Is competition speeding things up?

[WindyCity]

I don't think so. Musk is focussed on Mars colonization. Bezos aims at suborbital space tourism. BO isn't close to launching satellites. If the company could compete in that business, then a rivalry would likely spring up. Right now BO probably does not weigh heavily on Musk's mind.

[Space Ghost 1962]

OP's Musk/Bezo's competition speeding things up:

Only between the two of them.

 1. It would seem that Bezo's has more of a need to "gradatim ferociter", from yearly now up to monthly, so as to make good on beginning a suborbital tourism business. Otherwise Musk walks away with too much attention/business (putting more sats/capsules in orbit, grabbing millions in launch business to Bezo's $0 revenue).

 2. It would seem that Musk needs to make real and operational actual stage recovery and reuse. He can't mess up as much on stage recovery (less Bullwinkle Moose "oh well, next time for sure") because Bezo's is doing it repeatedly (twice, maybe three-four times by the time Musk next flies). Worse, he's behind on reflight, Bezo's beat him again, and even risked his first recovered booster to do so, unlike Musk.

However, recovered boosters have not really affected the rest of the community. I've even recently heard them talked down by SC vendors, which is pure dumb to me. After asking extensive questions, it seems to be a form of "fear bark" reaction from big, slow, expensive SC vendors who don't want to have to deal with any kind of change.

A few fast moving SC vendors have been enjoying the 40% reduction in launch costs right now through SX being available, but even more the fact they don't have to wait as long for a launch opportunity will more total launch frequency.

The most aggressive want to be the first to be on a reused stage, because they want to appear to "bury" competition not just on price, but on speed from order to on-orbit services time. Because then the advantage of the big bus sats might be undercut, and operators might consider 2-3 smaller sats to replace a bigger one.

On the HSF side, suborbital tourism might seem closer to reality, which then makes the next step of orbital space tourism that much more easier to fund. As well as making CRS/crew programs more immediate as well.

So what might enhance these effects still more, beyond making routine recovery/reuse? Activities/programs that began to rely on the increased launch frequency as a common expectation instead of a one time circus act.

If that were to happen, then the launch side would split into "only ELV" and "usually recovery/reuse" providers, where frequency/cost would become bimodal, with a maturation "relaxation time" of many years where the economics of each would battle it out to remake the sat market, operators of communications/imaging/sensing platforms data vending, and finally launch services market. Possibly erratically.

HSF would follow, phase delayed, down a similar path to a different degree.

[JamesH]

Is anyone else getting the impression that the recent plethora of launches is being sped up as a result of Musk/Bezos competition?

No. Not at all. SpaceX own launch rate is behind their own optimistic schedules, even accounting for the CRS7 failure. They are simply catching up to their own schedule, going as fast as they can.

Long term? Maybe. But short and medium term term? Heck no. Blue Origin is far too secretive to have that kind of effect on anyone.

So complete coincidence that SpaceX release the DragonFly video the day before a BO flight? I defo. get the feeling there is some friendly billionaire competition going on here...!

The biggest counterargument to this, IMO, is that until the plume appeared, nobody actually knew anything about the flight.  The only way to have known beforehand is if somebody was watching the FAA releases very closely, and something tells me nobody at SpaceX is going to get paid to do that.

Personally, I think even the idea of posting media reactively is ridiculous, but even more compelling is the fact that SpaceX likely didn't even know Blue was going to be doing anything when the Dv2 video was posted.

The BO flight was sort of expected a few days before, as there was a licence in place for a flight on Thursday. If the internet knew about it, I would SpaceX to.


But I sort of agree anyway, that I doubt SpaceX (p)reactively post videos to try and reduce competitors release impacts.

[inventodoc]

Competition is not helping Areojet.

increased competition speeds the demise of those who cannot compete.

in competition, there are winners and losers. winners reap the rewards.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

There is a mention of BO debuting an orbital LV by 2020. The specs "details" will be in a presentation this year.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/blue-origin-successful-reuse-test-new-shepard/

I imagine this would be after the first set of full duration burns on the BE-4 prototype has been accomplished this year so do not look for this release/presentation until the later part of the year. SpaceX's release of the F9v1.1 and FH in 2012 was after the test articles tests had showed that a production engine of a specific capability and weight could be manufactured. The same will be true of the relationship of the BE-4 prototype test article and BE-4 production engine. The production engine will have more thrust but it may not be that much larger than the prototype. What a working full scale prototype gets you is all the verified design engine details needed for the design of the LV. The real question from the standpoint of the BO LV being a competitor is how many BE-4s will the 1st stage have?

From the standpoint of other new boosters being debuted, this would be shortly after Vulcan debut (6-12 months). But unlike Vulcan BO's booster may have several test flights (2-3) that includes recovery (landing) tests. So that operationally out the gate it would be a reusable 1st stage LV. Vulcan would not, requiring several years to obtain its reusability goals achieved by testing like SpaceX on operational flights that has excess performance.

[sanman]

But how will competition affect the bottom line of SpaceX and Blue Origin?

Fine, we know that old space companies will certainly take a hit. But if SpaceX has been counting on certain profit margins to keep its cash flow running smoothly, then will Blue's entry as a competing bidder for launch contracts then cramp SpaceX's style?

It's well known that Silicon Valley tech giants like Apple and Google have firm unofficial agreements with each other to not poach each others' employees. Will we see all-out cut-throat competition between SpaceX and Blue Origin, or will they abide by certain gentlemen's agreements to not cut each other down to size?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

But how will competition affect the bottom line of SpaceX and Blue Origin?

Fine, we know that old space companies will certainly take a hit. But if SpaceX has been counting on certain profit margins to keep its cash flow running smoothly, then will Blue's entry as a competing bidder for launch contracts then cramp SpaceX's style?

It's well known that Silicon Valley tech giants like Apple and Google have firm unofficial agreements with each other to not poach each others' employees. Will we see all-out cut-throat competition between SpaceX and Blue Origin, or will they abide by certain gentlemen's agreements to not cut each other down to size?

I think it will be a more gentleman's competition with the same aggressive reaching for an ever lowering of $/kg to LEO, and all other places. Other commercial LV providers beware. 

[edkyle99]

I don't see Blue Origin and SpaceX in competition.

Blue is developing a suborbital joy-rider and a "small" (compared to Falcon 9 and the EELVs) orbital launch vehicle that seems to be also for joy-riding customers.  SpaceX is striving for EELV-Medium and Heavy class orbital payloads, with bills paid by governments and big "commercial" comsat firms.  ULA, ILS, Arianespace, and Orbital-ATK are SpaceX competitors.

 - Ed Kyle

[Space Ghost 1962]

I believe the OP's intent was the very visible exchange between Musk and Bezo's, mostly over reusing VTVL rocket stages.

They clearly have some kind of a competition going, and they've chosen strategies and partners that are exclusive and non-cooperative, even though as Ed Kyle says, they don't need to seen that way as they have basically different business interests in launch.

And even Bezo's says he is a fan of VTVL rockets, so you'd think these guys would have more to agree about than they quite obviously do.

So yes, they should not be "competitors" as things currently appear. But, ... clearly only a fool would see that they would not be. At least they are not looking quite so silly as months back, so the "foot in mouth" aspect seems to be absent.

Own observations of both are that they are both very driven, but in very different ways. Staff, organization, and delegation are also very different. Bezo's compartmentalizes and pops things out, Musk enjoys more selling the grand vision as it happens, in the moment. Neither are a walk in the park to work with/for, from most reports.

[Lars-J]

I believe the OP's intent was the very visible exchange between Musk and Bezo's, mostly over reusing VTVL rocket stages.

But a very visible exchange means nothing as far as real progress goes. Would SpaceX still try to land stages without Blue landing New Shepard? Yes. Would Blue land New Shepard if SpaceX wasn't trying to land stages? Yes.

They have similar goals, and started around the same time, but are working different paths to get there.

[sanman]

I don't see Blue Origin and SpaceX in competition.

Blue is developing a suborbital joy-rider and a "small" (compared to Falcon 9 and the EELVs) orbital launch vehicle that seems to be also for joy-riding customers.  SpaceX is striving for EELV-Medium and Heavy class orbital payloads, with bills paid by governments and big "commercial" comsat firms.  ULA, ILS, Arianespace, and Orbital-ATK are SpaceX competitors.

 - Ed Kyle

Perhaps it will always be in the nature of the media to overdramatize competition between SpaceX and Blue Origin, as the  "personal rivalry" angle will attract more eyeballs.

But if Bezos' goal really is "millions of people working in space" then surely he'll likewise be aiming for the similarly heavy class rockets that SpaceX and NASA are pursuing.

It sounds like Blue Origin will be unveiling their version of Falcon-1 later this year. But just as SpaceX quickly transitioned from Falcon-1 to Falcon-9, likewise it may be possible that Blue will similarly move towards more meaningfully larger scales once they've achieved orbital flight - presumably because that's where the money is.

If/when Blue creates their version of Falcon-9, then how will their engine's unique differences dictate the overall design of their rocket? It sound like BE-3U will be their Mvac, and they could use multiple BE-4's on the booster stage to achieve a payload capacity comparable to Falcon-9.

Surely Blue won't leave all the heavier lifting to Vulcan? Isn't the idea that ULA will take care of cargo, while Blue will lift people to space?

[hkultala]

I don't see Blue Origin and SpaceX in competition.

Blue is developing a suborbital joy-rider and a "small" (compared to Falcon 9 and the EELVs) orbital launch vehicle that seems to be also for joy-riding customers.  SpaceX is striving for EELV-Medium and Heavy class orbital payloads, with bills paid by governments and big "commercial" comsat firms.  ULA, ILS, Arianespace, and Orbital-ATK are SpaceX competitors.

 - Ed Kyle

Perhaps it will always be in the nature of the media to overdramatize competition between SpaceX and Blue Origin, as the  "personal rivalry" angle will attract more eyeballs.

But if Bezos' goal really is "millions of people working in space" then surely he'll likewise be aiming for the similarly heavy class rockets that SpaceX and NASA are pursuing.

It sounds like Blue Origin will be unveiling their version of Falcon-1 later this year. But just as SpaceX quickly transitioned from Falcon-1 to Falcon-9, likewise it may be possible that Blue will similarly move towards more meaningfully larger scales once they've achieved orbital flight - presumably because that's where the money is.

If/when Blue creates their version of Falcon-9, then how will their engine's unique differences dictate the overall design of their rocket? It sound like BE-3U will be their Mvac, and they could use multiple BE-4's on the booster stage to achieve a payload capacity comparable to Falcon-9.

Surely Blue won't leave all the heavier lifting to Vulcan? Isn't the idea that ULA will take care of cargo, while Blue will lift people to space?

Sea level optimized BE-3 has thrust of 490 kN, which is very close to the thrust of Merlin 1C.

So BE-3U is not an engine for upper stage of Falcon 1 class vehicle. It's engine for upper stage for lifting at least 5 tonnes to LEO, soyuz/delta II class, and even single one can be used for upper stage of much bigger vehicle.

[guckyfan]

Sea level optimized BE-3 has thrust of 490 kN, which is very close to the thrust of Merlin 1C.

So BE-3U is not an engine for upper stage of Falcon 1 class vehicle. It's engine for upper stage for lifting at least 5 tonnes to LEO, soyuz/delta II class, and even single one can be used for upper stage of much bigger vehicle.

True. A BE-3U can be the engine of a very capable upper stage. However if they want to build a one BE-4 first stage as indicated by Tory Bruno and make it reusable that stage would have to be very heavy to be able to land, cutting deep into overall capability of the vehicle.

If this launch vehicle is mostly a testbed for later bigger rockets that's not a problem. They can learn a lot and then build the bigger much more efficient version with multiple BE-4 on the first stage.

[sanman]

I don't see Blue Origin and SpaceX in competition.

Blue is developing a suborbital joy-rider and a "small" (compared to Falcon 9 and the EELVs) orbital launch vehicle that seems to be also for joy-riding customers.  SpaceX is striving for EELV-Medium and Heavy class orbital payloads, with bills paid by governments and big "commercial" comsat firms.  ULA, ILS, Arianespace, and Orbital-ATK are SpaceX competitors.

 - Ed Kyle

Actually, here's the quote from Bezos I was looking for:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/blue-origin-successful-reuse-test-new-shepard/

“We’re already more than three years into development of our first orbital vehicle. Though it will be the small vehicle in our orbital family, it’s still many times larger than New Shepard.

So he's talking about their "Falcon 1", and it sounds like the rest of the family will be significantly larger than that.
But from what hkultala said, Blue's "Falcon 1" will be a lot more capable than SpaceX's Falcon-1 was.

So how does BE-3U likely compare against Mvac?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I don't see Blue Origin and SpaceX in competition.

Blue is developing a suborbital joy-rider and a "small" (compared to Falcon 9 and the EELVs) orbital launch vehicle that seems to be also for joy-riding customers.  SpaceX is striving for EELV-Medium and Heavy class orbital payloads, with bills paid by governments and big "commercial" comsat firms.  ULA, ILS, Arianespace, and Orbital-ATK are SpaceX competitors.

 - Ed Kyle

Actually, here's the quote from Bezos I was looking for:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/blue-origin-successful-reuse-test-new-shepard/

“We’re already more than three years into development of our first orbital vehicle. Though it will be the small vehicle in our orbital family, it’s still many times larger than New Shepard.

So he's talking about their "Falcon 1", and it sounds like the rest of the family will be significantly larger than that.
But from what hkultala said, Blue's "Falcon 1" will be a lot more capable than SpaceX's Falcon-1 was.

So how does BE-3U likely compare against Mvac?

A very rough estimate of a single engine BE-4 1st stage with a BE-3U US with only 60mt of prop (3X that of current suborbital) would be ~7.8mt to LEO and 1.9mt to GTO-1800. This would be large enough for their capsule to a 285km circular but no further. Up circle a few times (1 or 2 days) and then back. I estimate the per person tourist ticket price at around $7-10M.

A 3 core heavy would be ~23mt to LEO and ~5mt to GTO.

A 3X sized vehicle with larger core diameter with 3 BE-4 engines and a dual engine BE-3U US with 3X the prop (180mt) would have even more performance than the 3 core heavy probably more like 30mt LEO and 8mt GTO-1800.

Core diameters likely 3.6m for single engine and 5.2m for 3 engine.

[sanman]

So would Bezos be able to bid for CRS contracts? Will Blue's first orbital rocket provide that capability?

[Tuts36]

Nice written article here that intersects with this discussion - and it's actually in google news section today:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/forget-blue-origin-vs-spacex-the-real-battle-is-between-old-and-new-ideas/

[sanman]

Argg - ninja'd - just came here after reading it. 

[Space Ghost 1962]

So would Bezos be able to bid for CRS contracts? Will Blue's first orbital rocket provide that capability?

Spacecraft? Docking/berthing? Prox ops? Certification? Margin for a 51.6 inclination orbit?

"Jeez, yah that's kind of what I thinka when I lob Justin Bieber into orbit for a coupla loops around the planet ..."

"Nah, downtcha got it, mebbie next year."

[Danderman]

The question on the table is whether competition is speeding things up, not who is winning or who is going to do what next.

The answer is kind of complicated. And I am writing as someone who was involved in setting up the competition in the first place, some 25 years ago. Back in the Olden Days, there was no competition - NASA was responsible for civil space launch. The Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990 stopped NASA from engaged in space launch, and instead required procurement of launch services from vendors selected via competitive bidding.

The first result was a drop in costs to NASA, but that mostly came from removing NASA management from much of the process. The launch vehicles of the 1990s were not inheritently cheaper than those flying prior to the enactment of the LSPA.  More to the point, launch vehicle providers did not act like we expected. What we expected was for launch service providers to cut prices, either via modifications to their vehicles, or economies of scale - the expectation was that companies would bid on price, and lower launch costs would generate a larger market, which would invoke more economies of scale, and we would all be living on the Moon Real Soon Now.

Instead, the near monopoly on launch services held by Boeing and Lockheed, as they bought everyone up, held up prices.

There was a burst of effort to develop radical new launchers, but that went nowhere, except for some failed launch attempts and prototypes that didn't fly much.

So, when Elon entered the scene, the launch market was ULA with high prices, and Russian competition, hindered by ITAR and reluctance of the US government to fly Russian, and bad marketing by the Russians, and the occasional political snit.  The existence of the Russians, however, killed off any new small US launcher, since unit costs were important enough to NASA that they would fly on cheaper Russian launchers for small programs. And then Orbital's Minuteman flight program killed Athena dead, leaving this country with no small domestic commercial launcher, which probably would be useful today.

Elon was the first US player with capital to understand the impact of lower launch costs on enlarging the market, a process that we are now seeing for the first time.  And the impact of SpaceX in grabbing contracts is significant.


This is just the beginning. Price competition should have an amazing impact on the launch market over the next few years, barring a series of catastrophes.