Author Topic: With Block 5, SpaceX to increase launch cadence and lower prices  (Read 44099 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/block-5-spacex-increase-launch-cadence-lower-prices/

By Michael Baylor

(with NSF photos from Brady and Marek)

Hosting in SpaceX General, but leaving a placeholder in SpaceX Reusability, as it would work in both sections.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
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/5ba82bd5f4099934fa0556b9d09c123e

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 07:09 pm by Lars-J »

Offline Doesitfloat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
  • Detroit MI
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 197
From the Spacex website :" SpaceX offers competitive pricing for its Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch services. Modest discounts are available, for contractually committed, multi-launch purchases. "

To me sounds like like any shipping company.  They offer a discount if you buy more.  The same way FedEX charges me more to send my brother a rubber chicken than they charge my company to send one of our customers a rubber chicken. :-\

Offline Oersted

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2892
  • Liked: 4097
  • Likes Given: 2770
Excellent article. Boils down very well the info gained from the Musk press conference before the latest launch.

I liked the short format compared to the usual longer format where the last part is a re-hash of earlier articles.

Offline Barrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Planets are a waste of space
  • Liked: 242
  • Likes Given: 3815
Couple of things occur to me about the same booster launching twice in 24 hours:

1. It is quite possible that the eastern range will do it's own 2 in 24 before Falcon 9 does it.

2. Block 5 may be capable of 2 in 24, but afaik no pad is, so I guess it will have to use 39A and 40

Online dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4430
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/5ba82bd5f4099934fa0556b9d09c123e

Quote
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

That 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)

« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 07:52 pm by dglow »

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1016
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.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
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.

They've already created a massive barrier to entry and this isn't going to make it any easier.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3899
  • Likes Given: 5264
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
Here's the full quote from the article:
Quote
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.
This clearly and obviously reflects the quote we separately have, and indicates that 'SpaceX [has] lowered prices from "about $60 million to about $50 million for a reflown booster'.

There is no ambiguity or conflict here, I do not believe your interpretation is correct.

Offline dlapine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • University of Illinois
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 312
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/5ba82bd5f4099934fa0556b9d09c123e

Quote
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

That 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)


It might help in deciding whether the price is 1) for everyone, and 2) long term,  to include more of Elon's reply from the that transcript.

"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. That's by far the most competitive price in the world for a Falcon 9 class vehicle. And it's kind of cool, we're seeing a response from other organizations, Russia, Europe, and China, that are responding, and getting more competitive, which is good. So we're setting the forcing function for other launch organizations to improve their pricing. "

I wouldn't take those statements about the new F9 price as an early-adopter bonus only. I could be mistaken, but that does sound like a price change going forward.

Ninja'd by ababbon.

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6460
  • Liked: 4567
  • Likes Given: 5105
(snip)
If reuse does reduce costs, I would expect to see an official price reduction for all launches.

 - Ed Kyle

That 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)

No, it's NOT a reasonable expectation.  That's not how commercial enterprises work, and Musk states so directly.
"Those aren't prices"
Of course, the last part of the quote is the subject of the debate above, whether the $50M prices are incentives for early adopters of reuse or a permanent reduction.
Maybe it's not a reasonable expectation, but it happened already regardless?  :)
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Online dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4430
There is no ambiguity or conflict here, I do not believe your interpretation is correct.
Screen capture from just now. 

 - Ed Kyle

Oh, come on... the matter of interpretation referred to above is the text of the article, not SpaceX's website.

But look, the salient point is this: unless pressured by competition, SpaceX sees no need to pass the full savings of reusability on to their customers – which should not come as a surprise.

Moreover, the margin in which they'll be operating may be a full order of magnitude... wow.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 08:33 pm by dglow »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3628
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1145
  • Likes Given: 360
Twenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2308
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1950
  • Likes Given: 1139
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.

They've already created a massive barrier to entry and this isn't going to make it any easier.

Ross.
I agree completely.  The only other player with deep enough pockets and far enough along to try to get in the game anytime soon (less than 5 years) is Blue Origin right now.  And we don't yet know how successful they will be.

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.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
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.

They've already created a massive barrier to entry and this isn't going to make it any easier.

Ross.

The biggest barrier was created by Falcon taking a load of commercial launches off the table so that new entrants (or established players building 'affordable' new rockets) have a challenging time getting early paid 'test launches' and building a reasonable manifest.  Blue seems to have succeeded in building an early but limited manifest, likely by offering attractively low cost/large payload launches; all others have not been as successful.

Any/all existing major launch providers circa 2010 could have done a Falcon equivalent rocket -- probably 3 or 4 groups had the expertise -- and built that moat themselves.  SpaceX could have been frozen/starved out; Blue might not have ventured into New Glenn.  Instead, resting on their laurels, all established launch providers find themselves on the wrong side of the barrier.

(What Eric said...)
« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 08:41 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2445
  • Liked: 2403
  • Likes Given: 10203
Twenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?

Certainly would be.  But where do you find that referenced?

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3628
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1145
  • Likes Given: 360
Twenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?

Certainly would be.  But where do you find that referenced?

Here!

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2445
  • Liked: 2403
  • Likes Given: 10203
Twenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?

Certainly would be.  But where do you find that referenced?

Here!

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9

I still see 22.8 metric tons to LEO.  Has been that way for a long while.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Twenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?

Certainly would be.  But where do you find that referenced?

Here!

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9

The website lists 22,800 kg. That's 22.8 metric tons (what most people on this site consider when they say tons). No one really cares that it converts to 50,265 lb which is a little over 25 US short tons.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
I have followed SpaceX for years.  They are notorious for not updating their website with current conditions.  We all knew about "full thrust" about 6 months before they updated their website.  We also knew about the upgraded Falcon Heavy capabilities way before they updated their website.  They really don't take a lot of time updating their website except for the current completed launches.  I predict the website costs will change within the next 3-4 months after they get more info on Block 5 upgrades. 

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3628
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1145
  • Likes Given: 360
Twenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?

Certainly would be.  But where do you find that referenced?

Here!

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9

I 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.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Twenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?

Certainly would be.  But where do you find that referenced?

Here!

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9

I 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.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2445
  • Liked: 2403
  • Likes Given: 10203
Those 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.

Offline dlapine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • University of Illinois
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 312
Ed,

You cropped that SpaceX screen shot too much. At the bottom of that picture, it notes that:

*Performance represents max capability on fully expendable vehicle

Hard to interpret the $62M price on that page as being for reusable with that note.

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.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Those 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.

Quote
Must: [sic] Merlin engine thrust increased by 8%. Might be a little more room there.  #SpaceX #Falcon9 #Block5

https://twitter.com/spacebrendan/status/994649013914914818

Edit to add:

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/emrekelly/status/994649234841526278

Quote
Musk: Merlin rocket engine thrust increased by 8 percent, to 190,000 lbf.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/994649495861432321
« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 09:14 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2445
  • Liked: 2403
  • Likes Given: 10203
As far as I can tell, you're reading that incorrectly.  The Merlin 1D for Block 3 and Block 4 was about 175 klbf.  An 8% increase for Block 5 brought it to 190 klbf.  A 10% increase would bring it to 193 klbf.

Offline rokan2003

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 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
SpaceX's CEO gave the price of a reflown booster in the interview referenced upthread. It's USD 50 million. It beggars belief that you'd need more evidence than a price from the horse's mouth. Amazing what an emotional attachment to a deeply held belief can do to rational thought.

Sent from my BBB100-7 using Tapatalk


Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Liked: 546
  • Likes Given: 2012
There is no ambiguity or conflict here, I do not believe your interpretation is correct.
Screen capture from just now. 

 - Ed Kyle

$50M is a (base) price if you agree to use flown 1st stage - if you want a new 1st stage it makes sense for SpaceX to keep charging old (higher) price.

Offline dlapine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • University of Illinois
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 312
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 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

The current price to a customer of a re-used SpaceX booster is $50M. You have evidence of that. Yes, Elon's discussions in public are not always vetted, but this one is straightword and reflective of available capabilities today.

I understand that you do not believe that the published SpaceX price reflects a reduction in operating costs to SpaceX due to the re-use of it's boosters. That's OK. Without having access to their financial records, you may never have "hard evidence" that the costs of re-using a booster outweigh some other mode of operation, in practice or theory. Does that make this capability ($50M per launch) unaffordable for SpaceX in the long run? Maybe.

But this thread isn't about whether re-use saves SpaceX money, it's about the price of a launch decreasing for SpaceX customers. If they select a re-used booster, the customer will spend $12M less on a launch today, as compared to the price before a block 5 F9 launched.

That will have an effect on anyone else in the launch business, or seeking to get started.

Online dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4430
It's fine to wonder, but with all due respect: your manner of questioning – including your response to genuine answers to those questions – feels a lot like FUD... or something. And it isn't the first time.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3899
  • Likes Given: 5264
"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.
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.

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.
No, he didn't.  I quoted the article, and your interpretation was incorrect.  You did not quote all of the relevant text.

The only evidence you have here for your opinion is that you don't trust Elon.  Period.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 10:46 pm by abaddon »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
  • Liked: 6799
  • Likes Given: 2963
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/

Offline John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
    • Home of the ThreadRipper Cadillac
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 2735
The article should have been titled... in my opinion...  ;)

"With Block 5, SpaceX plans to increase their launch cadence, and may lower their expenses per launch"

The use of "prices" was a poor choice and led to the above arguments...  :P

SpaceX can, should and will charge what the market will bear... in my opinion...
And I believe the 50 mil was just EM daring the competition to "beat that"...
Because he could go that low, if the market forces him to do so... ;)
« Last Edit: 05/18/2018 01:01 am by John Alan »

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 5381
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/

Quote
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.

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.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
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.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
  • Liked: 6799
  • Likes Given: 2963
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/

Quote
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.

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.

The direct quote from Hans was:

Quote
...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.

He did say to expect prices to decline slowly, as SpaceX recovers the investment into reuse. But he emphasized that a "flight-proven" launch should not be priced lower than a new one.

I think what Elon said is in line with both statements from Hans. The price for a typical cost is going down, and the difference between new and flight proven is going away if you accept that flight proven is just as safe.

Hans' talk is free to stream here, that quote is 26 minutes in:
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/137464/255675531

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
5
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.

It's not that much to recoup when you consider the flight rate it allows for.  A billion dollars would be a difficult profit target if they were building 10 boosters a year and doing 10 flights a year.  But with reflown boosters in the mix that rate can get a lot higher, maybe 30 times this year and once a week in 2020.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5399
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3104
  • Likes Given: 3853
I think we can also look at Tesla, Starlink and the nature of tech startups. 

Having the books balance and paying your debt isn’t something they spend much time thinking about. 

If your brain is busy disturbing entrenched industries you don’t think about such mundane things as accounting.  (That’s for some unimaginative lackie to figure out)
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3899
  • Likes Given: 5264
On 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.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
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.

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.
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 wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5399
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3104
  • Likes Given: 3853
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 05/18/2018 02:31 pm by wannamoonbase »
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline RDMM2081

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 295
  • Liked: 287
  • Likes Given: 595
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.

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.

"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.html

I 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. 

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Drop the mythical second stage recovery and you are at $17-18M.
That should provide sufficient squeeze.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
  • Liked: 6799
  • Likes Given: 2963
On 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.
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.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
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.
It is not about "trust", really.  I love Elon Musk's audacity and drive.  What he has achieved speaks for itself. 

But.

Any space reporter will tell you that what he says does not always align precisely with what actually happens.  What he says sometimes turns out to be more like the broad brush strokes of an abstract painting.

During the early days he said that Falcon 1 would reuse its first stage and that Falcon 9 would reuse both of its stages beginning on the "second or third flight".  In 2011 he said that Falcon Heavy would fly in 2013.  In 2017, he said that Falcon Heavy would launch Red Dragon to Mars in 2018 and that SpaceX would launch commercial passengers around the Moon in 2018 using a Falcon Heavy. 

He has often talked about costs, of course.  During the early years of Falcon 9, he said that the first stage accounted for 75% of the total rocket costs.  Later he said 70%.  Recently, during the Block 5 press conference, he said that it accounted for 60%.  More broad strokes.

There are many other examples. 

There is no doubt that SpaceX did cut prices for some of the early-adopter booster reuse flights, but given the unaltered web site price listing and the various other reports that say SpaceX has not actually cut the standard price for everyone, I'm just going to have to wait and see.  Maybe Elon was only talking about those early-use discounts, or maybe he was making an unexpected corporate policy announcement.  Given his history it is impossible to know. 

I would love to see $50 million for 5.5 tonnes to GTO.  That would be an astonishing market disruption.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
I really don't see any conflict between saying a flight with a reflown booster will be around $50M and the listed base price for a new booster is still $62M.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3899
  • Likes Given: 5264
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.
Elon said "...we already have reduced prices from where they were, from about $60 million to about $50 million for a re-flown booster.".  Reading that sentence, it is clear he is stating that the $50 million applies to a re-flown booster.  If it were $50 million for new or re-flown, then it doesn't make sense that he would qualify it.  Ergo, he is saying $60 million (for a new booster) to "about $50 million" for a re-flown booster.

Contrast that with (your interpretation, which I agree with) what Hans indicated: "But he emphasized that a 'flight-proven" launch should not be priced lower than a new one.'

Whether you believe Elon here or not (separate issue) these are clearly contradictory statements.

I'm done arguing here, I don't think there's much point.  I agree with Ed that we have to wait and see what actually happens here, as the proof will (or won't) be in the pricing.  (Hopefully we get more specific confirmation or a contract where the pricing is made public!)
« Last Edit: 05/18/2018 07:46 pm by abaddon »

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5399
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3104
  • Likes Given: 3853
"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.html

I 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. 

That doesn't mean they would sell launches for the marginal cost.  Each launch would still have some portion of fixed costs, expenses and profit.

I don't know what those costs would be, I'm sure it would still be a shockingly low price compared to competitors.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
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.

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.
Maybe just $5m. But a reusable launcher in the 1 ton range could get a per launch cost below $1m.
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 kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Maybe just $5m. But a reusable launcher in the 1 ton range could get a per launch cost below $1m.

The key issue is that with launchers like BFR and New Glenn coming down the pipe offering launch prices that will be lower than even Falcon-1's price was, the launch prices for a small launcher are going to HAVE to be smaller in order to compete.   And that means the total revenues and profits per launch will be equally small.

Next add the fact that any size launcher costs a LOT to develop (F-1 cost what, $100m)

And the real nail in the coffin:   The vast majority of investors want to see "high returns" when they get involved in "high risk" projects like rockets, and you get a very difficult investment proposition.   Understand that most investors interested in projects like this want a reasonably high probability of getting an exit within 7 years that offers a realistic means to make 10x profit.    If they can't get that, they'll just invest in golf courses instead, which are much lower risk and already offer profits in that range.

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.

There are exceptional investors who just want their own rocket company for their own reason, but most of those people have already got involved by now, so new entrants are going to find it very difficult indeed.

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.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2018 12:35 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Liked: 1272
  • Likes Given: 2316
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.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2018 03:19 am by Norm38 »

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
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 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?)

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
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.

A very good point. And once you take a harder look at some of their business plans - like Vector - you realize that at the low cost launch they are offering, they have to make a LOT of launches per year just to make payroll and stay afloat. Never mind paying back investments. It just doesn't add up for many of the new guys.

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.

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.

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Liked: 1272
  • Likes Given: 2316

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 put the same onus on SpaceX and Starlink. They can’t come in late, can’t take weeks getting ready for launch. Can’t call time out three days before launch to double check math they should have done months ago.
If they need that much time, then they need to build hangar space and get to the site two months ahead of the scheduled launch date and be ready to go on time. Otherwise they should rightly get bumped for customers who are ready to fly. 

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
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.

The recent slips seem to be mostly on the SpaceX side during the block transition, and that will probably continue for at least another month or two.  All goals for Block 5 aren't realized on the day of the first flight.  Check back in 6-12 months.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2018 03:18 pm by gongora »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596

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.

It all comes down to the fact that the cheapest development option is a VTO ELV.
But
1) You throw the vehicle away every launch, regardless of how flawlessly it performed.
2) You're not just competing with other LV's prices you're also competing with their launch record, which you build one successful launch at a time and which resets when you lose your first payload (doesn't matter where you lose it. The customer has to build another).
3)With the sole mfg/sole operator model your company depends entirely on what it (and it alone) can launch
No other transportation market anywhere operates like this. 

Ever heard of an ELV that continued operating after its mfg company went bust?

Of course not, yet there are a number of aircraft types still flying like this. The operators still use them because there is still enough of a spare parts market for them to draw on to keep them flying.

WRT to the thread title, mabye SX will increase cadence, since enabling that is a key development goal.
Wheather they will lower prices for the small sat market to "explode" is frankly implausible.

Build a fully reusable F9 for $5m a launch and then you might see some serious growth.

As anyone who can build a reasonable spreadsheet model can predict.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5003
  • Likes Given: 1437
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.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2018 07:17 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40

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.

Of currently flying launchers, you're probably right with figures around $40-75K per lb to LEO. But historically, adjusted to consistent dollars, I'd argue Vanguard, Jupiter-C and Juno-II are actually vying for that title with figures between $1.2 to 2.1 million per lb!

Ross.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2018 07:34 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
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.

I would agree, but would include the caveat that for those requesting/requiring a new booster, in addition to any potential scheduling restrictions, they might include a "non-standard service" fee.  This would only be the case if it seemed like too few of their customers were buying preflown.  They need to price such that there is a benefit not only for allowing recovery but also to continue to drive acceptance of preflown until it becomes fully accepted as the norm.  The added fee wouldn't attach just because your payload happened to fly on a new booster but only if it was a customer specified requirement.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8835
  • Waikiki
  • Liked: 60418
  • Likes Given: 1301
 I'd like to see the F9 depreciation schedule in a year or so.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 938
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 606
  • Likes Given: 309
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

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
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 ad 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?
« Last Edit: 05/20/2018 10:38 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline BarryKirk

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • York, PA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 16
Keep in mind that star link will almost certainly all launch on used boosters.

Offline jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 938
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 606
  • Likes Given: 309
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.

Not sure why you pick that 6-8 year date range as worldwide launches have been increasing at about 2 launches a year since ~2000 (with a dip when Columbia was lost), with a pretty linear fit.

This year is looking like it might break that linear trend (though from looking at scheduled launches and making a wild guess at how many will actually launch, I don't think we'll quite reach 120, but we may get close - depends very much on China, I think).

Edit: added graph. Dotted line is +2.1 launches per year; this year's point is my wild guess  :)
Edit2: thinking about it we may just be talking at cross-purposes. I was thinking about overall market elasticity but there's a case that for SpaceX, their market (at least in the short-term) is showing some elasticity as they are notably cheaper.
Edit3: added rate without China (in green)
Edit4: added 2nd graph with numbers of satellites

Quote
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 a combination of various sovereign states (China!) developing independent capabilities  and new applications that are viable with the current price structure (constellations etc).

My (2nd) wild guess is that once these have launched, the launch rate might reach a steady state of ~150, which is a lot more than now but isn't really about elasticity.

For Bezos' vision of "millions living and working in space" (with which I wholeheartedly agree!), I don't think this
launch rate is anywhere near enough.  Which, for me, is where elasticity comes in: if the price can be lowered, demand should go up, and the more elastic the market, the bigger the increase.

I think all the small-sat launcher folk are assuming high elasticity, as are both Musk & Bezos. I think they're right to do so, but I think it's too soon to tell.

Also, it is partially self-fulfilling: one of the key determinants of elasticity is the duration of any price cut: the longer the cut, the greater the increase in demand.

Looking at the other major determinants:
* Availability of substitute goods (i.e. alternative launcher providers). Should kick in once BO and the small-sat folks kick in.
* Definition of the goods. Usually broad definitions (e.g. "food") mean low elasticity.  Not sure how I'd mark this one.
* Percentage of customer's income. As launches are very expensive right now, it suggests high elasticity as lower revenue markets would be enabled by a price drop.
* Necessity. Essentials like food have little or no elasticity.  Here I'd class space-based services as a luxury so they should be elastic, but there's an argument that for sovereign states, some things like weather/comms/spy satellites are a necessity so demand would be inelastic.
* Who pays. If the customer doesn't pay directly, then demand is likely to be inelastic. This feels like it means government demand will be inelastic.

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
« Last Edit: 05/23/2018 08:25 am by jebbo »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Thanks for these data.  I was going more by sparse sampling of data and gut feel, but your chart clearly shows the uptick.  The rise seems to be accelerating; the departure from a falling launch cadence (two decades of decline) adds credence that something fundamental has changed.  Is there an accepted justification for the major inflection point around early 2000s (2005-ish)?
« Last Edit: 05/21/2018 11:44 am by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner



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).


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.
Failure is not only an option, it's the only way to learn.
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the custody of fire" - Gustav Mahler

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078


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).


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.
« Last Edit: 05/21/2018 12:01 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner



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).


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.

A bit sad when you put it like this but yeah  ;D

2018-19 with Block 5, OneWeb and Starlink, Electron and other small LVs,  should kick start the era of partial reusability, smallsat launchers and big constellations;
2020-21 with Vulcan, the BFR, the New Glenn, the SLS, Ariane 6 ecc. should be the start of the 'big (very big) LVs' and fully reusable rockets era.

I think the trend is here to stay, and will improve.
Failure is not only an option, it's the only way to learn.
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the custody of fire" - Gustav Mahler

Offline jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 938
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 606
  • Likes Given: 309
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 things

Edit: 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
« Last Edit: 05/21/2018 12:25 pm by jebbo »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
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.
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 jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 938
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 606
  • Likes Given: 309
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.

Yes, it's a good piece of evidence, but I don't think it's conclusive. Perhaps "discount" was too strong a word.

--- Tony

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
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 things

Edit: 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

Thanks... was wondering just this morning about China's piece in the upturn.  Though they don't compete (yet) for commercial payloads, they will more so in the future.  Their presence (more launch activity) as one of the two major players in space is fueling US strategic thinking about dis-aggregation (= more launches) and BEO activity (= more launches).  Lower cost launch is only one piece in this puzzle, but a key piece (i.e., the keystone).
« Last Edit: 05/21/2018 01:35 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
...
I think the trend is here to stay, and will improve.

A true market elasticity demonstration would be departing from a near-linear trend line and showing exponential growth*.  That's when I'll believe it is permanent.

* One could as easily fit present data with an exponential... starting at low point in 2003-2005.
« Last Edit: 05/21/2018 01:49 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 938
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 606
  • Likes Given: 309
* One could as easily fit present data with an exponential... starting at low point in 2003-2005.

You can ... but my assumption of 114 for this year in the graph is still only a guess, and without it, fitting anything more than a linear trend to the historical data feels like wishful thinking.

Before I'd be confident that the trend is non-linear, I think we need a few more years data - patience is a virtue (which I'm sadly lacking ;) )


Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3899
  • Likes Given: 5264
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.
A bit sad when you put it like this but yeah  ;D
Not if you consider successful versus unsuccessful missions...

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2592
  • Likes Given: 528


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).


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.

I don't think next year we break 150... I'd bet it will be flat(ish) at 120

A large chunk of this years increase is China, and much of the increase there is launching payloads that should have launched last year. ie:

What China likely planned:
2012: 19
2013: 15
2014: 16
2015: 19
2016: 22
2017: 25
2018: 28
2019: 31

What happened:
2012: 19/19
2013: 14/15
2014: 16/16
2015: 19/19
2016: 20/22
2017: 16/18 <Lots of failures and eventual stand-down for most launchers
2018: ~37 <making up for bad 2016/17
2019: ~31 <back to plan

I wouldn't be surprised for 150 by ~2021 though... With SpaceX being 60+ of them.
« Last Edit: 05/21/2018 03:14 pm by ZachF »
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107

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
That chart is fascinating. Thanks. However, do you have a feel for mass injected?

I suspect that the 1965 140 launches were mostly experimental or short term spy satellites.

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2592
  • Likes Given: 528
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 things

Edit: 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

Add in SpaceX, and you have pretty much all of the increase since it began to increase.
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline CuddlyRocket

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.

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.

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6333
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4204
  • Likes Given: 2
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.

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.

Especially if DoD is interested in these LEO constellations

AvWeek...

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 03:06 am by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2824
  • Liked: 1079
  • Likes Given: 32
One might wager that this AFRL work would likely lead first to an enhancement to BACN pods, rather than an iridium blister package to be applied to existing aircraft. With kymeta type antennas and good line of sight fore and aft, that would be a pretty easy mod.

Let's not forget Facebook is pining for E-band tests to see if that's also viable as well for aircraft-sat links (ostensibly to crosslink their Aquila solar HALE relay UAV's with their own constellation)

Offline EnigmaSCADA

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Earth
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 0
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 things

Edit: 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

Add in SpaceX, and you have pretty much all of the increase since it began to increase.
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.

Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 9670
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.

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.

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."

Online groundbound

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Liked: 405
  • Likes Given: 15
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.

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.

Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 9670


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.

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.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 05:57 am by Llian Rhydderch »
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 JH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 72
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.

(365/142)*46 = ~118

By calling the second half of May midyear, you are effectively removing 2.5 months from the year.

Offline jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 938
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 606
  • Likes Given: 309
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.

(365/142)*46 = ~118

By calling the second half of May midyear, you are effectively removing 2.5 months from the year.

The graph I posted has 114 this year - the 120 claim was someone else.

As for how I got there, I did the calculation above and also looked at the scheduled launches.  I assumed:
* The ~34 with dates would all launch
* 50% of those with a NET that specified a month (~41) would launch
* 25% of those scheduled but no month specified would launch (~62)

Which got me to 114 (and I took the lower of the two numbers 118,114).

Obviously there are problems with that as a methodology as most Chinese launches don't have an assigned NET date, but for making a wild guess, it's probably okay.

And a launch failure from one of the big players could easily drop the number significantly.

--- Tony

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
120 was my number.

NSF's William Graham (link below) lists 44 launches completed on last update... Long March and Antares have since launched.  That's 46 launches on day 141 of the year.  Ratio'd out, that gives 119.1 launches for the year.  The launch cadence has been bouncing around 120 for the year so far in 2018.  After today's Iridium launch, if successful, it will be a 120.8 rate...
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15134.msg1821026#msg1821026
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 11:51 am by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078


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.

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.

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.'
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 11:47 am by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
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.

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.'
$50M - today, maybe.

Even absent NG or BFR, or F9 S2 recovery, F9 in the very near term looks to be on track to shaving tens of millions off their cost to launch, compared to their initial efforts - in months not years.
(Wholesale S1 reuse, fairing recovery)
Spacex dropping ten, or even twenty million off the sticker price seems a plausible result of someone credibly offering launch services at $50M.

In the perhaps 2-3 year timescale, when economies of scale kick in with Starlink constellation launches relying on $50M being a price that guarantees you can steal payloads from F9 seems dodgy.

When you add in that in the same timescale there is at least the risk of BFS having a successful suborbital test campaign and that stealing advanced bookings, ...

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Right.  If someone needs a 'test' launch for mid-2020, for instance, they need to convince some satellite owner/operator in the very near future to pay for a maiden or early launch.  Negotiations should start around $50M... the going market rate today.  The settled price will only be less than or equal to this value.

If you run this experiment in two years, you may be looking at $40M, or $30M as the starting point of negotiations.  You could also have a 'test' launch customer walk away (or threaten to do so if price isn't lowered) when the price point for the most flown launcher gets that low and they are signed up for circa $50M.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 04:08 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline EnigmaSCADA

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Earth
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

(365/142)*46 = ~118

By calling the second half of May midyear, you are effectively removing 2.5 months from the year.
Ha, that's very true. For some reason I was thinking my very generous rounding and head math wouldn't be that far off but now that you point this out you're right about the pace of launches for the year.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
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.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 06:46 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 938
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 606
  • Likes Given: 309
Edit4: added 2nd graph with numbers of satellites

As there was some interest, I've added the number of satellites launched per year to my previous post.

Mass to orbit has also been requested, but that is much harder ...

Note the two very large spikes: I think these are due to deployments from the ISS.
Also, the number for this year is the number launched so far, so I'd expect that to increase dramatically.

--- Tony
« Last Edit: 05/23/2018 08:28 am by jebbo »

Offline mclumber1

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • United States
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 25
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.

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?

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
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.

Warren will be Warren until he isn't anymore.  Fine with me... he's his own class of investor.

The customer/buyer is getting a great deal buying Falcon launches... folks like Ariane Group and counterparts in the US need to wake up.  Their monopoly yielded ridiculous prices and a stagnant sector, hurting space enterprise and bleeding their nations.  Even the USAF would be vastly better off* if it bought all of its launches from a single vendor whose prices are half or less than the former monopolist -- and whose launch capability is approaching ten times higher (from its current 3x).


* Better off than it has been carrying unsustainable costs, ELC, and now 'managed competition' to keep that vendor solvent.
« Last Edit: 05/23/2018 10:55 am by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
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.

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). So they won’t expend them deliberately. Lost at sea is one thing, but deliberately selling an expendable launch is another. That’s why they developed the FH.

It pains me to see them throwing away B3/4 boosters, but I understand it. They won’t expend a Block 5.

So - I’ll add my own wager. I’ll bet a case of my favorite beer (Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA) that SpaceX will not sell an expendable B5 F9 launch for the next two years. Bet expires 5/23/2020.

EDIT to add: Based on the number of folks who like to talk expendable payload mass, I’m getting pretty drunk in two years :-)
« Last Edit: 05/23/2018 01:38 pm by Johnnyhinbos »
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
  • Liked: 6799
  • Likes Given: 2963
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.

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.

More expensive? Probably.
Much more expensive? I wouldn't bet on it.

Btw I agree we should stop talking about expendable launches with Block 5.
« Last Edit: 05/23/2018 01:44 pm by AbuSimbel »
Failure is not only an option, it's the only way to learn.
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the custody of fire" - Gustav Mahler

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
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.

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...
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1061
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...
I would assume that an espendable B5 F9 would not feature grid fins and legs on it. Why would it have those if it is not going to land?

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2279
  • Likes Given: 2184
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.

They expended B.1044 (Hispasat 30W-6) with Ti-grid fins attached.
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline dante2308

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 45
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.

They expended B.1044 (Hispasat 30W-6) with Ti-grid fins attached.

When the grid fins were attached, the intention was to return them. They certainly didn't plan to put titanium into the sea. Their hand was forced either by schedule or process.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
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.
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 mulp

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • merrimack, nh
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 9
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.

Shotwell is quoted as being disappointed SpaceX is falling behind China, not pulling ahead this year. Granted China uses 4-5 models/variants vs Spacex 2 variants.

As she was responsible for booking launches with deposits before SpaceX was ever successful, I trust her statement SpaceX is running out of customers willing to pay to launch.

Still, increased satellite reliability and capability, the value of one launch is much higher than when launches put cameras in orbit to shoot film that was deorbited and picked up (out of air) for film development.

The Space business needs increased costs, e.g. spending, to deliver what Elon wants. Shotwell understands this well.

Ideally every person in the US would spend $10 A month on space, maybe buying space zirconium, a bit of stuff flown into space, returned for sale. Ie, $3 billion spent per month on space business. Given marketing, etc, the overhead would leave only a billion per month or less going to the rocket company. $250 in Federal taxes per family per year would be far more efficient, and probably a fair market price for gps navigation, emergency services, weather forecasting, mapping services, etc for just the space assets. This would be at least twice current costs per household for services to households.

US households paid more for space in the 60s. And got much less in "product" benefits, but more in income. All the costs in the 60s were labor costs, money paid to US workers in every sector of the economy. The aluminum came from US mines and US dams and power plants and electric furnaces, the housing for NASA workers in Houston came from US forests and lumber mills.

Cost cutting creates jobs and growth only if unit consumption increases much faster than costs decline increasing total costs.

Ie, the average household is paying at least a thousand times as much for mobile phone service today than in 1980 when mobile phone meant pay phone or CB radio.

So, if SpaceX has cut the cost to customers, ie, price, of putting a Kg in LEO the number of things put there needs to increase by at least 3-4 times to justify the risk. SpaceX simply capturing all the launches is bad for the space business.

Bezos states the near term business case, industry in LEO. Something of high value produced better in microgravity with "cheap" energy, for example. $10 per Kg on earth sent to LEO coming back down at $100,000 which means customers pay $100 million in costs they weren't before on a monthly or weekly basis. Just for one product component.

But maybe the increased costs come from vacations, a week in space costing $20 million. 500 tourists per year to a hotel of Bigelow habitats.

But given the cost US residents pay for people running around a playing field, higher costs for space launch is pretty small.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5399
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3104
  • Likes Given: 3853
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.

The Grid fins will be reused until the end of F9/FH program no matter how many cores they end up being on.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3899
  • Likes Given: 5264
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.
China had a bigger-than-usual backlog this year due to the Long March 5 failure on July 2nd of last year.  Their next launch wasn't until the end of September, meaning they lost a quarter of the year due to the stand-down following the failure.

Then again, they still have 20+ launches theoretically booked for this year, most of which will likely not launch this year, so who knows.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
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.
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 
« Last Edit: 09/22/2018 04:15 am by edkyle99 »

Offline S.Paulissen

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • Boston
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 511
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.
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

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?)
"An expert is a person who has found out by his own painful experience all the mistakes that one can make in a very narrow field." -Niels Bohr
Poster previously known as Exclavion going by his real name now.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
To 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?)
Gwynne(?) explicitly stated that the slowdown is due to lack of orders.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12092
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18181
  • Likes Given: 12139
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.
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 

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.
« Last Edit: 09/23/2018 02:17 pm by woods170 »

Offline Don S

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 12
https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/1028964871617105923

Matt Desch  "Satellite completion is gating, not rocket availability."

SPX-DM1 seems to be ready but the launch date seems to be out of Space X control.

Sure China is up on launch numbers, but would they be lifting 10 Iridium satellites at once or would that of been 5-10 launches?   

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.
« Last Edit: 09/23/2018 11:50 pm by Don S »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
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.

A couple of competitors say the same thing about SpaceX's launch numbers.  (I also haven't seen any indication that DM-1 is ready to fly.)

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5399
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3104
  • Likes Given: 3853
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.

Yep, they've caught up to the market.

Now we'll see how flexible the market is, do birds get bigger, smaller, more frequent, can SpaceX win more market share. 

Until they start flying Starlink flights, watching the market response is going to be very interesting. 

Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
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

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12092
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18181
  • Likes Given: 12139
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

Because:
- "30 Launches" includes both FH and F9, not just F9 proper.
- "30 Launches" was supposed to include DM-1, Ascent Abort and DM-2 (now likely to be only DM-1)
- "30 Launches" was supposed to include a Cargo Dragon mission which was shifted into 2019 (by NASA)
- "30 Launches" was supposed to see (at least) 3 FH launches (will now likely be 2, at best)
- "30 Launches" was to include launches of commercial payloads that are not in fact ready to launch (yet)

So, this lower final number is partially caused by SpaceX itself (particularly the delays in FH and CCP missions) and partially by the customers (NASA shifting a CRS-1 mission into the next year and commercial payloads not being ready).
« Last Edit: 09/25/2018 08:44 am by woods170 »

Offline JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1557
  • Liked: 1737
  • Likes Given: 10
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.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3899
  • Likes Given: 5264
From the Iridium mission thread:
Don't remember if this was posted before, from Iridium corporate filings:
Quote
SpaceX
In 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.
For those trying to guess the price of a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch based on recent government-contracted launches, we are once again reminded that the government pays extra for special services.  This should be no surprise since it has always been the case, but it's a good reminder.

So, as of the end of 2016, a commercial launch was being sold for just north of $60 million, which is nicely aligned with SpaceX statements on pricing.  Of course, this is prior to reusable first stages being the norm, but it does give us a good baseline for where the price was not long before.
« Last Edit: 09/25/2018 01:41 pm by abaddon »

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5399
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3104
  • Likes Given: 3853
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

I'm not a fortune teller but I never 30 was going to happen with the current manifest.  Too many things in this industry slide to the right on the schedule.  Plus Iridium has been a big part of the last 2 years and they are almost finished.

20-22 a year is huge though, compared to where they started and where they were just 2 years ago.

SpaceX has built themselves to handle a much higher flight rate, which they will need if and when Starlink becomes reality.  But Starlink is also a reinforcing component in case a higher flight rate doesn't naturally evolve.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
  • Liked: 6799
  • Likes Given: 2963
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

Most people predicted 24-29 launches including FH. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43942.0

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
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.
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.
« Last Edit: 09/25/2018 03:24 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095
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.

at this stage of the "effort" toward reuseability the only two reasons to care are

1)  does the launch cadence indicate that when the market is "there" can they (or any group) spool up to meet the market and what it will take to spool up.    they have had launch cycles that "in theory" would meet or came close to  the cadence  between launches for a 30 or 40 so calendar...so internally the smart folks can figure out if they have the "capability" to easily get to that calendar and what it will take to do it.

it is far far to early for the market to have responded to a higher launch cadence or calender.

the second thing would be if their internal cost numbers to profitability depend on high launch rates.

the only previous space example of both of these was of course the shuttle...and pretty quickly NASA found out that it could not meet a launch cadence or calendar of 24 or 12 or really even 8 a year with the people and the hardware that it had...and as a result the shuttle cost numbers simply soared

I assume that SpaceX can make money even without reuse :) but no one EXTERNAL really knows what the launch frequency has to do with it.

but the answers for SpaceX still have some other holes left to fill in.  most importantly is the time span to resuse a booster, what that reuse cost and for how many "cycles" can they reuse the first stage.

those "unknowns" because they have not yet gotten to a 10 cycle on a first stage...are far far more important because they are a MASSIVE part of my first point and that is a big deal in determining the second point

« Last Edit: 09/25/2018 04:33 pm by TripleSeven »

Offline JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1557
  • Liked: 1737
  • Likes Given: 10
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.
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.

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095


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.

exactly...the market will not evolve until the forces that are necessary to evolve it are obvious.  if the launch is XX million, those that need a YY million (YY being less) wont move until they see that is real. 

BUT I suspect SpaceX needs XX right now to make money and will until they see what the actual reuse cost for the first stage are.


Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2398
  • Liked: 1691
  • Likes Given: 597
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.
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.

Cheaper, higher-rate launch isn't going to upend the economic order and result in mom & pops launching their own satellites. If anything the services will become more commoditized (e.g. general-purpose networking rather than specialized video/voice connectivity) and more dominated by a few very well-funded satellite operators.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
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.

Only one of the big LEO comsat constellations has put down payments for launch (the others haven't even ordered their satellites yet).  The cubesat constellations will be mostly on small launch vehicles and rideshares.  It will be interesting to see how BlackSky and others in the microsat range procure their launches, they could end up on the PSLV/Vega class vehicles.
« Last Edit: 09/25/2018 05:59 pm by gongora »

Offline jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 938
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 606
  • Likes Given: 309
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.

So far this year it is looking like we'll get to ~90-105 launches worldwide, which is consistent with the ~2 launch per year increase over the last ~20 years, and also consistent with the increase being mostly due to Chinese launches.

Right now, I'd say things seem pretty inelastic (and for government launches it feels it will stay that way) and the optimism many (myself included) expressed earlier this year seems premature/misplaced.

However, if commercial prices come down (and stay down), I'd expect more commercial launches but a) I don't think we can see this yet and b) I'd expect a significant lag between any price drop and an uptick in launch rates.

I'll update the graphs I posted earlier in the thread at the end of the year, once the numbers are close to final.

Edit: on my launch numbers projection, there have been 74 launches so far; projecting to the end of year gives ~97 launches; assuming all launches with a specific NET date launch this year gives ~99.  Optimistically, a few launches without specific NET dates could launch; pessimistically, a few launches will slip.

Edit2: I'm tempted to start a "Worldwide Launch Rates" thread in the general section to better track this stuff (could add graphs per country etc)

--- Tony
« Last Edit: 09/26/2018 10:08 am by jebbo »

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5003
  • Likes Given: 1437
HMMM... Launch elasticity due to launch costs.

Launches:

GEO launches - if it increases it will be mainly in mass not numbers. WHY? It is because the number of valuable orbitial positions is finite and most these are already in use. So most launches to GEO are the replacement rate of failed or obsolete existing sats. This market has very little room for elasticity due to the lowering of launch costs.

LEO launches - if it increases it will be due to the deployment and then replacements for sats in comm or observation constellations. Observation may be hosted on the comm sats. WHY? Lowering launch costs fuels the business case for wideband communications by LEO constellations. Sat lives for such constellations are at full constellation replacements every 5-7 years vs GEO sats at 10-15 years. It is here the elasticity of the total launches per year would happen.

Government sat launches - This is completely controlled by budgets. If there is an increase it would be small. Most likely the number of launches will remain constant but the agents/providers and the mass to be launched and where it is going may change. Not much elasticity here since it is not launch costs that control the launches but the budgets for the development and manufacture of the payloads that are the driving factor.

HSF and HSF support launches - These are not likely to increase by much over a significant time frame because of the long lead times on development and certification processes. But surprises by the addition of pure commercial outside of the government civil HSF run/supported programs can occur that would be on a tourist or other business case that could greatly expand beyond the half dozen flights per year rate we see for the next 10 years. Enter BO with NG and the NS capsule and SpaceX manned BFS/BFR Lunar + other tourist and business cases currently unexplored.

Conclusions:
Launch rates will increase due to lower launch costs. But the launch rates will not increase at a steady rate but spurts and plateaus. This is because new business cases and then the funding and development of payloads then their launch must happen. This has actually been ongoing for only the wide-band LEO comsat case and for the very recent BFS/BFR Lunar flight case. The first case is likely to affect launch rates the most with at worst a 20%  and at most a nearly unlimited increase of 2X to 10X the total current launches. But the first case will start next year but the most  likely to occur after 2020 and then will likely to become somewhat at steady state of a 100 to 200 launches since that will be the a steady state item for the the case. Other business cases will add other launches.

Tags:
 

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