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

[AncientU]

Both [Arianne and ALU] are very lucky that BO is as slow as it is.

This is a pretty interesting insight.

SpaceX isn't an existential threat to ULA, because the US government wants their to be two providers, so that they can keep launching when one provider has to stand down to deal with a mishap.

Blue Origin, on the other hand, is very much an existential threat to ULA.  I think the $1 billion/year "maintaining capability" payment to ULA will go away shortly after BO is able to bid on USG launches.  That is, BO has to get all the clearances first.

So it's very interesting that ULA and BO are doing business with one another.  BO could service the commercial market without being able to bid on USG launches.  That would give BO access to a good portion of their market they want without threatening the capability cash cow to ULA.  If BO contributes the majority of the value to ULA (the notion that much of the value of the rocket is the engine), that's better for BO.

I wonder if BO is going slow for contractual reasons.

BO has been slow since forever, I don't think you need a nefarious/cunning explanation...

But, I think the endgame of the ULA/BO saga is an inevitable merger (which will promptly be sensed by LIGO)

It solves everyone's problems in one fell swoop.

Merger isn't currently in Bezos' vocabulary.
He buys or stomps the competition... usually the latter.

[vapour_nudge]

Both [Arianne and ALU] are very lucky that BO is as slow as it is.

This is a pretty interesting insight.

SpaceX isn't an existential threat to ULA, because the US government wants their to be two providers, so that they can keep launching when one provider has to stand down to deal with a mishap.

Blue Origin, on the other hand, is very much an existential threat to ULA.  I think the $1 billion/year "maintaining capability" payment to ULA will go away shortly after BO is able to bid on USG launches.  That is, BO has to get all the clearances first.

So it's very interesting that ULA and BO are doing business with one another.  BO could service the commercial market without being able to bid on USG launches.  That would give BO access to a good portion of their market they want without threatening the capability cash cow to ULA.  If BO contributes the majority of the value to ULA (the notion that much of the value of the rocket is the engine), that's better for BO.

I wonder if BO is going slow for contractual reasons.

Perhaps we should start a conspiracy theory thread?

[meekGee]

Both [Arianne and ALU] are very lucky that BO is as slow as it is.

This is a pretty interesting insight.

SpaceX isn't an existential threat to ULA, because the US government wants their to be two providers, so that they can keep launching when one provider has to stand down to deal with a mishap.

Blue Origin, on the other hand, is very much an existential threat to ULA.  I think the $1 billion/year "maintaining capability" payment to ULA will go away shortly after BO is able to bid on USG launches.  That is, BO has to get all the clearances first.

So it's very interesting that ULA and BO are doing business with one another.  BO could service the commercial market without being able to bid on USG launches.  That would give BO access to a good portion of their market they want without threatening the capability cash cow to ULA.  If BO contributes the majority of the value to ULA (the notion that much of the value of the rocket is the engine), that's better for BO.

I wonder if BO is going slow for contractual reasons.

BO has been slow since forever, I don't think you need a nefarious/cunning explanation...

But, I think the endgame of the ULA/BO saga is an inevitable merger (which will promptly be sensed by LIGO)

It solves everyone's problems in one fell swoop.

Merger isn't currently in Bezos' vocabulary.
He buys or stomps the competition... usually the latter.

"Merger" was just a nice way of saying it.

The combined effect of SpaceX and BO will put ULA in an untenable position.  ULA will look for a buyer.  SpaceX will have no use for it, but BO will have some, so will make the best (or only) offer.

[Jim]

Blue Origin, on the other hand, is very much an existential threat to ULA.  I think the $1 billion/year "maintaining capability" payment to ULA will go away shortly after BO is able to bid on USG launches. 

BO stated it isn't going after govt launches

[Lar]

Blue Origin, on the other hand, is very much an existential threat to ULA.  I think the $1 billion/year "maintaining capability" payment to ULA will go away shortly after BO is able to bid on USG launches. 

BO stated it isn't going after govt launches

I believe that. Or maybe not. Bezos never says things that mislead his competition. Not once!

But even if it's true, they would not turn them away, I expect.

You are wrong too CoastalRon !

Exclamation points don't make your non-arguments more convincing. You need to up your game, I think. Right now I have you pegged in a certain box, it's not a good box to be in....

[Mike Jones]

You are wrong too CoastalRon !

That has happened, but so far you have not provided any proof to back up your claims, so let's look at what your allegations are:

NASA is paying each launch at a much higher price than commercial missions on falcon 9.

SpaceX advertises their STANDARD launch prices on their website, which today is $62M to move up to 5.5mT to GTO. However for NASA science payloads the U.S. Government has already pre-negotiated standard launch prices under the NASA Launch Services Program. Here is the Vehicle Information page for the program, and you can click on Falcon 9 to see what SpaceX offers.

All of that covers standard services, but each launch customer may have different NON-STANDARD services that they require, and each launch provider bids that separately. So maybe that is the source of your confusion?

For instance, SpaceX won a $112M contract for the NASA SWOT satellite, and in the press release NASA stated about the price:

"The total cost for NASA to launch SWOT is approximately $112 million, which includes the launch service; spacecraft processing; payload integration; and tracking, data and telemetry support."

I've worked for government contractors before, so this is standard stuff to me, but maybe you're new to the world of government contracting and that is why you are making wrong assumptions.

That's an indirect subsidy allowing them to bid low on commercial market.

Subsidy. You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means...   

Seriously though, SpaceX has won all of their government contracts thru the competitive bid process, so how in any way are there subsidies involved?

You have a lot of explaining to do, and you better document your justifications.

If you think that SpaceX is paying the real cost at Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral by leasing the pads for a few millions over 20 years you are in denial.

Or you're wrong. Only one way to know - show us some facts. Because SLC-40 would likely just be sitting there unused if SpaceX hadn't leased it, so the U.S. Government is making money off of an asset that otherwise would not have been generating any income. So somehow you are going to have to show that SpaceX is paying below market rates, which unless you have inside information from the U.S. Government is going to be hard to do.

Every spacefaring nations support their domestic launch service provider. That's a fact and SpaceX is no exception. The support received by ULA from USAF is just so huge that in comparison NASA's support to SpaceX seems more acceptable for their supporters.

My background includes product costing for manufacturing companies, for both commercial and government contractors, and I have made it my mission to understand the cost structure of space transportation systems. I say that just so you know you're not dealing with a normal space enthusiast. Impress us with accurate information, not unsupported allegations.

I will try to be more precise for you..

Regarding indirect subsidy:

You mentioned SWOT mission, which is the most obvious example of US govenrment indirect support to SpaceX by paying an additional 50 M$ vs standard SpaceX commercial price to perform a very standard mission (SSO for a light payload). Providing spacecraft preparation and integration services and telemetry is just basic services provided by all service providers (they won't launch without the satellite onboard). Being Priced as non standard does not change the fact that it certainly does not cost 50 M$. Thus offering SpaceX high margin government contracts and allowing them to bid much lower for commercial missions in open competition.

There are several other less extreme examples: TESS, GPS III-F2 & 3, STP 2 + NRO and  X37B missions where prices were undisclosed and probably very high. Maybe others that I am not aware of.

You said that these contracts were won through competitive bids. This is partially true. Only ULA and sometimes Orbital ATK were allowed to bid as well, excluding de facto all the most competitive foreign launch providers (Roscosmos via their various marketing channels like ILS or Glavkosmos, Arianespace, MHI, Antrix etc ...). Even Sea Launch despite being based in the USA has not been allowed to bid for US gov misisons in 15 years before its current 'on hold' situation.

On the other hand, many foreign institutional missions from the EU, India and Japan are open to competitive bids including foreign companies, which ensures much lower launch prices for these institutions and avoids for local launch service providers (when they are selected) indirect subsidy in a  similar situation to SWOT mission as illustrated above.

A few examples that you can google: GSAT 15, 16, 17, 18 in India, DSN- 1 and -2 in Japan, Galileo, EDRS-C, SARah or Cosmo SkyMed in Europe. Only Russia and China (excluded from commercial launch market by ITAR)  do not open at all their domestic missions to competition, on top of the USA.

Regarding launch pads,

Arianespace paid a contribution of around 150 M$ to fund the Soyuz pad in French Guiana (the only commercial launch pad built for commercial purposes in recent years for a comparable launch vehicle to Falcon 9) via a loan from the European Investment Bank. They also pay a fee of several M$ per year to ESA for use of CSG facilities (spacecraft processing, telemetry etc) for each Soyuz launch from French Guiana (between 2 and 4 per year).
Another recent commercial launch pad is for Electron in Mahia fully funded by RocketLab but as it is smaller launcher, the comparison is not relevant.

How much has SpaceX been paying for their 3 existing launch pads at US Government launch sites ?

[JamesH65]

Again,Your post is making assumptions and is lacking in any sort of facts to backup your claims. For example, you say it doesn't cost an extra 50m (including profit margin)to run a particular extra service. Are you sure? Do you have figures to back it up, or is that a wild guess? Without some more details, it coming across as a guess.

As for what Spacex are paying for renting the pads, that is I think confidential, but remember, Spacex are paying a hell of a lot to install their own equipment etc, so the rental cost of the land is fairly insignificant anyway compared with that. They then pay going rates for the range facilities that they use.

[Mike Jones]

Spacecraft processing and integration on its launcher + telemetry does not cost 50 M$ especially from a low cost provider such as SpaceX. From experience it costs 10 times less than that for a normal duration launch campaign.
By the way their whole launcher including fixed costs and some margin is advertised for about 60 M$.

[Pipcard]

(from the 9 m ITS discussion thread)

SpaceX intends to create the demand necessary for a large RLV by developing their megaconstellation. It requires up to 3000 satellites per year. If each kept growing to just 5 tons (like large GSO birds, never mind Mueller's hundred ton monsters), that'd be 150 launches per year. And if you include ability to do plane changes and recover the multi-satellite payload adapter and fairing at once in order to save recovery effort and cost of fabrication, that's more like 300 launches per year.

If SpaceX is going to have to artificially create demand (contrasted with natural demand from third-party customers) for a high-flight-rate fully reusable launch vehicle by launching thousands of satellites* for a low-latency internet constellation, will others have to do the same in order to compete?

*I'm also worried about how this would contribute to Kessler syndrome.

[guckyfan]

If SpaceX is going to have to artificially create demand (contrasted with natural demand from third-party customers) for a high-flight-rate fully reusable launch vehicle by launching thousands of satellites* for a low-latency internet constellation, will others have to do the same in order to compete?

How is this artificial? Launching the satellite constellation makes sense only if it earns money. Or if there is a well founded expectation to make money.

[AncientU]

If SpaceX is going to have to artificially create demand (contrasted with natural demand from third-party customers) for a high-flight-rate fully reusable launch vehicle by launching thousands of satellites* for a low-latency internet constellation, will others have to do the same in order to compete?

How is this artificial? Launching the satellite constellation makes sense only if it earns money. Or if there is a well founded expectation to make money.

The third party customers are the wifi users -- as for all spacecraft, end users are normally not the spacecraft builder or operator.  Supplying the payload plus launcher is no different than supplying either one of those assets separately.

Note that SpaceX is assuming that demand will increase with lower costs/prices and building* launch capacity to meet that new demand.  If others want to support that new demand, they need to lower costs/prices and build capacity, too.

* Purely speculative investment, as was Ford's assembly line for auto-mobiles.

[Rebel44]

Spacecraft processing and integration on its launcher + telemetry does not cost 50 M$ especially from a low cost provider such as SpaceX. From experience it costs 10 times less than that for a normal duration launch campaign.
By the way their whole launcher including fixed costs and some margin is advertised for about 60 M$.

Just for dealing with government, you always have a price premium, because of all the paperwork and extra requirements government demands (for same service).

Since that mission cost quite a bit more than SpaceX GPS launches, its laso very likely that government required addition undisclosed services (compared to those GPS satellites).

[envy887]

Arianespace paid a contribution of around 150 M$ to fund the Soyuz pad in French Guiana (the only commercial launch pad built for commercial purposes in recent years for a comparable launch vehicle to Falcon 9) via a loan from the European Investment Bank. They also pay a fee of several M$ per year to ESA for use of CSG facilities (spacecraft processing, telemetry etc) for each Soyuz launch from French Guiana (between 2 and 4 per year).
Another recent commercial launch pad is for Electron in Mahia fully funded by RocketLab but as it is smaller launcher, the comparison is not relevant.

How much has SpaceX been paying for their 3 existing launch pads at US Government launch sites ?

Those are not government launch facilities. SpaceX doesn't pay a "contribution" to build the launch facilities, they pay the entire cost out of pocket. They have said it is on the order of $100 M per pad.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX bids on government launches. If others want to do the same job for less, they can bid a lower price. If not, then SpaceX has every right to a profit. This isn't a "subsidy," it's business. No different from other customers except that government usually wants more services.

[Mike Jones]

You said that these contracts were won through competitive bids. This is partially true. Only ULA and sometimes Orbital ATK were allowed to bid as well, excluding de facto all the most competitive foreign launch providers (Roscosmos via their various marketing channels like ILS or Glavkosmos, Arianespace, MHI, Antrix etc ...). Even Sea Launch despite being based in the USA has not been allowed to bid for US gov misisons in 15 years before its current 'on hold' situation.

[jpo234]

I do not expect the anual launch count to stay at a certain value or that it would reduce. It has all the indications of increasing year-over-year of about 5 launches: 2018 -25, 2019-30, 2020-35, 2021-40, 2022-45, 2023-50.

The later years of your forecast might see the first flights of the Raptor powered launcher (don't want to call it interplanetary if it only launches orbital payloads). It will be interesting to see, how this will influence the launch rate.

[Jim]

If you think that SpaceX is paying the real cost at Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral by leasing the pads for a few millions over 20 years you are in denial.

The pads are Spacex, all the hardware on the pads is Spacex.  The land is the only thing that the Air Force leases (and that is about $1 per year).

[Jim]

You are wrong too CoastalRon ! NASA is paying each launch at a much higher price than commercial missions on falcon 9. That's an indirect subsidy allowing them to bid low on commercial market.

Wrong. It is not a subsidy.  It is because NASA spacecraft require more services than commercial spacecraft.  And NASA as a customer needs more support (which costs manpower).  It is not a subsidy, it is paying for more manpower.

[LouScheffer]

Regarding indirect subsidy:

[...]
There are several other less extreme examples: TESS, GPS III-F2 & 3, STP 2 + NRO and  X37B missions where prices were undisclosed and probably very high. Maybe others that I am not aware of.

The GPS satellites are an excellent case, since they are going to the same orbit as GALILEO, which ESA launches.  And the prices ARE disclosed.

SpaceX has two GPS launches, for $83 and $97 million.  ESA bought 5 launches for $105 million each on Soyuz.  From this article:

The launch contract was worth 397 million euros -- about $525 million, or $105 million per flight.

So either SpaceX is giving the governement more than competitive prices, or ESA is subsidizing Ariane even more than the USA is subsidizing SpaceX.

Also, even a fat government contract is more risky than a subsidy, since you actually need to deliver.  Ask Airbus about the A400M contract.  They have long said that similar contracts were an indirect subsidy to Boeing.  But when they got such a contract, they actually lost money

[jpo234]

If you think that SpaceX is paying the real cost at Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral by leasing the pads for a few millions over 20 years you are in denial.

The pads are Spacex, all the hardware on the pads is Spacex.  The land is the only thing that the Air Force leases (and that is about $1 per year).

Do the private launch companies at the Cape pay for non launch related services (Security, road maintenance, street lighting,...)?