financial ability to bootstrap is gone.
There have only been around ~45 launches this year from a website I looked at, at what is basically the midpoint of the year. How do you foresee more than 2 * 45 for the year? I feel like launch calendars are not credible more than a month out. I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just curious about your method for reaching ~120 orbital launches this year.
Quote from: EnigmaSCADA on 05/22/2018 04:47 amThere have only been around ~45 launches this year from a website I looked at, at what is basically the midpoint of the year. How do you foresee more than 2 * 45 for the year? I feel like launch calendars are not credible more than a month out. I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just curious about your method for reaching ~120 orbital launches this year.(365/142)*46 = ~118By calling the second half of May midyear, you are effectively removing 2.5 months from the year.
Quote from: groundbound on 05/22/2018 05:38 amIt may not quite be a classical barrier to entry, but SpaceX was able to sell $60 million rides on an expendable medium rocket and get lots of free test launches until they had a not-so-medium, not-so-expendable rocket.Followers will not be able to charge anything like those prices, so much of the financial ability to bootstrap is gone.Exactly! That's competition. That is not a "barrier to entry". Suppliers compete with other suppliers to provide services; buyers compete with other buyers to purchase the best services at the lowest price.If you want to supply goods or services into a market, you have to figure out how to do it at a price point for your offering that will attract customers.SpaceX has provided the existence proof, and proven the naysayers wrong. Just like airplanes after the Wright Brothers, everyone can see and then begin to innovate to provide new goods (airplanes) that are more innovative yet. The world gets richer when an entrepreneur/innovator shows others what can be done.Falcon 9 booster reuse is not the end of innovation. Others can jump in and innovate further. This is how human technology usually advances, when it is left reasonably free for individuals and companies to compete.
Quote from: Llian Rhydderch on 05/22/2018 05:51 amFalcon 9 booster reuse is not the end of innovation. Others can jump in and innovate further. This is how human technology usually advances, when it is left reasonably free for individuals and companies to compete.Anyone who wants to can do exactly the same thing... sell launches around $50M (closer to what Falcon's initial offerings were) and use those launches for testing after payloads delivered. Would suggest that they start by designing a rocket that doesn't cost $100M to build and that has a useful (not negative) payload remaining when they add losses for reusability. New Glenn appears to be on that path and Soyuz 5, Long March 8, and Ariane Next may be; Vulcan, NGL, Angara, Antares, Ariane 6, SLS are not. None of existing launchers have a shot at 'conversion.'
Falcon 9 booster reuse is not the end of innovation. Others can jump in and innovate further. This is how human technology usually advances, when it is left reasonably free for individuals and companies to compete.
Edit4: added 2nd graph with numbers of satellites
This is probably my favorite subject. Lowering launch costs and prices. I believe that once BLK 5 starts its rapid launch and hardly any refurbish phase the prices will be reorganized by recovery option. RTLS $50M. ASDS $55M. EXP $62M.The prices for the recovery options would be such that all costs are covered if the booster fails on recovery on its first flight. 1 flight 0 profit but no loss either. 2 flights $15M profit average per flight. 10 flights $27M profit average per flight. With a yearly flight rate of 20 paying customers (this purposeful ignores internal at cost Starlink launches) the total annual profit is $540M.With this profit and eventually Starlink profits there should be plenty of funds (cash) to do BFR development at a fast pace.
A moat (of competitive advantage) IS a barrier to entry. It's just a softer barrier than a law establishing a guild or a license raj.What's cool about competitive advantage moats is that they favor the buyers... if one tries to raise prices too much, the barrier dissolves as it becomes economical for a well funded competitor to take a run at it. At 50M a launch, there isn't as much margin for a conventional competitor to amortize their investment. Only competitors that are unconventional (such as Blue) and not beholden to quarterly results can take a run and not care about the short game.Further, as stated just above 50M is a soft number, SpaceX may well be at 30M pricing capability (not the same thing as pricing, but what they COULD be at) and still able to make money in 18 months or so....Berkshire Hathaway themselves would be a formidable competitor (they don't care about results quarter to quarter either) IF Buffett overcame his aversion to tech.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/19/2018 07:16 pmThis is probably my favorite subject. Lowering launch costs and prices. I believe that once BLK 5 starts its rapid launch and hardly any refurbish phase the prices will be reorganized by recovery option. RTLS $50M. ASDS $55M. EXP $62M.The prices for the recovery options would be such that all costs are covered if the booster fails on recovery on its first flight. 1 flight 0 profit but no loss either. 2 flights $15M profit average per flight. 10 flights $27M profit average per flight. With a yearly flight rate of 20 paying customers (this purposeful ignores internal at cost Starlink launches) the total annual profit is $540M.With this profit and eventually Starlink profits there should be plenty of funds (cash) to do BFR development at a fast pace.Any expendable launch on Falcon 9 (due to weight of the payload, not due to some type of end of life of the booster) should be charged at a substantially higher rate than $62 million - otherwise it eats into the launch market for Falcon Heavy for many missions. Why fly on a reusable FH for $90 million, when you could fly on a fully expendable F9 for $62 million?
Quote from: mclumber1 on 05/23/2018 09:32 amQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/19/2018 07:16 pmThis is probably my favorite subject. Lowering launch costs and prices. I believe that once BLK 5 starts its rapid launch and hardly any refurbish phase the prices will be reorganized by recovery option. RTLS $50M. ASDS $55M. EXP $62M.The prices for the recovery options would be such that all costs are covered if the booster fails on recovery on its first flight. 1 flight 0 profit but no loss either. 2 flights $15M profit average per flight. 10 flights $27M profit average per flight. With a yearly flight rate of 20 paying customers (this purposeful ignores internal at cost Starlink launches) the total annual profit is $540M.With this profit and eventually Starlink profits there should be plenty of funds (cash) to do BFR development at a fast pace.Any expendable launch on Falcon 9 (due to weight of the payload, not due to some type of end of life of the booster) should be charged at a substantially higher rate than $62 million - otherwise it eats into the launch market for Falcon Heavy for many missions. Why fly on a reusable FH for $90 million, when you could fly on a fully expendable F9 for $62 million?Personally speaking, man I wish folks would stop talking about expendable launches. It has zero place in the SpaceX model. Block 5 is a much more expensive rocket to manufacture than a Block 4 or earlier. (Doesn’t take much thought effort to realize that).
Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 05/23/2018 01:33 pmQuote from: mclumber1 on 05/23/2018 09:32 amQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/19/2018 07:16 pmThis is probably my favorite subject. Lowering launch costs and prices. I believe that once BLK 5 starts its rapid launch and hardly any refurbish phase the prices will be reorganized by recovery option. RTLS $50M. ASDS $55M. EXP $62M.The prices for the recovery options would be such that all costs are covered if the booster fails on recovery on its first flight. 1 flight 0 profit but no loss either. 2 flights $15M profit average per flight. 10 flights $27M profit average per flight. With a yearly flight rate of 20 paying customers (this purposeful ignores internal at cost Starlink launches) the total annual profit is $540M.With this profit and eventually Starlink profits there should be plenty of funds (cash) to do BFR development at a fast pace.Any expendable launch on Falcon 9 (due to weight of the payload, not due to some type of end of life of the booster) should be charged at a substantially higher rate than $62 million - otherwise it eats into the launch market for Falcon Heavy for many missions. Why fly on a reusable FH for $90 million, when you could fly on a fully expendable F9 for $62 million?Personally speaking, man I wish folks would stop talking about expendable launches. It has zero place in the SpaceX model. Block 5 is a much more expensive rocket to manufacture than a Block 4 or earlier. (Doesn’t take much thought effort to realize that).I don't disagree with your larger point, but do you have a source for that?Block 5 has a lot of production optimizations (e.g. bolted octaweb) that earlier blocks do not. I could see it being faster and cheaper to manufacture. Some parts (like Ti fins) are likely more expensive, but it's not at all obvious that those outweigh the manufacturing process improvements.
For starters, Elon himself has said about the Ti grid fins that they’re expensive - very expensive. So much so that they were really the only thing he cared about getting back from the FH launch. Add to that the additional leg hardware, the additional heat shielding- including liquid cooling- and all the other bits that were required only for reuse and not for a one-off launch, my personal opinion (backed by no source) is its significantly more expensive to manufacture. But - as mentioned, sell expendable B5 would prove me wrong. I’m so confident I’m right I’m willing to wager on it - and I’m not a betting man...
For starters, Elon himself has said about the Ti grid fins that they’re expensive - very expensive. So much so that they were really the only thing he cared about getting back from the FH launch.
Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 05/23/2018 01:45 pmFor starters, Elon himself has said about the Ti grid fins that they’re expensive - very expensive. So much so that they were really the only thing he cared about getting back from the FH launch. They expended B.1044 (Hispasat 30W-6) with Ti-grid fins attached.
I expect the cost of even the titanium grid fins will come done with volume. It’s not as buttery smooth as aluminum to machine, but the difference in cost from just 4 or 8 versus 80 of them is significant.But I doubt this will matter much as the vast majority of block 5s will be reused, possibly even the upper stages, and the expendable ones won’t nominally use titanium grid fins.
I've noted with some surprise the rapid rise in China launches, not all military related as far as I can tell, though likely dual use, e.g. GPS.
Quote from: mulp on 09/21/2018 04:02 pmI've noted with some surprise the rapid rise in China launches, not all military related as far as I can tell, though likely dual use, e.g. GPS.The only reason mention of China's launch rate ends up here is that Elon Musk made one of his predictions, earlier this year after the Falcon Heavy success, that SpaceX would outlaunch China this year (or some-such). Otherwise what SpaceX and China do in space are entirely unrelated. SpaceX would never have launched any of the satellites flown this year from China. China's current launch surge is fed in large part by the ongoing buildup of its new navigation satellite constellation. It is also fed by China's 2017 launch failures (A CZ-3B and a CZ-5), which created a several-month backlog, and by the introduction of new small, solid launch vehicles like CZ-11, etc..To me, the more interesting question is this. Why is SpaceX slowing down when it still boasts a massive backlog? - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/22/2018 04:06 amTo me, the more interesting question is this. Why is SpaceX slowing down when it still boasts a massive backlog?The way you frame this suggests that you've a good picture of many payloads ready and waiting for a rocket. I've not been able to find or successfully request a list of ready and waiting payloads. What do you have that indicates this is a massive list? (or is massive a pun?)
To me, the more interesting question is this. Why is SpaceX slowing down when it still boasts a massive backlog?
I agree that boasting of launch numbers may be the reason there is any debate. There is still a disparity in types of loads and launch vehicles.
Answer to your question: a substantial part of the backlog is not ready for launch (yet). For example: there are launches on the backlog that are not required to lift-off until 2023. That's five years from now, meaning that the payload in question might not even have started construction yet.
OK, if they've caught up to the market already, why all the talk just a few months ago (see the start of this thread) about 30 launches this year, etc.? It looks like 20-22 is a more likely final number for Falcon 9 proper. - Ed Kyle
Don't remember if this was posted before, from Iridium corporate filings:QuoteSpaceXIn March 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“SpaceX”) to secure SpaceX as the primary launch services provider for Iridium NEXT (as amended to date, the “SpaceX Agreement”). The total price under the SpaceX Agreement for seven launches and a reflight option in the event of a launch failure is $453.1 million. The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket is configured to carry ten Iridium NEXT satellites to orbit for each of these seven launches. In November 2016, the Company entered into an agreement for an eighth launch with SpaceX to launch five additional satellites and share the launch with GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences (“GFZ”). This launch took place in May 2018. The total price under the SpaceX Agreement for the eighth launch was $61.9 million. GFZ paid Iridium $29.8 million to include in the launch NASA’s two Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On satellites. As of June 30, 2018, the Company had made aggregate payments of $486.4 million to SpaceX, which were capitalized as construction in progress within property and equipment, net in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet.
SpaceXIn March 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“SpaceX”) to secure SpaceX as the primary launch services provider for Iridium NEXT (as amended to date, the “SpaceX Agreement”). The total price under the SpaceX Agreement for seven launches and a reflight option in the event of a launch failure is $453.1 million. The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket is configured to carry ten Iridium NEXT satellites to orbit for each of these seven launches. In November 2016, the Company entered into an agreement for an eighth launch with SpaceX to launch five additional satellites and share the launch with GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences (“GFZ”). This launch took place in May 2018. The total price under the SpaceX Agreement for the eighth launch was $61.9 million. GFZ paid Iridium $29.8 million to include in the launch NASA’s two Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On satellites. As of June 30, 2018, the Company had made aggregate payments of $486.4 million to SpaceX, which were capitalized as construction in progress within property and equipment, net in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet.
Does anyone really care about the specific number of launches SpaceX, China, ULA etc have per year? Seems like a fairly useless metric. Things fly when they are ready. Either the payload or the launcher can cause delays, as can weather, money, customer need. All sorts.
Quote from: JamesH65 on 09/25/2018 12:44 pmDoes anyone really care about the specific number of launches SpaceX, China, ULA etc have per year? Seems like a fairly useless metric. Things fly when they are ready. Either the payload or the launcher can cause delays, as can weather, money, customer need. All sorts.I care because current performance is an (imperfect) predictor of the future. What are the trends? Is the market actually inelastic as some allege? will payloads pull forward if their launch costs go down? What is ULA's future if their share goes down, and so on.These are useful questions for fans and REALLY useful questions for people that have to plan capacity.SpaceX scaling up to do 40 external launches a year might not be a prudent use of their resources.... SpaceX pulling out all the stops this year and stretching themselves (variable costs sometimes go UP for the last few copies of things) if they only will have 10 external launches next year and Starlink volumes are not ready til 2020 or whatever.... also might not be prudent.
My personal opinion is that there are payload concepts waiting for cheap launch, but they will only start being built when cheap launch is a real thing. Chicken and egg. I suppose brave people might be approaching SpaceX and asking when thye can have these cheap launches, and starting to build, but I have not seen any evidence of that.
Quote from: Lar on 09/25/2018 03:23 pmQuote from: JamesH65 on 09/25/2018 12:44 pmDoes anyone really care about the specific number of launches SpaceX, China, ULA etc have per year? Seems like a fairly useless metric. Things fly when they are ready. Either the payload or the launcher can cause delays, as can weather, money, customer need. All sorts.I care because current performance is an (imperfect) predictor of the future. What are the trends? Is the market actually inelastic as some allege? will payloads pull forward if their launch costs go down? What is ULA's future if their share goes down, and so on.These are useful questions for fans and REALLY useful questions for people that have to plan capacity.SpaceX scaling up to do 40 external launches a year might not be a prudent use of their resources.... SpaceX pulling out all the stops this year and stretching themselves (variable costs sometimes go UP for the last few copies of things) if they only will have 10 external launches next year and Starlink volumes are not ready til 2020 or whatever.... also might not be prudent.It's imperfect, and much too early. The (in)elasticity of the market will only start to be shown when the payloads arrive that REQUIRE cheap launch to be cost effective start to appear, and the era of cheap launch is still some ways away. SpaceX need to pay for a lot of stuff, and dropping prices would be foolish at this stage. They just need to be cheaper.My personal opinion is that there are payload concepts waiting for cheap launch, but they will only start being built when cheap launch is a real thing. Chicken and egg. I suppose brave people might be approaching SpaceX and asking when thye can have these cheap launches, and starting to build, but I have not seen any evidence of that.
You're excluding the LEO constellations which are very much real and have already put down payments on launches? Because that's the application enabled by falling launch costs and accelerating launch rate in the first half of the 2020s.
I care because current performance is an (imperfect) predictor of the future. What are the trends? Is the market actually inelastic as some allege? will payloads pull forward if their launch costs go down? What is ULA's future if their share goes down, and so on.These are useful questions for fans and REALLY useful questions for people that have to plan capacity.