Representative of Orbital pointed out the following observations (among others): <snip> 3. A TV broadcast company typically pays (according to Orbital representative) ~3% of the cost for launch.A typical NASA mission (assuming - science mission)~12% of the cost for launchA typical DOD mission~18% Launch NASA payload to the ISS~35%And the argument made is that therefor, is that even if you can cut the cost in half - it is a lot only for the case of servicing the ISS.
what is the source of economic growth for SpaceX?
So they said for the ISS payloads, 35% of sending them up is the rocket launch. While for TV companies only 3% of getting their TV satellite is the rocket launch.This makes sense if you look at the cost of the payload. The ISS needs food & water and lots of day-to-day supplies, cheap and expensive experiments, and people. The cost of the payload is much lower. A TV satellite is far more expensive and complicated, and beyond just the expensive broadcast equipment requires a power source, remote management, its own thrusters etc to hold its place.
So is it Launch % = launch costs / all costs, or is it Launch % = launch costs / all other costs? Or is it Launch costs + launch related costs / all (or all other) costs?
So the question: Given these 3 points - what is the source of economic growth for SpaceX?(unless the assumptions are incorrect, in which case please point out how).
If launch was free, you would see *marginal* costs for the above cut down by mass-producing anything it makes sense to mass-produce, and automating as much of the operations department as possible. You would see an expansion of the total market via a 30-satellite fleet costing only slightly more to produce than 1 satellite.The ceilings here are places where 30 satellites don't help you - where spectrum or broadcast content or consumer-market for the service is inherently, structurally limited.Also: This sort of expansion essentially requires us to settle on a legal framework that compels us to begin removing orbital debris.
Quote from: Burninate on 05/19/2014 12:18 pmIf launch was free, you would see *marginal* costs for the above cut down by mass-producing anything it makes sense to mass-produce, and automating as much of the operations department as possible. You would see an expansion of the total market via a 30-satellite fleet costing only slightly more to produce than 1 satellite.The ceilings here are places where 30 satellites don't help you - where spectrum or broadcast content or consumer-market for the service is inherently, structurally limited.Also: This sort of expansion essentially requires us to settle on a legal framework that compels us to begin removing orbital debris....orbital debris. Now that you mention it, orbital debris removal is a mass market for launch services if/when things start colliding in a cascade fashion or if we ever intend to be other than casual visitors above the atmosphere.
A rapid collisional cascade is the time when orbital debris removal *ceases* to be an option. We have to take down debris in a preemptive fashion if we want to save Earth Orbit.We've already had natural collisions occur. They're only going to get more frequent over time, unless we push hard enough to solve this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem
Quote from: aero on 05/19/2014 06:12 amSo is it Launch % = launch costs / all costs, or is it Launch % = launch costs / all other costs? Or is it Launch costs + launch related costs / all (or all other) costs?We can't know what exactly they were comparing. However we can be absoluely certain with 3% launch cost it was not launch vehicle cost vs. payload cost.
SpaceX (and perhaps others) is going to have a reusable 1st stage booster (versus returnable) in the near future unless some technical difficulty proves that it's unworkable as a business model. But keep in mind that the development cost is going to be a sunk cost at that point. OK, so what do the economics of that reusable booster look like? The US military isn't going to care much at first about reusability for its payloads because mission assurance plays an out-sized role in their launch cost calculations. Non-compete launches won't be affected at all. Civilian launches will care a great deal. A million $$ is a million $$ to an investor, so even small improvements over launch costs by implementing reusability will wildly drive existing businesses to a reusable booster operator. This assumes the MAJOR point that the benefits of reusability are ultimately passed along from the operator in the form of lower launch pricing to customers. They may not be.Because existing business is very nearly a zero-sum game, commercial Soyuz, Arianespace, Orbital, and other commercial launch operators are going to take the hit first in the short term until they can respond with lower offered price points of their own through whatever means they have at their disposal. A greater share of the existing market may be just fine for justifying the expense of maintaining a few reusable boosters (remember always that by this point they've already spent the money to develop it, so it's no longer counted) versus more cheaply building expendables. And taking the thought to it's logical conclusion, reusability may ultimately eliminate any justification for expendables in a given booster class. If reusability drives down launch costs to the operator or the customer (or both), expendability will go away for missions that use that sized booster. There is no economic model where a customer buys a cargo ship to use it once- even if the value of the cargo is greater than that of the ship- when a reusable ship is available at a lower cost. Long-term this pressure will continue to trickle up into launches where competition exists, but where cost is secondary to mission assurance (such as U.S. military launches or NASA science launches). That second phase may take years, allowing competitors time to respond, perhaps with reusability of their own, or perhaps with other pricing reduction techniques. Along with the zero-sum game of existing business however, is the positive-sum game of creating new markets with disruptive technology and techniques. If a reusable rocket (and lower launch pricing) can boost "dumb and dumber" items into space- such as construction materials instead of complex communications satellites- then a new market for frequent launches may develop as some entity seeks to make something up there or do anything other than the three primary space activities of launching self-contained telecommunications, science, and reconnaissance missions. The list beyond these three things is endless if launch costs go down. If the dynamics of launch pricing change, then new customer entrants may need frequent, cheap, launch services for some different need, and that's where reusability could have its greatest impact.To recap, here are the benefits of an operational reusable booster with (assumed) lower operational costs than CAPEX costs compared with an expendable booster:1) internally for the operator- CAPEX per launch may be lowered through reusability to increase profits without changing market share (e.g. pricing doesn't change, but internal costs are lower).2) existing market- reusability lowers launch costs and takes market share from other operators to make its business case.3) new market- reusability lowers launch costs and creates new markets to make its business case.Any combination or mash-up of the above works as well.Recap of my recap: If reusability drives down launch pricing, new launch purchasing opportunities will materialize along the demand curve- as would be expected with the pricing of any sort of widget. If reusability drives down launch pricing and/or costs, expendability will go away for price-competition missions that use that sized booster.
