Amazon Project Kuiper Broadband Constellation

[ZachF]

Maybe this thread should be in Commercial instead of the Blue section?

Also, wonder if this is a sign that Vulcan is coming in a little more expensive than ULA was hoping.  Seems like the Atlas V is going to be quite busy into the future.

I think it has more to do with New Glenn taking a lot longer than anticipated, and they need a launcher that's available now.

Most brand new launchers take 3-6 years to get from their first launch to their 10th launch. That's 2026-2028.

Here is a history of other launchers ramping for comparison:

(Time between first and tenth launch, number of failures)

Electron: 2.5 years, 1 failure
Shuttle: 2.8 years
Falcon: 4.1 years
Atlas V: 4.8 years, 1 partial failure
Ariane 5: 5.1 years, 1 failure, 2 partial failures
Antares: 6 years, 1 failure
Delta IV/H: 6.6 years, 1 failure

10 launches by 2026-28 isn't enough to meet the FCC deadlines, especially when other customers are factored in.

A lot of people underestimate ramping effects.

[joek]

I see Amazon using Kuiper network to give their AWS customers a secure private connection to AWS network. This is especially important for their government customers.

I'm not sure why satellite internet access would be more secure than ground-based internet access.  Aren't encryption methods exactly the same ?

Perhaps you mean that satellites are by nature difficult to tamper with, unlike say intercontinental fiber cables ?

Generally correct.  First rule of network security: don't trust the network.  If you are not doing end-to-end, you are fooling yourself.  That said, sat networks would help mitigate tampering physical tampering and denial-of-service attacks.

[joek]

...
Also, wonder if this is a sign that Vulcan is coming in a little more expensive than ULA was hoping.  Seems like the Atlas V is going to be quite busy into the future.

Or Blue is not confident in their ability alone to achieve the required launch cadence? Or hanging out some carrots to potential providers as a combined counterweight to SpaceX? Or...? Hard to tell until Blue et. al. start showing their sustained orbital launch capabilities.

[Asteroza]

...
Also, wonder if this is a sign that Vulcan is coming in a little more expensive than ULA was hoping.  Seems like the Atlas V is going to be quite busy into the future.

Or Blue is not confident in their ability alone to achieve the required launch cadence? Or hanging out some carrots to potential providers as a combined counterweight to SpaceX? Or...? Hard to tell until Blue et. al. start showing their sustained orbital launch capabilities.

Is this a roundabout way of scratching ULA's back in light of the loss of launch services which would be needed for the HLS contract award (moon starship can't use Vulcan or New Glenn), in exchange for faster time to market?

[AU1.52]

Is 9 launches going to help them that much?


Do we have any idea of how many satellites they could fit?


Here fast can ULA launch back to back Atlas V's?

[ulm_atms]

My personal opinion is that this shows just how far behind they are with NG at this point.  We have all been discussing how everyone thinks it is going with Blue being so secretive....but this just yells that they are not even close yet to me.  My current running guess is mid 2023 for first launch....not enough time for their 50% FCC threshold required at that point really  If NG suffers any issues at first launch...game over for the 50% requirement timeline.

I see a lot of other providers getting Kuiper launches if NG is delayed anymore or has issues at first launch/landing.  Doubt Bezo will give Elon any money however...lol

[M.E.T.]

My personal opinion is that this shows just how far behind they are with NG at this point.  We have all been discussing how everyone thinks it is going with Blue being so secretive....but this just yells that they are not even close yet to me.  My current running guess is mid 2023 for first launch....not enough time for their 50% FCC threshold required at that point really  If NG suffers any issues at first launch...game over for the 50% requirement timeline.

I see a lot of other providers getting Kuiper launches if NG is delayed anymore or has issues at first launch/landing.  Doubt Bezo will give Elon any money however...lol

Or, NG is very expensive, or NG cannot achieve a high launch cadence, or more likely all of the above and what you said.

[Robotbeat]

My personal opinion is that this shows just how far behind they are with NG at this point.  We have all been discussing how everyone thinks it is going with Blue being so secretive....but this just yells that they are not even close yet to me.  My current running guess is mid 2023 for first launch....not enough time for their 50% FCC threshold required at that point really  If NG suffers any issues at first launch...game over for the 50% requirement timeline.

I see a lot of other providers getting Kuiper launches if NG is delayed anymore or has issues at first launch/landing.  Doubt Bezo will give Elon any money however...lol

Amazon shareholders should ask why not.

[bstrong]

...
What’s that, $100m per launch? Lifting what - maybe 30-40 Kuiper satellites each?

So 40/launch still leaves ~1200 more that need to be launched by 2026. The only to do that with a high degree of confidence they'll meet the deadline is to also buy about 30 Falcon launches.

I'm expecting that contract to be announced with less fanfare in the not too distant future. Probably on a Friday afternoon.

[Robotbeat]

...
What’s that, $100m per launch? Lifting what - maybe 30-40 Kuiper satellites each?

So 40/launch still leaves ~1200 more that need to be launched by 2026. The only to do that with a high degree of confidence they'll meet the deadline is to also buy about 30 Falcon launches.

I'm expecting that contract to be announced with less fanfare in the not too distant future. Probably on a Friday afternoon.

That is possible. I would support it. But if New Glenn isn't doing at least 3 launches per year by 2024 I'll be surprised. And that might only take like 10-15 New Glenn launches.

[bstrong]

I vehemently disagree with the viewpoint that SpaceX should be willing to launch these sats. By the very definition of what you described above, SpaceX not launching the Kuiper sats either kills the Kuiper constellation through schedule slippage, or makes it so expensive that it cannot compete with Starlink, and dies eventually through lack of a cost competitive service offering.

SpaceX cannot be forced to launch a direct competitor’s products. 30 F9 launches earns them maybe $1.5B in once off revenue, while eating Kuiper’s market probably earns them that much and more every year.

It’s a no brainer decision from a business point of view - don’t help Kuiper launch its sats.

I kindly disagree. What you are describing there is textbook anti-competitive monopolistic behavior, which in addition to guaranteeing many of their customers will switch to NG as soon as it is available, also happens to be iillegal.

[M.E.T.]

I vehemently disagree with the viewpoint that SpaceX should be willing to launch these sats. By the very definition of what you described above, SpaceX not launching the Kuiper sats either kills the Kuiper constellation through schedule slippage, or makes it so expensive that it cannot compete with Starlink, and dies eventually through lack of a cost competitive service offering.

SpaceX cannot be forced to launch a direct competitor’s products. 30 F9 launches earns them maybe $1.5B in once off revenue, while eating Kuiper’s market probably earns them that much and more every year.

It’s a no brainer decision from a business point of view - don’t help Kuiper launch its sats.

I kindly disagree. What you are describing there is textbook anti-competitive monopolistic behavior, which in addition to guaranteeing many of their customers will switch to NG as soon as it is available, also happens to be iillegal.

So if you invest billions to develop a competitive advantage in a market, you can be forced to just share that with your key competitors? I think that can be legally challenged. Besides, launch services will be a minuscule part of SpaceX’s revenue once Starlink is operational. As in, less than 10%.

If that’s the route things go, they might as well stop offering commercial satellite launch services entirely and just use launch as part of their internal supply chain. Then no one can force them to launch anyone else’s sats.

Mars colonization can then be a distinct offering without any commercial satellite launch offerings. The gain is massive Starlink market dominance, and the loss is a mere $2-$3B a year in launch revenue. Again, a no brainer.

[bstrong]

So if you invest billions to develop a competitive advantage in a market, you can be forced to just share that with your key competitors?

They aren't obliged to share their competitive advantage in the launch market, but the problem here is that we are talking about two different markets (launch and satellite internet). You cannot use your dominance in one market to gain an unfair advantage vs competitors in another market. Microsoft using its OS dominance to squash competition in the browser market is a famous example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

The key test is whether consumers are harmed by the anticompetitive practices, which they clearly would be in this case.

[Robotbeat]

I vehemently disagree with the viewpoint that SpaceX should be willing to launch these sats. By the very definition of what you described above, SpaceX not launching the Kuiper sats either kills the Kuiper constellation through schedule slippage, or makes it so expensive that it cannot compete with Starlink, and dies eventually through lack of a cost competitive service offering.

SpaceX cannot be forced to launch a direct competitor’s products. 30 F9 launches earns them maybe $1.5B in once off revenue, while eating Kuiper’s market probably earns them that much and more every year.

It’s a no brainer decision from a business point of view - don’t help Kuiper launch its sats.

I kindly disagree. What you are describing there is textbook anti-competitive monopolistic behavior, which in addition to guaranteeing many of their customers will switch to NG as soon as it is available, also happens to be iillegal.

Well, luckily we don't have to worry about it because Elon (or was it Gwynne?) said they'd be happy to launch competitor's satellites.

And I agree it'd be potentially bad for SpaceX to go play favorites with launch. It would make ALL commercial launch customers be a bit sour on SpaceX, which reduces the risk-spreading of having multiple revenue streams.

I think SpaceX will eventually spin off Starlink. They have hinted at it, sometimes pretty explicitly. That means you gotta preserve Starlink-independent revenue streams where you can.

And likewise, if Amazon just did Blue's bidding all the time, it'd be a pretty bad look. Remember, Amazon is still a MUCH bigger company than SpaceX (or even Tesla). Abusing Amazon's resources to punish SpaceX or whatever would be a pretty bad look and would put Amazon potentially in trouble, too. (If not legally, then perhaps with their shareholders.)

[freddo411]

What was the last prior commercial customer on Atlas V ?

Ariane would perhaps be cheaper?

[GWH]

So if you invest billions to develop a competitive advantage in a market, you can be forced to just share that with your key competitors?

The competitive advantage SpaceX has in Starlink launches is already as follows:

1. Other customers already paid to build the rocket; Starlink has never flown on a brand new Falcon 9.

2. SpaceX can experiment all they want on reusing fairings and life leader boosters, thereby proving out their reliability and adding downstream value to their business.

3. They don't need to built in a profit margin, meaning they are ALWAYS launching at marginal cost. What SpaceX charges others per launch sure as hell isn't their internal cost.

4. Very clever design specific to Falcon 9 resulted in an unheard of packing density of satellites.

Choosing to withhold launches of other constellations does nothing for them. The difference in SpaceX's price to a competitor is in the tens of millions (a fraction of the total constellation cost) HOWEVER it provides revenue to their launch service competitors. That in turn allows their competitors to spread out fixed costs and compete more easily with SpaceX head to head on launch price.

They won't stop constellations by forcing them to go somewhere else, just miss out on potential revenue.

[trimeta]

Well, luckily we don't have to worry about it because Elon (or was it Gwynne?) said they'd be happy to launch competitor's satellites.

And don't forget, the entire Iridium NEXT constellation flew on Falcon 9. Plus a number of SES satellites, which are also telecommunications. We have pretty direct evidence they'll fly competitors' payloads, if they're paying normal commercial prices for launch.

[TrevorMonty]

ULA, SpaceX and Blue aren't the only launch companies. RL Neutron is also likely runner for these missions. There are also few 1000kg class LVs coming on line soon which could also play role in this constellation deployment.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[baldusi]

What was the last prior commercial customer on Atlas V ?

Ariane would perhaps be cheaper?

Technically, Starliner (2019-12-20) is a commercial contract. Also, Cygnus CRS-7 (2017-04-18) was a commercial launch. Now, if you mean a contract that doesn't have the government as ultimate client, that would be EchoStar 19 (2016-12-18).

[butters]

What was the last prior commercial customer on Atlas V ?

Ariane would perhaps be cheaper?

If you mean Ariane 5, there is no LEO version currently in service. They'd have to wait for Ariane 62. Or wait for OneWeb to be done with Soyuz. Or wait for the Mitsubishi H3. Or settle for smaller launches on PSLV. Or, more likely, some combination of those options.