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

[mme]

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.
...

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

Wait. The engine will begin testing in 2020 but the rocket won't fly until at least 2030? 10 years between starting to test the engine and having a rocket that can use it? That seems like a leisurely development pace.

[ZachF]

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.
...

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

Wait. The engine will begin testing in 2020 but the rocket won't fly until at least 2030? 10 years between starting to test the engine and having a rocket that can use it? That seems like a leisurely development pace.

Oldspace gonna Oldspace.

Probably want €5 billion+ from the ESA/EU to develop it too.

[ZachF]

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.

Another obsolete government charity launcher

[LouScheffer]

Here's a graph of the four major medium-sized rockets competing for commercial launches, assuming everyone but SpaceX flies out their manifest for this year, and SpaceX almost does (18 launches).  It looks like Ariane and ULA are holding steady, and up until 2016 the SpaceX increase was at the cost of Proton.  But the large increase in total launches this year did not come at any other intermediate size booster's expense - there are more launches total.   Removing backlog from Proton and SpaceX failures?  Stealing payloads from smaller rockets?  A permanent increase in demand?  Perhaps next year will tell...

[jpo234]

Wait. The engine will begin testing in 2020 but the rocket won't fly until at least 2030? 10 years between starting to test the engine and having a rocket that can use it? That seems like a leisurely development pace.

They wrote "flying missions". There have to be test flights before this.

This is probably not all that different from SpaceX. Raptor was on the test stand for the first time in 2016. First flight might come early in the next decade and missions around 2025. Nine years between test stand and first mission.

Of course SpaceX might surprise us and launch the BFR earlier than this. Than you would be right.

[Coastal Ron]

Overall, SpaceX has taken market share away from nearly everyone in the business over the last two years. 

ULA hasn't lost any to Spacex yet.

I'm not sure how you can defend that statement.

Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the GPS satellites, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.

Prior to SpaceX ULA was launching all of the X-37 missions, and now SpaceX has won at least one launch.

And the Air Force in on record wanting competition, meaning ULA will continue to lose market share to SpaceX vs when they were a monopoly. The evidence is clear.

wrong, ULA can't lose what they can't compete for

In order for you to be right, the GPS satellite and X-37 missions would never have flown if SpaceX didn't exist, and we all know that's not the situation. Without SpaceX around ULA would have been awarded contracts to fly both.

Oh, and the GPS III satellite award was the result of a competitive acquisition - competing against ULA.

And now the USAF is soliciting proposals for five upcoming launches, which certainly is evidence of competition - regardless who wins. And if ULA wins then it's likely that their pricing reflects competing against SpaceX, so the U.S. Taxpayers wins either way when competition is introduced.

[AncientU]

SpaceX is putting a triple squeeze on the competition:
1. They are removing launches from the table at an increasing rate, so competitors will find it increasingly difficult to maintain their launch tempo, let alone increase flight rate;
2. They are forcing competition to lower prices on existing launchers, thus cutting into margins/profit; and
3. They are forcing new launcher development such as Ariane 6/Promethius or Vulcan/Vulcan ACES or Soyuz-5/Angara.

This squeeze is only going to grow more severe as reusable Block 5s come on line:
1. Launch tempo can grow to whatever pad/payload limitations allow -- with ConnX coming soon, 50-100 launches per year is forecast;
2. They will be lowering internal launch costs so have pricing power to keep profits where needed; and
3. They are done with F9 development, so can shift resources to FH and BFR.  Note: BFR/Raptor are to obsolete all existing launchers per Tom Mueller.

At this point, it is SpaceX's to lose IMO. 

[AncientU]

Here's a graph of the four major medium-sized rockets competing for commercial launches, assuming everyone but SpaceX flies out their manifest for this year, and SpaceX almost does (18 launches).  It looks like Ariane and ULA are holding steady, and up until 2016 the SpaceX increase was at the cost of Proton.  But the large increase in total launches this year did not come at any other intermediate size booster's expense - there are more launches total.   Removing backlog from Proton and SpaceX failures?  Stealing payloads from smaller rockets?  A permanent increase in demand?  Perhaps next year will tell...

Part of the increase, maybe the majority, is SpaceX burning off its own backlog.

[AncientU]

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.

From the article:

SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said at the time that the SpaceX work was valued at about $150 million per mission for the three new orders. SpaceX’s original CRS contract averaged $133.3 million per launch mission.

But you are correct, at either $140M or $150M...

[Semmel]

Another article:

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%.

They dont have the engine designed yet. They never even used a Methane as fuel for an engine before. They want to develop it to flight ready in 13 years and the development cost best initial estimate is $91 million. And on top of that, despite not even having the design of the engine, it will (not 'is targeted to' or 'supposed to' but 'will') cost no more than $1.1 million.

I am sorry, as much as that sounds intriguing, that is bullsh*t.

@edit: is that really such a bad word that I have to mask it?

[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/

 - 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.

$96.5 M - $82.7 M = no price increase?  Let's just ignore the $13.8 M difference?   

Remember when SpaceX said Falcon 9 would be priced at $35 million?

 - Ed Kyle

[DanielW]

It is alarming that discussion went from a mention that folks in procurement expect a spaceX failure within a year, to these same people counting on a spaceX failure.

It is just good planning. It does not mean that procurement people are anti-spacex and says nothing about their similar analysis of ULA et al.

As far as competitors go, I don't think very many people are in denial that spacex can execute anymore. Doubts about costs certainly, but not the technology. I just don't think any of these people are as dumb, malicious, or bone-headed as made out to be. They are just in a difficult spot.

I think it is important to note that for foreign competitor especially, they are not competing against just some newspace company from the U.S. They are competing against a distillation of NASA, the Air Force, and U.S. industry over the past 60 years.

[gongora]

Here's a graph of the four major medium-sized rockets competing for commercial launches, assuming everyone but SpaceX flies out their manifest for this year, and SpaceX almost does (18 launches).  It looks like Ariane and ULA are holding steady, and up until 2016 the SpaceX increase was at the cost of Proton.  But the large increase in total launches this year did not come at any other intermediate size booster's expense - there are more launches total.   Removing backlog from Proton and SpaceX failures?  Stealing payloads from smaller rockets?  A permanent increase in demand?  Perhaps next year will tell...

More like 2019 will tell.  There were a lot of comsat orders in 2014/2015, which are being launched late-2016 through 2018.  There are fewer comsat orders in 2016-2017, which won't really show up in the launch rates until 2019.  SpaceX will still have around 30 missions on their manifest for 2018.

[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/

 - 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.

$96.5 M - $82.7 M = no price increase?  Let's just ignore the $13.8 M difference?   

Remember when SpaceX said Falcon 9 would be priced at $35 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/

[Lars-J]

Remember when SpaceX said Falcon 9 would be priced at $35 million?

 - Ed Kyle

Really? A price claimed years before service (in 2005!) for a vehicle with less than half of the current F9 performance is compared to an actual flying one now? (If you are using that yardstick, how do projected Delta IV prices when the project was announced compare to now?)

Anyway, Ed is on record as claiming that SpaceX prices will continue to rise. (because we are at the very edge of physics and market boundaries...?) Only time will prove him right or wrong.

[AncientU]

It is alarming that discussion went from a mention that folks in procurement expect a spaceX failure within a year, to these same people counting on a spaceX failure.

It is just good planning. It does not mean that procurement people are anti-spacex and says nothing about their similar analysis of ULA et al.

As far as competitors go, I don't think very many people are in denial that spacex can execute anymore. Doubts about costs certainly, but not the technology. I just don't think any of these people are as dumb, malicious, or bone-headed as made out to be. They are just in a difficult spot.

I think it is important to note that for foreign competitor especially, they are not competing against just some newspace company from the U.S. They are competing against a distillation of NASA, the Air Force, and U.S. industry over the past 60 years.

Five years ago, the 'foreign competitors' were doing fantastic against the 60 year old US launch industry that personified NASA and USAF!!!  US had dropped to ZERO market share of competed launches.

What changed is that 'some newspace company' broke out of the hidebound NASA/USAF formula and processes.  They are now kicking some serious butt.

Note: Before someone drags out that threadbare NASA saved SpaceX argument, NASA funded SpaceX with about one percent of its budget over a five year period -- best investment they've ever made.  Restored US Launch industry to preeminence.  At the same time, USAF was funding the old guard 'US Launch Industry' about the same amount per year -- to exist -- and got what out of it?

[QuantumG]

What changed is that 'some newspace company' broke out of the hidebound NASA/USAF formula and processes.  They are now kicking some serious butt.

Not to mention a pretty kick ass sales team.

[Coastal Ron]

Remember when SpaceX said Falcon 9 would be priced at $35 million?

That price was quoted way back in 2007 for 3.1mT to GTO. As of 2008 they were quoting $35M for <3.5mT to GTO, but $55M for 4.5-5.5mT to GTO.

Today, which is 9 years later, they offer up to 5.5mT to GTO for $62M - they have simplified their pricing. That is a 13% increase over a 9 year period. Using the Inflation Calculator the cumulative rate of inflation was actually 13.7%, so SpaceX pricing has actually FALLEN over that 9 year period, not risen.

That's what the fact show.

[Brovane]

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.

$96.5 M - $82.7 M = no price increase?  Let's just ignore the $13.8 M difference?   

Remember when SpaceX said Falcon 9 would be priced at $35 million?

 - Ed Kyle

Ed - The conclusion on this board was that SpaceX bid two quotes for the 1st GPS launch contract and the lower bid was Horizontal Integration and the higher bid was for Vertical Integration.  The board also concluded that the lower bid was selected and it was for horizontal integration.  (Since the GPS Bus Supports both methods) 

It could be for the second GPS contract that the USAF selected Vertical Integration.  So the price difference of $13.8 M could be just the cost difference between Horizontal and Vertical. 

Do you think that SpaceX shouldn't charge more for Vertical Integration? 

[gongora]

It could be for the second GPS contract that the USAF selected Vertical Integration.  So the price difference of $13.8 M could be just the cost difference between Horizontal and Vertical. 

Do you think that SpaceX shouldn't charge more for Vertical Integration?

Do you have any information at all to support this, or is it just baseless speculation?