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

[Coastal Ron]

Expendable rocket are not obsolete.

I think SpaceX has demonstrated the benefits of partially reusable rockets sufficiently, though I could see some wanting more evidence, which will be coming soon enough.

Fair to say, since the economics of reusability are not well established, even though we have many analogies that suggest what is possible.

At least large expendable rockets are obsolete.

For me at least I think the argument against large rockets makes sense regardless if reusability is possible or not, since commodity rockets and in-space assembly like what we've done on the ISS shows that there are less expensive ways of accomplishing the same tasks for less money without large government-owned rockets like the SLS. Whether those that control the flow of money in the government agree with that view is a topic for another thread... 

However rocket reusability does help to make clear the cost and opportunity differences between large expendable rockets that fly infrequently, and reusable commodity rockets.

As for whether any expendable rockets are "obsolete" though, that term should only be used in describing the business case of expendable rockets, since obviously the hardware is still capable of doing the job of moving mass to space - in other words from a technical standpoint expendable rockets are not obsolete per se.

At this point anyone not planning on at least partial reusability should rework their plans. And they should be careful about it, because in 5 years full reusability could be approaching where partial reusability is today.

This is really the key point to keep in mind, that up until a couple of years ago it was OK to assume that expendable rockets were going to continue to be the future, but now that assumption is questionable - and close to being proved wrong.

So for those businesses or entities that are cost constrained (i.e. just about everyone), they should be reassessing their plans for payloads that have not been funded for design and construction, and that will be launching 5 years from now and beyond. Which for NASA is everything HSF related...

[Space Ghost 1962]

Those who trudged through the last 3-4 decades might be least qualified to say what the next few will hold -- especially those who don't think the industry stagnated during those years.  Just my opinion, of course.

...
These new generations were all important steps away from previous launch methods, and not just because of their launch vehicle tech.  Each introduced new types of launch processing methods.

You seem to be missing the point. You are familiar with all of the ins and outs of the various incremental improvements and how much work went in to them, so you don't see that as a stagnant period. As a result you are ripe do be blindsided by the coming changes. This isn't to say that what happened in that period isn't good, but we seem to be on the verge of much more rapid and significant changes.

Maybe.  Or maybe we are on the verge of repeating history a bit, where great promises of massive cost reduction, through re-usability and otherwise, don't pan out.  Where what is delivered in the end falls short of what was promised. 

That's going too far. "Repeating history"?

A lot of this might be pure BS, never pan out. IMHO, payload frequency/growth are high on that list - that increased use of space can justify any increased utilization.

But ... If you are implying that a national security/imperative program like Shuttle is in any way like reusing F9 boosters ... I have a big bone to pick with that.

Lets say the worst happens, and worldwide launch rates shrink to 1/5th current annual rates. Who do you think would likely survive? Those who can function with the smallest industry footprint. Care to guess who that is?

(Others would be heavily underwritten for unrelated reasons. And it would be quite painful for them.)

Like Dragon 2 landing in the ocean under parachutes instead of setting down on Mars using rockets, etc.. 

While you're saying that, note the additional Raptor testing we're seeing.

Most likely somethings got descoped so other things could be advanced. Unlike a public agency where that can't happen.

I'm excited by all of the development currently underway.  I fully expect to see some of these new efforts flying for a long time, and I appreciate the real change happening.

How do we measure "the real change"?

But I have worked in the launch business.  I've seen a thing or two.  I understand, I believe, what all of this work really costs. 

Likewise.

Like paying off landing boosters. So take the increased launch contracts advanced, and set aside a fair fraction of that to pay off that "technical debt" accumulated from the past.

It's not the same game. It hasn't yet changed all that much yet as Musk/Bezos claim. But some is a permanent change.

[Coastal Ron]

...Or maybe we are on the verge of repeating history a bit, where great promises of massive cost reduction, through re-usability and otherwise, don't pan out.  Where what is delivered in the end falls short of what was promised.

SpaceX has not significantly raised it's prices in something like 8 years, and their prices today to put up to 5.5mT to GTO are far below anyone else in the launch industry - and that is without using previously flown 1st stages. Considering the scale of things, I'd say we've already seen "massive" cost reductions, and what we're all waiting for is the next wave, which is reflow stages becoming routine.

And there yet is another wave of potential cost reductions coming if SpaceX is able to get their ITSy and ITS spacecraft flying. But even if they don't get the ITS family flying, the reusable Falcon 9 will have disrupted the launch industry - and that will be for the good of all.

Like Dragon 2 landing in the ocean under parachutes instead of setting down on Mars using rockets, etc..

Propulsive landing was not a requirement, more of an internal SpaceX goal, so seeing as some sort of failure is the wrong way to look at it, especially since part of the reason not to pursue it was because of how much quicker the ITS program was moving along. In other words, why concentrate on landing small one-time capsules when you can land far more cargo in a reusable spaceship? The choice was clear to make, and NASA lost nothing.

But I have worked in the launch business.  I've seen a thing or two.  I understand, I believe, what all of this work really costs.

The difference today though is that it is not launch professionals that are making the dramatic improvements in the launch industry, it's the newcomers. It should be very clear to all now that large traditional companies are not good at revolutionary innovation, so all you'll get is confirmation bias if you use them as the measuring stick for what could come in the future...

[tdperk]

Not Skylon.  Not SLS.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/08/fully-reusable-spacex-rockets-would-be-lower-cost-than-skylon-spaceplanes.html#solidopinion

For those costs it is essentially criminal to launch the SLS even once.  Use multiple FH's and assemble on orbit.

[QuantumG]

Use multiple FH's and assemble on orbit.

You know that's impossible. Apollo-style lunar orbit rendezvous is the only way to go to the Moon and Mars Direct is  the only way to go to Mars. Reusability doesn't work, look at shuttle. On-orbit assembly is slow and expensive, look at ISS.

/sarc

[obi-wan]

Use multiple FH's and assemble on orbit.

You know that's impossible. Apollo-style lunar orbit rendezvous is the only way to go to the Moon and Mars Direct is  the only way to go to Mars. Reusability doesn't work, look at shuttle. On-orbit assembly is slow and expensive, look at ISS.

/sarc

For those of us who are a little slower, maybe it would be worth it to spell out "/sarcasm"? (madly deleting original reply post...)   :-)

[su27k]

Not Skylon.  Not SLS.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/08/fully-reusable-spacex-rockets-would-be-lower-cost-than-skylon-spaceplanes.html#solidopinion

nextbigfuture is not the most reliable news sources.... They are copying this article from 2015: http://theconversation.com/spaceplanes-vs-reusable-rockets-which-will-win-51938

[meekGee]

Use multiple FH's and assemble on orbit.

You know that's impossible. Apollo-style lunar orbit rendezvous is the only way to go to the Moon and Mars Direct is  the only way to go to Mars. Reusability doesn't work, look at shuttle. On-orbit assembly is slow and expensive, look at ISS.

/sarc

For those of us who are a little slower, maybe it would be worth it to spell out "/sarcasm"?  :-)

No need, people always get sarcasm.

[ZachF]

Why wouldn't F9, FH, and ITSy be sufficient without New Glenn?

Because they aren't.  Still too much in common and ITSy is not a replacement for F9.   And if it was, Spacex would not keep F9 going.

Spacex is not taking over the US launch business no matter how much you wish it.

Vulcan is going to be around for a few decades.

That's quite a crystal ball you have, Jim.
We don't really know if Vulcan will ever become viable, let alone how long expendable launchers will exist.

Quite a while on expendables.  Even Falcon 9 is partly to fully expendable.  Most of its GTO missions this year (the meat and potatoes of the business) were fully expendable.

 - Ed Kyle

A few decades?  'Quite a while' is 30+ years?

Those who trudged through the last 3-4 decades might be least qualified to say what the next few will hold -- especially those who don't think the industry stagnated during those years.  Just my opinion, of course.

Industry insiders/establishment are often the last people to see a disruptive innovation for what it is. Almost all disruptive innovations come from outsiders or newcomers. When you've only seen incremental/evolutionary steps it's hard to imagine the black swan. Netflix went to Blockbuster in the beginning trying to convince them to buy their company, they got told to take a hike. There is resistance in the establishment because often adopting the disruption means willingly destroying what you are.



Technologies are adopted in an S-curve, many assume technologies are adopted linearly and steadily, but that is never the case. Right now we are on the flat but steadily increasing part. Expendable LVs have been in the "mature" phase since the 70/80s. If re-usable rockets pan out, once the steep part of the adoption curve hits, those without market-ready or near market ready reusability programs could find themselves in rapid death spirals of falling revenues and stranded assets. Many would likely become effective wards of their national governments.

[tdperk]

Not Skylon.  Not SLS.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/08/fully-reusable-spacex-rockets-would-be-lower-cost-than-skylon-spaceplanes.html#solidopinion

nextbigfuture is not the most reliable news sources.... They are copying this article from 2015: http://theconversation.com/spaceplanes-vs-reusable-rockets-which-will-win-51938

However, the chief manner there seems to be any inaccuracy in the report is that the mass estimates are low and the cost estimates are high.

[ZachF]

Unsupported claim. 
1960's vs 2010's modes of transportation.  I don't see any major changes, so they must of stagnated too

Yes, they all stagnated.

Yep. Once a technology has 80%+ penetration, it enters the "mature" phase. From then on it's incremental evolutions, until a replacement comes along to disrupt it, then death/decline occurs.

Cars hit maturity in the 60s. Air travel, in the 80s.



Expendable LVs hit the mature phase in the 70s. Global launch rates have been declining ever since. That is the picture of stagnation. There have been incremental improvements, sure, but probably less than the incremental improvements in the automotive and aviation industries because with those the market has been increasing.

It should be noted, that as we become a more global society, with a rapid global spread of information and capital, that disruptive innovations now occur on shorter and shorter time scales.

[AncientU]

...Or maybe we are on the verge of repeating history a bit, where great promises of massive cost reduction, through re-usability and otherwise, don't pan out.  Where what is delivered in the end falls short of what was promised.

SpaceX has not significantly raised it's prices in something like 8 years, and their prices today to put up to 5.5mT to GTO are far below anyone else in the launch industry - and that is without using previously flown 1st stages. Considering the scale of things, I'd say we've already seen "massive" cost reductions, and what we're all waiting for is the next wave, which is reflow stages becoming routine.

SpaceX price to orbit GPS rose $13.8 million, nearly 17% to $96.5 million, in only one year.
http://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-its-second-gps-3-launch-contract-1/

As SpaceX prices increase, ULA is dropping prices.
http://fortune.com/2017/04/05/spacex-united-launch-alliance-rocket-price/

 - Ed Kyle

A bit stochastic...

You should know better than to use such small number statistics.

[meberbs]

...Or maybe we are on the verge of repeating history a bit, where great promises of massive cost reduction, through re-usability and otherwise, don't pan out.  Where what is delivered in the end falls short of what was promised.

SpaceX has not significantly raised it's prices in something like 8 years, and their prices today to put up to 5.5mT to GTO are far below anyone else in the launch industry - and that is without using previously flown 1st stages. Considering the scale of things, I'd say we've already seen "massive" cost reductions, and what we're all waiting for is the next wave, which is reflow stages becoming routine.

SpaceX price to orbit GPS rose $13.8 million, nearly 17% to $96.5 million, in only one year.
http://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-its-second-gps-3-launch-contract-1/

As SpaceX prices increase, ULA is dropping prices.
http://fortune.com/2017/04/05/spacex-united-launch-alliance-rocket-price/

 - Ed Kyle

A bit stochastic...

You should know better than to use such small number statistics.

Not just that, but deliberately cherry picked data for contracts where a large portion of the cost is DoD extra requirements. We don't know what kind of differences there are between the requirements. Despite the fact that it should be an identical satellite, it would not be atypical of the DoD to change the rules in between. At least the first time SpaceX had put in 2 bids, demonstrating that it is a poor assumption to think that these contracts are equivalent.

Come on Ed, you know this.

[meekGee]

...Or maybe we are on the verge of repeating history a bit, where great promises of massive cost reduction, through re-usability and otherwise, don't pan out.  Where what is delivered in the end falls short of what was promised.

SpaceX has not significantly raised it's prices in something like 8 years, and their prices today to put up to 5.5mT to GTO are far below anyone else in the launch industry - and that is without using previously flown 1st stages. Considering the scale of things, I'd say we've already seen "massive" cost reductions, and what we're all waiting for is the next wave, which is reflow stages becoming routine.

SpaceX price to orbit GPS rose $13.8 million, nearly 17% to $96.5 million, in only one year.
http://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-its-second-gps-3-launch-contract-1/

As SpaceX prices increase, ULA is dropping prices.
http://fortune.com/2017/04/05/spacex-united-launch-alliance-rocket-price/

 - Ed Kyle

Ed, is this per pound or per launch?  (Hint: capacity increased by more tan that)

And instead of "one year alone", which implies other years support the trend, what does SpaceX's price per pound look like over the last 5 years?

That bit about "SpaceX will raise prices while ULA will drop them" and "this is already starting to happen"  has been almost a rallying cry.  It is not supported by reality.

What IS true is that SpaceX, in the near term, will not pass all of their reusability cost-savings to the customer.

Until there's competition, they will just remain comfortably cheaper than the competition, and so will keep higher margins.

[AncientU]

...

As SpaceX prices increase, ULA is dropping prices.
http://fortune.com/2017/04/05/spacex-united-launch-alliance-rocket-price/

 - Ed Kyle

And why is ULA now dropping prices after raising them so drastically over the last decade?

(Seems like USAF is getting a two-fer...)

[Lar]

Unsupported claim. 
1960's vs 2010's modes of transportation.  I don't see any major changes, so they must of stagnated too

Yes, they all stagnated.

Yep. Once a technology has 80%+ penetration, it enters the "mature" phase. From then on it's incremental evolutions, until a replacement comes along to disrupt it, then death/decline occurs.

Cars hit maturity in the 60s. Air travel, in the 80s.



Expendable LVs hit the mature phase in the 70s. Global launch rates have been declining ever since. That is the picture of stagnation. There have been incremental improvements, sure, but probably less than the incremental improvements in the automotive and aviation industries because with those the market has been increasing.

It should be noted, that as we become a more global society, with a rapid global spread of information and capital, that disruptive innovations now occur on shorter and shorter time scales.

"Crossing the Chasm" is a good read. Interesting that TV adoption has actually started to decline a bit. (we have a TV but no cable and no antenna, just Netflix and DVDs and Hulu)

It will be interesting to see this drawn for expendables, but it may not translate well as they are not a consumer good like the ones on this chart.

[ZachF]

...Or maybe we are on the verge of repeating history a bit, where great promises of massive cost reduction, through re-usability and otherwise, don't pan out.  Where what is delivered in the end falls short of what was promised.

SpaceX has not significantly raised it's prices in something like 8 years, and their prices today to put up to 5.5mT to GTO are far below anyone else in the launch industry - and that is without using previously flown 1st stages. Considering the scale of things, I'd say we've already seen "massive" cost reductions, and what we're all waiting for is the next wave, which is reflow stages becoming routine.

SpaceX price to orbit GPS rose $13.8 million, nearly 17% to $96.5 million, in only one year.
http://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-its-second-gps-3-launch-contract-1/

As SpaceX prices increase, ULA is dropping prices.
http://fortune.com/2017/04/05/spacex-united-launch-alliance-rocket-price/

 - Ed Kyle

A bit stochastic...

You should know better than to use such small number statistics.

Not just that, but deliberately cherry picked data for contracts where a large portion of the cost is DoD extra requirements. We don't know what kind of differences there are between the requirements. Despite the fact that it should be an identical satellite, it would not be atypical of the DoD to change the rules in between. At least the first time SpaceX had put in 2 bids, demonstrating that it is a poor assumption to think that these contracts are equivalent.

Come on Ed, you know this.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was like the scene from "War Dogs" where they find out how much they undercut their competitors.

If SX bid $90m and ULA bid a lot more (lets say $130m) for the last contract, Why wouldn't SX try to bid a little higher price on the next contract?

[envy887]

...

As SpaceX prices increase, ULA is dropping prices.
http://fortune.com/2017/04/05/spacex-united-launch-alliance-rocket-price/

 - Ed Kyle

And why is ULA now dropping prices after raising them so drastically over the last decade?

Competition is wonderful!  It seems likely that the numbers will more-or-less converge at some point and that part of the market will be divided.  The same thing will likely happen with Arianespace (who recently picked up yet another satellite originally planned for SpaceX).  To me this answers the question of this thread.  We are already seeing "who will compete".

 - Ed Kyle

Ariane did not pick up a launch contract from SpaceX. SES decided to swap SES-14, which was originally slotted on F9, with SES-12, which was originally slotted on Ariane 5. Both providers still have as many launches as they did before the swap.

SES today announced a change of launch vehicles and launch slots for its SES-12 and SES-14 satellites. Under the new agreements, SES-12 will be launched on a Falcon 9 vehicle from SpaceX in Q1 2018 while SES-14 will be launched on an Ariane 5 rocket early in Q1 2018. The swap of launches will enable SES to improve service quality and continuity for its customers.

https://www.ses.com/press-release/ses-swaps-ses-12-and-ses-14-launches

[woods170]

...

As SpaceX prices increase, ULA is dropping prices.
http://fortune.com/2017/04/05/spacex-united-launch-alliance-rocket-price/

 - Ed Kyle

And why is ULA now dropping prices after raising them so drastically over the last decade?

Competition is wonderful!  It seems likely that the numbers will more-or-less converge at some point and that part of the market will be divided.  The same thing will likely happen with Arianespace (who recently picked up yet another satellite originally planned for SpaceX).  To me this answers the question of this thread.  We are already seeing "who will compete".

 - Ed Kyle

Ariane did not pick up a launch contract from SpaceX. SES decided to swap SES-14, which was originally slotted on F9, with SES-12, which was originally slotted on Ariane 5. Both providers still have as many launches as they did before the swap.

SES today announced a change of launch vehicles and launch slots for its SES-12 and SES-14 satellites. Under the new agreements, SES-12 will be launched on a Falcon 9 vehicle from SpaceX in Q1 2018 while SES-14 will be launched on an Ariane 5 rocket early in Q1 2018. The swap of launches will enable SES to improve service quality and continuity for its customers.

https://www.ses.com/press-release/ses-swaps-ses-12-and-ses-14-launches

Also note that the heavier of the two sats will now fly on Falcon 9.

[AncientU]

...

As SpaceX prices increase, ULA is dropping prices.
http://fortune.com/2017/04/05/spacex-united-launch-alliance-rocket-price/

 - Ed Kyle

And why is ULA now dropping prices after raising them so drastically over the last decade?

Competition is wonderful!  It seems likely that the numbers will more-or-less converge at some point and that part of the market will be divided.  The same thing will likely happen with Arianespace (who recently picked up yet another satellite originally planned for SpaceX).  To me this answers the question of this thread.  We are already seeing "who will compete".

 - Ed Kyle

I agree, competition is wonderful.

Let's compete without 'allocation' -- or direct delivery of contracts -- 100% of future NSS and NASA launches, including SLS/Orion (exploration-class launches and BEO crewed spacecraft).  We should allow Ariane launches into the competition as they are our NATO ally.