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

[Lar]

I propose that as we end the two year period (after the start of the 2018), we make predictions of where this will be a couple years hence, and then lock the thread for a couple more years.

Seems like it might work. Were you thinking another thread at some point or?

[guckyfan]

I propose that as we end the two year period (after the start of the 2018), we make predictions of where this will be a couple years hence, and then lock the thread for a couple more years.

Seems like it might work. Were you thinking another thread at some point or?

Or we interpret the 2 years as floating, always to be seen from the date of the posting.

[AncientU]

I propose that as we end the two year period (after the start of the 2018), we make predictions of where this will be a couple years hence, and then lock the thread for a couple more years.

Seems like it might work. Were you thinking another thread at some point or?

Yes, starting a new thread around early 2020 to look at the last two years and next two...

Re-opening this as a necro-thread doesn't seem practical.

[AncientU]

I propose that as we end the two year period (after the start of the 2018), we make predictions of where this will be a couple years hence, and then lock the thread for a couple more years.

Seems like it might work. Were you thinking another thread at some point or?

Or we interpret the 2 years as floating, always to be seen from the date of the posting.

It seems to me there is benefit in letting it rest for a couple years so that growth/progress/whatever has time to manifest more clearly.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX has done 11 launches so far this year compared to 9 planned for ULA for the whole year.

So far, the answer to the thread is that SpaceX is increasingly overcoming their competitors.

[deruch]

SpaceX has done 11 launches so far this year compared to 9 planned for ULA for the whole year.

So far, the answer to the thread is that SpaceX is increasingly overcoming their competitors.

With the exception of NROL-76 and OTV-5 none of the missions SpaceX is going to launch this year would have launched on ULA rockets in the absence of SpaceX.  And so far as we can tell, neither of those two listed launches were awarded to SpaceX competitively.  Which, IMO, makes the argument that SpaceX is "increasingly overcoming" ULA still seem premature.  More especially when you consider that ULA has done well so far in those government launches that were competed against SpaceX (and delays to Falcon Heavy have hurt SpaceX's ability to compete on equal footing).  SpaceX is certainly squeezing Arianespace some--where in commercial launches they're pretty much equals--and their mere existence coupled with their pricing may be putting increasing amounts of pressure on ULA.  But let's not over sell it.  With respect to ULA, if they're going to start "overcoming" we'll see it begin over the next 5 years or so as more launches are competed openly.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

SpaceX has done 11 launches so far this year compared to 9 planned for ULA for the whole year.

So far, the answer to the thread is that SpaceX is increasingly overcoming their competitors.

With the exception of NROL-76 and OTV-5 none of the missions SpaceX is going to launch this year would have launched on ULA rockets in the absence of SpaceX.  And so far as we can tell, neither of those two listed launches were awarded to SpaceX competitively.  Which, IMO, makes the argument that SpaceX is "increasingly overcoming" ULA still seem premature.  More especially when you consider that ULA has done well so far in those government launches that were competed against SpaceX (and delays to Falcon Heavy have hurt SpaceX's ability to compete on equal footing).  SpaceX is certainly squeezing Arianespace some--where in commercial launches they're pretty much equals--and their mere existence coupled with their pricing may be putting increasing amounts of pressure on ULA.  But let's not over sell it.  With respect to ULA, if they're going to start "overcoming" we'll see it begin over the next 5 years or so as more launches are competed openly.

If you use the current launch mix for ULA as the baseline going forward only 7 of those 9 launches this year are gov launches that ULA could lose up to 50% in competitions. So ULA could drop by 3 or 4 launches with SpaceX gaining 3 or 4 gov launches. But at the same time there are as many as 1 additional CRS and 1 CC launch per year that would be added to ULA's annual launches. This then brings them back to 7 or 8 launches per year minimum. While SpaceX launch rate increases ULA's stays mostly constant level. This is such that ULA will not disappear. At least not for a long time to come. ULA's Atlas V is still the only vehicle certified to carry nuclear material. That is until SLS gains a similar certification. So ULA will still capture many of the NASA planetary probe missions that use RTG's being that there are no current competitors to ULA's Atlas V for those missions.

added:
Another item is that the competitions held this year for launches impact launches made in NET 2019 but more likely scheduled for 2020 and 2021. So any impacts to ULA's launch rate will not be seen until 2019 or later. So the immediate impact to ULA of losing launch competitions only slows the next years build rate. By decreasing DIVM and increasing use of Atlas V, the Atlas V build rate may show a net increase even with losses of bids to SpaceX. This may result in a net gain for ULA since their internal costs may go down (cost to build an Atlas V) as well as many other costs as they switch to more efficient manufacturing by increasing number of units manufactured.

[ZachF]

SpaceX has done 11 launches so far this year compared to 9 planned for ULA for the whole year.

So far, the answer to the thread is that SpaceX is increasingly overcoming their competitors.

1/4 of the worlds launches so far this year.

With 3 pads up and running, doing ~1/3rd of them next year is within the realm of possibility IMHO.

[ZachF]

SpaceX has done 11 launches so far this year compared to 9 planned for ULA for the whole year.

So far, the answer to the thread is that SpaceX is increasingly overcoming their competitors.

With the exception of NROL-76 and OTV-5 none of the missions SpaceX is going to launch this year would have launched on ULA rockets in the absence of SpaceX.  And so far as we can tell, neither of those two listed launches were awarded to SpaceX competitively.  Which, IMO, makes the argument that SpaceX is "increasingly overcoming" ULA still seem premature.  More especially when you consider that ULA has done well so far in those government launches that were competed against SpaceX (and delays to Falcon Heavy have hurt SpaceX's ability to compete on equal footing).  SpaceX is certainly squeezing Arianespace some--where in commercial launches they're pretty much equals--and their mere existence coupled with their pricing may be putting increasing amounts of pressure on ULA.  But let's not over sell it.  With respect to ULA, if they're going to start "overcoming" we'll see it begin over the next 5 years or so as more launches are competed openly.

When you're dealing with governments, the 'economics' share of the pie gets smaller and smaller and the 'politics' share gets bigger and bigger.

So far the biggest loser to SpaceX has been the Proton... it's getting it's lunch eaten. Ariane 5 still has a solid niche to fill with GTO launches, but with Falcon 9 being able to launch a 5,300kg GTO bird and recover the first stage, SX will probably start eating into Ariane soon as well.

What will really hurt Arianespace will be New Glenn, IMHO. It will be able to launch 13 tonnes to GTO while recovering the first stage, likely doing everything a Ariane 5/6 can do but for a likely (much) lower price. Arianespace will have to lean more and more on government subsidized/provided launches like ULA.

[guckyfan]

What will really hurt Arianespace will be New Glenn, IMHO. It will be able to launch 13 tonnes to GTO while recovering the first stage, likely doing everything a Ariane 5/6 can do but for a likely (much) lower price. Arianespace will have to lean more and more on government subsidized/provided launches like ULA.

Long before New Glenn can get there, FH will take that market segment. Plus by then SpaceX will be able to fly everything, ULA can.

[Jim]

Plus by then SpaceX will be able to fly everything, ULA can.

Not without larger fairing and vertical integration.

[guckyfan]

Plus by then SpaceX will be able to fly everything, ULA can.

Not without larger fairing and vertical integration.

They have stated many times they will provide vertical integration. They have also stated they will be able to provide a larger fairing if they have the customer.

Do you believe SpaceX will not go for the next EELV contract?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Plus by then SpaceX will be able to fly everything, ULA can.

Not without larger fairing and vertical integration.

They have stated many times they will provide vertical integration. They have also stated they will be able to provide a larger fairing if they have the customer.

Do you believe SpaceX will not go for the next EELV contract?

SpaceX had to specify that they could do VI in order to get certified. But that does not mean that they will bid on such RFPs.

[guckyfan]

SpaceX had to specify that they could do VI in order to get certified. But that does not mean that they will bid on such RFPs.

My understanding is that they will need to have all capabilities to get the EELV-2 contract.

Also the Airforce was quite annoyed when ULA did not bid for that GPS launch. Do you really think SpaceX wants to demonstrate they don't plan to offer such services`by not bidding for them? That would very seriously annoy the Airforce. No way SpaceX would do that.

[Space Ghost 1962]

We're talking government acquisition practice verses commerce law as well as contracts. All different.

Providers have qualifications to meet, however they are not allowed to be overly burdensome to comply with.

(An example of this occurred with qualifying F9 for NSS, where the AF improperly (as judged in law later) chose to exactly match EELV, as opposed to matching outcome capabilities/performance.)

Could but won't go into many other examples of this, suffice to say that both in terms of practice and execution, the AF is *not allowed* to make it difficult for a provider to comply.

As to the issue with the ULA "non bid", ULA is the very model of compliance with AF launch need, so the lack of bid has an entirely different meaning to the AF, thus the severity of the circumstance.

Once/if SX reaches the same level of compliance, they will also face the same bid requirements.

You have to consider this situation carefully from AF/govt/legal perspective. Much left out.

[MP99]

I am going to wander a bit too, in order to address that the primary competitor to ITSy is not another company or gov organisation but the F9/FH.

It is a matter of what the payloads in the current market look like and the fact that very few could be co-launched. Ariane has trouble just launching 2 GEO sats imagine trying to do 3 or 4? So it is more a factor of per launch costs than $/kg. At first it would be very difficult for ITSy to be as "cheap" as a partial or even EXPD F9/FH per launch costs. Once the ITSy is reliably a fully reusable LV then possibly the costs per launch will tilt in ITSy favor. At that point the F9/FH would probably be phased out. All of this would happen over a significant period of time meaning the F9/FH would be in operation for a decade at least. So this third competitive area is actually a transient while the ITSy is testing its full reusability. Once it becomes fully reusable on a reliable basis then it will be the competition for all LVs replacing the F9/FH.

ISTM that Ariane has to carefully coordinate a primary and secondary payload. A ssBFR could launch 2/3/4 large (primary?) or secondary payloads at once.

Maybe they could have a regular quarterly / bi-monthly / monthly launch, and carry up whatever sats are ready. Any sat with a major issue is bumped to the next scheduled launch.

Cheers, Martin

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Zed_Noir]

Cross-posting from the "When will F9/F9H be retired?" thread.

It appears the GAO weighted in on what the launch cost of the current launch vehicles.

For your amusement. The GAO have an estimate of the launch cost of the current launch vehicles on page 35 of the linked report. The F9 launch cost per kilogram is impressive even before you add booster reuse to the mix. THe F9 will be in service far longer than anyone expected because it is so cheap IMO.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686613.pdf

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42617.msg1714372#msg1714372

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Cross-posting from the "When will F9/F9H be retired?" thread.

It appears the GAO weighted in on what the launch cost of the current launch vehicles.

For your amusement. The GAO have an estimate of the launch cost of the current launch vehicles on page 35 of the linked report. The F9 launch cost per kilogram is impressive even before you add booster reuse to the mix. THe F9 will be in service far longer than anyone expected because it is so cheap IMO.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686613.pdf

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42617.msg1714372#msg1714372

From the table GAO says the only direct competitor for the F9 is the Proton M. Next group is a very large list at 2X-3X the $/kg of F9 and Proton which includes the Atlas V. Which also begs the question of why haven't Atlas V booked more commercial flights? They are a direct price competitor of most of the alternatives in this grouping.

This table makes a good source for comparing the LV's

Modified for clarity

[dror]

Cross-posting from the "When will F9/F9H be retired?" thread.

It appears the GAO weighted in on what the launch cost of the current launch vehicles.

For your amusement. The GAO have an estimate of the launch cost of the current launch vehicles on page 35 of the linked report. The F9 launch cost per kilogram is impressive even before you add booster reuse to the mix. THe F9 will be in service far longer than anyone expected because it is so cheap IMO.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686613.pdf

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42617.msg1714372#msg1714372

From the table GAO says the only direct competitor for the F9 is the Proton M. Next group is a very large list at 2X-3X the $/kg of F9 and Proton which includes the Atlas V. Which also begs the question of why haven't Atlas V booked more commercial flights? They are a direct price competitor of most of the alternatives in this grouping.

This table makes a good source for comparing the LV's

Modified for clarity

Not realy since it only compares payload to LEO.
Wouldn't rockets with higher energy upper stages be pushed down by this criteria?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Cross-posting from the "When will F9/F9H be retired?" thread.

It appears the GAO weighted in on what the launch cost of the current launch vehicles.

For your amusement. The GAO have an estimate of the launch cost of the current launch vehicles on page 35 of the linked report. The F9 launch cost per kilogram is impressive even before you add booster reuse to the mix. THe F9 will be in service far longer than anyone expected because it is so cheap IMO.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686613.pdf

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42617.msg1714372#msg1714372

From the table GAO says the only direct competitor for the F9 is the Proton M. Next group is a very large list at 2X-3X the $/kg of F9 and Proton which includes the Atlas V. Which also begs the question of why haven't Atlas V booked more commercial flights? They are a direct price competitor of most of the alternatives in this grouping.

This table makes a good source for comparing the LV's

Modified for clarity

Not realy since it only compares payload to LEO.
Wouldn't rockets with higher energy upper stages be pushed down by this criteria?

Yes for GTO/BEO missions.
But both Ariane V and Atlas V are of this category. The DIVM is still to expensive to compete. This advantage of hydrolox US is the reason that these boosters are in competition with the very low ISP US Proton (Proton M is even lower ISP than F9 US). But the advantage still does not overcome the 2x 3x difference of even Proton M. A 3X LV with a high ISP US could compete about equally with a 2X LV with a lower <350 ISP US. But a 2X LV cannot overcome the difference by having a high ISP hydrolox US with a F9's kerolox US. Although it could conceivably be in range to compete with the Proton M's even lower ISP US.

All of this is basically in the case where a Medium LV with a hydrolox US (or a dual sat launch Heavy with hydrolox US) can compete with a Heavy LV with a kerolox or worse US in launching to GTO or BEO.