Aside from launch SpaceX and Blue Origin have indicated that they are going for new markets: tourism, LEO constellations and Mars colonisation, perhaps lunar missions and space industrialisation. These will not only grow the overall space revenues, but also create new niches for existing companies and new entrants.
Economics is not a zero sum game, just because SpaceX and Blue Origin win it doesn't mean that Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, Airbus, MHI, etc. loose.
Which can be the response of this big aerospace companies for compete with this new disruptive companies?
The big aerospace companies will still have both commercial and military "aero", and military "space" (at least in terms of expendable missiles)
Big aerospace companies are quite capable of building RLVs that compete with Blue and SpaceX. They just don't see launch market to justify large development costs. For them its a wait and see game. If the RLVs create a new high demand and stable launch market eg space tourism, then may go after it. Doesn't matter when they enter market but how price competitive their product is.
Maybe ULA will develop the fly back engines to stay in the game. But I could just as easily see Boeing and Lockheed deciding the ROI is too small.
One response might be to offer Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos a big pile of cash and stock to buy one of their companies. That has happened many times in the past when a smaller company has a product a bigger company needs in just about every industry. IBM just bought Redhat for more than $30 billion for the same reason. That doesn't mean either of these guys would actually accept the offer, but who knows five years down the road.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 01/16/2019 07:17 pmOne response might be to offer Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos a big pile of cash and stock to buy one of their companies. That has happened many times in the past when a smaller company has a product a bigger company needs in just about every industry. IBM just bought Redhat for more than $30 billion for the same reason. That doesn't mean either of these guys would actually accept the offer, but who knows five years down the road.Neither one of them want to give up control. Selling to an existing aerospace company would mean being beholding to their board and shareholders. That is a non-starter.
Quote from: mme on 01/16/2019 07:53 pmQuote from: Eric Hedman on 01/16/2019 07:17 pmOne response might be to offer Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos a big pile of cash and stock to buy one of their companies. That has happened many times in the past when a smaller company has a product a bigger company needs in just about every industry. IBM just bought Redhat for more than $30 billion for the same reason. That doesn't mean either of these guys would actually accept the offer, but who knows five years down the road.Neither one of them want to give up control. Selling to an existing aerospace company would mean being beholding to their board and shareholders. That is a non-starter.Situations can change for people over time. Five years ago selling Redhat to IBM would have been a non-starter. I'm not saying it's going to happen with SpaceX or Blue Origin, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did eventually.
ULA should try to implement engine recovery on Vulcan as early as possible. Might keep Vulcan competitive with F9/FH and New Glenn. Since the engines are the biggest expense on a booster, that might be good enough to keep them in the game.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 01/16/2019 10:42 pmQuote from: mme on 01/16/2019 07:53 pmQuote from: Eric Hedman on 01/16/2019 07:17 pmOne response might be to offer Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos a big pile of cash and stock to buy one of their companies. That has happened many times in the past when a smaller company has a product a bigger company needs in just about every industry. IBM just bought Redhat for more than $30 billion for the same reason. That doesn't mean either of these guys would actually accept the offer, but who knows five years down the road.Neither one of them want to give up control. Selling to an existing aerospace company would mean being beholding to their board and shareholders. That is a non-starter.Situations can change for people over time. Five years ago selling Redhat to IBM would have been a non-starter. I'm not saying it's going to happen with SpaceX or Blue Origin, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did eventually.I'm not sure who would want to buy them. It's not like a lot of old space companies really want to do space, they just keep doing it because legacy government contracts provide a nice profit for now. ULA has been for sale for ages and no one wants it. Northrop doesn't look like they're developing OmegA out of a passion for rocketry and believe it's a superior design the world is missing right now. They do it because it's basically risk-free since they don't have to use their own money. I can't think of a single old space company that would be willing to invest billions to retain launch capability that doesn't fall under very favorable contracts.
Airbus and Arianespace would be my guess for the next reusable launcher. Europe will keep its launch ability and the commercial market has been important funding center. They will be late to the party, but they will eventually get there.
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 01/17/2019 08:31 pmAirbus and Arianespace would be my guess for the next reusable launcher. Europe will keep its launch ability and the commercial market has been important funding center. They will be late to the party, but they will eventually get there.The Chinese will IMO get a reusable (or semi-reusable) launcher before Europe.
Quote from: RonM on 01/16/2019 08:51 pmULA should try to implement engine recovery on Vulcan as early as possible. Might keep Vulcan competitive with F9/FH and New Glenn. Since the engines are the biggest expense on a booster, that might be good enough to keep them in the game.Even without engine reuse, Vulcan looks to be pretty competitive with FH for most missions, at least with currently stated prices for both. Slightly cheaper for a very narrow sliver of the market, and only a bit pricier for most of the remainder (with capabilities that can probably make up the difference). Vulcan-SMART should be an easy winner for most contracts against FH. Still not nearly good enough for the scenario this thread presents though (BFR hitting all its cost/performance/schedule claims)
The Chinese will IMO get a reusable (or semi-reusable) launcher before Europe.
Quote from: Lars-J on 01/17/2019 08:41 pmThe Chinese will IMO get a reusable (or semi-reusable) launcher before Europe.Before the European aerospace majors, yes. Before European NewSpace, I'm not so sure.Orbex (UK) are touting their #REFLIGHT reusability technology on Twitter, and have some kind of unveiling event scheduled for 7th Feb.
This will continue as big aerospace sees opportunities to do so. The prime example currently being Northrop-Grumman's acquisition of OrbitalATK who had recently purchased Sierra Nevada Corporation (Dreamchaser).
Until the new space companies make strides into the market of those big ticket items, i.e. large comm sats, military and science spacecraft/payloads, I think the position of the old space is safe. The launch service market is not valuable enough to warrant big investments. The prospected Mars base, Lunar base, space tourism, LEO constellation etc is still too far away. They are waiting the mania of big reusable rockets to peter out. If there is certainty of big enough money in it, won't be too late to pile in. This business takes many years from a plan, to signing a contract to fruitation, if ever.
European Newspace? That's a thing?? I'd love to see it, but they should show some progress to be labeled that, IMO.
The latest tiny startup will always be there to throw doubt but their influence if any is years out.
Both Orbex and LinkSpace (the Chinese firm most visibly working on reusability) are small startup companies. Orbex is projecting first orbital launch in 2021. I would not be prepared to wager on whether they or LinkSpace will be first to successfully make it to orbit and recover the boost stage.
ULA has been for sale for ages and no one wants it.
Merger of Raytheon and UT was simply to not let either company get swallowed up by Boeing/LM/NG. It's actually a very interesting move to me as those companies have minimal overlap.
Quote from: jjyach on 06/14/2019 10:07 pmMerger of Raytheon and UT was simply to not let either company get swallowed up by Boeing/LM/NG. It's actually a very interesting move to me as those companies have minimal overlap.And MAXAR Technologies has been making itself merger and acquisition ready and MDA unit personnel have indicated that a follow on merger is expected and there parent company MAXAR Technologies has been watching the RT merger like a hawk as has SNC.
Good. I really like Ball Aerospace for some reason. Guess I like their Mason Jars, too.
