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

[guckyfan]

If they would see a significant risk to the pad they would upgrade Vandenberg instead even it it took them a few month more. After all Vandenberg was initially the pad for the first FH launch. The TEL there may need similar upgrades as the one on LC-39A but it basically is a FH TEL. Or has thrust risen so much that the flametrench can no longer handle a FH?

[Jim]

It is assumed in many circles that there will be a failure in less than a year

The same circles that assumed you couldn't land a booster, refly it, selling successive missions off them?

Nope, the same circles that make US launch service procurement decisions

Isn't it illegal for those circles to be assuming a SpaceX failure?

No, just good common sense.

And it is not by Spacex competitors as wrongly stated by previous posts.  The statement had nothing to do with other contractors 

[RonM]

It is assumed in many circles that there will be a failure in less than a year

The same circles that assumed you couldn't land a booster, refly it, selling successive missions off them?

Nope, the same circles that make US launch service procurement decisions

Isn't it illegal for those circles to be assuming a SpaceX failure?

No, just good common sense.

And it is not by Spacex competitors as wrongly stated by previous posts.  The statement had nothing to do with other contractors

You know you could avoid a lot of confusion by not being so vague in the first place. For example, "It is assumed in many procurement circles that there will be a failure in less than a year."

Then go on to justify your point. I'd say that with an increasing flight rate and with the typical 1 out of 20 failure rate, SpaceX needs to improve reliability or they will have a launch failure within a year.

[TrevorMonty]

F9 has not had 1stage failure. Engine failure on a version 1.0 mission is about it and then primary payload was delivered successfully. Not sure if any other LV has that record.

Even their landings are become reliable, no failures since first successful barge landing.

[Jim]

It is assumed in many circles that there will be a failure in less than a year

The same circles that assumed you couldn't land a booster, refly it, selling successive missions off them?

Nope, the same circles that make US launch service procurement decisions

I qualified here

[edkyle99]

Some observations:
1. Amos-6 wasn't a reliability issue.  It was a design issue. unfixed, it would have claimed 100% of flights. Fixed, it would claim 0.  So it does not count.  There has been only 1 reliability LOM, on F9 1.1.

It (F9-29) counted for Spacecom, just like F9-4 counted for Orbcomm and F9-19 for NASA.

There is clearly higher risk launching on Falcon 9 right now than on, say, Ariane 5.  Satellite operators have so far, for the most part, accepted the risk, though a payload or two shifted away last year after AMOS 6.  They'll stay if the risk continues to decline going forward, unless the prices climb too much.

 - Ed Kyle

[meekGee]

Some observations:
1. Amos-6 wasn't a reliability issue.  It was a design issue. unfixed, it would have claimed 100% of flights. Fixed, it would claim 0.  So it does not count.  There has been only 1 reliability LOM, on F9 1.1.

It (F9-29) counted for Spacecom, just like F9-4 counted for Orbcomm and F9-19 for NASA.

 - Ed Kyle

I know.  For the injured, even the one accident is 100%.

However, for the insurance company, or the prospective buyer, what's warranted is a risk analysis, not emotional statements.

[Space Ghost 1962]

It is assumed in many circles that there will be a failure in less than a year

If this assumption is true, SpaceX already failed (in general sense).

That's even too pessimistic even we're all Russians. They haven't even started yet.

You cannot have very high launch rate without having very high reliability.

To fulfill their ambitions, SpaceX have to have literally most reliable launcher (F9) in the world.

I believe that eventually is the point.

To reach Mars w/o govt fiat, you'd have to have extreme reuse, over extreme distances, in long term hostile environments (deep space, Mars landing/surface). Sounds like extreme reliability to me.

Falcon is just the warm up act.

[AncientU]

... They haven't even started yet.

Yup.  First five operational years.

Competition has been launching since the 1950s/60s -- ten times as long -- and they've been caught flat footed.
Hubris.

[spacenut]

Wasn't one of the Shuttle failures due to the orbiters tiles being knocked off by frozen foam insulation from the shuttle tank?  Would not that be part of the orbiter? 

[shooter6947]

Wasn't one of the Shuttle failures due to the orbiters tiles being knocked off by frozen foam insulation from the shuttle tank?  Would not that be part of the orbiter?

No.  The Columbia accident had nothing to do with tiles.  Nothing.  To do.  With tiles.  The foam that fell off the tank blasted a 40-cm hole in the reinforced carbon-carbon leading edge of the wing, allowing re-entry gases to melt the wing off.

But while I suppose that the RCC wing edge is part of the orbiter, the real problem came from having the orbiter on the side of the stack where falling debris could damage it.

[Jim]

No, the problem was not a side mounted orbiter.  The issue was an orbiter that could not handle a debris shedding environment that is present in every launch vehicle

[envy887]

Wait, why is there a discussion of Shuttle tiles in a thread about SpaceX and it's competition?

[whitelancer64]

*snip*

Even their landings are become reliable, no failures since first successful barge landing.

Not true. The first successful ASDS landing was CRS-8, April 8th, 2016. There were two more successful ASDS landings (JCSat-14 ad Thaicom 8 ) and then another ASDS landing failure - ABS-2A / Eutelsat 117 West B, June 15th, 2016.

All attempted landings since then have been successful.

[Robotbeat]

It is assumed in many circles that there will be a failure in less than a year

The same circles that assumed you couldn't land a booster, refly it, selling successive missions off them?

Nope, the same circles that make US launch service procurement decisions

Isn't it illegal for those circles to be assuming a SpaceX failure?

No, just good common sense.

And it is not by Spacex competitors as wrongly stated by previous posts.  The statement had nothing to do with other contractors

Fair.

A customer has to look at possibility of failure of other vehicles than their own holding up the launch.

SpaceX had two major failures in 37 campaigns. That means they have only a ~30% chance of NOT failing in the next 20 launches, if you take those numbers as-is without including the fact that they'll soon essentially freeze the design for block 5. This more conservative estimate is perfectly appropriate for procurement but not for a competitor (which should assume that SpaceX will improve over time).

[DreamyPickle]

Historically SpaceX was limited by various issues, production rate, failures and are now limited by pad capacity. But what if they don't encounter another failure soon? Once LC40 and LC39A are both up they will be capable of launching almost weekly, and they actually have an *inventory of boosters* to support this. SpaceX launch rate will go up like crazy. So far this year they are already #1 by launches, responsible for fully a quarter of all successful orbital missions.

So far existing providers have felt a pressure to reduce costs but did not yet encounter issues finding enough payloads to launch. If SpaceX can keep increasing their launch rate then this will change.

[laszlo]

Wait, why is there a discussion of Shuttle tiles in a thread about SpaceX and it's competition?

The same reason that SpaceX shows up in a discussion of a ham sandwich on these fora?   

[Dante2121]

Historically SpaceX was limited by various issues, production rate, failures and are now limited by pad capacity. But what if they don't encounter another failure soon? Once LC40 and LC39A are both up they will be capable of launching almost weekly, and they actually have an *inventory of boosters* to support this. SpaceX launch rate will go up like crazy. So far this year they are already #1 by launches, responsible for fully a quarter of all successful orbital missions.

So far existing providers have felt a pressure to reduce costs but did not yet encounter issues finding enough payloads to launch. If SpaceX can keep increasing their launch rate then this will change.

Won't be any payloads left to launch.

[docmordrid]

Historically SpaceX was limited by various issues, production rate, failures and are now limited by pad capacity. But what if they don't encounter another failure soon? Once LC40 and LC39A are both up they will be capable of launching almost weekly, and they actually have an *inventory of boosters* to support this. SpaceX launch rate will go up like crazy. So far this year they are already #1 by launches, responsible for fully a quarter of all successful orbital missions.

So far existing providers have felt a pressure to reduce costs but did not yet encounter issues finding enough payloads to launch. If SpaceX can keep increasing their launch rate then this will change.

Won't be any payloads left to launch.

Both flocks of "CommX" totals about 12,000 birds of just under 400 kg each, with ~20% replaced a year. Just keeping up with that will keep them busy.

[edkyle99]

Historically SpaceX was limited by various issues, production rate, failures and are now limited by pad capacity. But what if they don't encounter another failure soon? Once LC40 and LC39A are both up they will be capable of launching almost weekly, and they actually have an *inventory of boosters* to support this. SpaceX launch rate will go up like crazy. So far this year they are already #1 by launches, responsible for fully a quarter of all successful orbital missions.

So far existing providers have felt a pressure to reduce costs but did not yet encounter issues finding enough payloads to launch. If SpaceX can keep increasing their launch rate then this will change.

Won't be any payloads left to launch.

True.   We have to keep in mind that the recent surge is part of the AMOS 6 schedule recovery effort, combined with a push to beat the summer range shutdown.  I expect the launch cadence to slow a bit now, something that has already been visible for a month or two at McGregor.

 - Ed Kyle