Serious competition in the launch business

[LouScheffer]

From this article

Pearce said it remain possible that SpaceX will be able to confirm a May or June launch, but that would be difficult to achieve in the deadline Inmarsat has to find an alternative rocket. Pearce said Inmarsat has more than one launch option in addition to SpaceX.

“It’s probably more likely we would look to exercise one of the options we have been quietly cultivating behind the scenes,” Pearce said. “We’ve talked about one of them, which is the [International Launch Services] Proton launch that we have up our sleeve anyway. But we do have other options as well, which we will look to execute on in the next few weeks. If we need to do so, the May-June time frame is where we are comfortable currently.”

So this means they have at least three options for a launch next year, and have clearly designed their satellite to be compatible with all three launchers.  It would be interesting to know how they manage the choice at such a (relatively) last minute.  Have they already done (for example) a coupled-loads analysis for each vendor, or are these becoming streamlined and standardized enough that they could pick a vendor now and launch mid next year?

Anyway, I think this is a great sign.  Three serious bidders, and vendors competing on availability, means this is turning into a commercial business.   That will push innovation and service in a way that sole-source contracts signed years in advance did not.

[Jim]

1.  So this means they have at least three options for a launch next year, and have clearly designed their satellite to be compatible with all three launchers.

2.  It would be interesting to know how they manage the choice at such a (relatively) last minute.  Have they already done (for example) a coupled-loads analysis for each vendor, or are these becoming streamlined and standardized enough that they could pick a vendor now and launch mid next year?

Anyway, I think this is a great sign.  Three serious bidders, and vendors competing on availability, means this is turning into a commercial business.   That will push innovation and service in a way that sole-source contracts signed years in advance did not.

1. The  spacecraft buses already are LV agnostic.  And Spacex designed the Falcon 9 to accept existing spacecraft.
2.  See #1 and final coupled loads can be done
3.  It has been this way for decades.

[LouScheffer]

1. The  spacecraft buses already are LV agnostic.  And Spacex designed the Falcon 9 to accept existing spacecraft.
2.  See #1 and final coupled loads can be done
3.  It has been this way for decades.

But here you state that analytic integration takes about a year, at least for the first time on a launcher.  So has this already been done with all possible launchers, just in case?  Or has this process been sped up? 

Because instead of waiting for two years for an Atlas ride (or other/worse), less than 3 months for an opportunistic ride to orbit. Which, if the bet on reuse is successful, drops to a month in less than 2 years.

Not really feasible (3 month much more than 1 month). 
[...]
d.  Not going to happen for a first flight of a new spacecraft.  That will take at around 12 months for analytical integration.
[...]

[Jim]

But here you state that analytic integration takes about a year, at least for the first time on a launcher.  So has this already been done with all possible launchers, just in case?  Or has this process been sped up? 

Most spacecraft buses have already flown on all vehicles

[TrevorMonty]

Option B launch provider is likely to be ULA and Atlas. Tory has been advertising fact they have LVs available at short notice. Would be more expensive option but at least satellite would make to orbit on schedule.

[savuporo]

Option B launch provider is likely to be ULA and Atlas. ..

http://spacenews.com/mhi-sets-sights-on-commercial-market-at-h-2a-notches-second-launch-of-2016/

[LouScheffer]

But here you state that analytic integration takes about a year, at least for the first time on a launcher.  So has this already been done with all possible launchers, just in case?  Or has this process been sped up? 

Most spacecraft buses have already flown on all vehicles

Sure, but there was a first time for every one.

So who pays for coupled-loads and other analytic integration analyses?  The satellite maker, to make sure their satellite is compatible with all launchers?   The launch provider, so they can be qualified as an alternative, or perhaps this is part of the bid process if you've never launched one of these before?

[Jim]

So who pays for coupled-loads and other analytic integration analyses? 

Whoever buys the launch service.  It is part of the basic price.  Launch vehicles don't do it for free betting on the come.

A new satellite bus would be designed to envelope the environments of all the launch vehicles it would intend to fly on. 

[baldusi]

Paying for an option might include a coupled analysis?

[Space Ghost 1962]

If volumes rise enough to warrant it, automation can greatly reduce payload integration labor costs.

[savuporo]

If volumes rise enough to warrant it, automation can greatly reduce payload integration labor costs.

Volumes are not rising though, except in nanosatellite segment.

But Lance said the 12 commercial geostationary-orbit satellites sold worldwide so far, of which SSL won four, suggest that 2016 will end with no more than around 16 orders, similar to 2015.

That is well down from the historical average of around 20 satellites.

[Space Ghost 1962]

If volumes rise enough to warrant it, automation can greatly reduce payload integration labor costs.

Volumes are not rising though, except in nanosatellite segment.

But Lance said the 12 commercial geostationary-orbit satellites sold worldwide so far, of which SSL won four, suggest that 2016 will end with no more than around 16 orders, similar to 2015.

That is well down from the historical average of around 20 satellites.

True at the moment. But the effects of the experimentation in nanosats are causing some different ways of deploying sat capabilities. And some successful cubesat demonstrations are leading to larger satellite versions.

The effects of these changes are phasing in over five years.

Not to mention the upcoming battle of massive internet service constellations from (currently) four sources, which I expect will grow to twenty over 10-15 years. And there's an entirely new satellite segment that's being mooted by a finance group this quarter that I've never seen before ...

We'll see.

[savuporo]

We'll see.

As we have seen before

[LouScheffer]

So who pays for coupled-loads and other analytic integration analyses? 

Whoever buys the launch service.  It is part of the basic price.   

So if they don't do the analysis until after the customer has purchased the launch, what do they do if analysis reveals a problem?  Who has to make changes, if changes are required?  If the needed changes are significant, can the customer get a refund?

Or is this point moot, since coupled-loads analysis seldom (or never) reveals any problem with the type of payloads (presumably comsats of various kinds) that might look for a last minute launch provider? 

[Jim]

So if they don't do the analysis until after the customer has purchased the launch, what do they do if analysis reveals a problem?  Who has to make changes, if changes are required?  If the needed changes are significant, can the customer get a refund?

Or is this point moot, since coupled-loads analysis seldom (or never) reveals any problem with the type of payloads (presumably comsats of various kinds) that might look for a last minute launch provider? 

Payload makes changes or doesn't fly.  Or a different adapter is constructed.
Customer can get a refund of remaining money

[Space Ghost 1962]

We'll see.

As we have seen before

Cynical and dumb. FWIW, Verizon has been shedding DSL accounts and wired telephone subscribers in advance to Frontier, as an example.

If you follow telecom analysts coverage, its not a question of "if" so much as "when".

Also, there's a colossal shift in how Google and Facebook (soon all the rest) want to make revenue off of subscribers. There's a limit to how far you can revend information about users, so they have to build up the value of the users in order to make it in their interest to positively, cooperatively, vend more useful ... "things".

Most internet businesses that already have a customer involved side, like the above, have this easy, having built up a significant positive and informed relationship already. Telcos, with their abrasive "phone company" hostility ... don't have a future growth potential here. So that's why the $32billion here is just the beginning.

FWIW, the 3G rollout took $384billion, and LTE more than double that when its complete. The pitiful amounts being shoved out right now for internet sat constellations are simply chicken feed to learn the ropes.

More than a trillon will be put into the next generation provider networks, including ground and sat assets.

The trouble with the last two times around for this stuff was that it attempted to "keep alive" the PTTs at the cost of postponing the disruption. Which is why they were expensive failures. Now the disruption is driving the wave, and the issue is more how to survive the disruption with the right choices on technology deployment/evolution than how to backfill into prior business models. So would not be surprised by more failures here followed by more aggressive plays that follow.

[Rik ISS-fan]

There is at this moment no serious compatition in the launch business. Expecially for micro sattellites. They have four options:
1) launch from the IsS
2) rideshare on atlas or Falcon9 (when that starts flying again.
3) rideshare on plsv
4) expansive flight on vega or minotaur/ pegasus.
Two launchers ~2mT payload SSO aren't  available anymore Dnepr and Rockot only Sentinel 5p and 2 will still be launched by (EU) Rockot.
QB-50, ESEO, the rideshare payload on csg soyuz that couldn't launch earlier this year, and the dedicated Falcon9 rideshare show there is a large shortage in timely affordable launch oportunities for small payloads.
Thre is a reason why more than half of the micro satellites get launched from the ISS.

[sdsds]

the 3G rollout took $384billion, and LTE more than double that when its complete. The pitiful amounts being shoved out right now for internet sat constellations are simply chicken feed to learn the ropes.

More than a trillon will be put into the next generation provider networks, including ground and sat assets.

I shared this bit with my friends on Facebook. Because I think that level of investment from private enterprises will fundamentally change how people think about spaceflight.

Of course the real revolution will come when startup companies working out of suburban garages can afford to deploy their first capital assets in space....

[john smith 19]

If volumes rise enough to warrant it, automation can greatly reduce payload integration labor costs.

No doubt. I'd love to have found out how the cost break down changed for Iridium, given AFAIK they deployed 77 identical satellites.

The general case however is still a CLA and that seems to need multiple cycles to get right. I find it strange very few people seem to use vibration and shock dampening mounts for their payloads.

Of course the real revolution will come when startup companies working out of suburban garages can afford to deploy their first capital assets in space....

Correct.

For these people an F9 at $62m is still to much. A Pegasus (I think they are still available) at $15-20m is still too much.

In this regard a secondary payload on an Atlas, F9 or Ariane in the 100s of $k is still the current option.

That won't change until launch prices drop a lot, more like 90% than 10 or even 30%.

[Jim]

The general case however is still a CLA and that seems to need multiple cycles to get right. I find it strange very few people seem to use vibration and shock dampening mounts for their payloads.

Because it not really viable.  It would take a large amount of mass to do it and it would introduce control issues.  Think trying to deal with a cantilever mass on a flexible joint and trying to control it from the opposite end.