NewSpace: "I'll believe it when I see it" comments from a few members

[Jason1701]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

They're a monopoly. As long as that's true, and in the absence of regulations to the contrary, they will keep their price at the maximum profit point.

[apace]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

Why?

[baldusi]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

Why?

Because they are out of the commercial market because of the ELC. If they could do away with the ELC they would have most commercial launch contracts. ULA has as good track record as Ariane, and can accommodate payloads at the right sizes. Ariane 5 has the problem of dual manifest. So if ULA could get it's prices into the commercial sector, they would be launching five to ten more missions per year. At that rate they would be much cheaper and earn a lot more money.
And that would have helped the US satellites manufacturers too. For example, I know that the three ARSAT (GSO ~ 2900kg) and both SAOCOM (SAR of 3500kg) use French and Italian electronics, because thus they are ITAR-free. And Argentina is really small in the satellite market. With all the capacity demand in Asia and Europe, this decade the launchers that will thrive will be the ones that dominate the commercial market.

[apace]

Whats ELC?

[joek]

Whats ELC?

EELV Launch Capability -- essentially a subsidy to maintain national security space (NSS) launch capability.

[deltaV]

The idea that a subsidy (ELC) keeps ULA's prices high is rather unintuitive to me.

[apace]

The idea that a subsidy (ELC) keeps ULA's prices high is rather unintuitive to me.

And if so, for example because of the contracts needs more paperwork, standing fleet of personal, etc... why not creating a second launch provider with deals with Altas and Delta and without the overhead of a gouvernment provider.

[joek]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

Why?

Because they are out of the commercial market because of the ELC. If they could do away with the ELC they would have most commercial launch contracts. ULA has as good track record...

ULA may be out of the commercial market, but Boeing and LM are not.  If they were competitive I expect they would have more commercial payloads...

Delta IV had one commercial payload in 2002 (also first Delta IV flight).  Atlas V had several commercial payloads in the early years with the last in 2008.  Delta II also had a number of commercial payloads, especially in the early years (last was in 2007), but D-II now looks like history since the USAF is no longer wants it.

I don't how many of those commercial payloads were forced to use a US launch provider due to ITAR, but I bet it's > 0.  Some of the earlier commercial payloads were also likely attracted by early adopter discounts.

The idea that a subsidy (ELC) keeps ULA's prices high is rather unintuitive to me.

ULA is for US government (NSS and NASA) only.

why not creating a second launch provider with deals with Altas and Delta and without the overhead of a gouvernment provider.

There are: Boeing and Lockheed Martin launch services (see above).

[Downix]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

No, why would you cut prices if there is no market for it?  SpaceX is gambling on there being this vast untapped market for low cost launches.  They are not the first to gamble on this.  If SpaceX proves that there is such a market, ULA can rapidly adapt to match, and even beat, his prices.  If he fails, his company will go out of business due to lack of enough business to support his costs *or* he will be forced to raise his prices to match demand, which will make him as expensive as ULA.

[Jim]

The idea that a subsidy (ELC) keeps ULA's prices high is rather unintuitive to me.

And if so, for example because of the contracts needs more paperwork, standing fleet of personal, etc... why not creating a second launch provider with deals with Altas and Delta and without the overhead of a gouvernment provider.

 Atlas and Delta are not airliners.   There is no second "provider". The same company that builds them, integrates and launches them.  There is no separating them.

[Jim]

There are: Boeing and Lockheed Martin launch services (see above).

They are only marketing arms, ULA still does everything else.

[Downix]

ULA may be out of the commercial market, but Boeing and LM are not.  If they were competitive I expect they would have more commercial payloads...

Delta IV had one commercial payload in 2002 (also first Delta IV flight).  Atlas V had several commercial payloads in the early years with the last in 2008.  Delta II also had a number of commercial payloads, especially in the early years (last was in 2007), but D-II now looks like history since the USAF is no longer wants it.

I don't how many of those commercial payloads were forced to use a US launch provider due to ITAR, but I bet it's > 0.  Some of the earlier commercial payloads were also likely attracted by early adopter discounts.

Commercial providers are free to launch on ULA, there just is not enough demand however.  The prices are high due to the lack of demand.  If there were this vast untapped commercial market, ULA would be more than capable of meeting it.  I just highly doubt that there is.

[Robotbeat]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

No, why would you cut prices if there is no market for it?  SpaceX is gambling on there being this vast untapped market for low cost launches.  They are not the first to gamble on this.  If SpaceX proves that there is such a market, ULA can rapidly adapt to match, and even beat, his prices.  If he fails, his company will go out of business due to lack of enough business to support his costs *or* he will be forced to raise his prices to match demand, which will make him as expensive as ULA.

SpaceX isn't gambling on a vast untapped market for low cost launches. The market they're looking to take IS tapped. By foreign launch providers. Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are aimed at that market.

SpaceX is gambling that they'll be able to take a significant amount of that existing market. They're hoping that their is some significant elasticity in the market so that the lower price will attract a lot more customers and grow the global number of launches.

[Downix]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

No, why would you cut prices if there is no market for it?  SpaceX is gambling on there being this vast untapped market for low cost launches.  They are not the first to gamble on this.  If SpaceX proves that there is such a market, ULA can rapidly adapt to match, and even beat, his prices.  If he fails, his company will go out of business due to lack of enough business to support his costs *or* he will be forced to raise his prices to match demand, which will make him as expensive as ULA.

SpaceX isn't gambling on a vast untapped market for low cost launches. The market they're looking to take IS tapped. By foreign launch providers. Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are aimed at that market.

Their predicted flight rate would require taking away at least half of Russia's launches which the Falcon 9/Heavy would cover, and all of the US launches.  Do you honestly believe that they will capture that?

SpaceX is gambling that they'll be able to take a significant amount of that existing market. They're hoping that their is some significant elasticity in the market so that the lower price will attract a lot more customers and grow the global number of launches.

Ponder it a moment, for that elasticity to exist that means that companies are refusing to build multi-billion dollar payloads due to $50 million extra launch costs.

[apace]

Their predicted flight rate would require taking away at least half of Russia's launches which the Falcon 9/Heavy would cover, and all of the US launches.  Do you honestly believe that they will capture that?

Ponder it a moment, for that elasticity to exist that means that companies are refusing to build multi-billion dollar payloads due to $50 million extra launch costs.

As we can count that SpaceX is not stupid and knows this factors, what's the key behind their statements about launch numbers?

[Downix]

Their predicted flight rate would require taking away at least half of Russia's launches which the Falcon 9/Heavy would cover, and all of the US launches.  Do you honestly believe that they will capture that?

Ponder it a moment, for that elasticity to exist that means that companies are refusing to build multi-billion dollar payloads due to $50 million extra launch costs.

As we can count that SpaceX is not stupid and knows this factors, what's the key behind their statements about launch numbers?

That's what bothers me.  What bothers me more is that if SpaceX does prove that such a market does exist, they seem to fail and grasp that the current 800 lbs gorillas in the room are not dinosaurs, and can actually increase their production rates to match it, which would mean matching his prices as well.  And they can do it without heavy up front R&D, as that was already paid for years ago.

[apace]

That's what bothers me.  What bothers me more is that if SpaceX does prove that such a market does exist, they seem to fail and grasp that the current 800 lbs gorillas in the room are not dinosaurs, and can actually increase their production rates to match it, which would mean matching his prices as well.  And they can do it without heavy up front R&D, as that was already paid for years ago.

Perhaps SpaceX was founded only to get the big ones moving forward ;-) we will see what the future will show us. I'm not sceptic at all... there's a small chance to do more than in the last 30 years.

[baldusi]

The idea that a subsidy (ELC) keeps ULA's prices high is rather unintuitive to me.

That's because for each commercial launch they should reimburse the ELC prorata share. It's more of a guaranteed minimum income than a true subsidy. The problem is that when the gvt launch few crafts, the ELC share of an additional launch is huge and thus is priced outside of the market. Even for the (arguably) most reliable launcher and adding the advantage of using ITAR controlled electronics.

[Robotbeat]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

No, why would you cut prices if there is no market for it?  SpaceX is gambling on there being this vast untapped market for low cost launches.  They are not the first to gamble on this.  If SpaceX proves that there is such a market, ULA can rapidly adapt to match, and even beat, his prices.  If he fails, his company will go out of business due to lack of enough business to support his costs *or* he will be forced to raise his prices to match demand, which will make him as expensive as ULA.

SpaceX isn't gambling on a vast untapped market for low cost launches. The market they're looking to take IS tapped. By foreign launch providers. Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are aimed at that market.

Their predicted flight rate would require taking away at least half of Russia's launches which the Falcon 9/Heavy would cover, and all of the US launches.  Do you honestly believe that they will capture that?

SpaceX has claimed they only need to hit a fraction of their "predicted" (better to say hoped-for) launch rate in order to be profitable. Remember, they already get a few launches just with their CRS contract, and if they get commercial crew, they'll have even more. This would put it in the same league with Russian launches, which provide a lot of launches for ISS logistics and thus get a high enough launch rate to be quite competitive commercially.

SpaceX is gambling that they'll be able to take a significant amount of that existing market. They're hoping that their is some significant elasticity in the market so that the lower price will attract a lot more customers and grow the global number of launches.

Ponder it a moment, for that elasticity to exist that means that companies are refusing to build multi-billion dollar payloads due to $50 million extra launch costs.

Not multi-billion dollar payloads in every case (if that were true, there'd definitely be virtually no elasticity in the market). How much did each Iridium satellite cost to build?

In the case of Bigelow, for instance, the idea is that the vast majority of the launches are logistics with a reusable spacecraft, not building billions of dollars of spacecraft every launch. This is the "hoped for" market.

Another thing they're hoping for is that the lack of a low-cost domestic launch vehicle is holding back part of the market who don't like launching on foreign launch vehicles because of export restrictions, etc. We know that Orbital was so concerned with the lack of a good, low-cost domestic launch vehicle (post-Delta II) to launch Orbital-built satellites that they decided to develop their own, though members of Orbital have mentioned publicly on here that they'd be more than happy to launch their spacecraft on SpaceX's launch vehicles and that a successful SpaceX would be great for Orbital.

[joek]

The idea that a subsidy (ELC) keeps ULA's prices high is rather unintuitive to me.

That's because for each commercial launch they should reimburse the ELC prorata share. It's more of a guaranteed minimum income than a true subsidy. The problem is that when the gvt launch few crafts, the ELC share of an additional launch is huge and thus is priced outside of the market. Even for the (arguably) most reliable launcher and adding the advantage of using ITAR controlled electronics.

Not just commercial, but NASA (which hasn't had to contribute to ELC in the past).  NASA estimated that could add $100-150M per flight to their cost.  It depends on what the final DOD-NASA ELC cost sharing agreement looks like; not sure what if any decisions have been made.  Presumably that is only for Atlas V launches as NASA doesn't use Delta IV (although reportedly it is being on-ramped for NLS-II starting this month, so that may change); Delta II is history; and Falcon 9 and Taurus II aren't covered by ELC.