I know everyone predicts Starlink will be a money tree, but there's also nothing preventing anyone else from doing yet another constellation of com sats, right?
... there's also nothing preventing anyone else from doing yet another constellation of com sats, right?
New Origin
While it seems SpaceX has a massive lead and a pretty good margin of profitability right now, I don't doubt that old established players are more focused than before in catching up. Whether the burden of their institutional legacy is too great, we'll have to see. On the other side, there's also other new space companies gunning to compete, Blue is probably the most immediately legitimate threat.... what I'd wish/hope to hear ... there's little concern in competing for EO launch services with a multi-mission ship like BFR.
Your initial assumption that the old players are focused on catching up isn't quite right. Other than Blue Origin, no one else is even aiming for the same level of reuse that Falcon 9 has today, and what they are aiming for is not planned until years after BFR will start flying. They simply aren't on track to ever catch up.
Imagine, if you will, there are 2 companies, SpaceX and SpaceY. 10 years in the future SpaceX and SpaceY are at relative parity with each other in terms of Earth orbit launch capabilities/cost. However, SpaceX has an albabtross of an altruistic operation it is funding at the same time, Mars.
It is also designing its LVs for the dual purpose of going to Mars and making money putting satellites in EO. Meanwhile, SpaceY is optimizing everything for EO (or LO if seen as profitable) and using all its resources in those areas.
>SpaceY will have an albabtross in the form of quarterly profit and dividend,
Quote from: meberbs on 04/09/2018 09:38 pmYour initial assumption that the old players are focused on catching up isn't quite right. Other than Blue Origin, no one else is even aiming for the same level of reuse that Falcon 9 has today, and what they are aiming for is not planned until years after BFR will start flying. They simply aren't on track to ever catch up.In principle, Boeing or Airbus, not as aerospace contractors, but as long-haul aircraft vendors - might make an entrance on their own into the market, if they see P2P as a real threat.But everyone seems to be trying really hard to believe that Falcon 9 will never manage to recover stages at this point.
Is it out of line to note there seems to have been a burst of low-post-count concern trolling since the Falcon Heavy demo? I can think of three instances that stand out.>
Quote from: speedevil on 04/09/2018 11:38 pmIn principle, Boeing or Airbus, not as aerospace contractors, but as long-haul aircraft vendors - might make an entrance on their own into the market, if they see P2P as a real threat.But everyone seems to be trying really hard to believe that Falcon 9 will never manage to recover stages at this point.Boeing* and Airbus, or their subsidiaries, are building Vulcan and Ariane-6 which are aiming to compete with where Falcon was in 2014/2015. Their products will be available for maiden flights in early 20220s. Follow-on steps toward reusability (SMART and Callisto) are five years behind that... they are falling further behind instead of catching up -- Falcon only took 2 years to transition from cheap rockets to reflights. Full reusability is not even on either giant's radar, let alone P-to-P.
In principle, Boeing or Airbus, not as aerospace contractors, but as long-haul aircraft vendors - might make an entrance on their own into the market, if they see P2P as a real threat.But everyone seems to be trying really hard to believe that Falcon 9 will never manage to recover stages at this point.
Quote from: AC in NC on 04/10/2018 01:25 pmIs it out of line to note there seems to have been a burst of low-post-count concern trolling since the Falcon Heavy demo? I can think of three instances that stand out.>Only three? 😜
Ill preface by saying I'm hugely supportive of HSF for the sake of just doing it. I pray I will be alive to see a return to the moon and/or humans on Mars. Interested in hearing thoughts, predictions, guesses, and/or speculation on the feasibility or outcome of SpaceX competing for launch services while also spending significant money on unprofitable work related to their Mars goals.While it seems SpaceX has a massive lead and a pretty good margin of profitability right now, I don't doubt that old established players are more focused than before in catching up. Whether the burden of their institutional legacy is too great, we'll have to see. On the other side, there's also other new space companies gunning to compete, Blue is probably the most immediately legitimate threat.What I'm curious to hear your thoughts on is how you think SpaceX will manage to keep its profitable business going while dumping money into Mars. Imagine, if you will, there are 2 companies, SpaceX and SpaceY. 10 years in the future SpaceX and SpaceY are at relative parity with each other in terms of Earth orbit launch capabilities/cost. However, SpaceX has an albabtross of an altruistic operation it is funding at the same time, Mars. It is also designing its LVs for the dual purpose of going to Mars and making money putting satellites in EO. Meanwhile, SpaceY is optimizing everything for EO (or LO if seen as profitable) and using all its resources in those areas. Would it not be impossible for SpaceX to keep competing in such a situation? I know everyone predicts Starlink will be a money tree, but there's also nothing preventing anyone else from doing yet another constellation of com sats, right? I know this is all hypothetical, I suppose what I'd wish/hope to hear is that there actually IS some Mars profit to be realized in the immediate future time frame and/or there's little concern in competing for EO launch services with a multi-mission ship like BFR.
...SpaceX Mars ambitions have so far worked something like a series of Seldon Crises. Solving one lead to new opportunities and the next crisis. Mars Settlement is so far a distant goal like reestablishing a Galactic Empire after a collapse. The immediate project of building the necessary spacecraft seems to paradoxically be leading SpaceX into becoming a vastly larger and more profitable company rather handicapping it.It seems also to help with recruiting and keeping the best talent which gives a competitive advantage over companies without crazy inspiring goals....
SpaceX Mars ambitions have so far worked something like a series of Seldon Crises. Solving one lead to new opportunities and the next crisis. Mars Settlement is so far a distant goal like reestablishing a Galactic Empire after a collapse.
As they get closer to landing ships on Mars, a lot of issues will have to be resolved including how things will get paid for. SpaceX never said they were doing it as charity. Elon has been right quite a few times so far in his field of dreams approach to potential markets.
Quote from: su27k on 04/10/2018 03:37 am>SpaceY will have an albabtross in the form of quarterly profit and dividend, Only if StarLink is spun off in an IPO. No sign of that yet.
