Who will compete with SpaceX? The last two and next two years.

[AncientU]

It seems more and more like the strategy for SpaceX's competitors is "hope they get RUDs and we don't"

However, using this 'strategy' is going to have diminishing returns. ULA or Arianespace could have a RUD, and the business case for their higher prices disappears.

Agreed. Betting that SpaceX is going to fail is a fool's strategy. Now even more so than in the past.

Will SpaceX eventually have another "RUD"? With how many flights they are wanting to fly in the next decade(s), very likely. (statistics and probability makes that clear) But with every success they have a stronger foundation for handling setbacks. They've had two F9 accidents, has that stopped them? They are stronger than ever now.

Since decision makers are already discounting SpaceX's next failure, the downside could be limited.  Those same decision makers are probably (maybe unconsciously) assuming the current string of Atlas/Delta/Ariane successes will go on forever... 

As well as these launchers are performing, they may well retire without a failure -- but they could be one splash away from losing their justification for high prices.  Not a sound business case.

[CraigLieb]

I may have missed discussion of this point
The change after Atmos6 to test with no payload present means that one previous LOM failure mode is eliminated because payload is not exposed. It also protects this payload possibly from other undiscovered operational  issues that cause on-pad explosions in the future during that test phase. This (necessary) decision slows down launch cadence somewhat,  and the pad is still at risk from a hot-fire failure which presents the possibility of major schedule impact like we have seen for repairs and investigation. But I wouldn't count this as loss of mission anymore, only a lengthy schedule slip. Mitigations include more pads (2 more coming online eventually), spare launch vehicles that can be pressed into service (as reuse is more accepted). I can only imagine extra effort is being made to harden pad systems against future pad accidents.
Who is prepared to compete with all this in the same way? My opinion: Nobody.

[edkyle99]

Honestly Vulcan, Angara, Ariane 6, and Soyuz 5 are all probably obsolete before they even fly. They need clean-sheet multi-engine methalox launchers to field a design that's going to be competitive well into the 2020s. Like BO did. Anything else, if it's not obsolete before it flies, will have a life cycle too short to pay off the development costs.

I have different expectations.  My guess is that two things will happen.  First, SpaceX prices will rise, as they've already begun to do.  Second, competitors will adjust to competition, as they've already begun to do with their announced plans to offer launches at SpaceX prices.  The "market", such as it is, will shift to a new equilibrium as it has always done.  Someone may drop out along the way, or scale back current plans, but it may not be who or what everyone currently expects.

 - Ed Kyle

[RedLineTrain]

First, SpaceX prices will rise, as they've already begun to do.

What is the evidence of "as they've already begun to do?"

[M.E.T.]

Honestly Vulcan, Angara, Ariane 6, and Soyuz 5 are all probably obsolete before they even fly. They need clean-sheet multi-engine methalox launchers to field a design that's going to be competitive well into the 2020s. Like BO did. Anything else, if it's not obsolete before it flies, will have a life cycle too short to pay off the development costs.

I have different expectations.  My guess is that two things will happen.  First, SpaceX prices will rise, as they've already begun to do.  Second, competitors will adjust to competition, as they've already begun to do with their announced plans to offer launches at SpaceX prices.  The "market", such as it is, will shift to a new equilibrium as it has always done.  Someone may drop out along the way, or scale back current plans, but it may not be who or what everyone currently expects.

 - Ed Kyle

I don't quite understand. Do you mean SpaceX's prices will rise higher than they currently are, or that they will just not drop as much as some are predicting? If the former, I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Even if SpaceX stops at the F9 Block 5 and can get only 10 first stage reuses per rocket, their costs will drop substantially below current levels.

Under what assumptions do you see their prices rising?

[edkyle99]

First, SpaceX prices will rise, as they've already begun to do.

What is the evidence of "as they've already begun to do?"

http://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-its-second-gps-3-launch-contract-1/
http://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-5-new-space-station-cargo-missions-in-nasa-contract-estimated-at-700-million/

 - Ed Kyle

[RedLineTrain]

First, SpaceX prices will rise, as they've already begun to do.

What is the evidence of "as they've already begun to do?"

http://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-its-second-gps-3-launch-contract-1/

 - Ed Kyle

Ah, I see.  The price of dealing with the government customer has gone up for this launch.  Who knows about the price for the next launch.

[M.E.T.]

First, SpaceX prices will rise, as they've already begun to do.

What is the evidence of "as they've already begun to do?"

http://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-its-second-gps-3-launch-contract-1/

 - Ed Kyle

You probably know much more about this than I do, but it was my understanding that Air Force launches have significant additional costs beyond normal commercial launches. And that it is these additional costs that push the price above the normal SpaceX price.

[whitelancer64]

First, SpaceX prices will rise, as they've already begun to do.

What is the evidence of "as they've already begun to do?"

http://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-its-second-gps-3-launch-contract-1/
http://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-5-new-space-station-cargo-missions-in-nasa-contract-estimated-at-700-million/

 - Ed Kyle

You should know that price increase was to more fully cover the extra expenses incurred from performing the extra services required by the Air Force, which SpaceX may have had an incomplete understanding of at the time they put in their bid for the first GPS satellite launch.

"SpaceX won the contract for the first GPS 3 launch with a bid of $82.7 million. The winning bid for the second launch was $96.5 million. SpaceNews has contacted SpaceX for an explanation on the price increase.

Leon said she suspected that it was due to company “becoming more familiar with the requirements of the Air Force,” and likely adjusting their bid to better meet the service’s strict “mission success requirements.”

http://spacenews.com/spacexs-low-cost-won-gps-3-launch-air-force-says/

[John Alan]

SpaceX will price it's launches at a level the 'market' will pay and not much lower (as a best business practice)

The key thought in the back of my mind... is they have more MARGIN to lower bid prices IF NEEDED to keep the manifest backlog full at least 18 months out...

Keep your workforce and pads busy... (fixed costs IOW)

This will maximize return on assets in play... and over time inflate your bottom line balance sheet... 

[Rebel44]

First, SpaceX prices will rise, as they've already begun to do.

What is the evidence of "as they've already begun to do?"

http://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-its-second-gps-3-launch-contract-1/

 - Ed Kyle

Raising price for military flight if they discovered that those launches require even more paperwork and special treatment (both of which cost money and time) than expected wouldnt represent an overall increase in prices.

[AncientU]

Another article:

Airbus Promises to Build a Reusable Rocket -- but SpaceX Has a 15-Year Head Start

On Thursday last week, Airbus joint venture ArianeGroup (nee Airbus Safran Launchers) announced plans to develop an engine to power a new class of reusable rockets.

We don't know a whole lot about the new engine just yet, much less about whatever rocket it will power. But here's what we do know:

    Dubbed "Prometheus," the new engine is expected to be ready for testing in 2020 and could begin flying missions by 2030.
    It will cost at least $91 million to develop.
    Instead of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, Prometheus will utilize a mixture of LOx and liquid methane for fuel, providing about 225,000 pounds of thrust at sea level.
    The engine will be reusable over the course of somewhere between five and 10 launches and will cost no more than $1.1 million per unit to produce, which would be just one-tenth the cost of the new single-use Vulcain 2.1 engine that ArianeGroup is developing to power its upcoming Ariane 6 rocket.

Thus, Prometheus promises to deal a one-two punch to ArianeGroup's space-launch cost, which is currently at least 20% cheaper per ton of payload than launches conducted by Boeing (NYSE:BA)-Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) joint venture United Launch Alliance -- but nearly twice as expensive as what SpaceX charges. By recovering and reusing an engine after launch, ArianeGroup will be able to save the cost of building entirely new engines from scratch after each launch. At the same time, ArianeGroup plans to cut the absolute cost of the engine by 90%.

There's just one problem, though, which should temper investors' enthusiasm for Airbus' and Safran's abilities to profit from a cheaper, and reusable, Prometheus engine: SpaceX got there first.

SpaceX steals ArianeGroup's thunder

On Friday last week -- just one day after ArianeGroup's announcement -- Airbus, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin rival SpaceX landed a reusable rocket back on Earth. Then it landed another on Sunday. In fact, SpaceX has now successfully launched and relanded rockets 13 times since first accomplishing the feat back in December 2015. What's more, SpaceX has reused two of those rockets, relaunching and relanding them back on Earth a second time. It's done so twice -- first in March 2017, and then again with Friday's launch and landing of a rocket that already had made a trip to space back in January.

Sad to say, ArianeGroup is coming to this game 15 years too late. By the time 2030 rolls around, ArianeGroup might not even be in business anymore.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/07/06/airbus-promises-reusable-rocket-spacex-head-start.aspx

[M.E.T.]

First, SpaceX prices will rise, as they've already begun to do.

What is the evidence of "as they've already begun to do?"

http://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-its-second-gps-3-launch-contract-1/

 - Ed Kyle

Its not clear if USAF selected basic launch bid or some with extra services (IIRC SpaceX submitted several options)

And raising price for military flight if they discovered that those launches require even more paperwork and special treatment (both of which cost money and time) than expected wouldnt represent an overall increase in prices.

I would also add that given SpaceX's cash-hungry R&D efforts, it would make total business sense to charge every cent they could while still coming in lower than their competitors for the foreseable future. Why charge $80m if your closest competitor is charging well above $100m? Even if you could do it for less.

It's not like SpaceX profits are going into shareholder pockets. Pretty much all of it is being reinvested in improving their technology, which is what will enable lower launch costs in future.

[gongora]

Honestly Vulcan, Angara, Ariane 6, and Soyuz 5 are all probably obsolete before they even fly.

Everyone always forgets H-3 when they list the coming launchers.

[envy887]

Honestly Vulcan, Angara, Ariane 6, and Soyuz 5 are all probably obsolete before they even fly. They need clean-sheet multi-engine methalox launchers to field a design that's going to be competitive well into the 2020s. Like BO did. Anything else, if it's not obsolete before it flies, will have a life cycle too short to pay off the development costs.

I have different expectations.  My guess is that two things will happen.  First, SpaceX prices will rise, as they've already begun to do.  Second, competitors will adjust to competition, as they've already begun to do with their announced plans to offer launches at SpaceX prices.  The "market", such as it is, will shift to a new equilibrium as it has always done.  Someone may drop out along the way, or scale back current plans, but it may not be who or what everyone currently expects.

 - Ed Kyle

This sort of* works until SpaceX has a low cost competitor, since until then SpaceX only has to hold just under market prices to maximize market share and profit. Once there is a second very low cost provider things will get a lot more interesting.

*Sort of, since high cost competitors will be operating at lower profit margins, so they can afford to put less money into new development, which in the end leaves them further behind.

[woods170]

It seems more and more like the strategy for SpaceX's competitors is "hope they get RUDs and we don't"

However, using this 'strategy' is going to have diminishing returns. ULA or Arianespace could have a RUD, and the business case for their higher prices disappears.

Agreed. Betting that SpaceX is going to fail is a fool's strategy. Now even more so than in the past.

Will SpaceX eventually have another "RUD"? With how many flights they are wanting to fly in the next decade(s), very likely. (statistics and probability makes that clear) But with every success they have a stronger foundation for handling setbacks. They've had two F9 accidents, has that stopped them? They are stronger than ever now.

Indeed. Multiple LOM's never stopped Ariane 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 from becoming very succesful. Multiple LOM's and RUD's never prevented Delta and Delta II from becoming very succesful. And despite having suffered numerous LOM's and RUD's the R-7 derived familiy is still flying today. The same applies to Proton.

Those folks betting on another RUD magically meaning the end of Falcon 9, or the failure of SpaceX, are utterly delusional.

[woods170]

Honestly Vulcan, Angara, Ariane 6, and Soyuz 5 are all probably obsolete before they even fly. They need clean-sheet multi-engine methalox launchers to field a design that's going to be competitive well into the 2020s. Like BO did. Anything else, if it's not obsolete before it flies, will have a life cycle too short to pay off the development costs.

I have different expectations.  My guess is that two things will happen.  First, SpaceX prices will rise, as they've already begun to do. 

Recent analysis of advertised SpaceX prices has shown that those prices have increased per inflation levels only. The obvious exception are NSS launches. Those have increased above inflation levels, due to SpaceX becoming more familiar with strict NSS requirements.

[AncientU]

First, SpaceX prices will rise, as they've already begun to do.

What is the evidence of "as they've already begun to do?"

http://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-its-second-gps-3-launch-contract-1/
http://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-5-new-space-station-cargo-missions-in-nasa-contract-estimated-at-700-million/

 - Ed Kyle

The second reference describes a $150M price per CRS mission awarded in 2016 versus a $133.33M price per mission awarded in 2008.  That's a 12.5% increase in eight years, or 1.5% per year compounded.  Doesn't even cover inflation.

Was there also an increase in per-mission capability included?  F9 is certainly more capable...

[ZachF]

Honestly Vulcan, Angara, Ariane 6, and Soyuz 5 are all probably obsolete before they even fly. They need clean-sheet multi-engine methalox launchers to field a design that's going to be competitive well into the 2020s. Like BO did. Anything else, if it's not obsolete before it flies, will have a life cycle too short to pay off the development costs.

I have different expectations.  My guess is that two things will happen.  First, SpaceX prices will rise, as they've already begun to do. 

Recent analysis of advertised SpaceX prices has shown that those prices have increased per inflation levels only.

...They already have the lowest prices and easily sell-out their manifest, why on Earth would they lower prices?

Sit on those fat, growing margins and re-invest them. ConnX, Raptor, ITS, etc need $$$$

[RedLineTrain]

The second reference describes a $150M price per CRS mission awarded in 2016

Rather, $140 million ($700 million divided by 5).  It represents an inflation-adjusted price reduction, rather than an increase.