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

[tdperk]

The Starlink Constellation (if that is what it will be called) requires a hundred F9 launches per year or more.  It starts flying in 2019.  The rest of the World's launches only need to increase 10% for there to be 100s of launches per year in early-2020s.

What is 'distant' or 'fantasy' about this?

The SpaceX constellation seems set to use small satellites, perhaps 100 kg each, plus or minus.  SpaceX is almost certainly planning to launch these in big groups on Falcon 9 or Heavy.  It could launch thousands of satellites using only a few dozen launches during a period of several years.  If the company needed 100 Falcon 9 launches per year just to support this constellation, it would be a very bad business plan, IMO.  (I'm skeptical of the plan even if they are launched en-mass, but we'll see.)

 - Ed Kyle

I thought the number was much higher than 100 kg....   More like 500 kg....  To the point where we weren't sure if a single F9 can do a full orbital plane's worth in one shot.

Recent FCC testimony said the 4,425 sats summed to 1,700t IIRC.  So, 384kg each.  At 16-20 per F9, that's 220-280 launches.  Three times that for the 12,000 sat constellation.

At a 6 year mean lifetime (5-7 years in FCC application), that's 2000 per year indefinitely -- 100-125 F9 launches.  This is why many see ITSy as the natural solution to Starlink deployment.

ITSy and a dispersal bus for Starlink.

[guckyfan]

ITSy and a dispersal bus for Starlink.

My inner eye sees them stacked up in shelves and a busy little robot picking them up one by one and kicking them out the payload door.

[docmordrid]

I see something more akin to the Mark 41 Vertical Launching System, but with several satellites stacked in each tube. Staggered  release.

[tdperk]

ITSy and a dispersal bus for Starlink.

My inner eye sees them stacked up in shelves and a busy little robot picking them up one by one and kicking them out the payload door.

So you see the ITSY performing bus functions?  Maybe initially, but I see it lofting a bus with very high Isp.

[Jim]

But >10 years later, with the full benefit of hindsight, with enough time to gain perspective, and with a "how to do it right" example right there in front of you - to still not see it - that's just astounding..

There is no "how to do it right" example

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

But >10 years later, with the full benefit of hindsight, with enough time to gain perspective, and with a "how to do it right" example right there in front of you - to still not see it - that's just astounding..

There is no "how to do it right" example

Unfortunately for many fans I will have to agree. Until used booster flights outnumber the new booster flights the F9/FH reuse cannot be considered an example of "how to do it right". We believe that SpaceX will be able to do this and do it with a reduction in the access to space but they have yet to acheive that milestone. They have on their schedule this milestone is NET than this time next year.

There are two items that would enable the phrase:
More boosters used than new.
A general reduction in the $/kg or the general cost of access to space.

They have yet to be demonstrated.

[savuporo]

But >10 years later, with the full benefit of hindsight, with enough time to gain perspective, and with a "how to do it right" example right there in front of you - to still not see it - that's just astounding..

There is no "how to do it right" example

Someone must have missed a memo. Whatever Elon tweets at any given time is the 'do it right' way, duh.

[M.E.T.]

But >10 years later, with the full benefit of hindsight, with enough time to gain perspective, and with a "how to do it right" example right there in front of you - to still not see it - that's just astounding..

There is no "how to do it right" example

Unfortunately for many fans I will have to agree. Until used booster flights outnumber the new booster flights the F9/FH reuse cannot be considered an example of "how to do it right". We believe that SpaceX will be able to do this and do it with a reduction in the access to space but they have yet to acheive that milestone. They have on their schedule this milestone is NET than this time next year.

There are two items that would enable the phrase:
More boosters used than new.
A general reduction in the $/kg or the general cost of access to space.

They have yet to be demonstrated.

I would rephrase the bolded part above to "a reduction of SpaceX's internal $/kg to space". If they are milking a 100% markup per launch, while still undercutting the nearest competitor by a mere 1%, that is still success. Because they can invest that money into producing even more technological advancement down the line.

[meekGee]

But >10 years later, with the full benefit of hindsight, with enough time to gain perspective, and with a "how to do it right" example right there in front of you - to still not see it - that's just astounding..

There is no "how to do it right" example

Unfortunately for many fans I will have to agree. Until used booster flights outnumber the new booster flights the F9/FH reuse cannot be considered an example of "how to do it right". We believe that SpaceX will be able to do this and do it with a reduction in the access to space but they have yet to acheive that milestone. They have on their schedule this milestone is NET than this time next year.

There are two items that would enable the phrase:
More boosters used than new.
A general reduction in the $/kg or the general cost of access to space.

They have yet to be demonstrated.

Sadly for said competition, they're going to wait until the majority of flights are reused before starting to acknowledge that yeah, maybe that is the right way of doing it...

[Jim]

But >10 years later, with the full benefit of hindsight, with enough time to gain perspective, and with a "how to do it right" example right there in front of you - to still not see it - that's just astounding..

There is no "how to do it right" example

Unfortunately for many fans I will have to agree. Until used booster flights outnumber the new booster flights the F9/FH reuse cannot be considered an example of "how to do it right". We believe that SpaceX will be able to do this and do it with a reduction in the access to space but they have yet to acheive that milestone. They have on their schedule this milestone is NET than this time next year.

There are two items that would enable the phrase:
More boosters used than new.
A general reduction in the $/kg or the general cost of access to space.

They have yet to be demonstrated.

Spacex has reduced costs via vehicle/system design and younger workforce with no paid overtime.  Reuse has yet to enter the picture and so far has yet to be income positive.

[Jim]

But >10 years later, with the full benefit of hindsight, with enough time to gain perspective, and with a "how to do it right" example right there in front of you - to still not see it - that's just astounding..

There is no "how to do it right" example

Unfortunately for many fans I will have to agree. Until used booster flights outnumber the new booster flights the F9/FH reuse cannot be considered an example of "how to do it right". We believe that SpaceX will be able to do this and do it with a reduction in the access to space but they have yet to acheive that milestone. They have on their schedule this milestone is NET than this time next year.

There are two items that would enable the phrase:
More boosters used than new.
A general reduction in the $/kg or the general cost of access to space.

They have yet to be demonstrated.

Sadly for said competition, they're going to wait until the majority of flights are reused before starting to acknowledge that yeah, maybe that is the right way of doing it...

That wait might be forever.

[meberbs]

Sadly for said competition, they're going to wait until the majority of flights are reused before starting to acknowledge that yeah, maybe that is the right way of doing it...

That wait might be forever.

Not likely to be the case. And "hope for your competitors to trip and fall on their face" is not a business plan. On the topic of this thread, if a company is not planning now for the disruption this will cause aren't likely to be long term competitors. (In the off chance that SpaceX implodes, the companies still benefit from trying to reduce their own costs.)

Customers have already benefited from reuse. Contract renegotiation is the limiting factor for fraction of reuse flights at the moment. The next reuse is one that was originally stated clearly as would not be reuse. L2 has information about potential future reuse flights, which based on the rate at which reuse is taking hold in the manifest makes it seem unlikely that majority reuse will not happen. SpaceX has also been quite clear that they are currently making changes that will make reuse easier, cheaper and faster, and there is little reason to doubt that this will happen. Even if they only get it down to a week or even a month of work instead of their goal of a day, this will still be a significant cost reduction on top of the what they already have.

[envy887]

Reuse has yet to enter the picture and so far has yet to be income positive.

They already performed 2 missions at reduced cost and price due to reuse. It has definitely entered the picture.

Paying back the initial investment is not the same as reducing cost for a single mission. For SpaceX's competition, it is wholly irrelevant how long it takes SpaceX to make up the investment in reuse.

[AncientU]

Sadly for said competition, they're going to wait until the majority of flights are reused before starting to acknowledge that yeah, maybe that is the right way of doing it...

That wait might be forever.

Not likely to be the case. And "hope for your competitors to trip and fall on their face" is not a business plan. On the topic of this thread, if a company is not planning now for the disruption this will cause aren't likely to be long term competitors. (In the off chance that SpaceX implodes, the companies still benefit from trying to reduce their own costs.)

Customers have already benefited from reuse. Contract renegotiation is the limiting factor for fraction of reuse flights at the moment. The next reuse is one that was originally stated clearly as would not be reuse. L2 has information about potential future reuse flights, which based on the rate at which reuse is taking hold in the manifest makes it seem unlikely that majority reuse will not happen. SpaceX has also been quite clear that they are currently making changes that will make reuse easier, cheaper and faster, and there is little reason to doubt that this will happen. Even if they only get it down to a week or even a month of work instead of their goal of a day, this will still be a significant cost reduction on top of the what they already have.

Won't stop some people... then they move the goal posts.

[meekGee]

Two wagoneers sitting on their horses looking at the just completed railroad and saying "Why worry, the trains are not running regularly yet".

That the enthusiast crowd has that mentality is almost to be expected.  But when corporate leadership is also doing the same, just strike these companies from the list of possible competitors.

[tdperk]

But >10 years later, with the full benefit of hindsight, with enough time to gain perspective, and with a "how to do it right" example right there in front of you - to still not see it - that's just astounding..

There is no "how to do it right" example

Unfortunately for many fans I will have to agree. Until used booster flights outnumber the new booster flights the F9/FH reuse cannot be considered an example of "how to do it right". We believe that SpaceX will be able to do this and do it with a reduction in the access to space but they have yet to acheive that milestone. They have on their schedule this milestone is NET than this time next year.

There are two items that would enable the phrase:
More boosters used than new.
A general reduction in the $/kg or the general cost of access to space.

They have yet to be demonstrated.

Spacex has reduced costs via vehicle/system design and younger workforce with no paid overtime.  Reuse has yet to enter the picture and so far has yet to be income positive.

" and younger workforce with no paid overtime "  <--  Sure Jim, it's all a facade.

" Reuse has yet to enter the picture and so far has yet to be income positive. "  <--  It has entered the picture, as mentioned here by "meberbs"

Customers have already benefited from reuse. Contract renegotiation is the limiting factor for fraction of reuse flights at the moment. The next reuse is one that was originally stated clearly as would not be reuse. L2 has information about potential future reuse flights, which based on the rate at which reuse is taking hold in the manifest makes it seem unlikely that majority reuse will not happen.

Care to prove it is not income positive?  To do it you have to prove Shotwell and Musk are liars.

[Robotbeat]

Jim is right. Musk said it cost like a billion dollars to develop reuse. I'm pretty sure it takes more than 2 launches to recover that.

But I do consider it essentially proven at this point. Just a matter of time until it is the dominant method of launching. Doesn't have to be VTVL, could be VTHL or something, but fairly rapid reuse like that is inevitable at this point, IMHO. Blue Origin would've eventually done it if SpaceX didn't exist, so I wouldn't give SpaceX too much credit except for accelerating the timescale.

[meekGee]

Jim is right. Musk said it cost like a billion dollars to develop reuse. I'm pretty sure it takes more than 2 launches to recover that.

But I do consider it essentially proven at this point. Just a matter of time until it is the dominant method of launching. Doesn't have to be VTVL, could be VTHL or something, but fairly rapid reuse like that is inevitable at this point, IMHO. Blue Origin would've eventually done it if SpaceX didn't exist, so I wouldn't give SpaceX too much credit except for accelerating the timescale.

Income-positive is per flight.

That reuse hasn't covered the investment in a mere two flights is a triviality.  How can it?

It's a Red Herring. A non-realistic "goal" that nobody at SpaceX has ever claimed to have met.

SpaceX is "doing it right", and with the current reuse MO, will get many flights out of each S1, with low turn around costs.

And with a fraction of the investment put into other launch systems, reusable or not.

[Jim]

" and younger workforce with no paid overtime "  <--  Sure Jim, it's all a facade.

That is documented fact

[meekGee]

Where is it documented?

Because GlassDoor and  "competitor threads" on this forum beg to differ.

The only thing that is documented is that SpaceX performed much more development and operations per person employed.