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

[Semmel]

If you want to count payloads and not launches, I guess Soyuz wins

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/07/14/soyuz-rideshare-launch/

[Robotbeat]

Boeing is the wrong company to compare to. If SpaceX is valued some insane amount, it's mostly because they'd essentially be some kind of telecommunications company.

Think Comcast, ATT, Verizon, or Charter. All ~$100-200b companies. SpaceX would be able to compete on a much larger stage than those companies.

Doesn't mean that SpaceX rules the world. Others will be competing, too. But accessing billions of consumers with a valuable service is exactly how a company can come to be worth 12 figures.

But there's got to be a fairly high risk premium on that.

My understanding is, that the service provided by the satellite constellation would be closer to backbone providers like Level 3. Level 3's market cap is ~$20bn.

P.S.: It's interesting that despite the fact that we strayed into communications infrastructure companies, we stayed more or less on topic of this thread. After all, if everything goes well, the constellation would begin deployment in less than 2 years.

Your understanding is wrong. Both backbone and direct to consumers.

SpaceX isn't dumb. They know just as well as we do (or better) that the market for direct-to-consumer is an order of magnitude larger than backbone.

[AncientU]

The valuation that I am hearing for SpaceX's next capital raise is more than a bit mind-boggling by any metric – even a forward leaning one that prices in the constellation's existence.

If SpaceX can crack the code on the whole stack -- satellites, network equipment, and user terminals -- I can imagine that would be a very valuable vertically-integrated system.

Should include pads, engines, launch vehicles, payload dispensers, payload integration, landing pads, then the three you mentioned.  Basically vertically integrated from raw materials to delivered Global SkyFi.

All minor costs compared to the other three

Not true.  These aren't USG price sats, they will cost SpaceX $1-2M each.  Satellite costs are around the same as launch costs, unless they pay the prices asked by their principal competition, Ariane5 and AtlasV -- then the launches would be significantly more expensive than the satellites.  A single RD-180 engine, for instance, would cost the same as a load of sats...  And neither of these suppliers could maintain a multi-thousand satellite constellation with their low launch cadence.

[Confusador]

If you want to count payloads and not launches, I guess Soyuz wins

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/07/14/soyuz-rideshare-launch/

That really does highlight the difficulty of pinning down the numbers.

- You can look at payloads, but how do you count multi-payload launches from a single contract (e.g. Spaceflight, Iridium)
- You can look at total mass lifted, but that biases toward low-energy orbits
- You can look at total energy imparted, but that biases against precise targets (e.g. ISS)
- You can look at contracts signed, but how do you count multi-launch contracts
- You can look at revenue, but how do you account for a desire to bring down prices
- You can look at profitability, but how do you define R&D

My gut feeling is that SpaceX has basically caught up to Arianespace, and both will continue to dominate for the near future though SpaceX will almost certainly pull ahead somewhat.  I have no idea how I'd quantify that, though.  I guess I'd have to show a trend on several of those graphs.

[rockets4life97]

I think it makes since to divide the commercial satellite market into GTO, LEO, and other (everything else) segments. You could then differentiate between small and big GTO sats (e.g. the bottom and top spots on Ariane as the industry benchmark). For LEO, it probably makes the most sense to use mass in order to properly account for smallsats.

[ZachF]

If you want to count payloads and not launches, I guess Soyuz wins

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/07/14/soyuz-rideshare-launch/

That really does highlight the difficulty of pinning down the numbers.

- You can look at payloads, but how do you count multi-payload launches from a single contract (e.g. Spaceflight, Iridium)
- You can look at total mass lifted, but that biases toward low-energy orbits
- You can look at total energy imparted, but that biases against precise targets (e.g. ISS)
- You can look at contracts signed, but how do you count multi-launch contracts
- You can look at revenue, but how do you account for a desire to bring down prices
- You can look at profitability, but how do you define R&D

My gut feeling is that SpaceX has basically caught up to Arianespace, and both will continue to dominate for the near future though SpaceX will almost certainly pull ahead somewhat.  I have no idea how I'd quantify that, though.  I guess I'd have to show a trend on several of those graphs.

Ariane has a niche in the GTO market for sure, I think Blue Origin is going to each their lunch though. New Glenn will be able to do everything Ariane 5/6 can (13T to GTO) for a likely (much) lower price.

[RedLineTrain]

The valuation that I am hearing for SpaceX's next capital raise is more than a bit mind-boggling by any metric – even a forward leaning one that prices in the constellation's existence.

Supported by the prices seen for shares in the secondary markets?

https://www.theinformation.com/private-tech-prices-jump-in-secondary-market

All:  The information on current valuations is behind a paywall, but a big picture of an F9 launch is the headliner.

[HMXHMX]

If you want to count payloads and not launches, I guess Soyuz wins

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/07/14/soyuz-rideshare-launch/

That really does highlight the difficulty of pinning down the numbers.

- You can look at payloads, but how do you count multi-payload launches from a single contract (e.g. Spaceflight, Iridium)
- You can look at total mass lifted, but that biases toward low-energy orbits
- You can look at total energy imparted, but that biases against precise targets (e.g. ISS)
- You can look at contracts signed, but how do you count multi-launch contracts
- You can look at revenue, but how do you account for a desire to bring down prices
- You can look at profitability, but how do you define R&D

My gut feeling is that SpaceX has basically caught up to Arianespace, and both will continue to dominate for the near future though SpaceX will almost certainly pull ahead somewhat.  I have no idea how I'd quantify that, though.  I guess I'd have to show a trend on several of those graphs.

You've already listed the only really relevant metric: revenue.

Any company's desire to reduce prices to gain market share will have to face up to decline in total revenue.  The slide is from my talk at Space Access 2016, last April.

[Jim]

Not true.  These aren't USG price sats, they will cost SpaceX $1-2M each.  Satellite costs are around the same as launch costs, unless they pay the prices asked by their principal competition, Ariane5 and AtlasV -- then the launches would be significantly more expensive than the satellites.  A single RD-180 engine, for instance, would cost the same as a load of sats...  And neither of these suppliers could maintain a multi-thousand satellite constellation with their low launch cadence.

Wrong again.  The payload costs much more than the launch cost.  200 million and more.

[Lar]

Not true.  These aren't USG price sats, they will cost SpaceX $1-2M each.  Satellite costs are around the same as launch costs, unless they pay the prices asked by their principal competition, Ariane5 and AtlasV -- then the launches would be significantly more expensive than the satellites.  A single RD-180 engine, for instance, would cost the same as a load of sats...  And neither of these suppliers could maintain a multi-thousand satellite constellation with their low launch cadence.

Wrong again.  The payload costs much more than the launch cost.  200 million and more.

I find it hard to believe that at full bore, these birds are going to cost SpaceX more than 2MM each to make (and probably a lot less).  Even with lofting MANY at once that is not 200MM.

[AncientU]

Not true.  These aren't USG price sats, they will cost SpaceX $1-2M each.  Satellite costs are around the same as launch costs, unless they pay the prices asked by their principal competition, Ariane5 and AtlasV -- then the launches would be significantly more expensive than the satellites.  A single RD-180 engine, for instance, would cost the same as a load of sats...  And neither of these suppliers could maintain a multi-thousand satellite constellation with their low launch cadence.

Wrong again.  The payload costs much more than the launch cost.  200 million and more.

I find it hard to believe that at full bore, these birds are going to cost SpaceX more than 2MM each to make (and probably a lot less).  Even with lofting MANY at once that is not 200MM.

Jim is looking back at launch history, not forward at launch futures.

[Jim]

Not true.  These aren't USG price sats, they will cost SpaceX $1-2M each.  Satellite costs are around the same as launch costs, unless they pay the prices asked by their principal competition, Ariane5 and AtlasV -- then the launches would be significantly more expensive than the satellites.  A single RD-180 engine, for instance, would cost the same as a load of sats...  And neither of these suppliers could maintain a multi-thousand satellite constellation with their low launch cadence.

Wrong again.  The payload costs much more than the launch cost.  200 million and more.

I find it hard to believe that at full bore, these birds are going to cost SpaceX more than 2MM each to make (and probably a lot less).  Even with lofting MANY at once that is not 200MM.

I said payload and not individual spacecraft.  And they will be more than 2 million.

[AncientU]

Not true.  These aren't USG price sats, they will cost SpaceX $1-2M each.  Satellite costs are around the same as launch costs, unless they pay the prices asked by their principal competition, Ariane5 and AtlasV -- then the launches would be significantly more expensive than the satellites.  A single RD-180 engine, for instance, would cost the same as a load of sats...  And neither of these suppliers could maintain a multi-thousand satellite constellation with their low launch cadence.

Wrong again.  The payload costs much more than the launch cost.  200 million and more.

I find it hard to believe that at full bore, these birds are going to cost SpaceX more than 2MM each to make (and probably a lot less).  Even with lofting MANY at once that is not 200MM.

I said payload and not individual spacecraft.  And they will be more than 2 million.

Original announcement was for 4000 sats and cost $10B (includes launch cost) --> $2.5M per satellite delivered.

[Jim]

And you believe it?

[ZachF]

And you believe it?

A lot of economies of scale when you're making 2-3 of something every day vs. one-off custom jobs.

[sanman]

You've already listed the only really relevant metric: revenue.

Any company's desire to reduce prices to gain market share will have to face up to decline in total revenue.

But when it comes to the prospective "cis-lunar economy", etc - then doesn't cutting prices also grow the overall market, and thus the revenue prospects?

[Nomadd]

And you believe it?

How much would you have paid for a Merlin class turbopump before 2008, or the best 200,000 pound class kerlox engine ever made? You didn't believe that either.

[groundbound]

And you believe it?

How much would you have paid for a Merlin class turbopump before 2008, or the best 200,000 pound class kerlox engine ever made? You didn't believe that either.

Bottom line is that everyone has suddenly started making definitive statements about something that is a) proprietary info, and b) does not exist yet. It is like quibbling over the third sig fig of liftoff thrust of a paper rocket.

[Jim]

And you believe it?

How much would you have paid for a Merlin class turbopump before 2008, or the best 200,000 pound class kerlox engine ever made?

What says it is.

[DanielW]

And you believe it?

How much would you have paid for a Merlin class turbopump before 2008, or the best 200,000 pound class kerlox engine ever made?

What says it is.

200,000 lbf kerolox is pretty specific. What else is there? RD-107?