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

[ZachF]

Falcon 9 always lands on a single engine which throttles down to 40%, and even then it cannot hover.

I highly doubt anyone is going to land a 3 engine orbital boost stage on 1 main engine anytime soon.

This is not clear to me.  What is needed technically is an engine that can throttle to 13% or so.  No current booster engine can do this, but it's not fundamentally impossible.  No one has tried it with a booster engine since there was no requirement.  It may well be easier than re-designing a booster with more and smaller engines.

The one time such deep throttling WAS a serious requirement, on the Descent Propulsion System for the moon landings, it was made to work.

Except for Falcon none of the existing multi-engine booster designs could hover upright on a single engine with any amount of throttling, since none have a engine on the centerline of the vehicle. Landing those on a single engine would require a complete booster redesign.

Landing on the same number of engines as used for boost requires very deep throttling, at least 10% and probably lower. The major problem there is flow separation due to low chamber pressures, a problem the lunar descent engine did not have. Controlling the thrust vector on a separated exhaust stream is a major issue.

I'd imagine that throttling that low (<20%) probably carries a large ISP penalty (?)

[hkultala]

Falcon 9 always lands on a single engine which throttles down to 40%, and even then it cannot hover.

I highly doubt anyone is going to land a 3 engine orbital boost stage on 1 main engine anytime soon.

This is not clear to me.  What is needed technically is an engine that can throttle to 13% or so.  No current booster engine can do this, but it's not fundamentally impossible.  No one has tried it with a booster engine since there was no requirement.  It may well be easier than re-designing a booster with more and smaller engines.

The one time such deep throttling WAS a serious requirement, on the Descent Propulsion System for the moon landings, it was made to work.

Except for Falcon none of the existing multi-engine booster designs could hover upright on a single engine with any amount of throttling, since none have a engine on the centerline of the vehicle. Landing those on a single engine would require a complete booster redesign.

Landing on the same number of engines as used for boost requires very deep throttling, at least 10% and probably lower. The major problem there is flow separation due to low chamber pressures, a problem the lunar descent engine did not have. Controlling the thrust vector on a separated exhaust stream is a major issue.

I'd imagine that throttling that low (<20%) probably carries a large ISP penalty (?)

That is not a problem as the amount of fuel spent when running at this low throttle is very low.

[Lar]

We are definitely starting to wander. (partly my fault?) This asymmetrical thrust landing discussion is really interesting though. 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

With this next launch SpaceX F9 will be at 40 and ULA's Atlas V just did it's 80th. By EOY 2017 those numbers change to ~48 for F9 and ~83 for AV. At EOY 2018 ~72 for F9 and ~91 for AV. At EOY 2019 ~96 for F9 and ~100 for AV.

The ULA claim of AV launched a lot more times than F9 will probably not be a consideration anymore for possible customers including the US gov by EOY 2018.

Added:
This claim was being made at start of 2016 when ULA AV had 60 launches and SpceX's F9 only had 20. A 3 to 1 ratio. That ratio is now just 2 to 1. By EOY 2018 it will be ~1.3 to 1. By EOY 2019 1 to 1. The "AV has much more experience" is disappearing very fast.

[envy887]

Except for Falcon none of the existing multi-engine booster designs could hover upright on a single engine with any amount of throttling, since none have a engine on the centerline of the vehicle. Landing those on a single engine would require a complete booster redesign.

This assumes hovering is a requirement.
Falcon 9 doesn't do it, and has never approached this as a strategy. (grasshopper of course did)

(it decellerates at around 7m/s^2, all the way to the ground). (orbcomm launch)

In principle, all that is required is the control system can close the loop and get it to near zero roll-pitch-yaw, translational speed and vertical speed all at the same time.

You can do this with off-centre thrust, though probably requiring a larger landing pad. It means your  acceleration in the direction of the assymetry cannot be zero at the time of landing, but that's not something you're trying to minimise.
Making the landing target an explicit strip in the direction of approach may be required.

However, even if this was in principle possible, it does require significant - possibly implausible - modifications to existing flying rockets, the grid-fins (or upgraded thrusters) and legs are not trivial, nor may be adequately fast response on the main engine be plausible.

It would be _real_ fun to watch though, as it would be decellerating several times faster than F9, with very considerable lateral velocity until the end.

F9 doesn't hover in practice, but it could (if Merlin throttled low enough). This is important because it can zero out most accelerations and velocities well before touching down.

An asymmetrical landing would be much more difficult than a vertical landing. Unless the main engine can gimbal enough to point through the CG, the booster will see constant torque and thus constant angular acceleration in either pitch or yaw. Since it can't fly any significant time with a non-zero angular velocity, there is no way to use this angular acceleration to zero out angular velocity.

None of SpaceX's present competitors will be using a main engine to land any existing or realistically proposed booster without a complete redesign. There are simply too many technical challenges. It's either SMART-type engine recovery, auxiliary landing engines, or a whole booster redesign/reengining.

[AncientU]

From Formosat-5 Discussion:

Even if SpaceX will have no more successful launches this year, they launched more than Arianespace this year: Ariane only has 11 launches (8 done, 3 yet to perform).

2017 versus the main competition launchers: Ariane 5(4) + Atlas V(4) + Delta IV(1) + Proton(2) < Falcon 9(12)

Note:
Landed Boosters: Ariane 5(0) + Atlas V(0) + Delta IV(0) + Proton(0) < Falcon 9(9)

Is this just an unusual catch-up year, or a preview of years to come?

Gwynne Shotwell was quoted as predicting 2 launches per month from each pad...

[Rebel44]

From Formosat-5 Discussion:

Even if SpaceX will have no more successful launches this year, they launched more than Arianespace this year: Ariane only has 11 launches (8 done, 3 yet to perform).

2017 versus the main competition launchers: Ariane 5(4) + Atlas V(4) + Delta IV(1) + Proton(2) < Falcon 9(12)

Note:
Landed Boosters: Ariane 5(0) + Atlas V(0) + Delta IV(0) + Proton(0) < Falcon 9(9)

Is this just an unusual catch-up year, or a preview of years to come?

Gwynne Shotwell was quoted as predicting 2 launches per month from each pad...

IMO, to go beyond 30 launches per year would likely require launches for LEO constelation(s), and/or taking over a lot of flights from other launch providers.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

From Formosat-5 Discussion:

Even if SpaceX will have no more successful launches this year, they launched more than Arianespace this year: Ariane only has 11 launches (8 done, 3 yet to perform).

2017 versus the main competition launchers: Ariane 5(4) + Atlas V(4) + Delta IV(1) + Proton(2) < Falcon 9(12)

Note:
Landed Boosters: Ariane 5(0) + Atlas V(0) + Delta IV(0) + Proton(0) < Falcon 9(9)

Is this just an unusual catch-up year, or a preview of years to come?

Gwynne Shotwell was quoted as predicting 2 launches per month from each pad...

IMO, to go beyond 30 launches per year would likely require launches for LEO constelation(s), and/or taking over a lot of flights from other launch providers.

Looking forward past 2020, if the Internet Data constellations are economical and will make money, then just for One Web there will be an increase in yearly launches of Soyuz LVs of 7 to 9 launches per year forever. That just keeps up with replacement rates for a 1200 sat constellation. Also this is likly to max out the production base for Soyuz LVs so sats that would use this vehicle to launch must now find another. That is the one basic problem with expendable LVs and that is they are hamstrung by the production base. Reusable vehicles support a much wider min to max launch rate value spread.

So now add to the One Web launches add SpaceX also trying to launch not 9 times more but an additional rate of 4 times that at 28 to 36 than what they are launching this year. So with just these two new sat operators the yearly launch will jump by 35 to 47 launches. That ends putting SpaceX launching about 50 times a year in 2020 out of a world launch rate of about 130 to 150. With four pads that is at least 1 launch per pad per month. If SpaceX launches other players into this market not yet prominent then they have to launch the 2 a month on some pads to keep up to the demand. BO's NG during this period will be just starting to get established and will start absorbing some of this growing demand.

But it all boils down to one question: Is the LEO Internet Data satellite (LIDS) constellation cost effective? Which drives the ancillary question of just how big of a Market will there be for LIDS.

[Michel Van]

My bla bla on that

Around 2019/2020 the Launch business will undergo major change
SpaceX run on full power with there four launch site and new version of reusable Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy
Blue Origin launch reusable New Glenn and offering service of manned Suborbital flight with new Shepard.

Arianespace look so old with conservative build Ariane 6
if ULA manage there Vulcan and it reuse is another question, they facing SpaceX AND Blue Origin

Russia
if they lucky the Angara goes in production after been vaporware for almost 30 years
but it will not carry manned capsule to Space !
That's job of new Rocket the Russians has to build: a Zenit type, called Soyuz-5 or Feniks or Sunkar
(what ever they call it for moment it will take decades until it's launch...)
next to that there new Protons variants and good old R-7 Soyuz rockets

India
They show the world they can do spaceflight and that for bargain price like $75 million Mars probe !
and they work hard for bigger, cheaper and reusable Rockets for Launch Market

China
The made jump ahead with new generation of launch rocket and now they talk about there reuse.
next to that the Chinese private industry taste the blood and follow SpaceX and Blue Origin tracks.
so in 2020 there show some results of there test flights 

So the only big competitions SpaceX will face are Blue Origin and the Private Chinese, follow by India.

[envy887]

ISRO is working hard on launch vehicle reuse? I haven't seen any evidence that anyone besides SpaceX and Blue have done any work beyond some PowerPoints.

[Robotbeat]

ISRO is working hard on launch vehicle reuse? I haven't seen any evidence that anyone besides SpaceX and Blue have done any work beyond some PowerPoints.

ULA has done more than that.

[Mike Jones]

Even if SpaceX will have no more successful launches this year, they launched more than Arianespace this year: Ariane only has 11 launches (8 done, 3 yet to perform).

2017 versus the main competition launchers: Ariane 5(4) + Atlas V(4) + Delta IV(1) + Proton(2) < Falcon 9(12)

If you want to show a fair comparison between Arianespace and SpaceX, you have to take into account that in 2017 they launched 8 major sats on Ariane 5 (dual launches) + 2 Soyuz launches to GTO + 2 smaller Vega missions for 3 customers

Exactly the same than SpaceX : 12 missions.

But at a much higher value for Arianespace, which should be the most relevant metrics to compare private companies.

But then it does not match your propaganda about NewSpace ... SpaceX in its best year so far is still behind OldSpace competitors

[envy887]

If you want to show a fair comparison between Arianespace and SpaceX, you have to take into account that in 2017 they launched 8 major sats on Ariane 5 (dual launches) + 2 Soyuz launches to GTO + 2 smaller Vega missions for 3 customers

Exactly the same than SpaceX : 12 missions.

But at a much higher value for Arianespace, which should be the most relevant metrics to compare private companies.

But then it does not match your propaganda about NewSpace ... SpaceX in its best year so far is still behind OldSpace competitors

That should be competitor, singular. SpaceX is way ahead of Russia and ULA in commercial launches.

Ariane has higher revenue, they also have more recurring expenses per launch, so it's not clear that they make more profit. I wouldn't say SpaceX is behind them.

[envy887]

ISRO is working hard on launch vehicle reuse? I haven't seen any evidence that anyone besides SpaceX and Blue have done any work beyond some PowerPoints.

ULA has done more than that.

Such as?

[Mike Jones]

SpaceX was not profitable in 2015 (as revealed by WSJ) and most probably ohb 2016. They might be this year but their last formosat launch was certainly at a loss. 

ArianeGroup - Arianespace's parent company - is very profitable (see Safran or Airbus annual reports).

ULA is even more profitable (look at LockMart and Boeing quarterly results).

[Jcc]

ISRO is working hard on launch vehicle reuse? I haven't seen any evidence that anyone besides SpaceX and Blue have done any work beyond some PowerPoints.

ULA has done more than that.

Such as?

I would assume they are deep in the engineering work on Vulcan and BE4 is at an advanced stage in development. Still several years from flight, though. We don't know how much of the design work is specific to Smart recovery, but they will need to design Vulcan from ground up to make it possible. What that will buy them in terms of the economies of engine reuse is unknown at present, but at least it will be a "checkbox" item to say they are doing reuse.

[meekGee]

ISRO is working hard on launch vehicle reuse? I haven't seen any evidence that anyone besides SpaceX and Blue have done any work beyond some PowerPoints.

ULA has done more than that.

Such as?

There was also a spreadsheet.

Seriously though:

Vulcan is an expendable vehicle. ULA showed a concept for recovering the thrust section, but that concept was originally designed for Atlas.

BE4 is hardly a ULA project, and in the context of Vulcan, it doesn't help with reusability.

So no, they're still waiting for SpaceX to fail, and have not taken the decision to commit to a reusable or even a partially reusable rocket.

[Nomadd]

Even if SpaceX will have no more successful launches this year, they launched more than Arianespace this year: Ariane only has 11 launches (8 done, 3 yet to perform).

2017 versus the main competition launchers: Ariane 5(4) + Atlas V(4) + Delta IV(1) + Proton(2) < Falcon 9(12)

If you want to show a fair comparison between Arianespace and SpaceX, you have to take into account that in 2017 they launched 8 major sats on Ariane 5 (dual launches) + 2 Soyuz launches to GTO + 2 smaller Vega missions for 3 customers

Exactly the same than SpaceX : 12 missions.

But at a much higher value for Arianespace, which should be the most relevant metrics to compare private companies.

But then it does not match your propaganda about NewSpace ... SpaceX in its best year so far is still behind OldSpace competitors

Fix your quotes please.

And that should be competitor, singular. SpaceX is way ahead of Russia and ULA in commercial launches.

Ariane has higher revenue, they also have more recurring expenses per launch, so it's not clear that they make more profit. I wouldn't say SpaceX is behind them.

Also, adding every sat as a mission for Ariane while ignoring SpaceX multiple sat launches (Iridium) doesn't exactly add up to a "fair count". Adding the "major sat" qualification to part of the count but not the rest doesn't help.

[Mike Jones]

1 Iridium launch with 10 sats = 70M$
1 major sat on Ariane 5 or Soyuz = at least 70M$.

So yes it is fair.

With your logic, by next year Arianespace will trust the market with OneWeb deployment

[TrevorMonty]

SpaceX current high flight rate is due to large backlog on their manifest. When they've caught up on thst manifest then we well see what regular flight rate will be.

They have already lost a few flights due to excessive delays with FH.

Would be interesting to find out how much these long delays have cost their customers in lost revenue. I'd guess few $100m between all the payloads.